You all know the cases of a preacher railing against the evils of unmarried sex only he is discovered to be having just such an experience.  In the field of psychology this is called reaction formation.  But to the populace this is hypocrisy.

I am fascinated by the thinking of the people in the rise of the Nazi’s.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews fled the country in advance of what was to come.  Some had no resources to leave yet some stayed and even voted for that party.  It is this thought process that fascinates me.

I am interested in that thinking process because I suspect it is occurring again.  I have turned this over in my head so often.  I know others see it as well.  But those who see this thought process are marginalized as fanatics, indeed some are but even crazy people get out of the way of a speeding car.

I am currently stuck in the thought process that there are people who believe two things at the core.  1. The government seeks what is best for all its citizens  2. Evil does not exist.

Let me clarify the second.  They either believe that evil is just an extension of good and can be won over or that if you acknowledge evil it comes to bear.  Either way history shows the dastardly levels of evil exist and to ignore such is foolhardy at best.

As I type on the plastic keyboard that is encased in a plastic frame with a myriad of plastic components, let alone metal components that are harmful, I think of the people who attack the oil industry.  These things are all made from oil, metals and various chemical combinations.  I know that many of the naysayers of oil will not give up their car interiors, their TVs, their phones but they will mount an attack against the industries that produce them.

Don’t get me wrong, the industries can be evil in their own way.  But how can these industries be evil yet government and fanatical groups can’t?  Isn’t that hypocrisy?  Or is the thinking that just this one item that I use isn’t asking so much?

I see people disparage one of the two political parties and I stand in amazement.  Can’t they see there is ONLY ONE party.  Each faction wants to control the rights to the money.  And somehow people think that when they elect a representative (funny word when you look at it) that this person will be better than another.

Some candidates spend millions to get a job that pays $170,000.  Just stare at those numbers and ask, “Is this good fiscal judgment?  or “Is there something bigger here?”  It won’t change until we elect someone that doesn’t have the money.  Then they can be bribed unless you elect enough of the poor to have a more representative government.  But then you run the risk of having a government run by Pollyanna’s.  Be careful what you wish for.

The end result for me is that I see hypocrisy in the best of causes.  And I don’t know how to deal with it.

In the uncut version of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST  Jason Robards plays a notorious outlaw.  He is captured and while awaiting  transfer to another location, a story writer stands outside the cell bars looking for an exclusive bit of inner thinking from a killer.

The writer asks, (something like this) “If you could do one thing better what would it be?”  Robards mulls it over as the camera builds the intensity of his impending response.  He says with regretful understanding, “I would have taken better care of my teeth.”

My first day in Cuenca, Ecuador, I had lunch overlooking the city.  A husband and wife and older daughter shared the table next to me.  In our impromptu conversation the father, a U.S. dentist railed on the evils of fluoride.  He said that fluoride was a poison, plain and simple.  He explained that the fluorine industry made millions using fluoride, a throw away by product of the fluorine industry.  His daughter practiced law and chimed in on the various suits she had involvement with attacking the unnecessary premature death and suffering of Americans.

The father went a step further and said that in order to be accepted into a dental school in the U.S., one had to sign a form  essentially stating  the prospective student would not make claims against fluoride or the fluoride industry

The family explained how they use baking soda and this black toothpaste from Russia.  They had a package on hand.  (They were in the process of opening a market for this product).  I noticed the family did not use any sugar in their coffee and they ate food that contained no sugar.  These people possessed a serious commitment to good health and good teeth.

The tag team conspiracy theorists struck a nerve in a gene I call, “those bastards” gene.  Some call it the underdog gene.  You know the urge to root for the team that doesn’t have a chance. I saw the fluoride magnates laughing as they took their garbage and sold it to greedy city politicians.  I was an underdog.

A short while later I met a U.S. dentist practicing in Cuenca.  He did not try to change my opinion. Rather he calmly stated the research in developing countries (this is another topic ) that allowed children to keep their teeth simply by adding fluoride to the water.  He added there was no change in disease or death rates except people fared better with teeth.  He took it a step further, talking in my language of statistics, and explained the numbers.

