Looks Like We Still Have A Long Way To Go

Ever seen the ad for the 1933 Double Eagle Gold Coin? I saw it just now on the History Channel. "It's the rarest $20 gold piece and the single rarest coin ever struck. Our Treasury Department estimates its worth at up to $8 million dollars!" Now, so I heard, you can get your own government issued $20 piece at, are you sitting down, face value. That's right, if you act now, you get an $8 million dollar coin for just 20 bucks. I was instantly pulled in.

Then, the guy recounted the story of how the coin was lost and recovered and is now so amazingly valuable. "When President Roosevelt ordered the destruction of gold coins in 1933, one single coin escaped meltdown. Then it was stolen, bought, hidden, and finally seized by the Treasury Department, and sealed in a vault at Fort Knox. Now it has become the single most valuable coin ever struck when it was auctioned in New York City on July 30th, 2002."

Guess that settles it. Where do I call?

Folks, this commercial has been running for a looooong time. It costs money to run commercials. That money is usually provided by sales of whatever happens to be selling on those commercials. Ergo, some idiots are buying these things (idiots who watch the History Channel, no less). To do what, spend them? Hell no, they're worth $8 million bucks.

Wonder what they do when Vinny at the Pawn Shop says it's worth 20 bucks? Oh well, looks like an enlightened nation is still quite a long distance over the horizon...

The Status-Oriented Inferiority Complex

I know a Brazilian girl who is attractive, smart, and has a great personality. She's down to earth, open-minded, and accepting of everyone. The problem is that she doesn't know it. Or maybe she knows it, but it doesn't matter. There is something else that hinders her ability to realize her value as a human being. She comes from a poor family. In other words, she started life with very little status, and this has given her an inferiority complex that plagues her even to this day.

The current in thinking in evolutionary psychology is that the human mind was designed by natural selection to be very cognisant of status within social groups. In caveman days, when natural selection was in full force shaping man's ability to survive, being high on the social totem pole translated into a direct reproductive advantage. The humans that survived, therefore, were the ones who had a genetic predisposition to seek and obtain status. They were our ancestors, which means that we share their genetic quest for status. However, now that status is unncessary for survival, the mind's tendency to seek it is causing all sorts of problems. My Brazilian friend is a perfect example.

She is a first generation American. Her family moved to the US when she was very young. Her parents have worked tirelessly to give their daughter opportunities that they never had. So, by seeing to it that she was able to attend college, they are still poor. And because she is human and status is important to her brain, she feels inferior to people who come from more wealthy families. She dates a guy whose father is a doctor. She admitted to me once that she often feels uncomfortable around him, especially when his parents are present. It is as if she feels unworthy of him. She suspects that his family would prefer him to date someone with a better background. This is truly sad.

The fact is that our standing at birth is absolutely irrelevant in today's world. The notion that some people are better than others simply because their families have more money is ludicrous. Yes, it is true that those born into wealth have access to better education. They often have more opportunities in life. However, to suppose that this somehow translates into human value is a tragic mistake.

If you want to see what makes for a valuable human being, go to a cemetary and read some grave stones. Rarely, if ever, will you see, "John Smith 1935-2004, Largest Landowner in the State." They say things like, "Loving father of three" or "Friend to all people." The point is that human value can only be based upon ethics. What do we as people hold as the core of our values? Do we respect others? Are we honest? Do we value fairness and justice? Do we seek knowledge? In the end, this is what brings love to our lives, and this, in my view, is what it's all about.

So, to my Brazilian friend, I say this. Forget about where you come from. Concentrate on who you are as a person. Most importantly, demand that others do the same. Those who would hold your background against you are not worthy of your time, no matter how much money they may have. It is the fact that you are a good person that matters. All else is trivia. Your mind is indeed wired to respond differently, but this is not beyond your control. As a rational, conscious being, you can choose to follow your emotions or you can choose to reason your way to a positive self-opinion. And the good news is that once you start down the road of rejecting those emotions that make no sense, life becomes a much larger place. It gets easier with every passing day to cling to what you know makes for a good person and to reject status-oriented assessments of yourself. When feelings of inadequacy pop into your brain, you simply escort them out, knowing that they are artifacts of our collective human history that have no place in today's world. Pretty soon, those thoughts will be gone for good.

The plain and simple truth is that those who emphasize status above ethics are the inferior ones. Leave them to their games and get on with your life.

