Recently we have noticed how difficult it is to find both ethical and intelligent people to be around. We have identified professions that are either unethical or unintelligent to help other people stay away from people who work in these:
HR – Both unethical and unintelligent
Lawyers – Unethical
Accountants – Unethical – and so linear in their thought processes that they resemble robots.
Real Estate Agents – Both unethical and unintelligent
Any type of sales person – Both unethical an unintelligent
Here is a picture of Bill Gates and his wife getting honorary doctorates
Cambridge no doubt felt compelled to give Bill Gates an honorary doctorate as he had contributed up to $165 million to scholarships to Cambridge over past decade. Does no one care what a despicable human Bill Gates is? Does the fact that he lied and cheated his way to success and massively mistreated his customers along the way? Even now, many internet services “require” Internet Explorer, for no technical reason other than Microsoft wants other browsers disabled. In its existence, Microsoft came up with nothing new, and borrowed, bought or stole its innovation. This demonstrates that like everything else at universities, everything is for sale. George W Bush can go to Harvard, pharmaceutical studies can be faked, and Bill, along with his wife – can get honorary degrees for cold hard cash.
No one does more with less then Bill O’Reilly. We say this after analyzing rhetoricans from the past, such as William F Buckley, as well as other modern day rhetoricians. Bill rarely has more than a surface understanding of any topic he is discussing. He uses the following techniques to defeat people with far greater subject matter knowledge.
The comment “Going too deep, and we don’t have time” – Whenever a guest begins to delve into the detail that would undermine the sweeping generalizations used by O’Reilly, Bill uses this technique to prevent the audience from learning the actual facts.
Interruption – If he does not like where the answer is going, he simply interrupts the interviewer, and will occasionally bring up the concept of reciprocity, that he needs his chance to speak, when he deprives his guest the same opportunity
Assumption Agreement – Can push back on any guest once they have made their point by setting up a simple question that the guest feel compelled to answer in the affirmative. His most famous being “Do you want America to win the war in Iraq.” If the interviewer say no, is patriotism is questioned, if he answers yes, Bill then says that the guest will then agree with whatever position Bill is arguing for. (Letterman actually had the proper response to this which was “It depends upon what the definition of winning is.”
Uses the “you are in fantasy-land” or “you must know nothing about x or y” in order to back his guest into a corner. He did this very effectively against Ron Paul in a debate about Iran.
Bill O’Reilly is a master at what he does. He is so confident that actually defeated and demeaned Dr. Richard Dawkins, who was the father of evolutionary biology and is a superstar professor from Oxford. His book The Selfish Gene is one of the most influential and best books in popular biology and has been for over 25 years. Its doubtful that Bill O’Reilly could ever read a single one of Richard Dawkins scientific papers and understand it. We don’t mean in a few months, we mean that with all the free tutoring, Bill O’Reilly could never understand what Richard Dawkins knows. However, Bill treated him like he was some student from a technical college, and utterly disrepected him. What makes this even more amazing is that Bill O’Reilly was debating religon with Dawkins, and actually was able to put Dawkins and by extension most of the scientific community on the hook for not having answered every single one of the questions related to the origins of man, the universe and essentially everything.
How to Debate Bill O’Reilly
The only way we can see to stay with or defeat Bill O’Reilly (and he wins almost all of his debates) is to interrupt him and to come out aggresive and stay aggresive. Many guests seem to become intimiadated by him which may have something to do with his height or facial characteristics. Almost anyone pitted against Bill will have more subject matter expertise as he is both poorly educated and not well versed in his the topics of discussion. Bill is debating in areas far beyond his areas of expertise and its important not to forget that he was at one time an anchor for the lightweight gossip show Inside Edition. Fox News has no education or intellectual requirements for their editorial shows (Glen Beck has a high school degree — and it shows) and this matches Fox’s general demographic of people who study and read very little and are too distracted to perform any deeper thinking. However, O’Reilly’s rhetoric is so effective, that his lack of knowledge rarely matters. The best strategy is to both interrupt Bill as well as point out Bill’s lack of knowlege in the area.
