Department of Defense?

Shortly after the September 11^th attacks, the U.S. government decided it was necessary to create a new governmental department, the Department of Homeland Security. The job of this new department is, of course, to provide security for the homeland.

Wait a minute?! Something is not right here. Isn’t that what the Department of Defense is supposed to do? To secure the homeland, repel invaders, etc. That is what defense means right? I mean that’s pretty much how departments of defense work in every other country on earth. So what’s the problem? It’s not as if they don’t have enough resources to provide security for the homeland; the DOD takes up about a fourth of the federal budget. Think about that - a quarter of all government spending on one organization! So isn’t the creation of a Department of Homeland Security a bit redundant? Well…yes and no. If we look at the DOD’s job description, then the answer is yes; but if we look at what they actually do, then the answer is no.

The truth is the vast majority of the DOD’s money and personnel go into foreign projects, not domestic. When I was in the Marines I spent a year on a base in Iwakuni, Japan. Chances are that unless you were stationed there, or had some relative stationed there, you’ve probably never heard of it. Your average American citizen is virtually clueless about what their own government is doing overseas. I’m sure everyone knows that the U.S. is conducting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. But how many foreign bases do you think the U.S. has, not including those in Iraq in Afghanistan? Would you guess 25, 50, 100, 200? Try 865. Now, they don’t have bases in every country, but still, there are only 193 countries recognized by the United Nations, so that means that the U.S. averages about 4.5 times as many foreign bases as there are countries – again, that’s not even counting the bases in actual warzones. If you are American, that’s why a full quarter of the money you pay in taxes is not enough to defend the homeland. Here’s a map showing how the U.S. military divides up their areas of responsibility:

Yep, that’s pretty much the whole world. The COM in the titles is the abbreviation for command. Not surprisingly, there are many who believe that this is going to bankrupt us (presidential candidate Ron Paul for example). I can’t see how it could be otherwise. 95% of the world’s military bases belong to the U.S. The DOD spends around 1 trillion dollars a year. There are plenty of places in the world where that would exceed the budget of entire countries!

My point is that if we are going to have a department of Homeland Security, then we should change the title of the Department of Defense to the Department of World Security. That would, at least, be a better description of what they do. And it would explain why we found it necessary to create a Department of Homeland Security. And it would help people see more clearly why we are going broke. Its not just programs like Medicare that are causing us to go broke – it’s the whole system – an unsustainable juggernaut of spending.

Sidenote:

Of course there are other issues that could be raised besides just monetary ones. While the U.S. government allows some of our allies to maintain training facilities on certain American bases, there are no foreign bases on U.S. soil. When I talk to non-Americans they are usually surprised to learn that most Americans never even question this arrangement. That’s just the way things are. But to those on the outside looking in, a country that has complete sovereignty over its own territories, but has military bases in other countries all over the globe, looks like an empire. It used to be said that the sun never set on the British empire. And if you are a student of American history you’ll remember that in the Declaration of Independence one of the reasons the Americans sited for rebellion is that the British were “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” Now ain’t that some irony…

Your Primary Identity

Your primary identity is in being known by others. The only ones that really know you are those people that you are in relationship with. Think about it...who really knows you besides your family and friends? I’m not talking about knowing your name. I’m talking about really knowing you - who you are, your personality, your likes and dislikes, your faults and your virtues. Is it possible to be known – to be truly known – by anyone that you don’t have a relationship with?

And yet, so many of us neglect our relationships for other pursuits. It is usually something with status attached - wealth, fame, education, accomplishments, etc. - the so called “keeping up with the Joneses.” Why? What good is it to be successful in your work, but a crappy spouse? Why would you want to be rich, if you didn’t have friends to share it with? That’s madness. When you die, people won’t say, “He was a very successful lawyer,” or, “She was a famous chef,” they’ll say, “He was a great friend,” or, “She was a wonderful mother”…or they won’t say anything at all.

Charismatic Experiences, Part 1

For those readers who are not familiar with the term, charismatic experiences are seemingly super-natural events that may involve strong emotions, and/or hypnotic states. For example, receiving prophetic messages, being “possessed” by some sort of spirit, speaking in tongues, loss of emotional/physical control in worship, etc., would all be charismatic experiences.

I was brought up in a Christian tradition which, for the most part, rejects charismatic experiences. But when I was in my early twenties I had two friends that were members of the same church as me who visited a Pentecostal church and came back reporting that they themselves entered into a state of consciousness by which they could speak in tongues. Both of them were convinced that it was the authentic work of the Holy Spirit. I was curious about these experiences and so I visited that same church and tried to be as open minded as possible. Nothing happened to me. It was a bit disappointing really. I would have honestly loved to have experienced something miraculous.

On a few other occasions, I have been invited by Pentecostal friends to visit their churches. Some Pentecostal churches are fairly subdued, just a few people privately muttering in tongues, or maybe a testimony or two about a healing. Others are just wild. I once visited a church where halfway into the song service the worship leader jumped off the stage and started running around the perimeter aisles of the auditorium screaming like a crazy man, and the pastor started shouting, “That man’s possessed by the Holy Spirit!” A few seconds later, a wave of emotion swept over the crowd and people started falling down on the floor and rolling around laughing or crying, or sometimes both. For the people of that church that may have just been like any other Sunday, but for me it was an incredibly bizarre experience. My friends assured me that it was the work of the Holy Spirit, but I had my doubts.

