The Problem With Marriage

It’s been a while since I last wrote a serious article on the issues that face us today. I didn’t know what I was going to write about, as there were so many good topics out there to cover. Especially with the advent of all the activity on Capital Hill this week. Everything from torture, to expenditures in the war in Iraq, to corrupt politicians, to the Republicans possibly losing both of the Houses in Congress this come November. I chose none of them. Instead, I was randomly clicking through blogs on WordPress, when I came across a post about the “sanctity” of marriage. It seems that the article was written in response to the issue of same-sex marriage, and the author was rather irate at the fact that anyone would want to institutionalize this type of marriage. He even went on to compare the downfall of the Roman Empire with the fact that homosexuality was an accepted cultural norm within the Roman culture (patently false).

This is a touchy issue for a lot of people, for reasons that are extremely religious in nature. The cries of “One Man, One Woman”, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, and other ignorant, slightly homophobic remarks arise. The problem with these people, though, is that they do not seem to realize that there are two aspects to a marriage. These would be the religious, and the legal. Neither does it seem to these people that the institution of marriage is just as embedded into historical processes as other institutions. In other words, they would like you to think that the customs of marriage that are prevalent in society right now are the same customs that have been in place for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our very concept of marriage has changed throughout the years, just as our concepts of virtually every other thing has.

If you look at history, especially at the context of marriage as it has been practiced throughout the eons, you will notice that first and foremost marriage was a contract that was intended to cement property. Indeed, the whole purpose for hundreds, if not thousands, of years was to solidify control of land, property, an businesses, whether mercantile or agricultural. Hence, the adoption of the customs of dowry, and groom-gifts. It has been only in the past two hundred years or so that the current, romantic idea of marriage based in love has taken root in western society.

The problem, though, is that in this day and age, most people cling to the idea of the nuclear family with a father, a mother, and two kids living in a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. While admirable, and to be envied by those who are living that dream, this dream is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. Notwithstanding, even those who are heterosexual suffer calamities in the form of divorce. It matters not whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or one of the other parties. It does not matter if they are Christian, Atheist, or Pagan. The notion of marriage, and the family, has underwent a severe revolution within the past sixty years or so. Now, people are more likely to live in blended families, or with only one parent. If the idea of marriage was to create and protect the nuclear family, and if conservatives really wanted this to endure, then current laws on divorce would never have been enacted. However, it seems those with cooler heads have prevailed, as there will always be cases where abuse, either sexual or physical, is present, and the marriage needs to be dissolved. There are cases where infidelity is committed, and depending on the person’s religious or moral views, the marriage needs to be dissolved. The causes of a divorce are rampant, and making marriage a tighter institution, binding without compassion, is needlessly cruel and uncompassionate. Morality in the case of marriage cannot be legislated. It can only be reinforced by education, and the support of a community that knows what a good marriage is, and how to make it last. (Hence, the whole idea of having witnesses present at a marriage, as it is viewed that a marriage can only be upheld through the support of friends and families.)

Continuing on from there, there are other factors at work. What has been touched on so far is only the social. What about the religious? Should a religious interpretation of marriage be made into law? The very beginnings of marriage were not very religious in nature at all. It was the advent of Paul, who, in his epistles, created the idea of marriage with a religious aspect. Before this, most marriages were contractual affairs between families. Even after the advent of Paul, most marriage of the upper echelons of society were nothing more but the transference of goods and properties desired to keep the social status and wealth of the two respective families intact, or to augment them. Where is the religious undertones in that? Indeed, the very nature of a religious marriage between two peoples as it is currently encapsulated in society can be traced back to Puritan views of the institution.

Be that as it may, the one thing that is the pride and joy of America is the separation of the state from religion. The government could not, because of the separation clause, legislate which marriages were to be legal, and other that weren’t, based on the factor of religious ideas to the application of marriage. While this country has a long and varied history on the differing acts that have been passed that touched on this issue, the one thing that is clear is that marriage, as conceived of by the government, was an issuance of a certificate that legally recognized the union under the tax codes, and through the years, bestowed benefits upon those in such a marriage in the form of tax breaks, transference of Power of Attorney, and sundry other legal matters. In effect, there is, and was, a dichotomy within the institution. There were those factors that were completely legalistic in nature, and then there were those that were religious, and were handled by the couple’s respective churches.

In this day and age, this is desirous to have. The whole reason why the Gay Right’s Movement is rallying behind the idea of marriage for themselves is because too often a couple will be restricted in their activities of things that can be performed. For instance, if one person in the relationship were to fall ill, the other has no recourse when it comes to visiting the ill person, or in executing affairs of estate that have been left to the other because of the first’s debilitating illness. Also, when a couple has been living together, own property in tandem, and lives as a married couple of the heterosexual persuasion, why would they then be expected to contribute more in taxes then the heterosexual marriage? When a couple becomes married, there is an estimated 1,044 different tax benefits that they then receive. Do we, as a society, really want to legislate discrimination in such a form? Is that what liberty is about?