Mindless Allegiance to Extinct Political Ideology

I find it quite interesting to consider the terms liberal and conservative in the context of our two political parties. In the strictest sense, to be liberal is to support change; to be conservative is to support the status quo. So, given the fact that the democrats are the liberal party in the US, one would think that their platform would be all about change. On the other hand, we should expect that republicans would be about keeping things as they are. In many ways, this is the case. However, does this really make sense?

The conservative ideology leans on the idea that those institutions which have stood the test of time are inherently good, simply by virtue of their durability. After all, if it has lasted for 200+ years, it must be right. Alternatively, the liberal ideology embraces the idea that everything is fair game for reconsideration. Liberals hold that we are learning all the time and that we should apply what we learn to our government policies. Just because an institution has been around for a while is no reason to suppose that it makes sense. When it is stated like this, I can't help but side with the libs.

I think we should be willing to rethink everything. Unfortunately, the liberal ideology as it exists today is less about thoughtful consideration of issues and more about reflexive opposition to whatever conservatives like. At the same time, the conservative mentality is now all about opposing libs at all costs. Indeed, the ideological basis of both ideologies appears to be nothing short of extinct. The team mentality, it seems, has taken over. This is a major problem because we live in a time when some things should stay the same and some things are in dire need of an overhaul.

To say that we should be willing to rethink things is not to say that we should automatically throw out our oldest institutions and start over from scratch. There is some validity to the idea that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is the case when it comes to economics in the US. Our economy is, at its core, a free market (setting aside for the moment that the government currently regulates industries in staggering proportions). The basis of the free market is that individuals are best suited to make decisions about their property. The only other option is that they are not. History has shown that anything other than individual ownership and control of property results in tyranny, poverty, and a general decline in economic prosperity. Socialism and communism have never achieved anything remotely as successful as capitalism. That means that when we rethink economics, we come to the conclusion that being economically conservative makes good sense. This is not the case when it comes to social policy.

There are thousands of laws on the books that seek to control the behavior of individuals in our society. Laws related to sexual behavior and drug use are prime examples. When we take the time to rethink these issues, we find that there are alternatives that make a lot more sense, especially considering the fact that the US Constitution is founded on the notion that individuals are free to do whatever they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, it makes sense to be socially liberal. So where does this leave us?

The simple truth is that both of our parties have lost their focus. Again, the political philosophies that once underpinned them are nowhere to be found. Of course, this is no surprise. They are run by politians, people who are far more interested in obtaining power than they are in doing the right thing for the country. Be that as it may, if Democrats and Republicans want to be true to their respective liberal and conservative roots, they should be campaigning differently in this election year. There are great issues for both of them to embrace.

The conservatives should be supporting keeping things as they are - both economically and socially. If they really believe that that which has stood the test of time is good, then their platform should be the status quo. I'm not saying they'd be right; I'm just saying that this is what their ideology demands. On the other hand, the Democrats should be embracing change. However, they should be smart enough to recognize what works and what doesn't. It is senseless to embrace raising taxes on the rich when the record clearly shows that this results in a decline in tax revenues and GDP. There are plenty of other things that need their liberal attention - sex laws, drug laws, marriage laws, etc. Alas, this seems to be a pipe dream.

Kerry, who is as liberal as they come (though he wouldn't dare admit it), has recently condemned Bush's plan to bring home troops from Germany and North Korea. Why would he do that? It's a change, a change that makes good sense. He does it for no other reason than to attack Bush. And Bush? He's expanded the size of the federal government by more than any other president in history. Why would he do that? He's supposed to be about keeping things as they are, right? In the end, we end up with the same old conclusion - the folks controlling this country really have no principles. They are about personal gain at all costs. That means it is extremely foolish to blindly take sides.

Anyone who tells me that they always vote Republican or Democrat is telling me that they don't really know how to think about politics. I'd be a lot more encouraged if they told me that they always support liberalism or conservatism. At least then I could hope that they have a philophical foundation upon which they base their political considerations. Sadly, this is not the case. But I suppose it doesn't really matter. Like I said, in today's world, it really doesn't make sense to be one or the other all the time. Ideally, our electorate should be intellectually curious enough to consider all issues individually and vote according to which politicians are most aligned with those issues they consider the highest priority. Sadly, this too appears to be a pipe dream. So I guess I'll just continue to watch in horror as the politicians slice and dice this great country into little pieces, as US citizens, like European soccer fans, cheer mindlessly for their favorite team.

A word of advice - get rich as fast as possible. Like it or not, the more money you have, the more insulated you are from the manipulations of politicians. That's the reality we find ourselves in.

