Video of the Week

Today I've uploaded an old favorite from the Prime Numbers days. I hope you enjoy it.

Here Comes Heroin

The above graph shows the Google Trends for various drug-related search terms. Yellow is ecstasy, blue is heroin, green is meth, and red is cocaine. Although the following interpretation relies solely on visual analysis of the graph, as opposed to careful data analysis, I am willing to put this "out there," and welcome whatever criticism anyone might have.

Frank Zappa once pointed out a reality later confirmed by all sorts of researchers: Drug use goes through trends. For a while, users prefer one drug or one type of drug more generally, and then after a time they switch to another preference. I have no insight into the why of this particular fact of life, as faithful readers well understand.

Recently, I've observed a bit of a spike in references to heroin. In some cases, the references are comedic, in some cases they are not. Most recently, you may have heard about the reported heroin overdose of Jon Bon Jovi's daughter in her college dormatory. This is not an iconic example, it is simply a recent example.

Because I seemed to be hearing about it more, I thought I'd check to confirm my suspicion that heroin is becoming the preferred drug within drug culture. A look at the Google Analytics graph above confirms the following:

• Ecstasy use is clearly and unequivocally on a long-term downward trend.
• Cocaine use is on a long-term downward trend, but may be experiencing a slight upward trend during the last two years.
• Methamphetamine use is highly correlated to cocaine use, although the total number of users (as estimated by Google searches) is lower.
• Most relevantly, heroin is trending upward.

The caveats here are that, once again, I'm simply looking at what I see, not running any kind of statistical analysis on the numbers themselves; and, I am using Google searches as a proxy for actual use. To this second point, it doesn't particularly matter what the "absolute number of searches" is, just as it doesn't particularly matter what the absolute number of reported users happens to be. The point here is solely that many common drugs are trending down, while heroin is trending up.

Why Do We Care?
Long-term readers of this blog know very well that I am opposed to drug use. I favor legalization, but strongly oppose the use of drugs. While I have laid out my reasoning extensively in the past, I feel it's good to touch on past topics from time to time, and this is one such case.

Nearly every recreational drug works the same way, as far as the human brain is concerned. Active dopamine levels are increased, active serotonin levels are increased; re-uptake of both of the above is decreased; euphoria ensues. It is important to keep this in mind because the mechanism of action involved with most recreational drugs is such that using drugs diminishes a person's ability to experience emotions such as "reward" and "satisfaction" in normal circumstances. In short, drug use calibrates the brain to expect more pleasure than it reasonably should expect.

Heroin, though, works differently from other drugs. It works on the opioid-receptors in the brain, which are tied up in the body's pain-detection system, rather than pleasure-seeking system. This is what makes the rise of heroin use interesting from a philosophical point of view. Heroin is less of a "party drug" and more of a "whatever drug." Withdrawal involves an intense feeling of dissatisfaction which can be partially understood if one considers that heroin itself is a pain-killer. The psychology of heroin use would appear to be quite different from the psychology involved in other recreational drugs.

The impact of this on our culture has been drastic. We hear quite frequently that we have become an "instant-gratification" culture. How did come to this? It's true that simple pleasures are more readily available than they once were, but it is also true that millions of ADHD patients receive the medical equivalent of a recreational drug at early ages. It is true that such patients tend to seek out recreational drugs later in life at a higher incidence than the general population. It is true that even once-off experiences with drugs like cocaine can lead to irreversible neurological consequences with respect to the mind's expectations of pleasure.

The idea that recreational drug use would not adversely impact society is a bit of a fanstasy. Logic and science indicate the contrary.


It remains to be seen what the impact of a heroin trend will be on today's world. We know what it has looked like in bygone periods. We watched it in the 1990s, in the 1950s, at the turn of the Century, and so on back into history. It rarely coincides with a very happy period. We shall see what happens this time around.

Some Links

Gary Becker suggests that the best way to solve the illegal immigration issue is to set citizenship at a price of $50,000 (although, his number is mostly arbitrary).

The great Sonic Charmer reminds us that when a person experiences severe head trauma and permanent damage, we don't get to stop calling them people just because it makes plug-pulling decisions easier on the conscience.

Daniel Henninger asks, what is the implication of the "permanent campaign?" Are we headed for agitprop? Should Republicans also wage a total war of information? But I ask, where on Earth has Henninger been?

Speaking of agitprop, The Civic Arena offers us a window into the emotionally confusing and Kafkaesque (specifically, The Castle) world of presidential form letters.

On health care, Rick Perry remembers the Alamo. I wonder if anyone else will. (Okay, no I don't. I already know that no one else will, because the facts don't matter when it comes to health care.)

I tend to be incredibly skeptical of studies like these, but take it for what it's worth: the more oxytocin you have in your system, the more faithful you are as a romantic partner.

How To Prove Everyone's Taxes Need To Be Raised

As Congress and the President prepare to stage a grand debate about raising our taxes, I thought I should write a few brief words about how much of a sham it all is.

Recently, at dinner, I overheard a couple of people discussing tax "fairness." Before I go on, let's consider what is meant by the term "tax fairness." Tax fairness is the concept that follows from a few key principles:

1. We all have to pay taxes, period, full-stop.
2. Because we all have to pay taxes, the tax rates should be arranged in a way that seems "fair" to everyone.
3. I know what "fair" means, and you don't.

The first item in the list is as much a truism in this day and age as anything else. Ever since Mark Twain told us so, death and taxes are the only certainties in life. You can't escape the tax man. He will hunt you down and take his cut. It has been thus for thousands of years.

If we were libertarian-minded people, we might conceivably hold a conversation about whether taxes are either fair or necessary. What would be the harm in simply doing away with taxes? For one thing, the assumption that we owe our governments a slice of everything we produce or purchase is tenuous at best. For another thing, it's not as if tax revenue covers our government's expenditures, right? So, considering that there is no hope whatsoever of making up this gap, even if we tax the rich at 100%, why not just scrap taxes altogether and accept the fact that our nation's government spends more than it takes in. So long as the debt is perpetually growing, why not keep as much of our take home pay as possible?

But let's not assume that we are all libertarian-minded people. Let's not have that conversation.

Instead, let's take Point 1 above as given. Then, Point 2 follows directly from Point 1 and the additional stipulation that - at least in nominal terms - we do not actually want to be unfair to anyone.

