Spanking New!

Spanking children is now back in the news. A California representative wants to make spanking children illegal. DocBrain is sometimes appalled at how stupid some smart people are! DocBrain will now tell you about spanking (of course, we are not talking about consenting adults...that's a different issue).

The rationale for spanking

• Children are born as savages, with no knowledge or understanding of the rules of life or the rules of safety.
• It is the nature of living things and the duty of everyone, including children, to learn.
• There is no primary imperitive to teach. So, how wonderful it is to have someone willing to take the time and effort to teach you! All people who take the time and energy to teach children, including parents who are so inclined, are role models for the rest of us!
• In order to learn, the child must first pay attention.
• It requires the effort of the child's own will to focus his/her attention.
• When words alone do not allow you to get the attention of your child to instruct that child about something important, the use of a physical act (such as a brief smack on the rear) to get the child's attention, is not only reasonable, but, in some instances can be life saving or life changing. The amount of physical contact needed to get the child's attention can vary from child to child and may need to be individualized.
• Children who do not focus their attention with words or with physical triggers are probably impaired and should be taken as soon as possible to an expert for further assessment. If you have difficulty with more than one child or if nothing is found wrong with your child, guess what? The problem is you! Get some help on child-rearing and some personal counselling.
• Spanking out of anger with a desire to harm the child or for your own desires is almost always wrong.

Hot enough for ya?

DocBrain has heard a lot more about global warming than he really wants to. DocBrain has decided not to be oppositional and to go with the flow. OK, there is global warming. OK, man is the cause for it. The world is in crisis. What to do? What to do!

DocBrain has gone to some of the global warming websites and finds that, as typical for the left, there is a lot of heat but not much light.

Here is what DocBrain learned:

• Global warming is bad
• Many celebrities go to fancy parties that raise funds for organizations that raise awareness about global warming. In the pictures on the websites, they are wearing nice outfits and look like they are having a good time.
• The best hope is the Kyoto Accord, which, even by the best estimates of compliance, will only mildly slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gasses, so it is really not a solution.
• Taxing of pollution is another method cited, but again, this only would cause a rise in cost of goods and not a real fall in greenhouse emissions.
• Developing countries need to produce pollution in order to create jobs and combat poverty.
• New science approaches range from the weird (circle the earth with mylar satellites) to the ridiculous (fly planes that pollute the air with sulfur compounds).

So, no easy solution for this problem. So, if you are one of the people who is wound up about global warming, get your thinking cap on and come up with some reasonable solutions.

Here are some DocBrain solutions:

• Increase telecommuting. Many jobs can be distributed and done from home.
• Get the most polluting cars off the road. Counter to popular belief, these are not the Cadillac Escalades but the 10+ year old cars with damaged catalytic converters. These cars, which make up about 10% of all vehicles, produce 50% of the pollution. Replace them with mass transit.
• Synchronize traffic patterns; make them predictable. This will reduce traffic snarls and jams. Deploy intelligent lights and road design.
• Make roads safe for small vehicles, such as scooters and bicycles. Inexplicably, many cities which deplore traffic jams and pollution have outlawed Segways and mopeds!
• Encourage the development of green space.
• Encourage zero population growth. Birth control and sterilization are most efficient. Abortion less so. Less people = less environmental stress. One option: no tax benefits for >2 children in those who pay taxes. Mandatory adoption at birth for excess children of those who don't.
• Increase tax on fossil fuels to encourage biofuel and other renewable fuel development and deployment.
• New ways to dispose of waste that reduces landfills and perhaps that produces energy from waste.

You might be a loser

If you look at your life and see the glass half empty...you might be a loser
If you don't push yourself to be your best...you might be a loser
If you have more than the occasional pity party...you might be a loser
If you think you are not as good as the next person or better than the next person...you might be a loser
If you feel you must be the center of attention or hide in the corner...you might be a loser
If you take something that isn't yours...you might be a loser
If you take drugs, use alcohol or smoke and your life still sucks...you might be a loser
If people in general piss you off...you might be a loser
If you make fun of other people more than you make fun of yourself...you might be a loser
If you must blame someone else for things that go wrong in your life...you might be a loser
If you don't try to learn something new or do something different or better each day...you might be a loser
If your words or actions seem to inadvertently upset other people and you don't change what you say or do...you might be a loser
If you can't take honest, positive criticism...you might be a loser
If your life is about getting even, satisfying your lusts, or getting your piece of the pie...you might be a loser
If you don't spread happiness...you might be a loser
If you are now at a bad time in your life can't look back and say "at least during the good times I wasn't a loser"...well, you know...

Numb3rs

On the TV show Numb3rs, a mathematician helps solve crimes by applying math to social problems (ie, where will the fleeing criminal go next). In trying to understand the Middle East, think about Dunbar's number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

According to Robin Dunbar, the average person can only maintain a stable relationship with about 150 people. Beyond that, relationships are based on generalization, stereotyping, and bias. The elements that extend Dunbar's number beyond 150 are language, tribalism, and shared culture (religion, country, values, goals, and other loyalties).

