About this blog

When I was younger, my mother always told me, like her father told her, there are three things that you should never talk about at the dinner table: money, politics and religion. The problem is, I find those three topics to be the most compelling subjects for discussion. Therefore, as a slightly techno-savvy young man, I have decided to create this blog so that I can get my thoughts out into the wide world, and hopefully make someone somewhere, at least for some fraction of a second, stop and think.


Barring such noble (if a little self-righteous) aims, I'd like to think that maybe my future progeny and I can look back on this in 30 years or so and have a laugh. But at least I can content myself with the warm, fuzzy feeling that my method of political discourse stands a greater chance of bearing fruit than the tie-dye-sporting, bongo-beating that my parents generation went for. Not to say their way isn't a good time (I may have beaten a bongo or two), but like all generations feel about their forebears, my way is better.


DISCLAIMERS:


Facts
This blog will largely focus on my opinions and interpretations of life, the universe and everything. That's not to say that I'm averse to facts. Quite the opposite really, I love facts. Facts are the cornerstone of truth. However, facts are a funny thing when it comes to the Big Three: money, politics and religion. Lots of people, on both sides of arguments in these arenas love to present "facts" to bolster their arguments, which, taken at face value, is solid argumentation. 


I have a few pet peeves about facts, so bear with me, and we'll get through this together.


The first problem I find in terms of facts and the Big Three is that, everyone's got their pet facts that they like to wave at the other side, often eschewing logic in favor of, "Look, look at all these facts. Mine list's bigger than yours, ergo, I win!" Watch two sides argue on any cable news show and tell me I'm wrong. 


My second bone of contention is in the prevalence of statistics, especially in the realm of politics. Generally, I like statistics. Statistics can provide a compelling model of many different things, and in purely scientific inquiry, one can learn and predict quite a bit from statistics. However, having, at some point in my studies, been a student of statistics, I'm here to tell you that statistics can lie, or at least misrepresent the truth. It was, in fact, a statistics professor of mine who introduced me to the phrase Mark Twain said that Benjamin Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics."


The problem with modern political discourse is that it is not purely scientific, it's political. Is it therefore too much of a logical leap to believe that, if statistics can be manipulated to reflect certain things, and the organizations which collect and report political data are, if not outright affiliated with a political organization, then at least leaning this way or that, that the results of such political statistics are at least suspect? I'm not trying to impugn anyone's honor here, just explaining why I tend to take all statistics in the political arena with a grain of salt.


Finally, in a more holistic sense, my problem with facts in discussing the Big Three, is that these are very visceral, polarizing topics. The odds of actually winning an opponent over to your side are pretty slim, let's face it. We all think, if the world thought like I do, it would be a better place, but only sociopaths actually believe that that sort of thing can happen. Discussion = good, compelling people to agree with you = bad.


I've written a few research papers in my day. For those, I have had to find facts, use them deftly and cite them thoroughly, while ignoring the facts that don't jibe with my thesis, unless I'm prepared to shoot them down. It's common in academia, as it is in discussing the Big Three. But unless future educational or employment opportunities require this behavior of me, I'm done with fact-finding for now, and anyone who reads this will have to indulge me. That concludes my rant about facts.


Profanity
A note about profanity. I might use it from time to time. If this offends you, I'm sorry, but George Carlin had some pretty compelling thoughts on the banality of words. 


And then there's this:
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading I denied, that leaves only me to blame 'cos mama tried - Merle Haggard


Feelings
Feelings have no place in a debate/discussion as far as I'm concerned. If you can't be disagreed with, or proven wrong, without getting upset about it, I don't know what to tell you, other than toughen up or do something else with your time. If you get legitimately mad, sad or any other elevated emotional state during any kind of discussion about the Big Three, please don't waste people's time discussing them. 


Getting emotional about a debate can only achieve limited ends. Level-headed people will be annoyed by you, emotional people will yell/cry right back at you, and stupid people will be won over by your feelings, not your logic (which shouldn't count as a gain for your side). 


Ugh. That's a lot about a little, but I think that it'll do for now. Hopefully, I will be able to follow this with some decent content, about me and about my thoughts, sooner rather than later.