Education and the Time Horizon of Maturity

Over time, I have become increasingly convinced that maturity is a function of how much considerations of the future play into one's decision-making process. Now that I am a father and am able to witness the development of a little human from birth, my belief is stronger than ever. My nine month old son is light years from mature, and it shows by the fact that his actions are dictated entirely by whatever happens to be occupying his attention at any given moment. As he grows, I expect that he'll start to develop the ability to see into the future to predict the consequences of his actions. This will happen as he learns the physics of this world - action and reaction. Right now, he presses keys on the piano to make a sound. Before long, he'll press specific keys to make specific sounds. Then he'll transition into being aware of time. This, in my view, will be the real start of his maturity, and it will continue to progress as the time horizon of his considerations gets longer and longer.

My job as a parent, beyond seeing to it that my son knows he is number one to me and my wife, is primarily to ensure that he grasps the concept of consequences, but not just immediate consequences. If he is to reach maturity, he will have to develop the ability to consider both the long-term and short-term consequences of his actions, which implies that he'll be concerned about the future. The short-term consequence of doing something dangerous may be having a good time. However, the longer-term consequence is likely to be a severe beating. Just kidding. He'll actually be facing some sort of undesirable punishment, and the nature of that punishment will have to be consistent with his concept of time if it is to be effective. I can't expect a three-year old to be swayed by the threat of missing a birthday party that is a week away. Five minutes of time-out (man, do I hate that phrase) will do nicely. The point of all this is that our society is chocked full of immature individuals, individuals who have a very short time horizon.

It is a commonly held view in many circles that poverty is a mental problem. I am inclined to agree. The vast majority of individuals who are poor are that way because of the choices they have made in life. But the point that I never hear about this is that the root cause of their poor decisions is their inability to see far enough into the future. For whatever reason, these people do not respond to arguments such as, "If you don't study for the test you have tomorrow, you won't be able to get a job that is years away." This, to them, is no different than threatening a toddler with punishment that will not take place for a week. So, it isn't helpful to just point out that these people chose to goof off when they should have been studying. And since the problem is deeper than that, so must the solution be.

I believe our educations systems need a time-horizon component to them. At the beginning of every school year, children need to be reminded that each advance in grade brings with it a requirement for more consideration of the future. Again, they should be held responsible for considering time horizons that are realistic for their ages. But the key is to make sure that the concept of time horizons is one that is pounded into their heads on a continuous basis. When children engage in actions that demonstrate their failure to sufficiently consider the future, they need to be counseled immediately. But this has some implications that our current educators seem unprepared to accept.

The current trend in education is focused on the self-esteem of all students, and it is virtually guaranteeing that the children emerging from US schools will be the most immature that this country has ever seen. If failing makes kids feel bad about themselves, and feeling bad about one's self is unacceptable, the only option is to see to it that no one fails. That is exactly what is happening. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't care about self-esteem. It cares about results. That means we have to abandon this touchy-feely approach to education, and we have to do it right away.

The consequences for failure as a child are minimal. So what if you fail a spelling test in third grade. In fact, failure, in the presence of skilled educators, is a good thing. It makes for the best possible object lessons. Kids should be allowed to fail so that they can be instructed as to what they did wrong and how to avoid failing the next time. It is a mistake to assume that failure automatically means feeling bad about one's self. That's where skilled educators come in. When a child fails, he or she must be made to understand that failure is explicable. Rarely does it boil down to inherent inferiority. It is almost always a function of effort, education, or mindset. The educator's job is to figure out which is the culprit and then to guide the student to the solution, all the while reinforcing the time horizon component of the equation. If this simple little change happens, we'll see our test scores relative to the rest of the world come up dramatically in almost no time. More importantly, we'll graduate students with the ability to understand the long-term consequences of their actions. Given the aging population and the fact that when these kids are adults, there will be more retired people than working people, this is something that we simply cannot live without.

The Resistance to Truth - Part 2

We all know the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound?" The answer is yes. We know because the laws of science that dictate how the impact of the falling tree will produce sound waves do not change, regardless of whether there are human ears present. The fact that the tree makes a sound is what you could call a truth, but is it an absolute truth? It is a description of reality, but just because the laws of nature have yet to fail us, can we say it is absolutely true? No, we can't, but that is no cause for panic. We have to keep in mind that humans are only so capable of perceiving absolute truth.