I confess that I am skeptical that there is anything supernatural involved in these experiences. I’m skeptical for a couple of reasons. For one, as I mentioned before, I grew up in a Christian tradition that is skeptical about charismatic experiences. My father, especially, instilled in me a skepticism towards these events. He often pointed out, I think correctly, the role of emotion in charismatic churches. I am also skeptical about such experiences because I know how easily people can be manipulated. P.T. Barnum famously said, "There's a sucker born every minute." A crass way to put it, but a truer word has never been spoken.

To illustrate this, I’d like to point to the work of Derren Brown. Derren Brown is a British entertainer who specializes in a type of performance known as mentalism. Mentalists use a combination of hypnotism, subliminal messaging, and other forms of subconscious suggestion to manipulate people’s thoughts and emotions. A good mentalist can convince an audience that they have supernatural psychic abilities. And Derren is one of the best in the world. Derren openly admits what he does is strictly showmanship. Even so, after his shows some people are still convinced that he has supernatural powers. You can find all sorts of funny clips on Youtube of Derren doing things like paying for expensive jewelry with plane pieces of paper, or convincing a man who wants a leather jacket that he actually wants a BMX bike - all through the art of suggestion. He always uses real people for his shows, not actors. And he is able to do this for the simple fact that he is very well practiced at manipulating people.

So what does this have to do with charismatic experiences? Well, believe it or not, these same techniques are used by some charismatic church leaders to bring their parishioners into the state of mind in which they have their "spiritual" experiences. It's also the same techniques that psychics and other new age miracle workers use. Derren himself often felt frustrated seeing these people on TV claiming to be empowered by the Holy Spirit, or having psychic powers, when in fact he knew that they were using the same tricks that he uses. He felt that these people were praying on the naivety of others for financial gain. So he decided to do a little experiment to see if he could convince, not just random people, but the experts themselves, that he too has these abilities. He recorded this as a television special in hopes of opening people’s eyes to how easily such “powers” can be faked. He takes aim at several different groups: psychics, people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, people who claim that they can talk to the dead, and, most interestingly, evangelical Christians.

It is both fascinating and disturbing to see how easily such experiences can be produced by someone who knows what they are doing. You can watch the entire special by following the links below. If you are just interested in the Christian portion, watch the first few minutes of clip 1 and then skip to clip 3. It is well worth your time to watch them. If any of my readers are of charismatic leanings, I'd love to hear what you think when you watch this video. I’ll post some further reflections of the value, or nonvalue, of these experiences in a later post. Here's a question for reflection: Do you think charismatic experiences are necessary for faith?

Derren Brown special part 1

Derren Brown special part 2

Derren Brown special part 3

Derren Brown special part 4

Derren Brown special part 5

Derren Brown special part 6

Derren Brown special part 7

Derren Brown special part 8

Just Do It

I hope I can use that title sentence without incurring the wrath of Nike.

Here's an axiom for you: an imperfect course of action is better than no action at all. A friend on Facebook shared the following quote from the blog leadershipfreak.wordpress.com :

I used to excuse my lack of doing with the comfort that I wanted to do something. Passionate sincere wanting without performance is, however, cheap, easy, and self-deluding.

Wanting to do something doesn’t mean much. I’d rather want less and do more.

Talking enhances the delusion of doing. When talking, if I’m not careful, I believe I’ve done something. Nothing could be further from the truth. Talking isn’t doing.

Perfecting things before doing them, in addition, is overrated. It’s better to perfect things while you do them. Most activities don’t require perfection. In the end, it’s the doing that matters.

When I do more and talk less, I want less too. Doing quiets empty wanting.

Jettison your empty dreams of making a difference. Toss out cheap self-delusions and go perform an imperfect act of service. Lift someone. Find a small way to put your dream into action.

Do something; stand on it and do something again. What you do makes a difference not what you want to do.

Can you relate to this? I know I can. I've seen this in workplaces, schools, churches, families, and of course, myself. There is always a temptation to put something off until you are better at it, or have more time, or the stars are properly aligned, or something. It seems we always are able to find some reason why we can't do something right now. And yes, I've heard plenty of self-delusional talking. I've been in churches that talked about being outreach oriented even though they had not made a significant attempt at engaging their community in twenty years. I think they sincerely liked the idea of being outreach oriented, but actual community involvement would have taken a more proactive effort.

Imagine how our personal lives and the institutions we are involved with would change if we adopted this attitude.