Wanting to make money from essentially matching supply and demand is a hallmark of the unethical person. These types of jobs do little else but match supply and demand.
Stock Brokers
Real Estate Agents
Recruiters
Automotive Dealerships
Education
The logic many of them use to justify their existence is that they educate their clients. However, what type of education can a client expect to get from someone who’s only objective is to sell them something that they have access to?
Free Markets
The issue is that even with the arrival of computers, intermediaries strive to do business “the old fashioned way.” A the same time they speak about the importance of free markets. Here are some ways intermediaries interfere with markets:
Recruiters insist on keeping a database of resumes and in communicating resumes in document format rather than simply pointing their clients to LinkedIn which keeps updated databases online.
People who are attracted to intermediary roles are looking for easy money and are essentially dishonest. If real economics were applied then we would actually use technology to reduce the need for intermediaries and create more efficient economy. The rule is simple, the money that is given to intermediaries above and beyond their contribution is both taken from the individuals who actually work, and decreases the efficiency and increases the costs of buyers and sellers coming to mutually agreeable transactions. If people are curious how to improve any economy, the answer is simple – reduce the costs of intermediaries through the creation of public on-line databases. Place the important information in the public domain, so that no one owns it.
The following is an excerpt from the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. We found a very good section which we thought would be interesting for others to read.
“I also realized that my college professors had not understood the true nature of macroeconomics: that in many cases helping an economy grow only makes those few people who sit at the top of the pyramid even richer, while it does nothing for those at the bottom except to push them even lower. Indeed promoting capitalism often results in a system that resembles medieval feudal societies. If any of my professors knew this, they had not admitted it – probably because big corporations, and the men who run them fund colleges. Exposing the truth woudl undoubtedly cost those professors their jobs – just as such revelations could cost me mine”
This to us really gets to the heart of how much truth is taught and accepted in society. Much of our education system is designed to manipulate people into doing things that improve the condition of the people above them, and have little to do with what is true.
doctrinal |ˈdäktrənl| adjective concerned with a doctrine or doctrines : doctrinal disputes.
doctrine |ˈdäktrin| noun a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group : the doctrine of predestination. • a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs : the Monroe Doctrine.
More generally, a doctrine is a belief taught by a power structure, someone or something with the power to enforce beliefs. While a parent is not considered a power structure, such as the World Bank, for a child, their parent has a high degree of control over them in terms of their economics and in terms of the trust that children have for their parents, so the parent has the ability to enforce a doctrine or belief system on the child.
We use the term doctrinal to describe the repetition of inflexible or even false beliefs on the part of individuals. People who repeat doctrine in an unthinking manner are considered “indoctrinated”
One very good example of doctrinal behavior is found in this video below. In it Jim Rogers describes what he thinks are the correct actions to take given a financial crisis. He is shown being interviewed by a number of network interviewers who are asking him questions which have a number false premises. The interviewees have both a limited ability to work with the concepts that Jim Rogers is discussing and thus their questions tend towards the doctrinal. However, there is a second reason for this inflexibility, which is happening behind the scenes. The interviewers appear to be being fed questions from their network editors. The like of questioning appears to support the notion that the network is in favor of a particular course of action…in this case using taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions.
Thinking for oneself is an often praised attribute. However, what is not discussed is how small a market there is for it and how people who think for themselves are often at odds with their employers and with their social support structure. The education system is doctrinal. While it well understood that education up to the high school level is doctrinal, many presume that as education level goes up, that more critical thinking takes place. This is a misunderstanding. The education system is doctrinal even to the PhD level. PhD dissertations must be approved by committiees, and very few people will obtain a PhD unless their committiees agree with both the quality as well as the doctrine and conclusions of the dissertation. One can be sure that dissertations which do not serve the interest of the committee members, or contradict the previous work of the committeee members will be tolerated. After years of effort, people generally want to get their PhDs, so its a small matter to make the necessary changes. However, it rarely comes to that as the PhD candidate will typically figure out long before this time what conclusions are necessary to garner approval from the committee and will adjust their research accordingly. One may think that after a PhD is conferred that the person is then free to express their own view. However, this is not true as that PhD’s career success will depend upon publishing articles in specific periodicals. These periodicals have particular standards, and particular doctrinal tests. Furthermore, endowments and contributions from corporate interests provide incentives for the university power structure, decentralized to departments, to promote research consistent with corporate doctrines.