We are better at starting with a foundation of things we believe to be true, and using those things to infer information about the unknown. We can call this relative truth. That man has to use relative truth to get close to absolute truth is important when it comes to determining the role truth can, and should, play in life. The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was an advocate of the idea that man can never be certain. He was a little extreme in his beliefs in that he held that man's version of reality is a far cry from the real thing. Thanks to modern science, we know that this isn't true. But also thanks to modern science, we know that Kant was right about man never being able to certain.

Our imaginations and our abilities to perceive reality limit our ability to fully grasp it. Yes, we can see very small things with the electron microscope, but we can't see at the subatomic level. That realm is governed by quantum physics. Quantum physics is where man's perceptive faculties fall short of what is required to truly observe the absolute truth of our universe. To deal with this, we use probabilities to describe the qualities of subatomic particles. That's the best we can do, but it's more than good enough. The laws of classical physics are founded on the conclusions we've reached about how subatomic particles behave, and they have proven to be about as reliable as it gets. So what's the point of all this?

If we accept that we can never be certain, we cannot make the mistake of thinking that this entitles us to embrace whatever version of truth happens to be convenient from moment to moment. There is a method, critical rationalism (sort of a lite version of the scientific method) that can and must be used when we're seeking truth. It relies upon the process of proposing hypotheses, testing them, eliminating the ones that do not pass, and choosing the most preferable from among what remains. This is the technique that scientists have used for centuries to get us as close to absolute truth as we are today. The problem is that far too many among us do not recognize the necessity of endeavoring to get as close to absolute truth as possible. It's absolutely essential to eliminating long-term frustration in life, and it isn't always easy.

Take, for example, the current obesity problem. Here's the truth of the matter, the one that stands up to any scrutiny that can be hurled its way - the human body maintains its weight when the calories consumed are more or less on par with the calories expended. It's that simple. Of course, some folks have faster or slower metabolisms, but the variation there isn't as wide as some would like to believe. Nevertheless, obesity is competing with smoking as the number one cause of health problems in the US. What could possibly explain this? The resistance to truth. Period.

Our population is strewn with individuals who refuse to accept this fact. They see ads for junk like Cortislim and for diets that claim to drop weight by several pounds a week, and they become hopeful that somehow science has rewritten the laws of nature. But even if these work, and I have seen no real evidence that they do, the reality is they don't work for long. As soon as the diet is abandoned, the old rule kicks in and the fat returns. And then there are diets like Atkins and the South Beach diet. But these are simply designed to control appetite by controlling blood sugar. That's why they work - they're based on the fact above. Again, however, as soon as the diet is abandoned, the pounds return. And there's always gastric by-pass surgery. It works, too, because it limits caloric intake. In the end, there really is only one solution - lifestyle change, whether it is accomplished by sheer determination or with the assistance of medical science.

People who are overweight have two choices. Either drastically reduce the number of calories consumed or drastically increase the number of calories expended. That's it. So, the key is to choose which of these will work best and then commit to living a life that adheres to it. But that isn't going to be easy, especially if the people in question have let themselves get severely overweight. Be that as it may, the truth is still the truth. The sooner folks start accepting it and living their lives accordingly, the better off they'll be. Resisting truth, in this case, is a fast path to all of the health problems that come with obesity. It all comes down to what role truth plays in life - either you seek it correctly and accept what you find or you don't. Remember that the next time you step on a scale.

The Iraqi Federalist Papers - The Prerequisites for Freedom

The latest reports say that US casualties in Iraq have topped 1000. Sad as it is, and recognizing that the number is still dwarfed by the 58,000 and 400,000 of Vietnam and WW2, the Iraqis, it seems, have not sufficiently taken up the burden of securing their future as a free country. This is not much of a surprise. History has shown that there is a tragic irony on the path to western nation building - though freedom is a concept that instantly appeals to the collectively oppressed, oppressed individuals often lack the mental mindset to do what it takes to obtain it. This is because, when it comes down to it, the price of freedom may be one's life.

Understandably, the human mind shudders at the thought of willingly engaging in such high stakes behavior. The only way around this mental impasse is to become committed to a cause, a a cause that is bigger than the value of one's individual life. Freedom is that kind of cause (so is martyrdom, as we have seen), but only if you really understand it (no so in the case of martyrdom). If freedom is to be established and remain secured, the minds of those who would enjoy it must be imbued with some prerequisite concepts. They are as follows:

1. Though all humans are not equal in talent and appearance, all are endowed with equal access to three basic human rights - the rights to life, liberty, and property. No one, regardless of his or her status or wealth, has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

2. In all societies, there are individuals who do not recognize the rights of others. They ignore property rights by engaging in theft. They ignore the right to liberty in coercing individuals by force, thus placing them into servitude (or, at the very least, a life of fear). And they ignore the right to life by eliminating individuals who threaten their agenda.

