Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Half-Gods, Changelings and Trans-whatevers

Last week conservative voice, Ben Shapiro blatantly refused to refer to a male reporter as a female while seated next that reporter on a discussion panel. The male reporter leaned in and placed his hand on the back of Shapiro's next while threatening him with the words 'Now cut that out, or you'll go home in an ambulance.'

Here's some thoughts about the reporter, who goes by the name 'Zoey Tur', the recent publicity about Mr. Jenner and other people who are like him:

Imagine for a moment that I claimed to feel like I was an angel, a cherub, who fell to Earth and was mistaken for a human baby (never mind what happened to the human baby); Or imagine I felt as if I were a 'changeling' and that I was actually an elf prince who had been switched with a human baby; Or imagine I felt that my 'real father' was the Olympian god Zeus and that I was one of the godlings such as Achilles or Hercules. And further imagine that I demanded that everyone else go along with my feelings and that I would actually threaten anyone who blatantly refused to play along.

No one would hesitate to call me out for such behavior and no one would hesitate to call the authorities if and when I issued my threats. Most people would regard me as delusional, but most people would also allow me to continue in my choice of expressing how I felt--until such expressions became disruptive or threatening to others.

So it is with all people who chose to express how they feel inside, others will tolerate it as long as it is not too disruptive. But no one will (or should) tolerate it when it becomes threatening. And that applies whether the person is claiming to be the son of a god and demands you call him 'Lord' or whether the person is claiming to be female and demanding you call him 'her'.

A person can ask that others respect how the feel inside and that they play along-- if he wants to be responsible and polite. A person can demand others play along--if he wants to be childishly irresponsible and rude. But if a person threatens others to respect how they feel inside and play along--then he has crossed the line.

I hear Mr. Shapiro is pressing assault charges against the man who grabbed him and threatened him in public. Good.




for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Road to Nowhere

Road to Nowhere

If you found yourself on a road to nowhere, how would you know it? Would you know it because you have been on it for so long without arriving? Would you know it because you aren't even sure where you're headed in the first place? Would you know it because you have no map, no odometer reading and no means of telling where you are at all? Would it be all of these things and more that tells you that you are on a Road to Nowhere?

This is about problem solving.

If you know where you are, and where you are going; if you have a compass and an odometer; if you have a map and a pencil and a car, then you have the means to solve the problem of getting from where you are to where you would like to be (geographically speaking). But if you are missing too many of these things, you will not be able to solve that problem, regardless of how much you say that you want to. And if, after a long while has passed, you are still not in possession of the means to solve your problem, it would be fair for others to question whether solving this problem is important to you at all.

Obviously, I'm not talking about making road trips. As I said, this is about solving problems—how it is done and how it is not done. And the reason I need to use analogies is that the problems I will be referring to do not immediately lend themselves to analysis. The problems that I would like to discuss here are those of Race, Poverty and Energy in America—though my criticisms of what is happening and what is not happening could just as easily apply to many other issues.

To start with; how do you solve a problem? First you need to identify exactly what the problem is and do so in a way that also shows what the problem is not. Second, your definition needs to be one that will allow you to orient the problem relative to the prevailing conditions (ie, measuring it)—if it does not, then you need to go back to step one and try again. A definition that you cannot use to help solve the problem is (unsurprisingly) useless. You will know that your definition is a useful one when you are able to measure the size and scope of the problem with it. Thirdly, with a definition of the problem and a way to measure it, you can now consider what you would like to do to solve it. Fourthly, with a definition, means to measure and attempted solution, you are now in a position to measure your results. From here on out it is a simple process of repeating steps three and four until you have solved the problem. Or you may need to reconsider your earlier steps, perhaps the way that you are measuring needs to be revisited, perhaps your definition of the problem needs to be different. The point is: you will actually be working on a means to solve the problem, and given enough time and resources you will either solve the problem or come to the realization that the problem is (at least for the present) unsolvable.

(While I would normally like to start with something less emotional and less controversial, as it happens, this is the best place to start, so I will start here)

Race

Let us examine the problem of Race in America. As I pointed out, the first thing we need to do is have a definition of the problem. So what is the definition of the problem? And right 'out of the gate', we stumble. Is the problem one that is defined by discrimination? Or is it defined by racism? Or is the 'problem of race' something else entirely? Is it about equality? Is it about justice? Is it about conflict? To be honest, I am not sure what the definition of the problem is myself, and it seems to me that 'the problem of race' could actually be several separate problems that are connected by race. If that is the case, then each of those things needs to be defined and addressed or else it is not possible to move on. Also, in defining the problem, you will be defining the solution—not the path to the solution, but what the solution looks. So what will the 'problem of race' look like when it has been solved ? Does anyone even know? Even if it were broken into separate parts, then what would the problem of discrimination look like when it has been solved? What would racism look like when it has been solved? Or equality? Or justice? I will suggest that like any other problem of human behavior, simplistically demanding that these problems be reduced to zero is likely a bit unrealistic. But you will need a clear definition of where you are and where you would like to go before you can move to step two.

Step two is measuring the size and scope of the problem, but without a functional definition, this is impossible. How does one measure discrimination? How can you tell if the discrimination in Detroit is better or worse than Minneapolis, or Tampa? How can you measure if the racism is better or worse for people of one color than another, or if it is better in one state than another? How to you measure equality or justice? Let me be clear, I am not saying that such things cannot be measured—not at all. I am saying that you need to be able to measure whatever your definition of the problem is if you are to be able to gauge if your attempts to solve it are working. So, if you say that 'racism' is the problem, then you must find a way to measure it so that you can see if what you try as a means to a solution actually works. And if you cannot measure the problem, then let us be honest—you know that you will never solve that problem.

Obviously, once the problem is defined and measurable, then progress towards a defined solution is possible, all that is needed is a plan and action. Then, progress can be measured to see if things are moving towards the stated goal or not. So...are thing progressing towards solving the 'problem of race' in America? Clearly, this issue has been examined, and time and money have been spent in earnest for the last 50 years, and if you look at the efforts of people like Booker T Washington, then you can see that efforts go back for 150 years. So how are we doing? Are we half way to solving the problem? A tenth of the way? Does anyone even know?

To spend 50 years working on a problem and yet have no evidence to show whether they are any closer to a solution is to beg the question: Is solving this problem actually important to the people involved? I cannot answer for them, only they truly know what their motivations are. But I can point out what behavior looks like when you actually want to solve a problem and leave the conclusions up to the reader.

Poverty

Now, let's look at the problem of Poverty in America. Again we start with a definition, which seems to be easily satisfied. Depending on whether one looks at income or overall wealth, with census and other demographic data it becomes easy to define poverty in a way that is measurable. Other definitions have focused on 'opportunity' and 'education' and (as we will see shortly) while there may be merit in considering such factors, defining poverty in terms of 'opportunity' makes for a much more difficult task of measuring.

So with a definition of poverty and a means to measure it, attempts at solutions must have been simple to employ—and they have been. Money. Starting more than a half-century ago, money has been thrown in the direction of those who were measured and determined to be in poverty. Alright, so a means to a solution has been tried for a while, we must be able to measure how that is doing. Are we any nearer to the solution? Aye, there's the rub.

What the solution to Poverty in America would look like has never been properly defined. Remember? A problem and a solution must be defined at the beginning of the process, or efforts to solve the problem will result in failure. Sure, a great deal of effort and money have been applied to the problem of poverty—but towards what end? What a solution to the problem of Proverty in America would look like, is unclear. And it shows. Measurements of poverty indicate that the situation hasn't changed much in America since efforts of the government to address it began during the Great Depression.