Setting aside alternate definitions of the word that do not apply in the present usage, "fair" can mean one of two things:

1. Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice; or
2. Legitimate, or proper under the rules.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. By the assumption that our government is legitimate, and that its rules are always "internally proper," then I think it can safely be said that any set of rules about taxation are always fair under Definition 2. Anyone have a problem with that statement? Let me know about it in the comments.

If I'm right about that, then all discussions about "tax fairness" are either (a) ignorant of the considerations involved in Definition 2, or (b) not inclusive at all of Definition 2. Because "fair" is an incredibly common word in English, I am going to go out on a limb and merely speculate that "tax fairness" discussions do not involve Definition 2, ever, at all. I can't prove this, naturally, because that would require that I step into the mind of anyone who has ever discussed "tax fairness" and make that determination for sure. At any rate, I think it is a safe assumption to make.

Which leaves us at Definition 1. A "fair" set of tax rules can only be those rules which are free from bias, free from dishonesty, and free from injustice.

To the question of bias, I point out that we have what is called a "progressive tax code," which means that the more you make, the more you pay. This scheme is a literal bias built into the code. By design, our tax code fails the "bias" component of Definition 1. Period. Full-stop.

But, perhaps "tax fairness" only means that the tax code is free from "dishonesty." Well, I have been to the library, and I have seen the tax code. It's all there, in black-and-white, every rule that applies to every conceivable tax situation you might face, and even rules about tax situations you never even thought of before. There are no lies about the tax code. The rates we all pay, and the deductions we can all claim, are all fully elaborated upon. Nobody that I know is lying about it. So this seems to indicate that our tax code is fair under the "dishonest" component of Definition 1.

Now the only question left to consider is whether our tax code is "just." If it is, then our tax code is fair. If it is not, then our tax code isn't fair.

Justice is a big question. Plato wrote a whole book on the topic. In the end, he didn't really solve the puzzle of the question "what is justice?" I strongly doubt you and I could, either.

What I will say is that our tax code levies steeper taxes on the rich than on the poor, allows for deductions from our tax burden during times of financial loss (e.g. educational expenses, children, mortgages, capital loss, foreign tax burden, business losses), and reduces to zero for those of us who are truly poor. From a bird's eye view, the tax code at least appears to make considerations of "fairness" with respect to the amount of tax we all pay.

So why do so many of us insist that so many others of us aren't paying a "fair share?"

I suggest the answer to this question is that, no matter how much some of us pay, it will never be enough for others of us. This is either because others of us want our government to do more than it is currently doing, or because others of us want to pay lower taxes and know that the difference must be made up somehow, or because others of us want to use the tax code to reapportion income according to their own personal value system.

In short, "tax fairness" is not about fairness at all. "Tax fairness" is about changing the tax code according to our own personal vendettas.

So, is that fair?

Let's Train For A Marathon

Today is the official "Day #1" of my latest batch of marathon training. This time, rather than using my own, time- and mileage-intensive training regimen, I thought I would opt for Nike+ Running's "Advanced" marathon guide, which is available on their Facebook page.

Why have I opted for someone else's workout plan? Well, there are a few reasons. First, with my increasing commitment to my YouTube channel, I have less total time on my hands. Rather than using running as my primary source of entertainment, I'm spending the majority of my free time writing and recording music, some of which appears on YouTube. The reduced time constraints means that I cannot necessarily spend an hour every morning, and another hour or two in the evenings, training for a marathon. (Remember, folks, my marathon guide is not for beginners!)

Second, when I reviewed the Nike+ guide prior to deciding to use it, I saw that it was remarkably casual and low-mileage. Both of these align with my other priorities, as expressed above, and they also allow me to train for a marathon without feeling like I'm moving heaven and Earth to do it. I don't expect to come anywhere close to winning or placing in this marathon, so a nice, casual, fun training guide is just what the doctor ordered.

Finally, it's always nice to try something new with your exercise regimen. I know how to push myself. I know how to train myself. I know what to expect from me. Variety is the spice of life, or so they say. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and act as co-pilot. You might learn something from the way other people approach things. Or, you might simply appreciate not having to do all the work yourself all the time.

All said, choosing this marathon guide was an easy decision to make. All that's left to do now is work on motivation.

Marathon Motivation
Sometimes, motivations isn't a problem. Sometimes it's easy to jump out of bed, tie your shoes, and hit the road. Sometimes it's easy to spend a few hours at the gym, enjoying the process of working out and getting in great shape. Other times, it's a real piece of work.

There are various different points during a multi-month training process at which you lose your motivation. Since this is Day #1, I'll focus on the first point.

The first couple of weeks of training are some of the most difficult weeks to get through. One reason for this is because you haven't yet invested a great deal of time or effort into your training. You can still easily back-out of the whole deal. It's only been a few days, right? If you decide not to do it now, you have countless excuses to give to your friends: the timing of it all didn't work out, you're not ready to take on something that big right now, something else came up, etc. Because you don't yet feel like you're committed to the marathon, the cost of backing out entirely is very low.

Another reason the first few weeks are difficult is that training hasn't yet become part of your daily routine. So, instead of waking up with the knowledge that you have to hit the pavement first thing in the morning, you wake up feeling like you've taken on a big project that's forcing you out of bed. Ouch, what a drag. It's not easy doing something to which you're unaccustomed. All your ordinary habits are begging you not to go work out. This makes things a challenge.

Of course, the fact that what you're doing is a new set of physical imperatives doesn't help, either. Your muscles hurt as you start to demand more of them. Your appetite changes, both in terms of how much you need to eat and what kinds of things you feel like eating. You get hungry at different times in the day. You start to notice particular sensations in your body as your senses get more in-tune with your new training. All of these things can often add up to a general sense of physical discomfort.

It is important to remember that all of these feelings are both normal and temporary. It is to be expected if you lack a lot of motivation during the first couple of weeks of training. To come out successful, consistence is the key. Just keep getting out there, even though you don't want to. Keep your eye on where you're going: a marathon.

Over the coming weeks, you'll experience different kinds of motivational lapses, and those require some different treatment to keep you going strong. But during these first few weeks, the path to success is in nothing more than blindly carrying forward until it's not a problem anymore.

Fundamentally, we're talking about habituation.