3. These people are the enemies of freedom. The two cannot coexist. Therefore, those who are oppressed must resist, diplomatically at first, but forcefully, if necessary. They must pay for their freedom, usually in blood. Though foreign forces can and will assist, the ultimate securing of human rights in a country must come from its indigenous peoples. There is no other way.

4. There is no such thing as a predetermined life. History has shown that humans are capable of surmounting all odds. Possessing the courage to obtain the desired life is all that separates those who change their course in life and those who do not.

5. Even when the largest threats to freedom are removed, there will still be a domestic contingent of individuals who do not recognize human rights. Populations oppose threats from these people by instituting governments designed to secure the rights of all individuals. These governments are founded on the rule of law, whereby all individuals are treated equally under the law.

6. The laws of the land must be codified in a constitution that centers on securing human rights, and is founded on the notion that government is only legitimate as the instrument by which social and economic policies are created, adjudicated, and enforced.

7. With the power and scope of the government so limited, individuals are immediately faced with an expanded set of personal responsibilies. The cost of not being enslaved is having to make a living for yourself. The cost of getting to accumulate property is having to learn how to keep it.

8. Given the increased responsibility for making a living, the free society must be founded upon a free market economy. History has shown that this is the very best way to create a diverse market of jobs and to increase the prosperity of all people. The right to property implies the right to do with it what you will. In a free market economy, you can trade it as you wish. And your time is also your property, so you can trade it, too, for things you want and need - all of this, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. This circumstance creates competition between buyers and sellers, which creates jobs and wealth. The law exists to set the rules of how trades happen, and the government's sole role is to ensure fair competition, and to adjudicate and enforce the laws when disputes arise.

9. In a free society with a free market, there will be individuals who accumulate vast wealth and attempt to trade it for power over other individuals. These individuals must be stopped, which will not be easy. They will coax with gifts and threaten with force. But the moment they infringe upon the rights of individuals, the rule of law must be enforced, no matter what. This is the most critical factor in maintaining the free society. As soon as some individuals are afforded the right to trample the rights of others, the entire system begins to break down.

10. A free society is also a society that supports a massive diversity in lifestyles, opinions, and behaviors. The system depends upon individuals respecting the rights of others while withholding judgement or concern for their values and predilections. No one has the right to not be offended.

These basic concepts must be predominantly resident in the minds of any population that intends to establish freedom where there is currently tyranny, and that expects to use it as the foundation of a nation. It is not a coincidence that these are the basic ideas that underpin the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. The founding fathers, steeped in man's history and the philosophy of the Enlightenment, had it all worked out. Their hardest task was educating the masses as to how the rights they fought for in the revolutionary war translated into a post-revolutionary free society. In the years between 1784 and 1789, the task was taken up in the form of documents, such as the Federalist Papers, that articulated in detail the philosophical rationale for the concepts that would eventually find their way into the constitution. It was this education en-masse that created the climate necessary to allow for the ratification of the first document to establish a country based upon philosophical ideals and nothing more. This was a very big deal. Alas, given how things are currently unfolding, we should be skeptical that anything resembling this event will happen in Iraq.

To begin with, the Iraqis didn't actually fight for their own liberation. Therefore, one might conclude, they still lack the will to "live free or die." That's not a very encouraging start. Add to that the fact that the concept of all people being equal in the eyes of the law is laughable in a world where corruption and tyranny have held sway for as long as anyone can remember. Until the Iraqis believe in their rights, believe it is possible to secure them on a continuous basis, and are so offended by the insurgents who continue to thwart their prosperity, that they are willing to risk life and limb to eliminate them, the likelihood of freedom coming to rest in that area of the Middle East is slim. Even if they somehow manage to rid themselves of the Baathist uprisings, they'll still have to learn how to cooperate enough to build a free society. This, also, has its share of challenges.

Once again, Iraqis will find it difficult to believe in how powerful the rule of law can be when the majority is committed to it. They've never seen it in action. If they suspect that "equal protection under the law" will eventually fail, ordinary Iraqis may hedge their bets and take sides with nefarious individuals, which leads quickly to the slippery slope that ends in a totally corrupt society. No, if freedom is to last in Iraq, the Iraqis really have to believe. They need a vision of a fair society governed by a rationally justified government, one that is founded on protecting human rights. This vision will serve as the method by which they can internalize the cause, and when some finally get it, everyone else will need to realize that the process will take a while. If America is any example, it will take several years, even more if we don't start dealing with the situation pragmatically.