New Theory on Reason

I came across a link to this article on another blog. I haven't read the article yet, just the abstract (summary), so I have no idea what evidence the authors present in support of their argument. But what the abstract suggests is that the evidence points towards reason having an effect, not so much on a person's ability to think wisely, but on a person's ability to win arguments. I thought this was interesting in light of my post a few weeks ago on the limits of reason in decision making situations. I suggested that, from personal experience, intuition is usually a better guide. If this "Argumentative theory" is correct, then that would support my hypothesis. Here's the abstract:

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory

Hugo Mercier 

University of Pennsylvania

Dan Sperber 

affiliation not provided to SSRN


Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, 2011 
Abstract:     
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

Homeopathy

I've seen the term on homeopathy on products in health food stores for years, but never really bothered to look into it. But today I came across this video of James Randi giving a lecture at Princeton University explaining the philosophy behind the practice. James Randi is a well known investigator, who some may remember as the man who exposed Uri Gellar as a fraud. Here's the video:

Political Oddities

I tend to be pretty cynical toward politics in general and politicians in particular. I’m not a member of any particular political party and probably never will be. I have a friend who has a tag at the bottom of all his emails that says, “In God we trust, it’s politicians we should doubt.” That pretty well sums up my view of politicians. Besides a general distrust of them, I also find their parties to be very odd. I find them odd because their platforms are composed of many differing sets of ideas that often have nothing to do with one another. Nothing. There is no rhyme or reason or logic as to why they have chosen to fold all of the positions they hold into one platform. Instead, their positions are, more often than not, accidents of history that are the result of building political coalitions – bringing together different groups and ideologies under one banner in order to have enough votes to defeat their political opponents. My own country is full of examples of this cobbling together of disparate positions.

For example, what does it mean to be pro-life? In the U.S. it means to be anti-abortion. Now, whether you agree with that position or not, the logic behind it seems fairly obvious:

It is wrong to take innocent human life.

The unborn fetus is an innocent human life.

Therefore abortion is wrong.

What is unusual is the position this issue takes in each of the perspective parties. Democrats are more likely to be pro-choice, and Republicans are more likely to be pro-life (even Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney became pro-life when he decided to run for president). Now, the odd thing about this is that democrats are also more likely to be against things like capital punishment, and aggressive military strategies. And with the Republicans it is just the opposite. Though, of course, you can find exceptions in both cases.

Now I personally believe that these issues are apples to oranges – too different to really be comparable. But what if someone believed that to be truly pro-life you should be against all three? Whether we agree with them or not, we could not accuse them of inconsistency. After all, abortion, execution, and invasion all involve the taking of life. And there really is nothing that says the typical stands that either party have taken on these issues have to be paired together in that particular configuration. A person could just as easily be against (or for) all three, or for and against differing pairs (e.g. against abortion and invasion, but for execution). It all seems rather arbitrary to me.

Another example of odd political pairings, or in this case plain old inconsistencies, comes with most politicians who label themselves as libertarian. To be libertarian means that you want to be free of government intervention and involvement beyond the maintenance of basic services – keeping the roads paved, the mail delivered, basic laws enforced, etc. However, libertarians in both parties apply this principle inconsistently. In the Republican party, libertarians don’t want the government to be involved in things like economics, but typically are happy to let the government make rules and regulations on social issues like gay marriage. Likewise, Democrats that consider themselves libertarians want the government to keep their nose out of social issues, but are happy to let them regulate the economy and redistribute wealth through the tax system. But are either really libertarian? Wouldn’t a consistent libertarian be against government involvement in all areas of life, social or economic? And why do those particular inconsistencies show up so consistently in each party?

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the party in Australian politics that is roughly analogous to the Republican party in the United States is known as the Liberal party. This would be a surprise because Republicans are generally thought of as conservatives. The reason for the seemingly strange parallel is that the Republican party, generally speaking, holds to a liberal economic position. Again, this would come as a surprise to many American voters because in common everyday usage Republican = conservative, and therefore any position that the Republicans take is labeled conservative. But historically, and still today in many places in the world, the economic position that supports an unregulated free market, laissez-faire capitalism, is considered a liberal position. What Republicans are conservative on is social issues - especially Republicans who identify with the religious right. But again, this marriage of the religious right with the economic left seems rather arbitrary. One does not entail the other. It is not far fetched to think that a person could be for increases in both social and economic regulation. Or likewise, that they could be pure libertarians, and be against both.

The more conservative economic position would be a market in which the government places more controls and regulations on the economy through taxes, tariffs, etc. And this is, generally speaking, the position of most Democrats. This also may surprise some people because Democrats are usually referred to as liberals. And they are, just not on economics. They are liberal on social and religious issues. And again, we have this strange pairing of liberal and conservative ideas – only in the exact opposite configuration – they are liberals religiously and socially but conservatives economically.

Am I the only one that sees all this as odd? Wouldn’t it make more sense if there was some kind of unifying center in each of the parties? Wouldn't it seem more natural to have one party that was against the taking of life on dogmatic grounds and the other that left open the possibility on pragmatic grounds? Or wouldn't it make just as much sense if there was a party that was conservative both socially and economically, and a party that was liberal both socially and economically? 

And these are just a couple of examples – you can do this with almost every political issue you can think of. There is no unifying code of ethics, or political ideology, or even a common theme from issue to issue. It is almost as if every time a particular issue came up, the parties each rolled a dice to decide what position they would take (or more likely, took a poll). The end result being that neither party is truly characterized by a consistent position across the issues. Instead, both look like patchwork quilts sewn together by a blind person.