Burn It To The Ground

One last post on this topic, and then I'll move on to more interesting things.

Yesterday, someone on Facebook linked me to the following Rachel Maddow diatribe, saying "It's amazing."

Pretty amazing, huh? I mean, like, wow. Republicans exist in an intellectual bubble and Democrats have science, reason, and reality on their side. I mean, I've never heard anyone claim that before, have you?

In an unrelated, but conceptually linked, comment to me, the great Sonic Charmer has this to say:

I do not believe the political left, by and large, acts in good faith, no. I await evidence to the contrary. But on this issue, I can only echo Matt’s comment below: ‘mandate’ talk is used by electoral winners to shove their agenda down the throats of the losers. It is a form of intellectual bullying, or at least hoodwinkery: ‘you should go along with me because I have a mandate’. What is the objective definition of ‘mandate’? Insert self serving sophistry here.

Can there be any doubt whatsoever that in an exactly symmetric electoral situation with the tables turned, the person saying this would never ‘go along’, as the ‘mandate’ logic implies? That is the definition of bad faith. In saying this, I have not ‘eliminated good faith’ but merely recognized its absence. It is a scam. People who fall for scams are called suckers.

To be honest, I have not encountered the kind of bellyaching or animosity against Rs or Ds that has been reported in the news and by my fellow social networkers. So, for one reason or another, I have been mostly spared of all this nonsense.

...That is, I have been spared of it to such an extent as is even possible. The complete and utter lack of good-faith in America is so all-encompassing and palpable that it infects every interaction we have these days. Frightening? Sad? Weird?

Torch It. Nuke It. Winner Takes Everything.
In the political sphere, I think a person has finally reached a point where they have absolutely no good faith in the opposition when they espouse one of two doctrines: despotism or anarchy.

Despotism is the only strategy available to a person who believes she knows so much better than other people that she no longer thinks they can be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Rather than leaving the people with a degree of liberty to exercise their own choices and live their lives as they see fit, she instead deigns to protect them from themselves, and from each other, and sculpt a society in her own image. True, we all have our own ideas about how things would work best, but only a would-be dictator believes her knowledge is so complete that it simply doesn't matter what objections are raised by others. In the mind of a dictator, all objections are beside the point because they are based on faults, flawed reasoning, ignorance, and superstition. Only the dictator and her cohorts can reasonably attest to the right and the true.

Anarchy, on the other hand, is the strategy one adopts when one decides there is no longer any point in discussing anything with anyone. The anarchist believes in allowing people their own lifestyles and their own choices, but that all political decision-making is hopelessly poisoned by power-hungry monsters. Essentially, it is the belief that if the discussion doesn't go in the preferred direction of the anarchist, then she will have no conversation at all. It is a total withdrawal from political discourse. True, we all have ideas that will never be accepted by the public majority, but only an anarchist believes so completely in her ideas that she will no longer accept any discussion to the contrary.

To put this another way, anarchists and dictators hold much the same belief about their fellow men, but while the dictator responds by assuming total control, the anarchist surrenders completely and recedes into a mental safe zone.

The Result
Between the dictators and the anarchists fall the large majority of the rest of us. We're neither ready to surrender nor to assume total control. But the slow disintegration of good-faith in public discourse is gradually inching us all to one side or the other. Some of us want "our team" to win and quickly implement the party platform in its entirety. The rest of us are withdrawing from politics and proclaiming that there is no hope, therefore also no point to it all.

It should surprise no one that political systems are becoming more despotic. The only ones who still retain an active, participatory interest in politics are the ones tending toward dictatorship. Those tending toward anarchy are simply throwing up their hands and walking away.

Well, you can't reason with those who won't reason. The dictators don't believe anything you say has any thought behind it; the anarchists don't want to talk about it at all. That's all well and good, but where do we go from here? Do we bide our time until the dictators take over and kill us all? Do we watch from the sidelines as our society slowly disintegrates around us?

I don't have the answer today. I'd appreciate some comments. Share your ideas with me, and each other. I see this as the primary political challenge we face today.

At A Certain Point, People Just Forget

Human knowledge does not last forever. We, as a society, do not retain every small thing that we know simply by virtue of the fact that we knew it once upon a time. Knowledge, if not used, disappears. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Gothic Art
Contrary to what some may believe, Gothic-period art was not the result of an artistic movement per se. Gothic art is the result of European society's having literally lost the knowledge once commonly held by the Greek and Roman empires. Consider that icon of the period: the Gothic arch:

Courtesy wetcanvas.com

One is free to believe that Gothic arches are beautiful as architectural structures. Setting aside questions of aesthetic value, however, the fact of the matter is that Gothic arches came into existence because Europeans forgot how to do this:

Courtesy Wikipedia

How did they forget? Well, it's simple. Their religious leaders told them that the pagans and their witchcraft was evil, so they burned the libraries and destroyed the knowledge. After a while, everyone who once knew how to do these things died off. For aesthetic reasons, we may take solace in the fact that the loss of this knowledge resulted in another kind of beauty, found in the Gothic arch. But the Roman arch wasn't just beautiful, it was also useful. It was the literal foundation of the Aqueduct.

But, the whole Gothic period of art represents failed attempts to recreate the art of the Greeks and Romans. Gothic paintings, for example, are nearly bereft of depth perception. Like the drawings that young children produce, "far away" objects are shown small and high up on the canvas, while near-field objects appear large and at the bottom. The art is crude and poorly expressed. This isn't a matter of taste and preference, it is nothing more than the loss of knowledge. The Gothic artists were attempting realism, just as the ancient Greeks and Romans did. But the medieval artists didn't know how to do it. It wasn't until the Renaissance that the required techniques were rediscovered.

That is precisely why the Renaissance is called "The Renaissance." It was a rebirth of artistic knowledge that was thought to be lost forever.

The Cognitive Time-Horizon
Those who chose to destroy the Greek and Roman libraries obviously had a very short cognitive time-horizon. They could not think past their silly religious myths, and they doomed the ages to one thousand years of ignorance with respect to the Roman achievements. Think how long a thousand years is. An eon. A millennium. Their preposterous myopia, fueled by their dictatorial religion, resulted in misery for fifty generations of human beings. Fifty generations, think about that.

