How Indiana's religious freedom bill came to be - A theory

I've seen a great deal about this in the past few hours. Mostly talking about the evil, malicious nature of the law, and praise for the various organizations who are aiming financial punishment at the state for their participation in this act of discrimination.

It took a fair amount of hunting to find the actual text of the law, here.

It is true legalese, Mind numbing, vague, sterile... But after a few reads through, I really didn't see the malice or intent to discriminate that the opinion-sters are buzzing about. It looks more like they are trying to protect against discrimination against religious groups to me, such as the well-worn photographer case. (Just a thought, since photography is a form of personal expression, arguably, falling under free speech - that was the argument Larry Flint made and won years ago - Isn't compelling someone to photograph something they don't believe in, in essence a violation of their right to free speech?)



Last night an alternate theory came to me, as to how this all went down. Let me start by establishing the straight-gay continuum. The distribution numbers are purely guesses, but I expect this is approximately what the population distribution looks like.

Now, 4L and 4R, though the smallest groups, are the ones who get the most attention; make the most noise. If you hear something in the news, it is most likely coming from 4L, 3L, 3R or 4R.


Now I won't speculate as to how it all really began, that is lost somewhere in the past, and the fallibility of human memory virtually guarantees it isn't coming to light. But more recently, I suspect someone in 4L did something to irritate 4R - most probably launched an attack against a 2R. so 4R, and probably some 3R went storming off to the legislature to do something about it. I imagine 2R got involved as well, as they were the group who got attacked.

2R then produced a general idea for a law that would provide protection. 4R wasn't happy with it, and tried to push the law to be more aggressive in nature. 2R favored something more precise, less vague, but as 3R pointed out, 4L would not be happy with the law regardless, and would actively seek to invalidate the law. 2R conceded and thus relented to requests for greater vagary as a proactive defense against these inevitable attacks.

And thus the baby was born, with plenty of crying, screaming and pooping to go around.

I believe this model fits rather well, conforms to the wisdom of Hanlan's razor, and likely fits just as well with most every controversial bit of legislation.

A few other points it brings out:

• 2L, 1L, 1R and 2R make up the majority, yet they get the least say, and are usually the cannon fodder in these issues. They seriously get taken advantage of.

• Politicians don't really like 2L - 2R. These people tend to be reasonable, rational, which means they could vote either way, given solid, accurate, informed, unemotional information. Politicians need to stay in office, so while they may not really like the Jihadist nature of 4L and 4R, they nonetheless try to push the respect 2's toward the 4 position through crowd manipulation, to help secure their votes.

• 4L and 4R are where Terrorists come from. They are black/white thinkers. They aren't willing to compromise - a necessary feature of living in large groups(unless of course you think absolute homogeneity is a good idea [read up on the history of bananas]). I read a rather compelling quote recently - dealing with engineering, but it applies well here - "There is no one right answer, just different flavors of wrong."

Eliminating Inalienable Constitutional Rights Pt. 3

I spent two post laying ground work, so let me get to my point, Many fo the groups who are out and about defending constitutional rights.... are doing it wrong.

Here is one very good example. Warning, it is long, and somewhere after about 5 min he throws out a fair amount of profanity. Sixty seconds is really enough to get the point.

Here's one more, from the same 2nd amendment theme.

And one last one of a different nature (Don't wast your time after about 2:00. Very boring and pointless). Yes, I realize I am talking about the constitution and showing a clip form another country. Don't get lost in the minutiae.

The point, imbeciles like this run around "defending our rights" by thumbing their noses, being confrontational, and demanding that our rights be protected. They seem to lack understanding that those rights can be revoked. There is nothing so sacred about the 2nd amendment that it could never be removed.

Instead of investing so much effort in schooling authorities on "The law", their time would be better served in teaching responsible use of said freedoms. Yes you have a right to open carry a firearm. But spend enough time flashing your gun just for the sake of proving your right, and you may very well find that right taken away. And you can then be as belligerent as you want about the loss of freedom, about the Countries descent into fascism, into police state-ism, but it will still be your fault.