With no shared culture, tribal association or language with Sunnis or Shiites, we have a stereotyped view of them, with that stereotype being based mainly on our own thinking. Conversely, members of these groups also have a stereotyped view of us. They also have stereotyped views of each other, as many tend to cluster within their own tribes and customs.

The concept of extending beyond your group to include others is difficult and contains many paradoxical problems. For example, a group can be increased by extending a common language, but in doing so, you actually are increasing the size of the "tribe" that uses that language and decreasing the size of the tribe that uses the other language. The only alternative to shared culture is "separate but equal" which will not be sustainable because of the resulting stereotyping and bias. What to do!?

A common language is not enough, but certainly is a good starting point. This should be followed by learning of a system of polite communication, immersion within each other's culture, and eventual unification of cultures.

The last element is particularly difficult where the choices are seen as polar. However, if you think about it, there is common ground between all groups. It should be emphasized by all parties. The failure to work for the common good leads to "the tragedy of the commons", and in the Middle East, in the true sense of the word tragedy.

Live long and prosper

The cost of bringing a new therapeutic agent to market is very high. New treatments for medical conditions usually bring greater effectiveness, greater safety, and/or better tolerance at a greater expense. Eventually, these products become generics, and newer, even better products hit the market.

If we believe the liberal mindset, we live in fear of being "taken advantage of" by the health care "medical-industrial complex". Doctors, biased by their relationships with pharmaceutical companies, prescribe expensive medications to enrich their friends at the expense of their patients. We hope that managed care organizations will "hold the line" and keep this from happening to us by encouraging generic drug use. We hope that the FDA will protect us from overuse of new products for existing conditions where the benefit of treatment has not met the FDA criteria for approval.

If you can handle the truth, DocBrain will tell you.

• Once a medication has passed the FDA, any doctor can prescribe it for any purpose, but that doctor better have evidence of benefit, tolerability and safety. The financial burden must also be considered.
• We, the people, are better served by pharmaceutical companies funding studies that expand the arsenal of available therapeutics than by funding studies that expand the indications for a product. Private, government, and institutional funding can extend the range of use of a product through smaller studies and case series. This information should be freely shared and available for the prescribing physicians.
• DocBrain is appalled by the fact that a skinhead can preach about Jews and Blacks and can have a website that sells screeds and this is not illegal and is defended by the ACLU, but pharmaceutical companies who have data showing benefit in non-FDA approved uses of their products are prohibited from sharing this information openly with prescribing physicians because of the potential of "profit". Does anyone else see a double standard here? A bias in favor of skinheads or against corporations? Which freedom better espouses the "common good"?
• Off label use of medications is common, especially in areas where the financial benefit of FDA approval is low for pharmaceutical companies and available therapeutic agents are few and ineffective. For example, if you have longstanding double vision from Multiple Sclerosis, you would find no FDA approved agent for treating your condition, yet one agent is available that is effective. I bet your doctor doesn't know what it is because the company that makes this product is forbidden to divulge this information.
• Millions of dollars have been spent on "restless legs syndrome" studies to get FDA approval for products shown in small unsponsored studies to be beneficial for this condition. Wouldn't you rather have just let doctors know that these products have been used effectively for RLS and have the phama companies spend their money on, say, R and D for a treatment for leukemia in children?

Bias

People turn up their noses at biases because they pre judge a person before you know them. Often, however, biases are based upon some knowledge. It is useful to dispel biases when they are based upon false or inaccurate knowledge, but important to deal with the root cause of biases when based upon true data. It is also important to look at them in the proper perspective.

Here is one. You are walking down the street alone at night. Coming up behind you are a group of 4 teenage boys. You look and are nervous because they are:

• White
• Asian
• Black

Many people choose "Black", but why? Here is some data:

• Most African-American teens are not criminals
• African-American teens make up 16% of the teenage population yet produce 49.5% of the crime (2005 statistics)

If you want to change biases, you need to change the data. A positive view is the first statement, a negative view is the second, but both are true. Unless you are living in "1984" you will not get people to change their biases unless you change the data. Glorifying the gangsta is probably not the way to accomplish this.

Paradigm shift

DocBrain has had a paradigm shift. Thanks to CousinBrain (and Dennis Prager), DocBrain now understands liberals a lot better than before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54116

DocBrain used to think that liberals had things all thought out just like conservatives and had determined that their position was good because the outcome was good. DocBrain now realizes that liberals desire good things, but then don't have follow through. They have no idea how things will work out, just that doing something that feels good is good.

