Rather than look at the results of the Obama "Hope And Change", I want to go back to its origin. As I have gotten older, I have gained a greater appreciation of the past and the actions and decisions of those who came before us. Try this one. "Better the devil that you know than the one that you don't know". Or this one, "Out of the frying pan into the fire". Or, how about this one, "Be careful what you wish for". Here is another one, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". I have more, "Don't fix something that is not broke". Now why do I bring these up and what do they have to do with "Hope And Change"? That is the point of this blog.
I used to teach decision theory and you will see how a simple concepts applies to "Hope And Change". If there is a system or culture that has worked just fine over a period of hundreds of years with few changes, it tells you that it is "mature" and has incorporated the "best" ideas over a long period of time. Time is critical here, because we don't know if a new idea is "good" unless it is tested by real life over time. All those adages above are the result of being tested over a long period of time and proven to be "true" or "correct" or "better". Now, let's move on.
You must know that many ideas that sound "good" have been proven worthless when double blind tested. This is part of what I am talking about. When a new idea is presented to change a system, the criteria for making the decision to accept the new idea is a function of how well the system currently works. Further, it is also a function of how long and under what conditions that system has been tested. The longer the period that the system has worked, the more confidence that one has that the system is "good" and thus before you make a change to a "good" system you need to be "very" sure that the change is good and that there is a very small chance that the change will be "bad'.
Now the punch line. If a system as described above is "good", the criteria for making changes must pass a very high test. If, on the other hand, the system has not been working very well, a lower level of proof or confidence to make the change would be justified. I blogged in the past about our kids being "Spocked". Remember Spock's book that proposed making a major change in how we raise our kids? Spock had "zero" experience in raising kids and many people took Spock's advise. Now look at the results. Given that we had hundreds of years raising kids and doing a good job of it, would you think that parents would require solid proof that Spock's ideas were better than all the experience that came before? They did not? Parents were taken in by the smooth talking Spock. If they had a minimum understanding of decision theory, they would not have fallen for Spock's bull shit.
Now, how about Obama's "Hope And Change"? It is clear that for the past 250 years, we have had the "best" system in the world. Now, why did so many of us vote for Obama's "Hope And Change" that was never defined, much less tested and proven? That is the mystery. If I have been critical of the intelligence of my fellow Americans who voted for Obama and his "Hope And Change", it has been based on these facts. Obama is a smooth talker like the Jew, Spock. Spock took you in and so has Obama. You need to look in the mirror and spit in the face of the person that you see.
I could use more examples, but they would show the same thing.