Clearly, when we are talking about fifty generations, no one person has sufficiently long a cognitive time-horizon to provide meaningfully for the future. We cannot possibly expect the knowledge of a few Roman geniuses to endure that long, while the dogmatists are burning books.

What we see in modern history, however, is that it does not take longer than a single generation to eradicate knowledge in a single society. Consider Bangladesh, for example. The Pakistani government slaughtered Bangladeshi intellectuals during the violent period of the 60s and 70s. Once they were gone, the Bangladeshi people had to rediscover all the art, language, philosophy, history, etc. that previously flourished in the region. In some sense, when one travels to Dhaka, one has the impression that this knowledge was never truly rediscovered. In the meantime, the people of Bangladesh have established a new set of knowledge, a new way of doing things. No matter what the benefits of these new ideas are, the old knowledge once held by the intellectuals of the first half of the 20th Century is gone, for the most part. The future is all that they have.

We also see this phenomenon in the Western world, with respect to nuclear physics. Because nuclear energy is highly controversial, and because nuclear weaponry is widely understood to be an atrocity, the field of nuclear physics - and especially its more practical subsidiary, nuclear engineering - attracts few new students these days. If we do not nurture this kind of knowledge, it will soon be lost as all the experts retire and die off.

War And The Cognitive Time-Horizon
We also see knowledge dying off with respect to America's wars in the Middle East. The destruction of the World Trade Center occurred over a decade ago. Since then, the United States has been at war in the Middle East.

The wars have dragged on for so long that American citizens no longer really understand what it means that their country has occupied a whole region of the world with military force for a period of over ten years.

When we think about drone strikes, we think about them with a very short cognitive time-horizon in mind. Any given drone strike seems reasonable to us, if the intelligence is reliable. Why not bomb a terrorist if we know where he is and what he is up to? The problem with this sort of thinking is not in the lone drone-bombing, but in the fact that the drone bombing have been ongoing for a period of over ten years. No one community should be forced to endure multiple-bombings-per-week for a period of months, much less years. What on Earth are we doing? How can we justify these atrocities?

We cannot. And what's more, none of us do, because none of us conceive of these bombings as they really exist for their victims. We have no concept of "multiple-bombings-per-week-for-a-period-of-years-on-end" because whenever we think about drone killings, our cognitive time-horizons are focused on the short run.

Today, I argue that we are no longer in the short run. Our wars have been going on for over ten years. Whatever the supposed merits of a few drone attacks, they disappear when applied to the time-horizon of years. Whatever were once the benefits of the so-called "war on terror," those benefits disappear when we consider that this has been going on for over a decade.

Conclusion
It cannot continue. It is not tenable any longer. We cannot be the lone aggressor in a ten-years-war against a group of people who have no political designation and no clear, hierarchical leadership.

Like the medieval dogmatists who burned down the Roman libraries, we are acting in defiance of the future. We are careening down a murderous path without perspective on the fact that it is now ten years later and ten years of war takes a toll on the occupied nations. We're losing touch with the knowledge that we are bombing real people - innocent people, in many cases. We're losing all perspective.

The result of this loss can only be a desensitization to war. Even this past election cycle, the debate was over "defense spending." Defense spending, not the funding of a decade-long occupation of multiple Middle Eastern nations. We don't even use the correct language anymore.

Frankly, it's frightening. No one can justify this.

The Secret Ballot

Today's post is a difficult one for me to write because I myself am guilty of what I am about to condemn. Faithful readers will understand, though, that Stationary Waves is nothing if it is not a dedication to exposing our most deeply held lies and myths, in hopes of promoting a world in which logic, reason, and ethics prevail.

On with it.

How My Facebook Friends Helped Undermine Civil Discourse
It is the day after Election Day. Log onto Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and so on, and observe what you see. Understandably, most of what you see consists of reactions to the outcome of the US presidential election. Within that sizable majority of commentary, in a good proportion of it - on my Facebook feed, anyway - people are revealing how they voted, expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election, making their own personal presidential choice known to the world.

If you want to know why civil discourse has disintegrated these days, you're looking at it.

There are two reasons why ballots are kept secret. The first seems unnecessary to contemporary Americans because we are not currently in a political situation in which it is relevant. The reason is that if Party X knows who is voting for Party Y, then there is an opportunity for Party X to threaten and intimidate - if not physically attack - supporters of Party Y in an effort to sway the results of the election. Thankfully, America is in no such situation. Nevertheless, we cannot be so blind as to pretend it is not currently happening elsewhere in the world, most recently and notably, in the Middle East.

The second reason why ballots are kept secret is what I actually want to discuss today. When you go public with your support for a political party, you undermine civil discourse, you destroy your credibility, and you make it impossible for anyone to discuss anything with you. Some of you will be surprised by this claim, so let's flesh it out a bit.

How "Going Public" Destroys Our Dialogue
When two strangers sit down to discuss any issue, they will hash out the comparative merits of Choice A versus Choice B, on the strength of each aspect of the issue. The various benefits of Choice A are weighed against those of Choice B, and the same with the drawbacks. Once the benefits and drawbacks are revealed, the strangers will undertake to assign value and likelihood to each benefit and drawback, until they reach a point where a decision can be made. If the two strangers happen to disagree, the disagreement boils down to one of the following: (a) They disagree as to whether a benefit or drawback actually pertains to the respective choice; (b) They disagree as to how important a given benefit or drawback is; (c) They disagree as to how likely it is that a given benefit or drawback will occur.

In civil discourse, in Good-Faith Discussion, these issues can be hammered-out and compromises can be reached. The issues are relatively simple to state and discuss, even if the ultimate decision is a difficult one.

Now suppose that the two strangers know that one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. How will that impact the ensuing discussion?

Simply stated, it destroys the credibility each one has. Now, rather than considering a benefit or drawback brought to light by Peter, Paul has a built-in incentive to view it as a claim of pure partisanship. Peter, meanwhile, has ever reason to believe that his arguments are not being given proper consideration because he feels that Paul is dismissing his ideology, rather than his point.

Suppose, for example, that Peter and Paul are considering the matter of whether to divert funds from the local public school to the repair of a local bridge. As non-partisan strangers, a real and useful discussion can occur. But if Paul believes that Peter is ideologically driven to "de-fund public education," or if Peter believes that Paul is ideologically opposed to "using public funds for the benefit of corporations on the other side of the bridge," then there is no longer any point to their having a discussion.