Eliminating Inalienable Constitutional Rights - Pt. 2

The U.S. Declaration of Independence talks about "Inalienable human rights", among which are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and establishes "The Government"'s purpose as that of protecting those rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were formulated around that idea, and enumerated some freedoms deemed necessary, consequent to, or otherwise inherent in those inalienable human rights.

But.

Those documents -ultimately are just documents, written by men. Based on their feelings/opinions/inspiration. They are therefore subject to change - and have changed over time. (18th amendment is a good example).

And irrespective of those documents, what rights do we have which are truly inalienable? i.e. Natural, cannot be taken away?

Life? That is taken away all to often, for any number of valid or invalid reasons.

Liberty?  Plenty of people are robbed of this.There are still an estimated 20-30 million slaves in the world today.

Pursuit of happiness? That one might stand. You are free to pursue it, assuming that you recognize happiness as a personal state of mind, not dependent upon the behavior of others, or the accumulation of things.

Freedom of speech can be curtailed.  Freedom of religion can be drastically restricted. Firearms and property can be confiscated. Laws can be changed. And as technology progresses, there may be a day when even Freedom of thought could be intruded upon.

Much of human freedom in the crowd setting is - a social construct. We are what we as a group decide we are. We have the "freedoms" we decide to give.

Does this all make sense? Have a made a logical error anywhere?

Eliminating "Inalienable" Constitutional Rights

Imagine that you and three of your best friends have gone together to purchase a $300,000+ Lamborghini Aventador.

Everyone gets a day on a rotating schedule. One evening, you are out with the friend whose day it is. You had gone separate ways briefly to run a few errands. You are back at the car, waiting - just as the sun is beginning to set. Your friend shows up, staggering slightly and it becomes quite obvious that your friend is fairly inebriated, and thoroughly impaired. You offer to drive but your friend insists it is his day, and he is going to drive.

Now assume that your drive home follows a narrow, winding road with an abundance of very steep drop-offs. Are you going to stay in the car with your friend? You have a considerable investment in it after all. Furthermore, you realize that the drive home is going to take you right through a large park, which this particular evening is hosting the state championship kick-the can tournament. It is therefore  going to be literally crawling with hordes of youngsters in dark clothing, paying scant attention to traffic.

Bad planning on the part of city officials aside, is it fair to say that there are certain times and certain circumstances when it is appropriate, even necessary to restrict the freedoms of certain individuals? In the interest of the freedoms of other individuals?

An alligator in Logan, UT

At lunch today I went for a walk. There is a path near my office which runs along the Logan river, through a pasture. It was cold, raining-on-the-verge of snowing. SO I had my hood pulled down, and I was walking fairly quickly.

The path crosses the river a couple times via little foot bridges, and as I approached the last bridge on my return trip, I caught movement in the water, just at the edge of my peripheral vision. My first thought, given the abundance of tadpoles was "frog", but it was really too large to be a frog, and moved through the water much to smoothly.

Then, whether because I had started at frog and therefore had amphibian (and consequently reptile) on my brain, or because my wife and I have been looking a pictured of Florida the night before, or both, I quite clearly realized that what I was seeing was none other than an alligator! A small one, maybe a a foot or two in length, but most definitely the correct size, shape, texture, color and motion.

Then that smart-astic voice in the back of my head chimed in with that annoyingly smug voice...

"Really..... You are in Logan.... Utah.... in the middle of January, in rain/snow... And your going with alligator?"

At about that moment, the muskrat dove under the water and out of site.

The funny thing was for that brief instant, I really did see an alligator, that is how my mind interpreted the visual stimuli it received. It was only at that very last instant, that rational mind kicked in and saw "Things as they really are".

I got to thinking about that- how often, to what extent, and for how long do our brains get misled in a life time, by misinterpreted or out of context stimuli or information?

And has this phenomena increased in the age of tweets, instagrams... increasingly short and fast info-bits?

Race and Plumbers: A Conspiracy Theory

Bear with me while I invoke a few hypotheticals for consideration...