I find that I have a tendency to employ the “recency” effect.  Whoever spoke to me last makes the most sense.  I have found that some people are very good speakers, “conmen” if you will and use their education as a launch pad for their attempt to sway your opinion.

The first question I asked myself, “What did each party have to gain by convincing me of the use of fluoride.  The movie JERRY McGUIRE has the line “show me the money.”  That helped tilt my opinion.

I often brush my teeth with activated charcoal because years of baseball bad hops have put hairline fractures in my teeth that bleaching (now that’s a poison) would destroy my enamel covering.  But after the charcoal brushing I brushed my teeth with fluoride toothpaste.

So off to the web to research the topic I went.  I decided to balance the articles with pro’s and con’s.  That didn’t work because there were so few cons.  In fact, in peer reviewed journals, there was not one article against fluoride.  Rants from Mrs. Jones, that her child contracted autism because of fluoride water, were common, but nothing of fact.

The research into the possible effects of long term fluoride use became the only concern.  No doubt if you look at parts per million (PPM), and you ingested too much, one would cause damage.  However, the amount of fluoride in the water is monitored to prevent a PPM intrusion.  In some areas, fluoride in the water is naturally elevated and steps are taken to reduce the PPM.

I remember a cartoon of a bunch of fat rats who were burying their family members who overdosed on artificial sweeteners.  There were mountains of empty wrappers the contents  of which they consumed.  I got the point (didn’t agree but it was a cute ad).  In fact I felt if you understood the cartoon you also saw the ad homonym or rhetoric in their suggestion.

So I believe, based on reading scientific reports and studies, that using fluoride in the water as well as in toothpaste is not only safe, but beneficial.  Trusting local government officials to follow safe procedures is another matter (a later topic).

So when your neighbor or local internet browser expert says that fluoride is bad for you or that there is a financial conspiracy, simply ask what is the PPM count that would satisfy his concerns.  The response will prevent an argument and you will know that your teeth are safe until the next soiree.

.

I have done some bone head things in my life.  Things that cost me, things that can only be told in embarrassing disclosure  and things that haunt me.

The one saving thing about these faux pauxs is I usually did them when I could afford the negative consequence of the event.   And I pushed the envelope.  I tried and failed, but I learned something in the epic failure.  I have a history of “Why nots?”

But now I look back at my failed “why nots?” and think “what if?”  There are a series of things that if they had turned out differently, would not have me sitting here writing this post.

Since I don’t hold onto fate I realize I either picked-up and moved on or somehow I integrated the event into my personality.

Some people have a major event or a series of repetitive events that is now a “chip on their shoulder.”

I think of events that people have to live with such as Bill Buckner’s ground ball.  I heard him say that it really doesn’t effect him.  I think he’s lying.  I have little league errors that make me cringe.  Granted they did not change my life’s direction.

So in the tradition of March Madness, I am going to list the top 64 life events that I think may have changed me.  I have to be selective because major events surely have merit but it might be a simple event that proves a turning point.  When I get to the Final Four I might disclose them.  But then that disclosure might become my Turning Point.

I don’t know the term to define when you come to believe something you learn as a child and never doubt it.  An example is religion. It is pumped into your head so much, so often at a young age that you actually believe in a Virgin birth and a resurrection.  How naïve I was.

Then one day you read something that suggests you need to investigate your core beliefs.  A simple run through the internet leaves you looking at yourself and wondering why it took so long to figure out the myth.  Then you look back at all the stupid ways you defended this ridiculous belief.

I believed that a person never really changed their personality; always accepted that as fact.  Then I challenged the word personality and somehow I figured the term was not personality but rather “basic” personality that doesn’t change.  I found no studies that supported this belief that did not have a poorly defined concept of basic.