This is my hangup with the situation in Iraq. If we're not nation building, then we need to wrap things up, hand it over a truly international peacekeeping operation, and move on. I know - easier said than done. No matter, if we are nation building, and I think we are, then we need to get our heads in the game. We need an Iraqi version of Alexander Hamilton working furiously on the Iraqi Federalist papers. Then, alongside our soldiers, we need a cadre of instructors taking the message to the people. If that doesn't factor into the plan, we'll be having this same conversation when the 2000th US soldier is killed in Iraq.

The Resistance to Truth – Part 1

I am constantly smacked in the face by this country’s determination to deny the truth. It has not always been this way. I can remember being a kid and being told the story of how a boyhood George Washington admitted to chopping down a cherry tree, even though he knew his father would punish him. The point of the story, though I have since heard it isn’t true, was to instill in young people one of the core values of this country – honesty. And it was key that George Washington was the protagonist of the story.

Here was a guy that embodied all of the attributes that exemplified the very archetype of the revolution-era American. He was a genuine war hero, but he was also a cultured gentleman. Most importantly, he was viewed as utterly incorruptible. He had a set of core beliefs and morals that could not be swayed by other personal interests. Indeed, had Washington not been convinced to endorse the constitutional convention when it was on the brink of falling apart, the United States of America might never have managed to come together. There were factions with differing agendas that needed an objective leader to bring consensus among them. George Washington was that leader. All parties knew they could trust him to put the interests of the country above all else. And they could trust him because the truth meant something to George Washington. As a kid, it was taught to mean something to me.

Though my path to the present has seen occasional experimentation with truth as a matter of convenience, I have come to realize that it is precisely inconvenient truth that makes the concept so valuable. That, I am convinced, is a notion that is in need of serious revival these days. Take, for example, this terrorism problem. The patrons of the politically correct society have effectively erased the inconvenient truth of the situation from the drawing board. The facts are as follows:

1. The vast majority of terrorists on the planet are Muslims.
2. We are unaware of any serious threats to our security being continuously articulated by non-Muslim organizations.
3. Muslims can, for the most part, be demographically profiled such that significant proportions of the general population can be considered unlikely to be Muslim.

These three facts are unfortunate, but they are facts nonetheless. Now, when we recognize them and commit to accepting truth no matter what, we have the proper conditions to formulate an appropriate response. That response is very clearly that we have to focus the lion’s share of our threat detection endeavors on individuals that fit the Muslim profile. Once again, this is unfortunate, but it is also the most expedient course of action, especially considering the consequences of failure.

But there are those who reject this course of action because they feel that it will be offensive to Muslims. They are correct, and this is as it should be. They should be offended that individuals who identify themselves with Islam would dare conduct themselves in a way that deviates so far from its peaceful teachings. They, too, have truth to accept - the simple fact that they need to get their house in order.

Who will be the Muslim’s that typify the religion in the years to come? Will it be the fanatics? If it is, the peaceful Muslims will be met with increasing enmity from the rest of the world’s inhabitants. In short, things have no hope of getting better for them – sooner or later, the PC police will be shoved aside by angry mobs. The bottom line is simple - if the peaceful Muslims will exemplify the religion, it will be because they took a stand against the most insidious among them. Truth, in this case, is their only chance. The resistance to it is the real impediment to progress. Alas, this always seems to be the case...

Status and Self-Hatred

OK, maybe it's time for something a little more serious. A little more personal.

Do you love yourself? You should. You're the only with your exact pattern of DNA that has interacted with your environment in exactly the way that you have. Sure, being unique isn't necessarily a reason to love yourself. But having unique DNA with limitless possibilities...now that's a good reason to be bullish on your personal stock. Of course, if you're going to make anything of your life, you'll have to overcome whatever unncessary hurdles your genes are throwing into your path.

One area where our genes are seriously working against us is in how we view ourselves. In caveman days, the status heirarchy in the tribe was everything. Those at the top had food, shelter, and mates. Those who were not suffered and died a childless death. That was the harsh reality of our ancestors' environment. Natural selection navigated that environmental pitfall by installing in humans the tendency to pay attention to status and to do what it took to get it. If you're here to read this today, we can be sure of one thing - your ancestors were good at this. But now, this same mechanism that kept our ancestors alive is crippling us when it comes to feeling good about ourselves.