This begs the question: is solving poverty simply unattainable or is the real goal of government efforts in this sphere something else? If the real goal is to solve poverty, the then problem and solution may need to be redefined. Perhaps examining those other definitions of poverty would lend themselves to defining a solution. But defining poverty along lines of opportunity or education is going to make measuring it more difficult and the means to try and solve it much more nuanced that the current 'more money' efforts. Also—and this becomes fairly speculative—if the real goal of the government is something other than actually solving poverty(say: placating the masses, or buying votes), the the simple means employed are just fine for those in government, because solving the problem isn't really the goal anyway.

Regardless of whether the problem needs to be defined or the means and motives of those trying to solve the problem need to be examined more closely, the irrefutable evidence it that; after a very long time of trying to 'solve the problem', it hasn't been solved. Either the definition of the problem, or the definition of a solution, or the measurements of the problem or the means to a solution must be changed—perhaps all of them need to change. But continuing to blindly apply the same means again and again will not solve poverty and for those in power to continue to do so is disingenuous.

Energy

Alright, we've seen what trying to solve poorly defined problems looks like, and we've seen what poorly defined solutions looks like and what the result of those are. Now let's look at something that is clearly define as both problem and solution and yet remains unsolved: the problem of Energy in America.

The problem of Energy in America is childishly simple to define; America is too dependent on outside sources for energy. The solution is also simple; America needs to provide most or all of its energy domestically. Measuring this is very easy, one can look at the ways that energy is consumed and point out which are produced domestically and which are produced with imported gas, coal or oil. So that's it then. We've been working on solving this since the mid-70's, we must have solved it by now, right? But no, we haven't. Three possibilities present themselves to explain this. Either there is no real need to solve the problem or there is no will to solve the problem or there is no means to solve the problem.

If it is the case that there is no real need to solve the problem of Energy in America then that immediately explains the second possibility of why the is no will to solve it. And it would bring us to asking the question: why is this a problem at all? We are told that if America was energy independent, then our economy and our government would be less influenced from the outside. In the case of the economy, the price of electricity for home and manufacturing use would be less volatile, this would also be true for oil and gas used in transportation. In the case of our government, outside influences would be much less potent and our government would not be compromised by these influences. But what if that situation isn't entirely intolerable? Then, the 'problem' evaporates. Sure, it might be nice to be energy independent, but without the energy dependence creating an intolerable consequence, it isn't really a 'problem' at all.

Here I will pause for just a moment to suggest something for those who are concerned about our government being influenced from the outside and being unnecessarily involved in foreign aggression. If it is the case that America fights 'wars for oil', then it must be asked, why? Why would America be fighting 'wars for oil' when America has huge oil and gas reserves offshore and in Alaska? IF America is truly fighting 'wars for oil', then it is clearly the fault of those who would keep America from using those oil and gas reserves. Ironically enough, if America is fighting 'wars for oil', then it is the environmentalists who are making that happen by preventing America from using it's own oil, coal and gas. (notice, I kept using the word 'if', I did so because—while the logic is sound—the conclusion is suspect, which means the assumption “America fights wars for oil” is likely false. Something to think about)

So what if energy dependence does create what most people would consider an intolerable situation, what might interfere with the will to solve the problem? Well, obviously, if those outside influences has already made successful inroads into the organization that would be working on solving the problem and if those influences (say big oil or oil-rich countries) don't like what the solution would do to them, then they might be able to get our government to 'slow things down'. Or maybe there's money to be made just looking for a means to the solution and the people who benefit are trying to drag the process out as long as they can without actually reaching the solution (Solyndra, anyone?). Either way, there are plenty of suspects to examine as to why America hasn't moved very far towards solving the problem of Energy.

Lastly, there is the question of whether the problem can be solved. If America is not going to import energy and not going to tap the vast oil and gas reserves, then energy must come from alternatives. Without going into detail, it will suffice to say that each of those alternatives has nearly intractable problems of initial costs and scaling that do make it quite possible that solving the problem of Energy in America might actually be impossible (barring an unforeseen breakthrough in technology), or at least impossible in the next 50 years.

In conclusion

So there you have it, what real problem solving looks like and (more importantly) what it does not look like. But before I leave you with the notion that all big problems are unsolvable, let me point to one that was solved: smog. In the 70's and 80's the problem of smog in America was quite serious. And that seriousness spurred people to try and solve it. The problem was defined, as was the solution. The size and scope of the problem were measured and means were tried to solve it. Progress towards the solution was measurable and once the solution was achieved, it was easy to know it. Some defined the problem of smog as one of overall air quality and efforts are still being made in that direction, but the point is this: the pressing problem of smog in America was solved and it was solved in the way that any serious effort to solve a problem must be.

I am definitely not saying that the problems of Race, Poverty or Energy in America cannot be solved. I am saying that if they are approached correctly then they most certainly can be solved. And if it turns out that they cannot be solved, then with making the correct approach to solving them, it will be known why they problem cannot be solved.

Of perhaps even greater importance than being able to effectively work at solving a problem, by being able to look at problem solving correctly, you will be able to see who is actually working to solve the problem and who is merely trying to look like they are solving the problem. And sometimes, being able spotting the rat among the corn is a step in solving the problem.

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

The Visions of Sister Mary--An 'Arkham Horror' story

In light of recent events I though it best to leave a record of my previous notes on my evaluation of Sister Mary and what happened just after my evaluation. I shall be leaving my post here at Arkham Asylum and whichever member of the staff is assigned my duties ought to be fully informed. Though exactly what I am informing that person of, even I cannot say, and I was here.

Even though the days leading up to my actual involvement with Sister Mary were rather sensational with wild rumors, police-enforced curfews and a sudden surge in patients both here at the sanatorium and at the general hospital, it was on the morning of April 28^th, 1922, that I interviewed my first witness to the insanity that seemed to hold Arkham in it's grip.

Sister Mary was admitted early on the morning of the 27^th, though I cannot say by whom. I have thoroughly questioned the orderlies on staff and none of them can recall seeing her brought in, even though such an occurrence should be impossible as we keep the door between the general waiting area and the consultation room locked. Yet, it cannot be denied that she was first discovered in the consultation room, in a state of disheveled disarray, asleep on the couch.

Dr. Haskins was on duty at the time and had a impromptu consultation with Sister Mary—which I suspect was as much to learn how she gained entry to the Asylum as much as to calm her out of her agitated state. I only have his comments made to me in private to record here as Dr. Haskins destroyed his notes a few days later, but what he told me was that Sister Mary claimed to have been overwhelmed by a confrontation with some creature that had descended from the skies above Arkham and attacked her in the Rivertown Streets after having left the graveyard near there. Dr. Haskins checked her for signs of alcohol abuse but indicated to me that Sister Mary seemed of sound body, despite her obvious hallucinations. Finding nothing that he could use as evidence to commit her, he scheduled an emergency consultation for the next day with Sister Mary and let her go on her own recognizance.

I was called at home as my colleague was absent from her post—a matter that I shall revisit before concluding this narrative, and asked if I could come in on the morning of the 28^th to consult with Sister Mary. Dr. Haskins had a busy schedule and would be administering electro-shock therapy to another patient, who coincidentally enough also claimed to have seen a monster in the skies above Arkham.

When I arrived, I found Sister Mary eager to talk about her recent experiences, particularly what had happened in the graveyard and the Rivertown Streets. Not surprisingly, she claimed to have exorcised a ghost who had returned from the afterlife and was haunting the area. I will spare anyone reading this the details of the encounter she described, but it was about what one would expect such a tale to be.

The real interest in Sister Mary's case begins with what she described in the Rivertown Streets. There she said she came upon some kind of beast and what she called 'a cultist'. I had serious doubts about Dr. Haskins decision to release Sister Mary the previous day, as what she described to me might have been a hallucination-induced murder. Further questioning lead me to conclude that the entire incident was a hallucinatory episode brought on by... I don't know what. No person, cultist or not, could have done what Sister Mary described and every test that I could administer indicated that she was of sound mind and in full control of her faculties. There was simply no possibility that she was recalling an encounter with an actual person.