Every serial killer can back track to drinking milk and having a poor upbringing.  But so can many well adjusted people.  The point being there are some things basic to all humans and you can look back and validate that your obsessing over your homework in third grade was and remains part of your compulsive study of Chinese at age 74.

Although I don’t see people changing their core personality, I believe that some do.  I believe that the change is evolutionary.  A genetic characteristic that is allowed to flourish and its sole purpose is change.

My change in my beliefs came as a form of adaptation.  I once had money, spent it foolishly, and did not develop long lasting relationships that helped define a character of giving.  The loss of funds and security led me to change, to adapt if you will.

I believe that if I had money now, I would return to that person and validate that people don’t change at their core, but right now I need to stay comfortable in my newly adapted self.  Then I think I might never return to that self centered person.  And if I did return to that old personality that would mean that my basic personality did not change.  And if I remained the same person I adapted into, only now with money, then people would say this behavior was the basic personality.

I used to want to win arguments, to be right, to show others I knew more about something than they did.  Now I listen, I bite my tongue and listen to people say and defend things I see as indefensible.  I still have the basic personality to be right and knowledgeable only I changed my desire to prove it.  Now when I ask quiet, thoughtful questions others see me as arrogant – and I am told that was always my basic personality.

I believe your basic personality does not change.  You learn, gain experience and adapt.  Sometimes you run out of energy or time. The proof: I still am naïve

My deceased wife was the smartest woman on the planet. Besides marrying me she earned a perfect score on the SAT. Her view on abortion was simple. She said it didn’t matter what she believed, abortion has been and always will be here.

I never gave abortion much thought. My wife had lupus and could not have children. We adopted three great kids. One was 11 years old and he said he was against abortion because he believed he wouldn’t be here if abortion was accepted from the state of his adoption.
I decided to make a decision on abortion. No matter my opinion, nothing about abortion will change. I will not preach to anyone on what decision they might choose but I, if asked, I will have an opinion.
The most frequent response to my question, “What is your opinion on abortion?” was “It’s a woman’s choice.”
When I said that was not an answer to my question, people tended to get a bit testy. (Maybe the way I spoke) I found that the issues of women’s rights and abortion had been merged. It became difficult to separate the issues. But I persisted and pressed the question.
I must have given the impression that I was judging because people responded in angry defensive tones. They answered the question by defending their beliefs against what other people believed. For example, if they were liberal they were for abortion, if they were conservative they were against abortion (but not always-another blog). And with that label they vented anger at the other side more than give a thoughtful response to a simple question. In fact, nearly everyone said it was a loaded question.
I had exceptions thrown at me as a reason to be for abortion. This meant that if there was one exception then it could never be fair. I did not recall asking the fairness of abortion or any exceptions, but I plodded on.
It boiled down to deciding when the fetus became human. I came to understand that an unwanted pregnancy, no matter the reason, could be aborted because it was not human. It was simply a legal definition, not a moral one. To avoid a murder charge, abortion hinged upon the fetus not being human.
That argument made legal sense to me but I asked if a fetus in the womb ever was known to develop into anything other than a human and edgy became angry. This led to discussions about eggs and chickens.
The foreign country I live in has no law against killing an animal. So if I was driving down the street and I saw Gary and his dog, and I truly disliked Gary, I would go to jail if my car struck him. But since his dog is not human I would not be legally culpable if my car struck the dog. I might get negligent driving or something similar but my point is clear. I would not consider killing a dog on moral grounds, not legal definitions.
I heard a comedian say that there is a place called Bimbo where all the aborted children are awaiting their mothers. No men involved there, so I’m clear.
But I know that excluding special circumstances such as rape or incest, that I am against abortion. In terms of unintended pregnancies which are about 46 percent, the percentage of rape and incest is relatively low. The Guttmacher institute tabulates this information state by state, I do not know world wide statistics.
I further understand our culture and its right to make changes in definitions to justify a behavior. There are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would not make abortion an issue but as my wife used to say, “it’s not going to change.”