Why So Indoctrinated?
The main reason that people are so indoctrinated is that there is a tremendous amount of effort spent in indoctrinating them, and that their perceived incentives are to continue to be indoctrinated. As most people work for other people, they do not have the luxury of “going their own way,” they must conform to the doctrine of their superiors. While they could live a dual life (stating they believe in public, while holding different views in public), in all frankness, most people have little concern with what is true and false and would prefer to be contented and successful over developing their mind. In a world of trade-offs, the desire for a nice house and comfortable life as well as enhanced access to desirable mating partners tends to trump the desire to investigate underlying assumptions. This is evidenced by the emphasis given to material acquisition vs. the acquisition of knowledge in most societies.
When Doctrine Does Not Work
Accepting the programming is often functional for the individual and makes them appealing to employers. however it is not always functional. We have seen how the doctrine of finance and economics has really worked against many people. The doctrine of investing in the stock market and in expensive housing has been very economically damaging to individuals while very profitable for concentrated financial power.
There is a serious problem with how congress makes political decisions and how many resources it consumes. First of all here are a few numbers.
100 senators and 435 in the house of representatives
30,000 congressional staff
35,000 lobbyists (which attempt to influence the congress)
$2.4 billion spent in lobbying activity and campaign contributions
Furthermore, many of these congressmen have no power and are controlled by a few congressmen at the top. Furthermore, since these congressmen are placed in office by concentrated power, its debatable how much any of these congressmen is executing free will. The top congressmen chair and are on the powerful committees, however they often have no previous experience in the subjects that they cover. Many Better Ways
There are several things that could be changed which would make the legislative process logical and would allow it serve the public interest.
Have 50 congressmen and have them elected nationally, that is every person in the US votes for an elects all 50 congressmen. (this way they will not support parochial interests, but could look for the broader public interest)
Have 10 major areas of legislation segmented (eg. defense and national security, agriculture, energy policy, education, health, infrastructure, etc), and have each area managed by 5 congressmen. The congressmen can be run and be elected based upon their experience in these areas, so experts can be selected for each committee
Make congressional elections 100% government supported, so that there is no money involved
Pay each congressman $250,000 a year for their service, and then an extra $250,000 for each year for the next 5 years after their term, and bar them from work after their tenure. This will prevent the congressmen from being bought by moving into industry after their government work.
Limit each congressman to 20 aides. There is no reason for a staff of more than 25 for each of these congressmen. This would bring the total congressional employment down to 1000. That would be a dramatic cut from 30,000. With no one to give money to, the lobbying industry would greatly shrink as well.
As we face the end of 2008, there is an approaching doom that is hard to miss. Here are a number of the reasons to be pessimistic about the future.
Environmental damage and global warming continues unabatted
The US consumption based model is being copied around the globe
The US political structure is becoming increasingly corrupt and incapable of change (exactly as Thomas Jefferson predicted)
The US financial system is becoming increasingly unstable with a major financial crisis every 7 years.