Her other hallucinations were, though described in vivid detail, clearly things that –like the cultist-- had never existed outside of Sister Mary's own mind. But what had caused these particular subjects? What would cause an otherwise sane woman to thing that a twelve-foot tall monster, with a human-like body and a head like a squid would be wandering the streets of Rivertown? I think I understand why she would think that holy water would defeat such a monster—being that she served in the only Catholic Church in all of Arkham, but what she described was hardly the typical descriptions of demons that we hear. I've only heard of a creature such as she described from our more severely disturbed patients after certain nights of the year.

And what would cause her to think that a winged creature that was part-insect and part-crustacean would dive down from the Arkham night and confront her? She explained that she had no holy water left, and had to rely on the revolver that a friend had loaned her—an item that I sincerely hope was not loaded. But she insisted that she had shot the nightmare dead in the streets where it landed, though I can say that later investigations but the authorities failed to find any evidence. I suppose it is worth mentioning that the authorities only checked on May 3^rd, which was a couple of days after the events of May 1^st, but I am getting ahead of myself.

The final hallucination, and the one that she claims was too much for her, was that of a gigantic floating nightmare that Sister Mary described as a writhing and hovering mass of bubbling gelatin, like enormous cow intestines that where alternatively convulsing and expanding and with terrible mouth's set unevenly along the elongated body of the beast. She said that she fainted just as the creature seemed to move towards her with open mouths—though with no eyes, she commented that she couldn't see how it knew she was even there. In all honestly, Sister Mary's description was so vivid and so detailed that I want to go and check for myself and see if there were any traces of what drooled from the creature's mouths, but of course, such a venture would be foolish. After all, it could only have been a hallucination. Besides, even if it had not been, no trace would have remained after May 1^st , but of course, it was just the imaginings of a stressed mind.

Try as I might, I could not uncover the real source of the stress that brought on Sister Mary's breakdown. She spoke of portals to other worlds—strange worlds—that had appeared all over Arkham and how she and a few others had been working to understand them and stop the monsters from coming through. She mentioned a drifter, and local professor visit Arkham University and Dr. Carolyn Fern. At the mention of Dr. Fern, I began to understand. Carolyn had always had an interest in the stranger patients that we had received and had detailed notes on their various hallucination, phobias and dementia. Sister Mary must be one of her contacts who had not yet fully succumbed to insanity. I consider it unprofessional that Dr. Fern does not take more precautions to prevent a person's psychoses from going too far.

With her bill for the consultation paid in full, Sister Mary took her leave of me, indicating that she needed to meet up with her friends and continue the fight against what she called 'The Lord of the Winds', Yetturiel, or as the indians called it, Ithaqua. Later, Dr. Fern would tell me that he was known to the natives of the Americas as a beast that roams the great northern waste, and takes lone people from where he finds them in the wilderness to accompany him as he rides the winds of the universe. Seldom are such people ever seen or found, but according to the legend, they are sometimes found frozen solid—even in the middle of summer. And always as if they had fallen from a great height. Normally I would dismiss such a legend, but after the events of the first of May, I'm not so sure.

I didn't see Sister Mary for many months after she left the Asylum, but when I did, she didn't speak of anything other than her work at the soup kitchen with their new cook, a drifter who the called Ashcan Pete who had decided to stay in Arkham for a while. I didn't see Sister Mary, but I did hear more about the hallucinations that she had described to me. Other people had also reported seeing the awful flying nightmare she had described, and things had gotten so bad that the general store had closed up shop while the proprietor went 'on vacation'.

It was on the evening of April 30^th that things seemed to culminate. I heard of people seeing strange things everywhere and that night I decided to stay in the heavy brick Asylum rather than venture the streets to my home. That decision may have saved my life.

It was at about 11PM that a sudden wind came up through the town of Arkham, a wind that grew in strength until it reached hurricane proportions. Sometime before midnight the power went out and the inmates seemed to go mad. While the orderlies had their hands full I watched out the solid barred windows of the Asylum as the winds tore through the streets, knocking over power lines and tearing up trees. I though for a moment I saw Dr. Fern move down the street in front of the building looking up at the sky, but that was impossible and I knew it—no person could have survived in those winds.

It must have been sometime around midnight when the temperature began to drop precipitously as the winds continued to lash the town. Later, I would find that my house had been torn from its foundation like so many others. Over dinner with a friend of Carolyn's I heard such a tale and to not know whether Mr. Monterey Jack (if that even is his real name) was putting me on, or had put away too many beers. But either way, here is what he claimed happened in the wee hours of the first of May:

Mr. Jack told me that it was indeed the ancient spirit of the winds, Ithaqua, who had come to Arkham. He said that he faced the demon-prince with his bare hands (his tommy-gun having been torn from those same hands but the hurricane force gales). He said that his three friends were there also—who I have already named earlier—and that together, in the face of the icy winds that were hurled at them that they faced down the demon-prince (or as Carolyn calls them: the 'Great Old Ones') and that they won.

I don't know what to believe, but I know what I know. And what I know is that some insanity, so terror, had gripped Arkham in the days leading up to that night. I know that without warning or explanation and hurricane appeared over Arkham and Arkham alone. And I know that in the morning, though terrible devastation remained, the madness was gone.

I don't know whether some collective hallucination had threatened to drive the entire town mad, and if maybe that psychosis had enough psychic energy to become real for a while and exhaust itself in a dreadful storm. I don't know if maybe Sister Mary had been telling me not of hallucinations, but of the God's Honest Truth and that she stood with three others against an ancient terror that had threatened to destroy us all—and won. I don't know.

But I do know that we are still here. And if, from time to time, Sister Mary asks us to pray to protect the world from evil, where's the harm in that?

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Impasse

Impasse

“There will be no arrangement.”

“Well, if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.”

In this country, at present, we have an utterly non-functional Federal government, deadlocked states and a culture that is so divided by discord and distrust that every endeavor which requires a measure of cooperation in order to work has ground to a halt. While the discord is deep and the two sides (I shall be referring to 'liberals' and 'conservatives' though there are many names for them) are reluctant to seek any compromise, it is the distrust that is making any effort to work together into an impossibility.

The examples of the impasses that confront us today are legion, but I shall briefly examine three: Guns, Race and Government.

Guns

The debate rages anew over guns, but as Jon Stewart correctly points out, 'nothing will happen.' At least nothing about restricting guns will happen and I presume that is all he cares about. Gun control advocates had made tremendous gains in the last century, only to see most of those gains rolled back. Why? Because the gun control message was a lie. First was the lie that 'guns make everyone less safe' and this lie is still being pushed by some. The second is that 'they only want to get rid of the very worst guns' and, again, some still push that lie by promoting things like magazine limits (never mind that initial reports indicate the latest shooter reloaded 5 times while cowardly murdering innocent people in cold blood—what's to have stopped him reloading 20 times?), but mostly the gun control people have given up on this lie too.

The truth is that the people who the gun control advocates needed to trick into giving up their firearms have become all too well aware of these lies. It is clear that violent crime takes place where there are victims, and that 'gun free zones' (be the homes, cities or churches) are really 'victim zones'. It is unsurprising that people don't really like the idea of being a victim (well, some do, but that is a different conversation). And the truth is that gun control advocates don't just want to get rid of 'the worst guns' (whatever those are), they want to get rid of all guns (apart from government and private security..... and criminals). And people are wise to the idea that gun control advocates will lock down whatever gains they get this time around and then come back for more...and more...and more.

People have seen what happens in the places that severely limit civilian access to guns, those are places of oppression—either by criminals or by governments. They can see for themselves what happened in Britain after guns were removed (crime has gone up) and they can see what happened in Canada when 'certain' guns were banned, but not others (the RCMP arbitrarily added more firearms to the list of banned guns and started taking those guns too). Everyone can see that the real goal of gun control is to have everyone (who obeys the law) completely disarmed and so the effort to expand gun control is not trusted. The solution for this would be for the gun control people to show some good faith and actually not have tried to incrementally ban all firearms (a little too late for that) or for them to abandon their appeal to emotion (why else would the want to ban millions of semi-automatic rifles?) and focus of the guns and the people who do the most harm—both of which are found in urban areas. But since they will not actually do that and continue (suspiciously, IMO) to try and take firearms from the hands of law abiding people, and since those people those people have largely gotten wise to this and have no trust for the gun control advocates, we are at an impasse.