A couple decades ago, I remember reading a study in a Scholarly journal in which the author presented a correlation between lead exposure and violence. The author further implied that inner city areas, where older buildings, contained greater quantities of lead paint and lead plumbing, could be significant factors in explaining higher crime levels there.

Given that these locations have a higher probability of being home to underprivileged, and the U.S. Black population tends to be concentrated in larger cities, and has a higher ratio of underprivileged, is it possible that much of the significantly higher levels of violence in the Black community could be attributed to lead poisoning?

Stretching deeper into hypothetical territory – African Americans have a substantially higher rate of sickle cell anemia. (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sca/atrisk)

what if there is a correlative genetic component which makes one more sensitive to the effects of lead toxicity?

All hypothetical, yes, and increasingly so at the end, but what if?

What if the disparity in violence between the black population and other populations in the U.S. could be drastically reduced by simply eliminating the lead paint, the lead plumbing, any other sources of lead from the geography?

Is keeping the focus and resources on “Racism” (more specifically White racism) diverting resources and attention from other, potentially more effective approaches to the problem (environment, poverty, culture, ...) ?

Pornography, Addiction, Depression and Science

I've seen quite a few conversations recently around the link between pornography addiction and depression. There have been quite a few articles on the subject in the past few years, and recently there seems to have been an uptick in conversation.

The articles all talk about scientific studies, but rarely give references.That is fairly typical; most people don't want to wade through scientific studies, and often the studies are not available for free, public consumption. Price to access such studies can run into the hundreds of dollars.

I did find this study from 1998. It seems to be reasonably sound, albeit short. The methods are well documented, and they do a good job of summarizing the results without bias.

The articles are often very good, very well thought out, and make very compelling, and logically reasonable arguments (I though this one was particularly compelling).

But they are ultimately opinion pieces, and they are interpreting the data the way they choose. Nearly every article I have read seems to be interpreting in the same way. The directly or indirectly implied assertion of the articles is that Pornography addiction leads to depression.

This concerns me. It concerns me because the general public may take this assertion as proven, scientific truth, when it isn't. It is certainly one way to interpret the data, but it is not the only way.


From the study I referenced, the following quote is critical (emphasis added):

"Based on the findings, it is concluded that evaluation of suspected cases of PIU [pathological internet use] should include assessment for depression. These results, however, do not clearly indicate whether depression preceded the development of such Internet abuse or if it was a consequence."

In other words, while it is POSSIBLE that Pornography addiction causes depression....

It is EQUALLY POSSIBLE that depression causes a predisposition to addiction (not just addiction to pornography but any and all addictive/compulsive behaviors).

Most articles I am seeing only consider the former, and not the latter possibility. This is concerning, as it can lead to blaming the victim. There is a commonly repeated theme - perhaps more frequently in America, that we are solely responsible for our destinies. That thought, infused with pride, tends to lead to a converse thought that others are solely to blame for their misfortunes. "They are the just punishments for their sins", either in this life or the life previous. The oversimplification of the phrase "You reap what you sow" ignores life's, floods, firestorms, hurricanes, droughts... It discounts the impact of genetics, environment, and the effects of social interaction for good or ill.

My own theory, I suspect that depression and addiction work together in a feedback cycle. each increasing the effects of the other. I'd even go so far as to suggest that a long-term addiction could effect a genetic change, increasing the probability of a predisposition in offspring. And thus the key is to work up, rather than down the spiral.

What would change by recognizing both possibilities equally?

Treatment for addiction probably wouldn't change all that much. Perhaps a little more attention to possible links to - and treatment for depression might arise,

But there might be a greater degree of compassion for those who suffer from addictions, if we recognized the genetic predisposition. We might also be able to develop means to identify those genetically predisposed to addiction, and better prepare them in advance to avoid becoming trapped in addictive behaviors. Perhaps also, we as a society would be more willing to make potentially addictive substances less overtly available, if we understood how we were negatively effecting those individuals.

Perhaps...