The US population is dumbing down and easily controlled by the media system
New immigration is bringing in extremely combative and selfish cultures and cultures that don’t have conceptions of birth control or resource management
World population is out of control
All of these issues are in plain view and extremely little is being done about them. This is because it would require sacrifice or novel ways of investing our resources. Both of these options are offensive to our simpleminded sensibilities. Even the mention that there are not unlimited resources and that we may have to sacrifice cause many people to fall into a rage. Our ability to leverage scientific and industrial discoveries is now completely outstripping our ability to know when to use them judiciously. This means we can no longer effectively moderate the damage we cause with our economic and industrial activities. Now that the environmental damage to the planet is generally accepted (it only took 50 years, as global warming was known as far back as 1958), we are still is not resulting in meaningful changes. An ignorant population is easily distracted by non-solutions to the problem like hydrogen. Industry has very little incentive to look at the long term as they compensate their executives in 3 month increments. Even the “educated” population in the US thinks science will come up with answers to our problems and we don’t need to make adjustments.
We have the greatest respect for organizations like Greenpeace, however they are losing the battle.
These combine factors spell doom for the civilized system that many thought we had developed in the Western Democracies. Furthermore, the planet is close to reaching a point where global warming will become self sustaining. The science of it is explained here.
It is a virtual certainty that we are going into a very difficult time, economically and environmentally. Increased greed and consumerism in the US and globally, in addition to compliant media systems make it impossible to stop this steady march. Too much effort has been spent on proposing how things can change, without a sober analysis of what the actual probabilities of change are. We propose the probabilities for change are small and our evidence is that there have not been changes to these negative tends since they began. For instance, environmental regulation passed in the 1970s in the US was not a change of course. It may have slowed the decline, but every year, though every supposed adjustment, the ice caps continued to melt, the fisheries continued to decline and global temperatures continued to rise. There is simply very little cultural progress. Every one of the lessons of Vietnam had to be relearned in Iraq. So we have a population that is amnesia tic not up the task of demanding change and in fact they may be as short sighted as their institutions. There has been meeting after meeting on these topics, innumerable treaties signed, UN conferences attended and funds raised, all with little effect on the degenerative march. Part of being an adult is admitting when things have reached a hopeless state, and taking the appropriate measures.
Here are some personal adjustments that can help protect thinking people.
Either do not have kids, or have only one. The future will be marked by fewer opportunities, more wars over shrinking resources and more cheating and fraud. Intelligent people don’t want their children to live in this environment. Furthermore, even if intelligent people have children, people with no standards and from disadvantaged cultures and genetics are reproducing like bunny rabbits. They are primitive, and they want a Mercedes. They have read Donald Trump’s book on success and they will do what it takes to be a winner. You can not compete with them, these craven dummies are set to inherit this diminished planet. Ignorant and self centered people are the dominant human form in any case.
Stockpile cash. More frequent financial crisis means the need for more financial protection. Don’t let the investment industry steal your money, as money is one of the few things that will protect you in the tooth and nail environment we are going into. Every prospectus you read, every company story you see in business magazines, every investment commercial is really about your money going into someone else’s pocket. That is the actual intent and outcome once you move past the images, fancy degrees, complex numbers and the soaring rhetoric.
Don’t get involved in binding contracts like marriages or credit card agreements. Cheating is at an all time high and the concentration of power gives the advantage to business over individuals. Individuals can protect themselves by minimizing their exposure to contracts.
Maintain your health. The US health care system has gone down the toilet and probably is not coming back. The best health insurance (which often does not pay out in any case) is a healthy lifestyle and exercise and diet. If you get sick, the medical industry, which is self perpetuating, will want to fill you with expensive treatments and pharmaceuticals of questionable value.
Be extremely careful what media you ingest. If it comes to you, its is most probably subservient to corporate interests. Taking its advice will lead to bad decision for you, financially, emotionally and intellectually. Large media interests presume you to be a fool, passively waiting to understand the world through their analysis and to be told what beer to buy and what values to hold.