Race

It seems that everyone is saying that we need to have a conversation 'about race' in America. And when a lot of Americans balk at having such a conversation, the accusation is that those people just don't want to talk about it. I don't think that is true, but I can only really speak for myself, so here goes. Before I can be a part of a conversation about anything, I need to know what I am doing there, what is the purpose of the conversation, what is my purpose in being there. As someone who happens to have what would be called white colored skin, I have not seen anyplace where whatever I might have to say is invited. But the problem with this particular situation goes much deeper than that.

Unless I am mistaken, just because of how I look, there is an unspoken accusation that I am a racist. I can deal with that on it's own, but when I am asked to 'be part of a conversation' then I need to ask, “Do you think I am racist?”. Because if you do, then what is the point of asking me to be part of the conversation? (Other than to have me be abused, which I will decline) So the problem that a lot of people have is, is that they need to know how they can prove that they are not racists. Is it enough --if a person hasn't said or done anything racist, if that person doesn't hang out with racists and doesn't defend racists points of view-- is that enough to satisfy of those who seem to be questioning whether he or she is a racists? Nicholas Kristof makes a living promoting (at least in part) this notion of racism without racists, which is utter nonsense. Dylan Roof was a racist. People who share his view are racists. How would Mr. Kristof, himself, prove that he is not a racist in this climate?

The way out is obvious. People who want to have a conversation about race need to grant to everyone that the label of 'racist' will not be applied to unless that person has expressed a view (such as Roof clearly did) or done something to someone else based solely on the other person's race. But as Booker T Washington said over a century ago, there are a lot of people invested in keeping the this tension and animosity alive. A lot of people who make money off of it. And those people will aggressively sabotage any efforts to create a climate where people who have not said or done anything overt are called 'racists'. And without it being clear that the label of 'racist' will not being inappropriately applied, there won't be a 'conversation' because (unsurprisingly) no one wants to accept an invitation to be abused. And without being able to trust that one side won't abuse the other, we are at an impasse.

Government

Some people want government to spent more money, some what it to spend less. Although, since we don't actually pass budgets (at least at the Federal level) anymore, this point might be moot. These two sides have struggled and will go on struggling, but what is it really about, why can't the two sides agree or even compromise?

On the one side are the people who want government to spend less, but that is not quite right. They don't just want the government to spend less, they want the government to do less. They want the government to do those few things that it must do and just leave the rest. Either leave the rest to the states (who, in turn, would leave some of the rest to the counties) or leave the rest to the people to do –or not do-- as they see fit (either individually, through private charities or through businesses).

These people have the notion that just because some people have an idea that they would like to see done, that doesn't automatically make it the responsibility of government to take up their goals and aspirations and use its power to fulfill them. So, it isn't just that these people want only to see the government spend less, it is that they have an idea of what should be done (and thus funded) and currently government happens to be far above that level.

On the other side are the people who want government to spend more, but how much more? Aye, there's the rub. They never really say. While the people who want government to spend less could indicate where they think funding should stay at, the people who want government to fund more never can say where they would like to see it stop. Would they just want another 10 percent and then that would be it? 50 percent more? 90 percent? Who knows, they have never indicated where their final position would be or what such a government would look like.

Aside from the suspicion that such a situation engenders, there is another more basic problem of with trust. And that is found in recent history. A look back will show that when the people who wanted government to spend more made agreements that after they got the debt limit increases they wanted they would cut spending, they went back on their word and didn't cut spending. So when such people grandstand and say that 'for every dollar the debt limit is increased, we will cut ten dollars in spending' and that deal is rejected, they should not be surprised (and I don't believe they actually are), for they cannot be trusted to keep their word. So when this history of bad faith is coupled with the ideological problem of no limit, there is a real problem of not being able to agree. Now, the solution is obvious, just as people who want the government to spend less can articulate what they would like to see as a final picture (even if they know they will never get there, at least they can say where they are going), people who want government to spend more need to articulate what their ultimate goal would look like. They need to be able to articulate where they want to go with government and government spending (do they even know?). And likewise, if they are promising to 'cut spending' in order to get a debt limit increase, let them make the cuts first. But they won't – do either of those two things. And without that, there can be no trust and so, again, we are at an impasse.

In the end, there are only two ways to resolve any impasse, either the two sides will need to earnestly seek a sliver of common ground and a modicum of trust so that they can work together or one side will have to be more clever and trick the other. I wonder which it will be?

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Check out Tomorrowland today!

Check out Tomorrowland today!

“There are two wolves who are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. The question is: which wolf wins?”

“The one you feed.”

This is the central narrative of Tomorrowland: Choice. This is expressed in a young Frank explaining that he was tired of waiting for someone else to invent something that he wanted, so he did it himself. And it is central to Casey's question of 'What is anyone doing about it?' when confronted with gloom and doom. But both Casey and Frank make a choice to act and change things for the better.

Yes, Tommowland is about jetpacks and robots and antique rocketships, and all of those things are fun, but the main thing that it is about it which future will you chose? The one where nothing is asked of you and you just sit back and let everything happen (and then moan about how you are a victim) OR will you choose the future where you get up and look around and see what is happening and then figure out a way to do something (other than just talk) about it?

The villain in the film is correct, the vast majority will choose the future when nothing is asked of them, but is that what you will choose? And today, that choice is easier than ever. People scoff at Wikipedia and YouTube, but these are great places to start learning about almost any topic when that used to require either finding a book, or a class or a person who already knows about the topic. And YouTube also is a great place to get practical knowledge on almost any topic, and they are both out there for free!

In the Sherlock Holmes stories, there are many little narratives that Doyle inserts to comment on his time, and one of those is Holmes and Watson discussion how an education that used to be expensive and difficult to get, was largely available through the encyclopedias of the day and that nearly anyone who had a mind to, could just go out and educate himself pretty well, on whatever subject he wished to know. That is even more true today, but we still operate as if the action of finding the answers is a difficult one, and it is not.

Are there valid criticisms of Tomorrowland? Sure. But they are largely about the form of the movie and less about the function. Yes, the people in Tomorrowland have a vapid look on their faces—which I attributed to two things: either the director really had no idea how the people who would populate such a place would act and played it safe by having them all just very calmly and passively going about (so as not to also detract from our heroes) OR the director thought that these should look serene and calm and secure in their fantastic setting. And yes, the very act of creating Tomorrowland actually sets up the terrible danger to the rest of the world, and at the end of the movie, the people in Tommowland are going to try again, but I took that to mean that they had learned from their mistakes and would be doing things differently this time around, not that they were insane and just going to wreck everything for a second time.

Tomorrowland is a dream. And the way it is portrayed in the movie it is an impossible one. Not that a place couldn't be found—a place could be found. One could argue that it has already happened many times over in history. In one sense, America (among other places) is Tomorrowland, where over the last couple of centuries the best and brightest have come to do, when they couldn't anywhere else (and ironically, our own media has become like the evil machine in Tomorrowland; broadcasting out an unrelenting stream of negativity and despair that is causing people to sit back and bemoan about how they are victims). But any real place, be it Tomorrowland, America or anywhere, would have the same problem which is that people have connections to their friends and their family and you can't just transplant all the smart and creative people into one place as amazing as that might be to think about—most of them wouldn't want to leave those connections behind.

Tomorrowland is a dream also because of another problem, money. Any part of the technology of Tomorrowland would be worth billions  (likely more) and we see what problems are caused by people fighting over the money that an idea is worth to others. We see it all the time.