Here is something DocBrain learned today. Raising the minimum wage is good (according to liberals) because minimal wage workers will get more money. But what is the follow-through on this? Well, here is one: Walmart is going to stop using greeters. These senior citizens and minimally skilled but friendly individuals will now join the unemployment line. Nice! We still will have our Walmart specials, but in a slightly less kind store. Maybe these workers will find other jobs. Maybe not. But, liberals can feel good as these unemployed people scrounge for a job.

Groupies

What is right or wrong? What should we do? How should we go from here?

These questions could apply to many different circumstances, but the answer always begins the same way: "Let's have a meeting."

The USA is obsessed with group decision-making, especially on the left. DocBrain thinks this is because, under the concept of diversity, there is no absolute right or wrong and everyone can have their input/say/15 minutes/perspective/whatever. While DocBrain believes on doing research and getting different perspectives before acting, decisions need to be where the buck stops and not by a bunch of orangutans who can suppress new ideas or trash the tried-and-true.

While two heads can be better than one, it is also true that an alpha dog can lead a pack away from trouble or to the promised land.

You might disagree with DocBrain, thinking about how well things went in your last committee meeting or on the jury you were on, but also consider the other group-thinks: lynch mobs, pogroms, Jihadists, and KKK rallies (to name just a few hate groups). Then, you might think how slow, dull, boring, plodding and indecisive are most meetings.

Groupthink can sometimes be good, sometimes bad. Just don't confuse the process with the solution.

DocBrain may have more to say about this, but first he must convene a panel...

Blah, Blah, Blah

DocBrain has been chastized on several occasions by his liberal friends for defining liberalism according to what conservatives say about liberals. So, DocBrain googled and googled and finally found what liberals say about themselves.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=Liberal+Agenda+Entries

Some of the self-definitions are funny, others scary for DocBrain. Some are so mom and apple pie that no one could dispute them.

DocBrain did some heavy lifting, and here in a nutshell, is liberalism:

• Capital Punishment is bad, when you are talking about killing hardened criminals, but it is good when you are talking about taking away money from those who earned more than you.
• You are free to be equal, no more, no less (not equal opportunity, equal outcome)
• You are encouraged to bee productive for the common good
• It is the duty of government to provide not only for your defense, but also your health and education. By provide, of course we mean "control". If we have it our way, we will not only tell you how we will protect you, but also what health care you will be entitled to (and what care you will not be allowed to have) and what you will be allowed to learn. This freaky, top-down structure is really bad if you think about it. If this doesn't scare you, then you haven't been paying attention. This is one of DocBrain's pet peeves!
• If you want to say grace in a public restaurant in the USA, well, we will be offended by that, but if you are the leader of another country and condone public beatings of women who dare to learn to read, well, we will respect your culture and national autonomy; who are we to judge?
• Just because you didn't apply yourself in school, didn't work hard, didn't focus on your children's welfare, or didn't take care of your personal health is no reason why you shouldn't have equal dignity or opportunity.

Some of the main problems with many of the definitions of liberalism by liberals is that they imply that inequality is due to an unfair bias by society; that an enforced collective good morally trumps individual acts of kindness and charity; that the acts of people cannot be judged by a common standard; that the answer to every question is government; that the goodness of our society is judged by how much it gives to the least among us; that law is the highest good; and that personal success demands retribution and personal failure deserves reward.

Who defines you?

DocBrain does not like war, yet, he does not agree with the positions held by those who are defined as "anti-war" by the media, so he must be "pro-war".

DocBrain does not like other people telling him who he is. This is something the media does, almost always to the detriment of conservative thinkers, or even liberal thinkers who are not wing-nut radicals.

DocBrain does not believe in drive-by abortions, so DocBrain is "anti-choice".
DocBrain does not believe that any class of people should have special privileges or protections bestowed upon them from the government, so DocBrain is against "gay rights", against "hate crimes", against "affirmative action". DocBrain believes people should be thankful for whatever benificence they recieve from others, so DocBrain is "anti-Entitlement". DocBrain really sounds like a bad person.

DocBrain thinks it is time for us, the conservative-mainstream of society, to name names.

• DocBrain says each possible abortion is a decision point and must be considered on its individual merits, and one consideration is the unborn child. DocBrain defines this as "pro-common sense".
• DocBrain believes in equal rights for all Americans, so DocBrain is "Pro-Equal rights"
• DocBrain believes that all crimes against people are bad, no matter what the motive, so DocBrain is "Anti-Crime"
• DocBrain believes the best qualified should get the job, so DocBrain is "Pro-Merit".
• DocBrain believes that a person should pay it forward, being thankful for the help of others, so DocBrain is "Pro-Charity".
• DocBrian believes that peace comes from resolving conflicts, so DocBrain is "Pro-Peace".

This makes the typical reflexive liberal, by DocBrain's definitions, anti-common sense, anti-equal rights, pro-crime, anti-merit, anti-charity, and anti-peace.