The fact of the matter is that people can become married in our government without even stepping foot into a church. All they have to do is perform their blood tests, and then sign the marriage certificate. That’s it. Nothing more. The rest of the ceremonies attending a marriage are wholly religious in nature, and divorced from the legal realities. Those who would like to ban same-sex couples from receiving the benefits of marriage are after nothing more but introducing more and more elements of theocracy into our government.

After all, who really is destroying families? From my vantage point, the vast majority of families that are disrupted have been the fault of heterosexuals. I’ve yet to read a case of a gay or lesbian person that has single-handedly disrupted even one family. Not to mention that the “sanctity” of marriage is a farce. In a day and age where people get married to boost ratings on a television program, or get married and then divorced twelve hours later, there really isn’t that much that can be considered “sanctified” by the institution.

Bill Clinton’s Interview with Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday

Finally, we have a Democrat who is able to get in front of the news media and completely eviscerate those pundits whose main claim to fame would be the spewing forth of propaganda rather than balanced, unbiased journalistic research.

Watch the interview for yourself and see what I mean. Some people, especially those with extreme right-wing blogs, have said that Clinton freaks out during this interview. I don’t see it. Instead, I see a balanced, calm demeanor that not only answers the question, but answers the underlying subtext as well.

Compare that to Bush’s interviews last week, where it seems he’s ready about to blow a gasket at any time.

(Edit- Youtube took the video down. I’m now in the process of putting up a new link to the Google Video clip.)

Political Religion

I’ve known for quite some time now that the Religious Right is very active in politics. Anyone who lives in the US and does not realize this is either living in a cave, or a server room. (This is not a joke, as anyone who works for a Fortune 500 IT company can testify.) Usually, I have no problem with people of whatever religious stripe to become active in politics. The line in the sand that is crossed repeatedly, and which gets my dander up, is when they then use political power in order to silence others. Today, this is being done through the auspices of the IRS.

From the article:

Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.

For those of you who do not pay much attention to the tax code as it applies to non-profits, an organization that has the status of a 501(3)(c) Non-Profit organization can only remain as such as long as the organization refrains from politics. This includes endorsements of politicians, Political Action Groups, and so forth. However, if you read the news on a daily basis, there is almost continual support among certain far right groups such as Focus on the Family and others for GOP candidates, positions, and programs. This includes “Voter Guides” on prospective candidates, usually with erroneous or outright false information on them, designed to depict any Democratic Challenger in the most negative light possible.

This is nothing new. This has been going on since the formation of the Moral Majority back in the ’70’s. The problem is compounded today with the usurpation of power in the Executive branch, thanks to proponents of the ‘Unitary Executive‘ theory of government that is guaranteed to make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. Combined campaigning for GOP candidates within the auspices of a church, the funneling of currency to Faith Based Organizations that only support George W. Bush, and now the attack on those churches that have taken an anti-war stance bodes ill for the future of this Republic.

To combine it all into a nutshell- only those organizations that support policies that are in opposition to this administration are being investigated. Those non-profit organizations that continually flout the tax code in the area of expected behavior of a non-profit, tax exempt organization that support the administration are ignored. For crying out loud, the whole reason why the church is under investigation is because of a sermon about Christian values of peace!

Sound familiar? Remember Pastor Chan Chandler? This is the pastor that told his Democratic leaning members of his congregation that voting for John Kerry was a sin, and that they should leave his church. Remember the fiasco between Karl Rove and James Dobson? If a tax-exempt organization is supposed to refrain from endorsing candidates, then why is the GOP consulting far right wing groups before nominating a person?

This continuation of events will only lead to tyranny, for religious people of all flavors.

Interesting News Articles

I was cruising the web, when I thought I would post some more interesting news articles that touch upon some of the issues that have been discussed on this blog. Nothing like getting a new perspective on matters, eh? (No, I’m not Canadian, but I am Norwegian on both sides of my family, and grew up in a little town that was about a hundred clicks south of the Canadian border in the Upper Midwest.)

First is an article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press that elucidates the illusion of a battle raging between Science and Faith. Some people who are regular readers of this blog know that I hold fundamentalists in disdain. That being said, I think I must emphasise that it is only fundies that I hold in disdain. The rest of Christendom seems to get the fact that science does not challenge God, but magnifies Him, whether if it is Evolution, Mathematics, Physics, or Anthropology.

June’s article on Gas Prices is a great starting point for researching the huge difficulties in economics, politics, and sociology when it comes to understanding the dependence the world has developed on the petrochemical industry. It is an indisputable fact that some companies have been negligent in their responsibility to safe-guard the pollution that inevitably develops from refining oil, as well as the negative impacts our exhaust has on the environment and weather patterns. However, the best remedy to this, as I stated in her comments section, is to support those companies that are doing something about it! The Stirling Heat Engine, while and old technology, is promising for the future in new and inventive ways to pave our way to energy independence. There is an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the new industry that is growing out of the frustration a lot of people are experiencing in regards to high energy prices. They had another one on a company combining Stirling Engines and Solar power to become the biggest producer of alternative energy in the nation, but for some reason I can’t find the article right now. I will post it when I remember the title of the article.