Tomorrowland is a dream lastly because of governments. While businesses would use money to get the fruits of such a place, governments would use naked force—in the name of 'security' to get at those same fruits. We see that happen all the time too. We see a government that stumbles over itself to shut down twitter accounts of recruiting terrorists, moves with surprising speed and accuracy to stop a person distributing the data for how to instruct a 3D print from making a firearm.

Tomorrowland is a dream, yes. And while it will always remain so, that is just as well. For if Tomorrowland were real then it would paradoxically cause the real people like Frank and Casey to think that they have to get there before they can act and start to make a difference. With the advent and availability of information via the Internet, I say this:

Tomorrowland is TODAY. It is right here. All you have to do is OODA.* Observe what is around you and see what you would like to change. Orient yourself to what you know and what you need to know. Decide what you will do. Act, do it.

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

* the OODA loop decision cycle theory is the product of USAF Colonel John Boyd. For more information, go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

...with a side of Hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy, the gateway of sins. Who knew? Who cares, right?

Given all the different ways that people mistreat each other, a person might think that hypocrisy is so insignificant as to not be worth considering. When compared to lying, cheating and stealing, and especially when compared to assault, arson and murder; what is little old hypocrisy? But bear with me for a moment and I think you will see that what the behavior of hypocrisy lacks in apparent depth, it makes up for in breadth.

If you've not thought much about hypocrisy before, let me quickly give the definition that I use when confronting it; Hypocrisy is using a double standard, or put another way, saying one thing and doing another. So what has that to do with other bad things that people do to each other?

To answer that question and show why it is important to keep an eye out for hypocritical behavior I refer you to the diagram shown.

On the diagram you can see four different areas of people:

First, there are 'Non-hypocrites'; these are people who genuinely try to be consistent and fair in their behavior. They may not always succeed, but they make a real effort to not be hypocritical. This is most likely not because they have any aversion or obsession with the idea of hypocrisy but rather because they want to treat other people they way that they would like to be treated. Does that sound familiar? I hope it does, because that is the essence of 'The Golden Rule'. 'Treating other people the way that you would like to be treated', or 'not treating other people in a way that you would not like to be treated' is a fundamental ethical principle found across cultures and throughout the world. And it is why it is worth paying attention to hypocrisy and people who behave hypocritically. Notice the second group of people:

The Hypocrites. Obviously, these are people who behave hypocritically. Again, it is most likely not because they embrace hypocrisy, but rather because they unaware of the full extent of their own behavior or it may be because they choose to behave hypocritically rather than make the effort to be more consistent and fair in how they treat others. The point here is in remembering that these people are using a double standard when they interact with other people. They are saying one thing and doing another when they are dealing with others. It is in the behavior that they exhibit in how they treat other people that is showing the inconsistency and the unfairness. And ultimately, it is calling into question if they are consistently ethical people at all. Which brings us to the clearly unethical people in the third group:

The Bad Actors. These people are the ones who lie, cheat and steal. They are the ones who destroy, assault and murder. They are people who I will call the 'Bad Actors' because their actions are clearly bad. Now, are they bad all of the time? Certainly not. Some of these people will only do a few overtly bad things a couple times out of the year, others will do bad things every day. But if the bad things that they do are examined for even a moment, one will see the connection to hypocrisy. Consider lying. Is lying to someone, treating another person in the way that the liar would like to be treated? Or cheating, would the cheater like to be treated that way? The pattern is obvious, all of the 'more serious' bad behavior has hypocrisy built into it. When a person is abusive to someone else, that are being and abuser and a hypocrite. When are person steals from another, he is a thief and a hypocrite. So it is with all of the bad things that people do to one another. So what, right? So Bad Actors are also Hypocrites. Big deal, right? It is a big deal, but not because Bad Actors are also Hypocrites, but because Non-hypocrites are not Bad Actors. Except for group number four and we will get to them in a moment.

That is really the point of this essay, people who go out of their way to treat other people in a consistent and fair manner are not people who will lie, cheat, do the other other 'more serious' bad things to other people. This is because Non-hypocrites recoil from treating other people in a way that they wouldn't want to be treated. Alright, I can hear some people saying, 'Well, duh!', so let me take all of this one tiny step further so you can see why the whole subject is so important.

People see and remember what the other people around them do. They see when that person didn't treat another person fairly. Or when someone clearly said one thing, but then did quite another. Or that time when someone paused and considered that what they were doing wouldn't be fair and then changed and did the fair thing for someone else. People see all those things and they make estimations about what the people around them will do in future based on what they have already done. Obvious and intuitive, right? Right, it is. But my point is that when a person exhibits hypocrisy then that is a clue to the other behaviors that they have done that you may not have seen. So too, when a person goes out of his or her way to not say one thing and do another, that also is a clue to what the person does –or doesn't do-- the rest of the time.

And that is my point. If you observe and sort out the people around you by whether they are hypocrites or not, you will also be sorting out those people who may be doing more serious harm to others from those who are not. To a Non-hypocrite, hypocritical behavior is something that they really do notice and recoil from. But to Bad Actors, who know the things that they have done to others, hypocrisy is 'little stuff' and they treat it as such. They know that they have done much worse things and they see hypocrisy in comparison to those other things that you may know nothing about. But the prevalence of them saying one thing but doing another, or having one standard for some people and another standard for others—hypocrisy-- is the clue that there is other 'bad stuff' that they are also doing and to be forewarned of it.

Now, I know that there are some people who are extremely adept at hiding their bad behavior and pretending to be nice the rest of the time. They know that behaving ethically most of the time will throw other people off to their 'darker side' and I don't pretend to think that what I have said here will reveal them. (but if you check out my essay: the Lamp of Diogenes, you might find a tool there) Nor am I saying that someone who is hypocritical in one area is secretly a Bad Actor that needs to be avoided. These are just some observations and comments to help others in thinking about and navigating by the people in the world around them, I hope you enjoyed it.

Oh. group number four? You remembered them? Well, they are a strange lot, if they even exist. They are the very small number of people who would are Bad Actors, but they are not hypocritical about it. They freely admit that they what they do is stuff they wouldn't want done to them (or maybe they don't care?) and do not try to hide the bad things they do. I included them, just because I have, on occasion, heard of such people and wished to be thorough in my diagram. As I said, I'm not sure if they even exist. And maybe they would still be hypocrites in any case. But there you have it.

for more essays and for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com

Anti-?

Anti-?

Antithetic: a) Of the nature of Antithesis. b)opposing, controversial. c)contrasted, directly opposite

Lately, there has been a lot of talk in the press and on social media and on the Web about 'anti-this' and 'anti-that'. Some people are said to be 'anti-vaccination', others are said to be 'anti-GMO', and of course there are the much old and more familiar groups who are 'anti-abortion' or 'anti-war'. Are these people and groups all really the same in the way in which they are 'anti-one-thing' or 'anti-another'? No. Of course not. But those who throw around the 'anti-' label when it doesn't really apply are hoping that you wouldn't notice that. But, by the time you are done reading this—you will have.

When some person or group is 'anti-something' it means that they don't just decline to participate in it, but they oppose it existing for other people as well. An example would be me: I am antithetical or 'anti-' to several things. I am antithetical to murder, so I am 'anti-murder'. Not only do I not want to be the victim of murder or commit murder, but also I am opposed to it going on any where—and I support effective measures to halt murder wherever it may be happening. I am 'anti-assault'. Not only do I not want to be involved in assaults, I don't want anyone to be. I am anti-fraud, if a person has made a promise (a contractual obligation) then I am opposed to that person not delivering on that promise. So those are clear examples of how I am antithetical to some things.

