You have chosen......poorly...

When the evil Nazi in "Indiana Jones and the Lost Crusades" swallows water from the false chalice and begins to rapidly age and crumble, how did you feel? If you are a conservative, you might have felt that his greed and lusts had gotten the better of him, that indeed HE had chosen poorly. If you are a liberal, you might have felt that society had let him down, that his choice was not of his own doing, that we, as a society, as a world, had let him down. You would see little blame in him, but a lot in all of us.

So goes the concept behind special privileges for minorities. Liberals seem to have the concept that, if you live in America and are white/Asian/ and poor, you really are of your own making, but if you are black and poor, you are a product of society who requires special assistance.

Assuming we have the ability to observe our world (access to books, television, radio; the facility to learn; and normal function of our senses)"

• To the extent that we can exercise "free will" we can choose well or poorly.
• To the extent that we cannot choose, our future is predetermined.

Odds and probabilities are a way of expressing the outcomes, but do not tell us about free will vs determinism. This is the human equivalent of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. A life of determinism seems quite bleak and seems to run counter to observation, but does open up possibilites. For example, if there is determinism, there can be time travel, as the future cannot change the past. However, if there is free will, time must run only in one direction or there must be multiple simultaneous universes.

What factors impact opportunity?

• Personal characteristics (friendliness, grooming, knowledge, ability, appearance, skills, availability, honesty, and so forth)
• Societal values (conformity vs diversity, prior connections vs new faces, output/outcome vs balance/mixture, and so forth)

DocBrain believes that the fear of diversity is no longer a major factor in opportunity, but that the personal characteristics are still tipping points, and these are modifiable by free will.

Choose well.

The People have Spoken

DocBrain believes that the strong democrat victory was fueled by opposition to the war in Iraq, which has been building for the last few years. As Americans, we seem to be able to fight a war against an aggressor, but not a war of prevention or protection. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia/Kosovo, The First Gulf War, and Iraq are recent conflicts where our troops went in harm's way where we were not specifically targeted for an attack. All these wars were unpopular and of dubious necessity, although possibly helpful in some ways. In none of these wars did we win a decisive victory, and in none of them did we pull out all the stops to achieve success. US citizens resented their children dying in these wars.

WWII and Afghanistan were two wars where we were specifically targeted, and in both cases, with few exceptions, there was the will to fight and win on both sides of the political aisle.

Wars classically have been based upon wants and needs, avarice and greed. Some wars have a strong revenge motivation. All these wars were take no prisoners, crush the enemy conflicts.

The new breed of war is the preventative war, one waged afar to prevent armed conflict and suffering, usually at home. Clearly, we are not yet ready to embrace and engage in such conflicts, as judged by the election. Where prevention is only to prevent suffering elsewhere and not here, we see even less public support, so no public outcry to fight in Darfur, for example. When waging a preventative war, the goal is to inflict as little harm to the enemy as possible, as the main body of the enemy is seen as "misguided" or "coerced" by the leaders. Unfortunately, this may not be true. So, we wind up fighting a gentle war and suffering many additional casualties due to our lack of savagry. We do not subdue the enemy; we have no revenge to motivate us and we want nothing from them but for them to not pose a future threat.

As in healthcare, it is always easier to get someone to take medicine once they have a disease and harder to get people to live a clean and healthy life to prevent disease.

If hope is a strategy, I hope that we never suffer any more devestating harm than 9-11. I also hope that we can learn from health care that prevention is sometimes the best medicine.

The party of the minority

With so many qualified individuals available to run for office, one would expect that the candidates would demographically represent the makeup of the party. As many more women and minorities are Democrat, we should see this reflected in the candidates from a non-paternalistic party.

Of those running for the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania:

Party Male Female Minority
Democrat 15 3 1
Republican 16 2 1

Also, for governor, the Republicans have put up an African-American against the Democrats who support the white man.

Pittsburgh, which has had a Democrat mayor for almost 100 years, has never had an African-American mayor. Amazingly, the Democrat party, which has a strangle-hold on Pittsburgh politics, has been able to put up totally incompetent party hacks but has not been able to find one qualified African-American to endorse for mayor.

While one could argue with the issues each candidate endorses, one cannot argue with the statistically increased opportunity offered to minorities by Republicans, at least in Pennsylvania.

The Democrats may talk about getting people off the plantation and out of the kitchen, but it is the Republicans who are walking the walk.

Values

As a general rule, when you are young, you have as open-minded values as you are ever going to have. Certain issues raise concerns among young people, including the use of government power to oppress a minority. They see homosexuals as such a minority, being denied the right to marriage. They also see women being denied the right to abortion.

Concerning gay marriage, it is hard to be judgmental about people who would appear to have no choice in their sexual preferences. Whether nature or nurture (or both), the decision to be homosexual or bisexual is usually reached relatively early in life. The fear that condoning or, dare I say, celebrating homosexual unions would somehow cheapen marriage is as absurd to me as the concept that marriage is a sacred committment in a society where 50% of all marriages end in divorce. These divorcing heterosexuals had and made choices, and we cut them a break. I see that we either toughen our stance against divorce or allow homosexual marriage, and I see no pressure for the former, so I support the latter.

DocBrain has previously written about abortion, which is also a choice issue, unlike homosexuality. Choices require value judgements, which implies that there are good reasons to consider both sides of an issue. Emotion clouds judgement and should be carefully removed from the equation. Abortions done for fear, anger, and revenge and done on the spur of the moment or under the influence of mind-altering substances may lead to a lifetime of regret and shame. So, DocBrain does not support unlimited abortion on demand any more than he supports allowing anyone to purchase a gun at any time and without review. Nonetheless, abortion should remain the decision of the pregnant woman, done without undue emotional pressure on either side of the choice.

At what level of risk do people have the right to potentially harm others? Second hand smoke is known to be a health care risk and smoking has been banned in public places. Yet, some lobby for legalization of marijuana. If legalized, should it be illegal to smoke marijuana in public or among friends if even one of them doesn't smoke? Inquiring minds want to know.

DocBrain applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have generously given their money to fight the problems of the world. Should this liberty apply to all citizens, or should we confiscate as much money as possible to the government so that it can redistribute wealth?

Somehow, we have gotten away from the concept of liberty with responsibility.

Don't be cruel

Politics has become the forum for raising your voice when you should be making your point more clearly. Ad hominem attacks (attacks against the person) have become the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps the biggest target in recent times is George W. Bush, who is variably called an idiot, a moron, "President select", liar, and a religious zealot. While a person may believe they are demonstrating their supreme intelligence by making such an observation, they in fact are demonstrating only their meanness and pettiness. Even if you agree with the speakers assertion, you will feel uncomfortable with the harsh negativity. If you disagree, the comment will not change your mind about the target but may negatively impact your feelings about the speaker.

The same "enlightened" people who sneer at professional wrestling speak like professional wrestlers, spewing heat for pops from their supporters.

Unless you want Hulk Hogan to be president, leave the heat in the kitchen.

Thank you very much.