Consider what happens when we open the discussion up to the public at large. If party affiliation comes to the fore, the public will soon descend into repeating party mantras. That's bad, but it is especially bad if the public debate becomes a public vote. In that case, members of the public are no longer merely casting a vote for their preferred funding allocation. Rather, they are casting a vote for party affiliation. Others present will see how they vote and will know where they stand with respect to the party, and what to expect from that person when future issues are discussed.

Maintaining a secret ballot, on the other hand, allows people to disagree with their chosen party - or with any party at all - with respect to one particular issue, i.e. the matter being debated. When ballots are secret, people are free to vote their conscience (or their mere preference) without being seen publicly as a party affiliate. People casting their votes in secret have the luxury of having any preference they choose, without that one preference impacting the way their opinions are perceived by the group at large.

Secret ballots don't just protect people from intimidation and threats, they protect the usefulness of the dialogue. They help us dissociate issue from ideology. Making your every vote public has the effect of making you look like nothing more than a partisan zombie. Know well that others will surely see you that way, too.

Conclusion
We hear all the time about the sad state of civil discourse and partisanship in this country. Sadly and predictably, this too descends into partisan squabbling. ("It's the obstructionist Rs who are at fault!" "No, it's the uncooperative Ds who are at fault!")

It's certainly easier to blame everyone else for the sad state of communication among us today. If we're grown-ups, though, we have to be able to take responsibility for our own contributions to this sorry state of affairs.

One way you, personally, have contributed to this ugly horror is by making your political affiliation public. Don't get huffy - I did it, too. I can freely admit it, and I'm ready to take responsibility for it.

Are you?

The Puzzle Of Democracy

I'm not sure if you know this, but... Today is Election Day in the United States of America. Today, and over the past weeks, we have been accosted from all sides by those urging us to adhere to a particular philosophy on voting. Let's see if I can cover the major points made.

In a blog post endorsing Gary Johnson, Scott Sumner urges us to vote libertarian. Sumner offers a pragmatic take on the virtues of voting:

If I lived in Ohio and God told me I’d have the deciding vote between the top two candidates in this election, I’d vote for Johnson.  The whole point is to sway policy, and you don’t do that by winning elections, you do that by getting votes.  If the libertarians ever start stealing 5% or 10% of the votes from one of the two major parties (or both) you can be sure that next time they’ll shift their position closer to the libertarian direction.  Obama will think twice about sending in the Feds to shutdown those medical marijuana clinics in LA.

As Sumner has it, "the fact that Gary Johnson won't win is exactly why you should vote for him." Sumner wants to have an impact on the issues some time in the future. This demonstrates an admirably lengthy cognitive time-horizon, and for that I applaud him.

Meanwhile, over at Mises Daily, the often-acrimonious Danny Sanchez argues against voting for anyone whomsoever:

For one thing, a vote helps provide a mandate for all of the elected officer's policies, whether the voter supports those policies or not. As one author has said, voting "just encourages the bastards."

Furthermore, every vote for a federal office is a vote for the hyper-state known as the US federal government, and for hyper-states in general. It is effectively an endorsement of centralized power and a vote of no confidence in localism.

Sanchez is not alone among so-called libertarians who oppose democracy. All libertarians of this stripe draw heavily on the arguments of the like of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, author of the book Democracy: The God That Failed.

And so liberty-loving people and average, every-day Americans alike are faced with a puzzle. Given that precious few of us actually buy into the whole platform of one candidate or another, what do we do?

On the one hand, we can vote for the so-called lesser evil. On another hand, we could vote for someone who most closely represents our views in hopes that one day our liberty-loving demographic will be appealed to by mainstream politicians when it finally achieves a critical mass. On a third hand, we could refuse to vote at all, and therefore spare ourselves having to offer an "endorsement" of any one set of atrocious policies.

The Democracy Problem Is A Real One
Modern society has managed to get itself into a real catch-22 here. If voting is our means of affecting a change we can believe in, yet no option on the ballot represents a significant change for the better, then where does that leave democracy?

It would appear that casting a vote in this kind of environment is not so much an endorsement of a particular set of policies - since few of us actually seem to buy into the majority of any candidate's platform - but rather an endorsement for "democracy" in the abstract. When we head to the polls, therefore, we are doing so merely because we seem to hold some hope that a democratic system, rigorously adhered-to, will produce favorable results for us.

Reality is much different. The last three presidential elections have been neck-and-neck. The voting population seems to be at a roughly 50-50 split between the two major parties, and the only ones whose vote actually counts are those in the so-called "swing states," where the race is so close that voter turnout becomes a material issue in deciding the winner of the election. Blue citizens in red states, therefore, have no voice in the general election. Likewise for red citizens in blue states. And for those of us unlucky enough to feel close to either major party, there is no voice for us in the general election at all.

Another problem with democracy is that it is remarkably susceptible to mob mentality. One major national news item can be enough to provoke a call for major federal policy changes from the electorate in general. The prevailing notion is that any change will do. "We" want change, and "we" proclaim our desire for it; then, the overlords come up with some hare-brained "solution," and the issue devolves into a choice between ratifying the solution offered or "favoring the status quo." Lost in the noise is any consideration for whether any change is necessary, or whether we should be offered a choice between, say, the best of five solutions.

So, in a democracy, we lack a true voice, and the options proposed are insufficient to solve the problems they purport to solve. Democracy does not seem to be working. What to do?

Some Thoughts
I'm no genius. I don't have all the answers. I think this particular problem is so large and so serious that it requires a great deal of thought from some of the most powerful minds in the world. But I can offer my own thoughts as a consolation prize.

First of all, please keep in mind that the presidential election is not the only election going on today. When you vote, you will be voting to elect people into a variety of local government positions, too. While you may not have a sufficient voice to impact the presidential election, your vote may be very important in the scope of local politics. Don't get so caught up on the national race that you forget that you might be able to affect a local one.

Second of all, and on that same note, we may all be well-advised to make participation in local politics a priority in our lives. The city bylaws under which you live more directly impact your day-to-day life than does trade policy with China. Don't get me wrong, both may be important matters. The point here is, though, that a major shift in local politics will have a more significant impact on your life than an incremental shift in national politics.