In similar a vein, other people may be 'anti-war' or 'anti-abortion'. Not only declining to participate, but also opposing other people being involved in the things that they are antithetical towards. But here is where things begin to get confusing: some people may not wish to be involved with war or involved with something like abortion, but those people may not oppose such things going on beyond their participation. Some people don't want their country to be involved in a war, but are indifferent if other countries are engaged in conflict—as long as it doesn't involve them. Also, some people may avoid having an abortion, but may not support the prevention of abortion among other people. But for both of those issues, there are still other people who don't want to participate and don't want anyone else to participate in them either. Those people are more than just declining to be involved with something, they are antithetical to it happening anywhere.

So what about the 'antivaxxers, the 'anti-vaccination' people? Are they really antithetical to vaccines happening anywhere? And what about the 'anti-GMO' people, 'anti-evolution' people or even the 'anti-science' people? Well, let's take a quick look at this and sort it out.

Do the 'anti-vaccine' people push for the halting of vaccines everywhere, by everybody? Not that I have seen. I have never heard of people who choose not to get vaccines for themselves or their families advocate that vaccine be banned. If those people had the same antithetical position as I have on murder or assault then they surely would be 'anti-vaccine'. But they don't. They don't want to halt all vaccines, they just want to not be forced to participate. So they are clearly not 'anti-vaccine'. Moving on--

Do 'anti-evolution' people want the study of evolution to be stopped? Do they demand that evolution not be taught anywhere? If you can find some that actually do want that, then you have found people who truly are 'anti-evolution', but if you cannot, then you have people who simply want to be able to decline to participate or , at most, people who want their view to get equal billing. Call it what you will, but don't call it 'anti-evolution' because it's not.

What about the 'anti-GMO' people? Are they really antithetical to Genetically Modified Organisms? Well, some are and some aren't. Some are concerned that GMO's will interact with the natural environment and escape the confines of laboratories and GMO farms and have unknown (and presumably harmful) effects on the environment. Those people are 'anti-GMO', yes. But the rest are merely wanting to be able to opt-out and not participate in the producing or consumption of GMO products when they go to the super-market. These people are not 'anti-GMO'.

And lastly, what about the people called 'anti-science'? Are there people who are really antithetical to the organized inquiry into the world around use that—when done properly—is called science? Perhaps, but you haven't met them. Not really. The people you have met have been people who didn't understand science or how it worked, or perhaps didn't accepts all of the conclusion's of science as true—but that hardly makes them 'anti-science'. The only 'anti-science' people are those such as the Luddites who would show how antithetical they were by destroying machinery. There aren't many of them around today because science is just an idea—like reasoning and mathematics—it helps you understand the world around you. And there just aren't that many people to be found anywhere who are really antithetical to trying to understand things. I imagine that there are a few—but only a few.

So what is going on here? Who is really 'anti-' here and why are so many people being misnamed?

There are two problems:

The first is linguistic. Just as there wasn't a word to describe the first two decades of the twenty-first century (as the other decades were called the 'eighties' or the 'nineties') there isn't a word to use in place of 'anti-' to create a hybrid that would convey that a person isn't antithetical to something but is merely skeptical or simply doesn't wish to participate. Calling someone 'anti-vaccine' or 'anti-science' is easy and has an immediate understanding within our language. Calling someone 'skepti-science' or 'skepti-vaccine' doesn't have as quick of an 'in' to being easily understood (or misunderstood) in our language. And there is no readily available alternative to 'anti-', so we are left with calling people something that they are not.

The second problem is one of social politics. Calling someone 'anti-vaccine' or 'anti-evolution' is a quick-and-dirty way of mislabeling their position (also called a 'Straw Man Argument') and thus makes it easy to deride the person or group for something they haven't done or said. This may be done because of sloppiness or it may be done intentionally.

When done intentionally, it is something I take particular offense towards because it represents a fundamental ethical failure to treat people in this way. Would the people doing this like to be slandered and mislabeled by others? I think not. But some will do use the word 'anti-' knowing full well that it isn't really what the other people believe because it makes those other people easier to vilify. And those are the real 'anti-'s here.

The people who intentionally vilify those who just want to opt-out of believing in something or doing something are the real 'anti-'s. And what are the antithetical of? Tolerance.

People who cannot allow others to have their own beliefs and behaviors are intolerant of the beliefs and behaviors that are not their own. They are anti-tolerance. And the people who just want to be allowed the space to have their own believes and conduct their own behavior need to stop encouraging these bullies to continue their attack on them. They need to stand up and call out these bullies as the anti-tolerant.....'people' that they are.

I know that some may be clever enough to say that they are 'anti-measles' and that such a position makes it alright for them to bully others into getting a measles vaccine. I don't necessarily accept that argument, BUT if a person truly were 'anti-measles' and was only concerned with preventing the disease, then the way to do it isn't but becoming a tyrant or a bully but by respecting other people and understanding their concerns and skepticism as well as a person understands his own position. Then a person who is only 'anti-measles' will be able to work with those other people instead of against them.

And that is my conclusion and advice. Don't let something that you really are antithetical towards make you become antithetical towards other people. I know that requires a lot more work, but I think you will find the extra effort worth it. At least, I hope so.

for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com

The Lamp of Diogenes: Inquiry and Transparency

The Lamp of Diogenes: Inquiry and Transparency

“What are you doing with your lamp out, Diogenes? It's the middle of the day”

“I am looking for an honest man.”

That is how the story of Diogenes was related to me by my mother when I was young and it has stuck with me ever since. At first, it was because of the curious actions of the man and that they indicated a deeper truth—though I was too young at the time to fully grasp it. Having a basic familiarity with Bible stories as well, I naturally drew parallels to the story of Lot and the Angels telling him that they would spare his city, if he could but find a single righteous man. Of course, he couldn't and the city was destroyed, but the notion of the scarcity of honest men or of righteous men was something that stuck with me. But, as I have learned some of the deeper truths of human nature I have realized that there may be much more to the legend of Diogenes that I could have ever guessed at the time. What I share with you now may have been a secret, original doctrine to accompany the story of Diogenes and his Lamp, or it may be more of a function of the truth that 'when the student is ready, the teacher appears'. You may judge this for yourself.

Diogenes is looking for an honest man, we are told. And he is using a lamp to find one? What a curious idea. Why a lamp? Because a Lamp illuminates darkness. So Diogenes is seeking to penetrate some darkness with a kind of light. What is it that shines forth from his Lamp, what is this light? It is the Light of Inquiry.

By asking questions, Diogenes will find out if a man that he encounters is transparent or opaque. If the man is transparent, the man is open to revealing the truth that is within himself and the man is honest—to the degree that he is transparent. If the man is opaque, the man is hiding the truth within himself and the man is not honest.

The answers to the questions are important, but it is the openness to giving up answers—the transparency-- that is most important and is the key to whether he is an honest man or not. I will not say that the content of the answers is of no matter, only that the content of the answers is secondary to the willingness to yield those answers. The content of the answers is important in understand the truths within the man being questioned, but also in whether the man is of a particularly dishonest sort. Some men are adept at pretending to be open and honest and will give answers that are not reflective of the truth within them. But even a casual examination of the content of the answers given will reveal the inconsistencies and eventually, the Light of Inquiry will reach to a depth where the deceiver cannot keep up the deception any longer.

So what are the questions that fuel the Light of Inquiry? They are numerous and unspecific, they are almost unimportant. But regardless of their specific form they will be the most pertinent questions that come to mind when confronted with a man that you do not know—or even a man that you may think you know. Socrates was a person who would have been able to fuel the Lamp of Diogenes quite well. Any time one begins with asking 'Why?' in relation to a person's behavior, the Lamp will begin to shine. The rest of the questions flow from that.

Then it is just a matter of observing what one sees by the light of the Lamp. Is the man open, does he reveal his motives and intentions? Or does he conceal them? Does he try to distract or get angry as the light of the Lamp shines in his dishonest eyes? One must be very careful with a tool as powerful as the Lamp of Diogenes. Inquiry has been the death of many a decent man. Just ask Socrates.