The fact is that there are far too many people in this world who hate themselves, and I would venture to say that the percentages in the US dwarf the percentages anywhere else on the planet. This is very simply because of the quest for status. Humans, in looking for a way to the top of the totem pole, continuously assess their environment (and in America, there are more ways to the top and more definitions of being at the top than anywhere). We determine who has status by seeing who gets the most attention, who has the most of whatever happens to be valuable, and, of course, by which guys have the best girls, and which girls have the best guys. We then naturally compare whatever attributes we think contribute most to the success of these high-status inividuals to whatever we have going on. If we don't measure up, we feel bad about ourselves. This was a good thing in caveman days. It's anything but good today.

Back when our ancestors were angling for position in a tribe with limited slots, being attuned to status made all the difference. Today, however, status means nothing. Those who are the top of the ranks in our society are there for reasons that do not matter at all to us personally. For example, though so many focus on the super-rich, being wealthy in itself is no indication of anything but money. There are as many jerks among the rich as there are among any other demographic. And they are no more happy than any other group - trust me, they are consuming more Prozac than anyone. So, why should we care if we don't stack up with them? The same is true for the beautiful people.

The current trend these days is toward being beautiful at all costs. The question I always want to ask these folks on the make-over shows is this: why do you want to be beautiful? Of course, I know the answer - to get people to notice me/like me/love me, and so on. This is silly. Even if it works, you'll have people who care about you for your looks. That's a pretty flimsy foundation for a relationship. Sure, some people believe that being attractive will give them to chance to show off that wonderful personality to people who have previously not been willing to give them a look. But again, why cater to these kinds of people? They're obviously shallow and lacking in the kind of character we should be in search of. Alas, however, this is the caveman mind at work.

We clamor for status - unconsciously, in most cases. But there's a fix. The first thing to do is to reject what society deems important. Society at large is one big market. We can't forget that that which sells isn't necessarily valuable. So while society is raving about fake boobs, the ladies with flat chests and low self-esteem are hating themselves as they figure out how to finance the operation that they believe will solve all of their problems. Suppose being flat-chested comes into style, then the situation will reverse. Can you imaging the silicon queens rushing to get their boobs removed? How could one's self-esteem be tied to something as fickle as the social acceptability? No, self-esteem has to be tied to something deeper.

We need a common denominator here, one that will stay intact regardless of what society prefers. And we have one - it's called character. That's step two - work on who you really are as a person. Learn to be kind, honest, fair, trustworthy, knowledgeable, disciplined, forward-thinking, and open-minded. These are attributes that can endure anything. More importantly, these are the kinds of things to love about yourself.

The sad and ironic fact is that I know scores of people who have most or all of these characteristics (even if they're sometimes hard to spot), yet they hate themselves. Their caveman genes have such a grip on them that they focus entirely on the yardstick (or sticks, as it were) of social acceptability and ignore the things that really matter. You know how I know? Because they are the ones who are constantly putting other people down. They are constantly trying to shatter anyone's good news. They are constantly looking for evidence of weakness or inferiority in their acquaintences and friends. Anything to take the focus off of themselves and how much they loathe what they see when they look in the mirror. It's sad but I see it all the time.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if you're rich or beautiful or have sought-after talents. Sure, these attributes can be helpful in living a fun life, and there's nothing wrong with pursuing them. You just have to make sure that they are, in no way, tied to your self-esteem. In this respect, they simply do not matter. What matters is relationships. And you only get good relationships by loving yourself for being a good person and then demanding that others love you for the same reason. If you're not the good person you want to be, get to work, and love yourself for being a work in progress, and for having the commitment to become who you want to be. And don't be afraid to be yourself. It doesn't matter what you're into. You can be a cross-dressing, ping-pong champion and I guarantee that there are folks with whom you'll click and form deep meaningful relationships. You just have to let go of what your genes tell you and decide to love yourself, no matter who you are.

The Fight Against Frustration

I believe that the central feature of unhappiness is frustration. It comes in two forms - short-term frustration, as in what we feel when we keep dropping things or our car gets towed, and long-term frustration, as in what we feel when we can't find a job or meaninful interpersonal relationships. And where does frustration come from? Unrealistic expectations, plain and simple. When things don't turn out as we expect, we get frustrated. And when this happens for a long time, our frustration turns into unhappiness. Why are our expectations about life so often unrealistic? Because they are formed, at least in part, by our caveman minds, minds that were designed for an environment where social status was critically important.