Third of all, therefore, in society today, we may start to discover that relying on the federal government to solve all of our problems is not only less potent a means to improve our lives, it is also a less democratic means. Perhaps, given the many wonderful improvements in technologies, we are better-equipped to solve some problems locally than nationally. If so, our local solutions may be far superior to anything cooked-up in a faraway land. Maybe it's time to start empowering our communities to solve their own problems. Federate, if you will.

Finally, a vote is just a vote. However important it may be to your political situation, it is something that only happens once every couple of years. In the meantime, there are myriad other ways to impact your community, whether through personal charity, or ideological contributions, or philosophical waxing, or educating, or whatever else.

Conclusion
Voting is only part of a participatory government, not the whole thing. It may be the attribute of our government that makes it "democratic," but there is more to the story than mere democracy. There is also federalism, philosophy, and community involvement.

So, cast your vote today, if you like. If you don't want to vote, don't vote. But whatever you choose to do or not do, and for whomever you choose to vote, don't forget that there will be four years between today and the next presidential election. If you want your political system to improve, you'd better start thinking up some ways beyond a mere vote to make things more like you want them to be.

Good luck.

Movie Review: Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana

Hindi movies generally tend to be about rich, privileged Indian young people who travel to exotic locations and major world economic hubs to strike it rich and find love. The general pattern of these movies tends to be as follows:

The male protagonist - the hero - is a bit of a slacker, a no-good-nik, who doesn't take live or love seriously. He's still mentally in high school, "doing it all for the lulz," so to speak, but he's starting to reach the point in his life where he needs to get serious and focus on his career. Furthermore, it sure would be nice, according to his parents, to find some nice, well-mannered Indian girl and produce some babies. Then, one day, he meets a haughty-but-extremely-attractive young Indian girl, with whom he falls in love at first sight. She is typically a career-driven, modern woman who absolutely doesn't need a man. Or maybe she already has a nice boyfriend who looks very good on paper. At any rate, she's got her own thing going. She doesn't need the hero. He's a jerk. The rest of the movie tends to be about how the hero turns his life around and finds independent wealth and respect, all to win the heart of this fabulous young woman, who eventually falls for his new, more upstanding self.

When one becomes familiar with the genre, the fun about watching Hindi movies is no longer necessarily about any one movie's plot, but rather what plot-devices that particular movie employs in order to achieve the same result. It's sort of like becoming a wine connoisseur: It's all about the unique aspects of the wine you happen to be drinking, within a particular style. You will have had many bottles of Bordeaux, but each particular bottle has its own merits and demerits.

Considering all of that, it is especially refreshing when the core plot of a Hindi movie deviates substantially from the usual thing. Such is the case with Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana.

A Movie About Normal People
Although it isn't obvious during the opening scene of the film, Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana is fundamentally a film about ordinary people from rural India, not rich and glamorous playthings in the bustling cities. This immediately sets the film apart from most in the genre.

The movie tells the story of a young man, Omi (Kunal Kapoor), living "his dream" in London. His occupation isn't obvious. What we know about him is that he spends a lot of time drinking, womanizing, and stealing money in London night clubs. Then, one day, a brutal gangster walks in, beats him up, and demands repayment on a large sum of money Omi has apparently borrowed from him. The gangster sends Omi back to India to get the money from his family, only then can Omi return to London in order to "live his dream."

So, Omi returns home and the audience discovers, through a series of flashbacks, that Omi's family is somewhat poor. In order to get to London, Omi had to steal money from his grandfather and leave in the dead of night.

As you might predict, the bulk of the movie depicts Omi's internal struggle with confronting the fact that he is basically a "rascal," who has never done much for anyone, told through the plot devices of his trying to find the money to repay his debt to a London gangster.

The setting of the movie is absolutely gorgeous - but it is India, not some exotic world city. The beauty we see in the movie is the natural beauty of a small Indian city. Over the course of the movie, both the audience and Omi discover the beauty that they might not have seen before. That beauty is expressed in familial love, in personal ethics, in a picturesque landscape, and so on.

It's not a revolutionary message, but the story is well-told, the script is well-written, and the acting is superb. Despite a few cheesy moments, Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana is a great movie with a good moral.

Rhesus Pieces

This week's Rhesus Piece is something called "Improverished." As the name indicates, the focus of this piece is improvisation. Specifically, I started by improvising a bass line, then recorded over it with an improvised clean rhythm guitar, then recorded over that with a lead guitar improvisation, panned right. Next, I muted the first take of lead guitar and re-recorded an entirely new improvisation, this time panned left. Finally, I un-muted the first lead guitar part and let both improvisations cohabitate the piece.

I have made two different videos for Rhesus 4. The first, features the video for the first improvisation, shown in a sepia tone. The viewer's ear will naturally focus on the guitar panned right, because it is consistent with the visual cues. That video is shown here:

The second video is shown in a blue tone and features the second improvisation. The viewer's ear will naturally focus on the guitar panned left, because it is consistent with the visual cues.

Note, however, that the audio in both of these videos is identical, so the psychoacoustic focus is simply an "aural illusion" caused by the fact that your brain is watching something that syncs-up with the guitar part in question.

What Is The Next Phase?

Today's blog post is inspired by some recent internet finds.

The first was an article in the MIT Technology Review, entitled "Why We Can't Solve Big Problems." (The hat tip goes to Tyler Cowen.) In the article, author Jason Pontin begins by describing the unimaginable possibilities that seemed to be on the horizon back in the 1960s and 1970s, when the US government was flying people to the moon. After describing this wishful thinking, Pontin switches gears, and asks, "what happened?" Pontin suggests that "we" have not accomplished what "we" thought "we" would. We don't have flying cars and we haven't cured cancer. We haven't discovered clean energy. Instead, argues Pontin, we are "distracted" by mere trinkets, such as iPhones and Facebook. We have technologies whose primary purpose appears to be entertainment. The thrust of Pontin's article seems to be that, for most of us, we have become so focused on casual, day-to-day entertainment, that few of us undertake to solve the so-called "Big Problems" anymore. Readily available entertainment has served to provide us with a disincentive to innovate, since innovation is a lot of hard work.