Global Warming References
“Recent decades have seen record-high average global surface temperatures. Thermometer readings sufficient to provide reliable global averages are available back to 1850 (Brohan et al. 2006). In the past century, global surface temperature increased by about 1.4 °F (Fig. 1). In the past quarter-century, according to satellite measurements, the lower atmosphere warmed by 0.22- 0.34 °F per decade, equivalent to 2-3 °F per century (Christy and Spencer 2005; Mears and Wentz 2005).” – http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/global-warming-science-brief-august08.pdf
It’s also important to note that even though the full impact of that gradual melting won’t be for 500 years or so, we are reaching a point where we can’t turn back. The system is slow to change, but the change is somewhat unstoppable once it gets going. Unless we quickly reduce the present rate of carbon dioxide increase and subsequent temperature rise, we will be committing ourselves and our planet to that melting, and to the rise in sea level that will follow. – http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html
During the McCain and Obama Presidential contest, ACORN was first accused by Republicans of voter fraud and then the FBI was said to be investigating the organization and raided its offices. What is ACORN?
In order to understand this case its important to understand what ACORN is and what they do. They have a host of low and moderate income issues they support. However, with regards to elections, they perform voter registration for groups that are typically disenfranchised from the political system. That is they pay people to register other people who ordinarily would not be part of the electoral system.
According to Wikipedia:
“Where ACORN has discovered that its workers submitted potentially false voter registration forms, it has followed legal requirements to submit the forms to voter registrars, flagged as requiring additional attention. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.[19]” – Wikipedia
This is what the controversy was about. That a higher percentage of their registrations were rejected, that is they were not valid. Some of these rejections were due to fictitious names. For instance, Mickey Mouse was registered to vote in some county. First its important to understand that this is not voter fraud, this is registration fraud. However, registration fraud is a very bad way to try and influence an election. The registration is cross checked with other pieces of personal data and is rather easily eliminated from the voter role. Secondly, registering people that do not exist might be good for a person being paid to collect registrations, but it does not do anything to affect the election, because that fictitious person never appears to vote, even if the registration cross check does not work properly. So, if ACORN were fraudulently attempting to influence the election, registering people that do not exist is a strange way to do it.
The FBI Comes In
Now we come to the FBI’s involvement. As you should be able to tell from the paragraph above, there was no voter fraud charged against ACORN, only registration fraud, which ACORN would never have benefited from, and which was mostly likely done by people who worked for ACORN that were attempting to get their “numbers” up. These faulty registrations were already eliminated by a computerized matching system. So the question arises, why did the FBI decide to peruse this case? There are elections boards that could investigate (although there would be little reason to bother). So why the interest from the FBI, which does not specialize in voter fraud investigations? The answer most likely lies in political patronage. Having the FBI investigate ACORN might have helped McCain in his bid for the presidency. Bush, who holds the reigns of the Department of Justice, which holds the reigns of the FBI wants McCain to win to obvious reasons. (and less obvious, as an Obama presidency is more likely to uncover the massive amount of illegal activtiy which took place under Bush).
The FBI’s Great Concern for Voting Integrity
What is most interesting is that there were documented irregularities in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida and in the 2004 election in Ohio, yet the FBI did not see fit to investigate. Tens of thousands of voters were removed from the roles by ChoicePoint (http://www.choicepoint.com/), voting machines gave Gore negative votes, the list goes on and on, yet the FBI never did any investigating. As the movie Hacking Democracy (http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/) shows, DieBold (http://www.diebold.com/default.htm) is continuing to make and sell a voting machine that can be hacked in 10 seconds, which has a program on memory cards and which uses a database with no logging system (MS Access) as the system of record for the voting database. Yet, the FBI does not investigate. Perhaps on the Diebold voting machine issue, the head of DieBold’s promise to deliver Florida for Bush in 2004 may have had something to do with the FBI’s lack of interest. These are “real” instances of voter fraud and voter suppression, not some easily correctable and non-issue like the ACORN affair. This brings up the question of how the FBI chooses its cases. As the Elliot Spitzer investigation and the ACORN investigation point towards, the FBI is about investigating things that give the current administration a leg up on the competition. Illegality is an almost incidental concern at the FBI, political patronage and scratching the back of concentrated power their first priority. Hollywood might want to consider this when the make their next FBI movie that shows the Bureau doing things that help protect the general public.
Blog on Human Nature
Warning. Reading this blog may increase your cynicism.