I'm here to tell you that you do more in service of social status than you would ever admit. Even those who claim to be totally free from caring about what other people think are still aware of social heirarchies and where they would stand if they cared. So what to do?

Expect more from yourself and less from other people. It's an old saying but it packs a punch. In fact, I have come to expect that when I walk out my door, there is always a chance that I'm going to run into all varieties of people - smart people, stupid people, nice people, rude people, considerate people, self-absorbed jerks, crazy people, sane people, emotionally wacked people, perfectly centered people, beautiful people, ugly people, fat, skinny, and on and on. I could meet any one of these people at any time, especially when I'm in a place frequented by the general public, as in the mall or the airport. When I say meet, I guess I really mean encounter.

I have found that having this little realization at the front of mind is unbelievably liberating. When I'm driving, trying to get over for an exit and the guy in the next lane looks me in the eye and stays in my way, I don't get upset. He's a jerk - I expected him. Furthermore, when you realize that people are how they are, you are less inclined to say or do anything to react to them. As a very amateur road cyclist, I am frequently screamed at by motorists who want me out of their way. I know that their screams are their problem, not mine (unless they follow them up with a maneuver designed to run me off the road). I expect that there are people who just go around angry and lash out at whatever they can. That's their deal, not mine. I don't engage with them at all, and they don't frustrate me. This also works when you're shopping or dealing with some company's customer service. You expect that it's going to suck and go from there - cool as a cucumber.

But back to this status thing. Unrealistic expectations about ourselves also cause considerable frustration. If you won't study and you don't like to work hard, you shouldn't expect that you'll be wealthy one day. It may happen anyway, but you shouldn't expect it. If you're constantly doubting your value as a person, it is unrealistic to expect to find that others won't. Again, you may find that wonderful soul who shows you who you really are. It happens, but you shouldn't expect it. And looks, well there's truth to be found about looks.

The fact is that certain things make for what we can call the prototypical beautiful person. This is not my definition. This is what humans want to see. We know because they will, by and large, pay the most to look at pictures of and see movies with people that fit this description. Symmetrical facial features, good teeth, a full head of hair, a slim physique, decent muscle tone, height above 6' (for men), height between 5'5" and 5'8" (for women), tan skin, very little body hair, and so on. This is no surprise. We all know this. I'm not saying you can't be considered physically attractive without these qualities. What I'm saying is that, if you have them, for you, life is easier than it is for those who don't. Better said, you'll be presented with more opportunities for relationships, jobs, and liesure. This is a massive generalization. I know that. But there is truth here, and it stems, most likely, from natural selection. These physical attributes, like the peacock's bright plumage, indicate fitness. Males are tuned by evolution to match their genes with the fittest females possible, and the women, vice-versa. It is no surprise that we are visually aware of physical beauty. So what does this mean when it comes to frustration?

Take a good look in the mirror. Better yet, take a walk into a crowded room where people can get a good look at you as you walk in. If you notice people turning their heads, you've either missed a beltloop or some folks are noticing your physical appearance. If the attractive ones continue to look at you after you look at them, there's a good chance they find you attractive. If they immediately look away, chances are it was something besides attractiveness that caught their eye. If nobody seems to notice you as you walk in (which is what happens to me 99% of the time when I walk in a room), it means you're not pegging anyone's attractive meter. This is not to say you're not attractive. It just means that it is probably unlikely that you'll be sailing through life on your looks. And that's really the point of all this.

If you want to avoid frustration when it comes to expectations of self, you have to have a realistic self-image. If you're not super-attractive but you want to date super-attractive people, you're going to need a gimmick. You've gotta have some quality or qualities that offset your deficiency in the looks department. To breeder guys, I always say that your gimmick is the first thing the girl you met tells her friends when she tells them about you. "Oh he's really funny." Or, "He's the CFO of a big company." Or, "He's a musician." The reality of the situation is that looks are just like everything else - they're cards to be played in interpersonal endeavors. Look closely at your hand and then plan and act accordingly.

In the final analysis, our minds were not designed for the world in which we live. But getting what we want out of life is not hopeless. We just have to see it for what it is. We have to honestly look at where we are and where we want to go and then have the courage to do what it takes to get there. If we expect life to be what it is, not what we would have it be, we will find that frustration withers away, and happiness becomes easily attainable. Give it a shot. It's working for me.