In a significantly different vein is the second inspiration for today's post is yesterday evening's "Debate With Goolsbee," written by John H. Cochrane and posted on his blog. (No hat tip here - I'm a regular reader of that blog, and you should be, too.) There, Cochrane is once again riffing on the issue of the US economy's stunted growth rate, and what might be required to restore it. After some discussion of the growth rate facts, Cochrane tells us the following (note that when Cochrane says "productivity" up above, he's taking some liberties with the actual economic definition of the term):

Growth, growth, growth. It’s not a secret. Growth ultimately comes from productivity. New ideas, products, technologies, businesses, and processes. The dismal 1970s coincided with a sharp productivity decline. Following the Reagan recovery, perhaps sparked by deregulation and tax reform, economic growth, trended up for two decades, which, as you see in the previous graph, is what paid off the Reagan deficits.

There it is again, a reference to the winding-down of things in the 1970s, and a "sharp productivity decline." Cochrane feels that in order for the US economy to grow, we need "new ideas, products, technologies, businesses, and processes." In short, Cochrane is looking for innovation, and finding it nowhere. Of course, if Cochrane added a narrative about how the United States has historically enjoyed many great built-in advantages, he would basically be summarizing the contents of Tyler Cowen's now-famous essay, The Great Stagnation.

Finally, there is an interesting Frank Zappa video I came across on YouTube, in which he discusses the lack of ambition in the "Acid Generation."

Again, the third verse is the same as the first and second verses: The 1970s marked an end to ambition and innovation in America. We somehow evolved from being a nation of ambitious, entrepreneurial innovators to being a pop-culture obsessed, drug addled, group of slackers.

This is the concept to which I often refer as Whore Culture.

Progress Is Necessary
As I see it, the problems described above are a serious problem for human society. Students of world history will note that the trajectory of human progress has been interrupted before (the Dark Ages), and it can be interrupted again.

Since the days of Thomas Malthus, economists have understood that new innovations are the device by which human beings can enjoy a general increase of wealth. Forget what you've read about "stimulus" or "commerce" or "aggregate demand." Each of those might be important to the short-run health of an economy, or they might not. But in the long run, the only way for society to enjoy expanding wealth and a successive increase in the standard of living, successful new ideas and new technologies must be developed and implemented.

At issue is this: The economy alone won't do the job of making us and our posterity better off. For that, we need progress, i.e. innovation. We need to solve new scientific problems, we need to cure disease, we need to create new artistic movements. Society cannot merely rest on its laurels for an extended period of time. Without innovation, the stagnation we experience wears on and on; it feels like regression, even when it isn't.

Humans need progress in order to feel as though they are gaining. This is as true for money issues as it is for any other source of happiness. We've all experienced this in our own lives. When you're stuck in one place, one job, one set of circumstances, it starts to wear you down. Unless you make some sort of headway in terms of increasing wages, or improving fitness, or meeting new friends, or finding the love of your life, or starting a family, you will start to feel as though you're not getting anywhere. You will start to feel in some sense impoverished. The desire to improve our conditions is part of what makes us human in the first place.

This Is A Social - Or Cultural - Issue
Pontin's article indicates that we as a society won't be able to solve "big problems" until we have the right "institutions" in place, supporting those who undertake to solve them. Cochrane's article indicates that the US has no hope of returning to the "correct" growth trajectory until it (really, its citizens) start innovating again. Cowen's essay makes a claim similar to Cochrane's. Frank Zappa was of the opinion that popular culture, the media, the government, and drugs were all creating a perfect storm that was destroying America's ambition and making us all in some sense "brain dead."

Even if you don't buy any of the arguments they make, it is probably undeniable that healthy human progress rests on the shoulders of people who choose to do more than just work hard. It rests on people who choose to solve previously unsolved problems, on people who choose to create new things and concepts that previously did not exist, on people who find ways of using existing things in entirely new ways.

In some respects, it is almost random when an exceptional person - an innovative person - is born and takes it upon themselves to contribute something new to society. But I doubt that even the staunchest advocate of genetic determinism would suggest that parenting and social environments play no role in the values that ultimately take root in a person's psyche.

What I'm getting at is, we all have a responsibility for providing social rewards for people who go against the grain, who do new things, who attempt to create things that are genuinely new. While not every new thing qualifies as an innovation, we are not always aware of what is truly innovative until years or decades later.

All of us, as individuals, bear some responsibility for creating new things so that human progress can take place. So when you're at work, try to make things better. When you're with your kids, try to help them dare to be different. When you're learning something new, push the boundaries of what you're being told; ask the kind of questions that have answers, but whose answers may be difficult to answer.

As a culture, we are responsible for human progress. We need to make progress a value, a virtue. Without it, it's the Dark Ages all over again.

Personal Experience, The Forest, The Trees, And Discussion

There have been a few times in the past when, to buttress a point I was making, I referred to specific personal experiences that reflected the point I wanted to make.

In one instance, I was having a discussion about health care policy, and referred to my personal experience on waiting lists and receiving treatment from Canadian health care providers. After recounting my predominantly negative experiences, another of the discussion's participants suggested that I was "generalizing from a sample size of one." In other words, there may be millions of other people who have had wonderful experiences receiving health care in Canada, and my "example" ignored all of them. I was being unscientific because I was relying on the experience of just one person (myself), when there are many other experiences to account for.

In another instance, while making the case that attempting to discuss religious differences among true believers leads to conflict because religious people do not want to have their differences questioned, I referred to a personal experience I had with a believer who invited me to question his faith, only to subsequently ignore my questions and put an end to the discussion. This was a clear demonstration of my point, but again, the response I received was that it was merely a sample size of one. What of all the other believers who really do want to question their own faith? I was being unfair to believers who have religious discussions because I was (supposedly) hanging my entire perspective on one bad experience with one bad apple.

One last example: I once had a debate about socialism in which I referred to a point made by Ayn Rand in one of her books. In response, my debate opponent suggested that Ayn Rand's whole perspective on socialism was not worth considering, because it was tainted by the fact that she lived through the Bolshevik Revolution. In other words, Rand's experience with Leninists had left her unable to objectively assess the relative merits of socialism.

Of the three examples I have just provided of this one concept, the last one takes the cake.

Context-Dropping And The Purpose Of An Example
One of Rand's most important contributions to logic is her identification of the fallacy of context-dropping. I have linked to the fallacy's entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, but that page does not really do a good job of explaining what the fallacy is. So, I'll try to illustrate the fallacy myself.