As for the finding a righteous man...I will have to get back to you on that.

for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com

An Insidious False Choice: Left to Right

An Insidious False Dichotomy

Take a look at this graph:

It purports to represent the choices that we have in our politics. You can chose communism on the one side, or fascism on the other, or you can try for some more 'moderate' form of collectivism such as socialism in the middle. But look again, this graph is deceitful.

In the same way that you might trick a child by offering a choice of 'a drink of water before going to bed' or 'a story before going to bed' the child is still going to bed-- which is, of course, the real goal in offering the choice at all. In choosing one or the other the child is also choosing to do what you want.

This graph is exactly such a trick, but it's motives are not so benign as getting a child to rest. This graph is saying 'would you like collectivism delivered as communism or delivered as fascism?' And it further deceives students learning about social sciences by diverting attention to the 'red herring' of socialism as a more 'moderate' form of collectivism.

The real choice isn't what form of collectivism that you want to have the real choice is between collectivism and individualism. But this is not a choice presented to students, as the teacher would have a difficult time getting students to swallow collectivist ideology is a choice other than collectivism were presented. Everyone starts out as an individualist. Parents know that every child goes through a period of asserting his or her individuality and slowly learning—not that he or she is not an individual but that—there are other individuals are the child who the child must learn to get along with.

Collectivism is not presented as a choice to be compared to individualism, but rather it is presented as a 'false choice'-- what is called a false dichotomy—where students are tricked into learning about how one form of collectivism compares to another instead of learning how collectivism compares to individualism. This is insidious. And this is wrong.

The greatness of the idea of America is the idea of the individual, not the collective. The rights protected by the Constitution are rights of individuals—not of the group. But the elitists have turned classroom instruction into collectivist propaganda in order to indoctrinate students into accepting that they are not individuals but are rather only members of various groups. And it has worked surprisingly-- shockingly-- well.

This is particularly evident when any attempt is made to contrast political conservatism against political liberalism. Since liberalism is identified as either socialist or communist, and since students are taught that the opposite of communism is fascism, they erroneously think that conservatism must identify with fascism. Conservatism identifies with individualism. It doesn't identify with fascism or socialism or communism because these are all collectivist views. The word 'Fascism' comes from the idea that a bundle of stick –a fascista—is stronger than an individual stick. Fascism is not a conservative idea because it is a form of collectivism, if anything it would be a politically liberal idea—just like communism and socialism.

Young people today commonly see themselves and others through the lens of what group they belong to, whether that is defined by race, age, wealth, activities, gender, religion or a thousand other means-- instead of seeing themselves and others as unique individuals. Oh, the elites will give lip-service to the uniqueness of the individual, but they will turn right around and target those who do not fit into one group or another –particularly when those individuals do not belong to their group-- for ridicule and exclusion.

What can be done? Start by refusing to play their game. Start by making sure to inoculate young people against this trickery by that they are first individuals and that they don't have to be just a part of a group. I would advocate getting involved at the local level and demanding that collectivism not be assumed and that it be taught as a contrast to individualism—but I don't know if anyone would even listen. The obvious course of action is simply to be aware of this deception and to be aware of what your children are learning and when they reach the point of being given collectivist propaganda, to simply counter it by pointing out that we are all individuals first. It is such a simple notion and intuitively understood that I would hope all it takes to knock over this deceptive 'house of cards' is the breath of just one word, one word that only an individualist will truly understand: Freedom.

That is my hope.

for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com

for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com

Barry Soetoro had a Great Fall...

Barry Soetoro had a Great Fall...
(--with 2020 Addendum)

Do you remember where you were 10 years ago? Do you remember who was president? Who was governor? More to the point, had you ever heard of Barry Soetoro, or should I say Barack Obama? Technically, maybe you had. 10 years ago, Mr. Obama had just been sworn in as a Senator and had been the Keynote speaker at the DNC convention the previous November, but you get my point. Bush had been a Governor for 6 years be becoming President, Clinton for 10 years, Bush Sr. had been a been a Vice-President for 8 years, Reagan had been Governor for 8 years, Carter had been for 4 years, Ford had been Nixon's Vice-President and Nixon and been in politics at the nation level for a very long time before gaining the highest office in the land. I can go back further, but the world becomes less and less recognizable through the lens of mass media and each instance of a person's rise to President becomes less similar than a rise is today. So my point is that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to become President of the United States.

Let me take a moment to stress that meteoric rise. In 2005, Mr. Obama was sworn in as a Senator from Illinois and just 4 years later he was being sworn in as President, having not even served a complete term as a US Senator. He catapulted from being a State Senator—one of about 2400 nation-wide—to being a US Senator, and then quickly catapulted further to become the United States President. Now, making the jump from State Senator to US Senator is not that unusual. And the jump from Senator to President has happened before, Nixon and Kennedy are examples of that. But to jump from State Senator to US Senator and then right on to the Presidency, without pause? That is unheard of. Everyone who advances up the ranks in leadership has a pause while he or she learns how to handle the new roles and responsibilities and then build a track-record to demonstrate that he or she is ready for the next step. But not Mr. Obama. So I assert that Mr. Obama's rise, is a rise most unusual.

'But', some may argue, 'If a person is of extraordinary ability, then he will have an extraordinary rise'. That is true, look at the meteoric rise in the business world of Mr. Zuckerburg. He built Facebook into a platform that others could use and has virtually defined Social Media, he was in the right place, at the right time, with the right ambition and the right skills—much like Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs (read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for more on them). But is Mr. Obama one of these 'extraordinary' people? Was he in the right place at the right time, with the right ambition and the right skills? I expect that depends on that you mean by 'right'. Clearly, he did get elected, so he must have been at the right time and place. Also, it is just as clear that he had the right ambition, or at least that he had the ambition to go after what he wanted—whatever that was. But did he have the 'right' skills? Again, since he did get elected—and re-elected—he clearly has the skills needed to win elections.

So we know he can get the job, but can he do the job? Let the evidence speak for itself: IRS targeting and 'missing' emails, Benghazi, Veterans Administration scandal, trading 5 Taliban leaders for 1 American deserter in violation of law and under false pretenses of poor health of the deserter, spying on the Associated Press, ATF 'Fast and Furious', Eric Holder refusal to turn over emails and contempt of Congress charges, the Healthcare.gov failed rollout, giving 500 million in government money to Solyndra—the company that donated 500 thousand to Mr. Obama's election, Holder's explanation of his refusal to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation, promising but failing to close Gitmo, refusing to defend laws that Mr. Obama doesn't agree with-- in spite of his oath of office, changing the definitions of measurements to create false figures—such as counting people turned away at the border as 'deportations' when that wasn't counted in the past and using Executive 'Memorandum' in place of Executive Orders to claim that he doesn't use Executive Orders very frequently, granting Executive Amnesty to people in the country illegally—in spite of repeatedly claiming to lack the authority to do so, repeatedly lying to the American people about the ACA and telling then that they 'could keep their insurance' and that they 'could keep their doctors', the Secret Service prostitution scandal, the Secret Service failure to stop intruders into the White House, the political imprisonment of a man for making a film offensive to Muslims....gosh, you know, I can go on and on with this, but I think I have presented enough to make my point.

And the point is this: if Mr. Obama was the man with the 'right' skills, these things and these kinds of things just wouldn't have happened with such frequency. They have happened with such frequency that before a scandal has even left the news, another one emerged to supplant it, and then another one after that. And what has been Mr. Obama's response to such scandals? All too often it has been to claim ignorance, or to declare some future action and then just never follow through. Mr. Obama has a staff of nearly 2000 people to assist him in his job as President—admittedly a difficult job—yet he is constantly blindsided. Whether it was knowing about the IRS targeting, the VA scandal, or the formidability of ISIS, he claims to has been mis-informed. Sorry, but either he is lying, or he does not have the 'right' skills to justify his meteoric rise to power. His rise to power is a rise unearned.