Suppose Jack and Jill are married. Every day, when Jack comes home from work, he takes off his socks and throws them in the middle of the bedroom floor. Minutes later, Jill also comes home from work to find Jack's dirty socks in the middle of the floor. Jill finds this highly irritating, so she decides to talk it over with Jack the next time he does it. The next day, Jill comes home and finds Jack's dirty socks on the floor, so during dinner Jill says, "Jack, every day I come home to find your dirty socks on the floor, and I find this very unpleasant. Could you please try not to throw your dirty socks on the floor?" To this, Jack replies, "It's not fair for you to object to this today! I had to answer the phone as soon as I came home!"

Jack has dropped the context. While he may have a valid excuse for not putting his socks away today, Jill is confronting him about a long pattern of leaving his dirty socks on the floor. Jack's point about the phone call may be a perfectly valid reason for his not putting his socks away today, but Jill's point exists in a context broader than just simply today. Jill isn't talking about today, per se. She's talking about any time Jack leaves his socks on the floor. Jack's justification for today, or indeed for any particular day, is completely beside Jill's point. Whatever the various reasons for Jack's leaving his socks on the floor, Jill's point is that it is a consistent pattern of behavior she would like him to try to avoid.

Even if Jill were to say, "Jack, I wish you hadn't have left your socks on the floor today," Jack's objection would still be an example of context-dropping, because Jill's point is bringing up today's instance specifically is merely to provide an example of the issue Jill would like to discuss.

In other words, the purpose of Jill's example is not to get caught up in the particular justifications of how and why Jack's socks ended up on the floor, but rather to highlight that Jack's irksome habit occurred as recently as today. The addressing of one day's excuses is an example of context-dropping. The broader context is the consistent sock-leaving pattern; the issue is Jack's messiness.

Avoiding The Particulars Of Examples
In our day-to-day relationships, in our political debates, in foreign affairs, in our legal battles, and in simple casual conversations, we all experience the fallacy of context-dropping. And this is especially true when someone provides a specific example in favor of their own side.

But when someone uses personal experience and illustrative examples to highlight her point, she has no intention of hammering out the specifics of the example used. She is simply clarifying her point.

Here, I'll clarify my point: When someone says, "I hate it when people drive and talk on a cell phone at the same time; in fact, the other day, I nearly had an accident with a motorist talking on a cell phone," the person has no interest is discussing whose fault that particular accident really was, or whether the other motorist was taking an emergency phone call, or whether the other motorist was swerving to avoid hitting a child who had run into the street, or anything else. Such a person is simply indicating that there are many citable examples that can be used to illustrate her point. It's not about the details of any one case.

Therefore, any attempt to prove or disprove the details of whatever example happens to be cited is spurious and irrelevant. One who chooses to disprove an illustrative example is not even addressing the other person's argument, but simply dropping the context of it.

Instead, if you'd like to reply to someone who is using an example, you could provide a counter-example. Or, you could discuss the extent to which the example illustrates your own point. Or, you could illustrate the extent to which the example is inapplicable to the present discussion. All such responses are useful and valid responses to an example. What you can't do, though, is disprove the lone example under the belief that doing so is persuasive argument for your own point.

Many people argue with each other for years simply because they are talking past each other in this way.

Personal Experience
Let me make a final point about examples cited from personal experience.

A person's own personal experiences are the primary drivers of what the person knows to be true. Suppose Jack and Jill are discussing whether or not Mr. Hill is trustworthy. Jack suggests that Mr. Hill cannot be trusted because Mr. Hill has a bad reputation. Jill responds that, notwithstanding Mr. Hill's reputation, all of her dealings with him have been positive.

Jack might counter that Jill is "just one person," and that her judgment might be unfairly clouded by her personal experience. If ninety-nine other people say they have been cheated by Mr. Hill, Jill's dealings with him may not be a representative sample of Mr. Hill's trustworthiness.

But unless Jill has observed these 99 other interactions with Mr. Hill firsthand, or unless she knows those other 99 people very well and places a high value on their word, why should she place a higher value on hearsay than her own personal experiences? There may be (and often definitely is) unique value in one's own, unique personal experiences that is not captured by a solicitation of several other people's opinions. In other words, personal experiences are an incredibly useful source of information. There may be reasons to discount one's experiences, but that hardly means that deferring to one's experiences is an act of poor judgment.

Conclusion
Thus, my experience with the Canadian health care system is far more valuable to me than someone else's. My experience with religious discussion is more valuable to me than the statistical possibility that a future religious discussion might not be contentious. Ayn Rand's experience with the Bolsheviks was more valuable to her than the promises of various other socialists.

Indeed, objecting to a person's examples or personal experiences becomes a case of "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

More importantly, it misses the whole point of deferring to illustrative example. Examples are used to more intuitively describe one's position, to clarify the thesis statement, not to prove it. The proof comes from the underlying reasoning, not from the example.

Don't get caught up arguing about the details of an example. Look for the forest and the trees.

October Was A Great Month

October was a great month for me.

For one thing, Stationary Waves had its most successful month ever, as measured by the total number of hits I receive on the blog, and marks four consecutive months of hit increases. For this, I only have my readers to thank, so let me take the time to do that now.

Thank you for reading. Over the past month, I've had visitors from all over the world, including many far-away places that I hope to see one day, and a few places I have already seen and would like to see again.

To facilitate reader interaction, and at the request of a few pointed comments from friends and readers, I have eliminated some of the barriers to posting comments here on the blog. So far, Blogger has been doing a great job with its built-in spam filter, so I don't anticipate any problems with this going forward. Drop by and leave a comment, and let me know how things are working for you.

It was also a big month for my YouTube channel. It also had its most successful month ever, as measured by views, driven by two new videos for Geist and Force of the Flow. As I may have mentioned before, I intend to make these videos a more regular feature on the blog, so stay tuned for more music - and perhaps a few other YouTube surprises.

To cap it all off, I put in more miles of running during October than any other month this year, as I build up my endurance base and prepare to undertake to run an upcoming marathon. Let's all keep our fingers crossed for injury-free training. Of course, I will be sharing my training schedule with you in the coming weeks.

Okay, enough of retrospective narratives. On with the pontificating!