If Mr. Obama does not have the right skills to justify his meteoric rise to power, then how did he achieve it, how did it happen? I assert that he did not achieve it, but it happened nonetheless. Which can only mean that someone else—likely a lot of someone else's—assisted him in his rise to power. Why would I say that, what is the evidence? I present 2 key things that happened after Mr. Obama got elected that expose the strings of the puppeteers and suggest that some things which happened before he got elected were not accidental but were intended to happen to make him become President. The first is the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in October of 2009 to Mr. Obama. This award stunned everyone and no one has a satisfactory explanation for how Mr. Obama had earned it. The best anyone can say is that it was awarded as a downpayment for future actions that would foster peace world-wide. The second item is the US Senate's vote to 'cut funding for the closure of Guantanamo Bay' by a vote of 90-6. This is key, if the Senate can control the military with such surgical precision, then the whole role of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-Chief is called into question. The likely explanation is much more simple: after being elected, Mr. Obama was more fully informed of the complications to American foreign policy if Gitmo were to close, and he clearly changed his mind on the matter. But he had already made very public pronouncements to the contrary, so what could he do? Obviously, he asked the Senate to cover his ass, and they did. Does this indicate a shadowy control over the government? Sure it does. Whenever you have people claiming to be diametrically opposed to each other in public who then suddenly work together on a task and then go back to public bickering, you should ask yourself if this 'bickering' is a real difference of opinion or if is just puppet theater. In this case, and the case of the passage of the NDAA, it clearly shows that the two-party system we have if really just one-party, but I digress.

Here are another couple of things to indicate that Mr. Obama's rise to power wasn't just accidental. The first is the inexplicable failure for his Republican candidates who brutally pummeled and out-maneuvered each other, but then suddenly trip and stumble when facing Mr. Obama. Take John McCain, for example, he was thought to be out of the primary races very early, but then put his resources where they would help him the most and came back to beat everyone else. But then when he faced Mr. Obama, he became a complete idiot. He had a source of ready-made material to use against his opponent—all of the things that Clinton and Biden had said about Obama-- and he refused to use it. And then the was Mrs. Clinton, an established politician and national figure who had a special meeting with Mr. Obama and then just let everything fall apart for her instead of fighting as she had been doing the entire year before. And that doesn't even touch on the Main Stream Media's 'cloak of invisibility' that it threw on things in Mr. Obama's past such as the Rev. Wright comments and the Bill Ayers connections or of his father's hatred of colonialism or his mother's love of communism. And then, in 2012, history repeated itself, with Mr. Romney's super-PACs beating up all of his Republican rivals and then him treating Obama with kid gloves—except for his first debate with Obama. I think that first debate was Romney showing what he could do even though, like Mr. McCain, he then threw the election. These things, by themselves, would not be much, certainly not enough to point out some controlling influence to our elections. But, when taken together, all of these events than happen to benefit just one person, Mr. Obama, show that his rise to power was a rise engineered.

What all of this means is that Mr. Obama's meteoric rise to power was one that was unusual, unearned and engineered, and I think that it also means that Mr. Obama is headed for a fall. I think that Obama is headed for a fall, a disaster, that will be equally meteoric in proportion to his rise—and I think that is will be in this calendar year.

The first reason that I think Mr. Obama is headed toward a fall is one of balance. When considering his rise in comparison to recent history, it is almost always the case that a person rises and then falls—and it would not be dramatic to merely suggest that Mr. Obama will have his decline, but the nature of his rise suggests that a slow decline into obscurity is not really what is ahead. This is less of a evidence-based approach and more of a common-sense one. Isn't it always the case that the man who flies to high, the Icarus who flies to close to the sun, then falls back to earth? “The flame that burns twice as bright, burns half as long—and Roy, you have burned so very, very bright.” It is just something that 'seems to make sense' when you consider someone who has been catapulted into fame and power, they will inevitably fall back down, but when considering the details of Mr. Obama's rise to power, there are other considerations as well.

One of those 'other considerations' is that those who engineered Mr. Obama's rise to power have more people to manage than just Mr. Obama, and that taking just one person and giving him everything while requiring nothing will create disloyalty 'within the ranks'. Take someone like Mr. Biden, a loyal servant of establishment politics who—while not terribly bright—at least knows how to do what he is told (most of the time). He has been working within the political establishment for decades when along comes Mr. Obama. A recently elected junior-Senator, Mr. Obama is catapulted over Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton and becomes President, a position that Mr. Biden had hoped for—Mrs. Clinton too. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, what of all the other people who have been following the rules and 'paying their dues' as they worked their way up within the establishment? A person like Mr. Obama, just coming along and being given everything—even a Nobel Peace Prize—for doing nothing more than they had been doing will create dissension among the ranks. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama were to face an epic catastrophe, a fall as monumental as his rise, then things will be balanced. All of the people working within the establishment will see that being the 'golden boy' comes at a price and they will be more satisfied with their positions.

The other 'consideration' is Mr. Obama's hidden history—his school records and his travel records. I don't think these will show that he isn't a US 'natural-born' citizen, rather I think they will show that while he is a US citizen, he attended school, or accepted funding, or traveled while claiming that he wasn't a US citizen. I think they will show that he lies. But I don't know—nobody does. My point is that he can't keep these things secret forever and that after he has had his disaster (whatever it is) then it won't matter what these things say—he won't matter. Or he won't matter very much.

So why does this supposed 'fall' have to happen this year? Simple, because after this year, Mr. Obama will become less and less important until he reaches the point where any 'fall' could never be equal in magnitude to his rise. Right now, he is still on the 'plateau of his power'—as he has been for the last 6 years. But starting next year, he will be coming down off that plateau. The eyes of America and of the world will shift to who is coming next. By the end of next year, all eyes will be fixed on his successor, with just an occasional glance in his direction. For there to be any great disaster, any great fall, it would have to come this year.

So there it is, I think that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to power that is unusual, unearned and engineered. I think that the great heights and honors he has been given will be balanced by a great fall and that this fall will serve to bolster loyalty among the ranks of the elites and used to further the goals of the people who engineered his rise in the first place, they—whoever 'they' are—own him. And I think this will all happen in the year 2015.

A footnote: I don't actually like making predictions—who does? Reality has a perverse way of turning from it's course just to prove me wrong. When I say that we can't keep getting snowstorm after snowstorm, we get blizzards until May 2^nd (literally!). When I say that we had a bad winter last year so this one will be better, we get the worst winter ever(!). When I say that we will have 2-3 bad winters in a row and get a snow blower to be ready for them, we get very little snow at all (so far). So when I come along and say that Mr. Obama is headed for a fall....and he will likely be just fine. You Obama supporters can thank me later.

2020 Addendum:

Looks like all the Obama supports can thank me. Guess everything turned out fine and he glided from the Presidency with ease. So I was wrong, but why was I wrong?

My assumptions had been that there was (and is) a controlling organization that keeps watch over their political monopoly (there is! check out the book 'You can't be President' by John R. MacArthur) in the US and seeks to reward those who have shown service and loyalty with helping them advance in politics. Clearly there are organizations that have control over politics.

BUT, do they have an interest in rewarding loyalty and service-- as I had assumed. Apparently not. And I'm not just saying that to bash Obama.As meteoric as Obama's rise was (and I still maintain that it was), his successor --Donald Trump-- had an even more meteoric rise. Trump never served in any political office, and yet became President. Could the establishment have stopped him? Of course they could have. The RNC can change the rules and could have found a way to keep Trump out (voters would have gotten over it, what else can they do?). But they didn't. If your assumptions are wrong, then you will get poor conclusions.

Clearly my assumptions were wrong. Obama's departure proved it. Trump's Presidency confirms it. So what does it mean? It means that we are in a new place where long service and loyalty to establishment organizations does not mean those people will be rewarded with preferential treatment. An odd place to be, certainly, but here we are.

for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com