The latest rage in the literature is discussing Genomics and its application to cure disease. However, Proteomics is the way to go! Just look at this list of people to watch out for in the biological sciences from Discover. Also, look at this introduction to the field, courtesy of Wired.

In anticipation of Nick‘s article on Creationism and Evolution, I thought a little history about the Intelligent Design movement would be in order. Also, another great overview ofCreationism’s Legal Woes from a different perspective.

In Linux news, check out the new Gnome 2.16 Desktop Environment! While I use KDE, Gnome is the DE that most people that are fairly new to Linux see, as it seems that Ubuntu is the most widespread of all Linux OSes out there. Also, it seems that Gnome is the force behind the new XGL and Compiz 3D Desktop Interface, an interface that puts Windows Vista to shame. It does more than Vista, on hardware that even XP would have problems running on! Click on the Desktop Interface link to drool! 🙂

Speaking of Microsoft, it seems that their Live Search is now out of Beta Testing. While I normally do not like MS or their products (I used to work for them before I went into the Army), I will grant you that fair competition is a great thing. Maybe Google will find a way out of the morass that their Google Ad Sense program has become. Personally, I used the Live Search a few months ago, and was not impressed.

That should be enough until tonight. As usual, comments are a blogger’s best friends, so type away! 🙂

9-11 Commentary; Or, Why the Country Despises Bush

This is one of the best commentaries on the state of affairs in the United States that I have seen to date! Keith Olbermann exemplifies all the reasons why people in the country, either Right or Left, Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green, despises this administration. To quote from the transcript:

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.’

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”
They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Edit- If you disagree with this assessment, then I encourage you to post why you do not in the comments section. Perhaps Olbermann, and myself, are mistaken. As is everything else that I post in this blog, I will only adhere to it until convincing data and reason surface to falsify my previously held position. Also, links to more information are always welcome!

Recent Science Articles

I’m still on a four day weekend right now. As such, I have plenty of time to write and post, but I’m intending to utilize my time to be lazy this weekend. Hence, the scarcity of posts on this blog recently. However, in the wake of the two on-going discussions within the comments section of certain posts, I thought I would take a lighter touch for this afternoon, and posts the heavy articles later on tonight. So, for your reading enjoyment, I’m presenting some interesting news of the day articles for your reading pleasure this afternoon!

First off, in tangential relation to the evolution arguments that are present on this blog, take a look at this article that gives a synopsis of Intelligent Design. For once, I think a fair and balanced approach has been taken to this contentious topic, although the Creationists in the Hovind model will still be unhappy with the outcome.

Ever wonder about the Ark? Has it been found? Where is it? LiveScience.com also has an article that goes over the past hoaxes, frauds, and interesting sitings of Noah’s Ark.

Still in the Microsoft versus Open Source Software debate? It seems that this conversation is becoming moot, as more and more businesses are embracing Free/Open Source Software.

For those developers who work with C++, here are some more verification tools for you! Yeah!

Anyone who may be engaged in the Evolution/Creation debate, take a look at the Top Ten Myths About Evolution. Most people on the Creationist side who begin these debates lack a serious grounding in evolutionary theory, what it’s about, what it’s facts are, and the theory model that predicts future changes.

The Chimp strikes back with the obvious! President George W. Bush this past weekend stressed the importance of not relying on foreign oil. Duh!

ABC will, on September 11th of this year, present a new “docudrama” on the events leading up to, and including, the terror attacks on the World Trade Center. However, this television event is biased, distorts reality, and is basically a gift to the extreme right. With all the controversy surrounding this project, I’m surprised that ABC hasn’t distanced themselves from the project’s creator. Since the project was only vetted by extreme right-wing Republicans, only previewed by Right-wing Bloggers, and was created by people with extreme right-wing political views, one has to wonder whether if it is based in fact, or in revisionist history?

In the light of all the recent advances in genomic studies, one has to wonder about the use of evolutionary techniques in modern day novels. I like Greg Bear, who is a very good author of some Hard Science Fiction. (“Hard” in this case means the usage of modern “hard” sciences in a theoretical novel. No telepathy, space jumps, wormholes, or the like are allowed as they are all hypothesii (sic) that have no direct evidence in experimental studies.) Especially with the last two novels I read that were written by him, _Darwin’s Radio_ and _Darwin’s Children_, one has to wonder about the science of Human Endogenous Retrovirii. This article gives a very good overview of the science behind the novels.

Well, this should keep people interested until later on this evening! Ciao!

Propaganda, Bush Style

First, let me write that if you like Keith Olbermann’s program, then write in! It seems the extreme right wingnuts took offense to Keith calling a spade a spade, and are now deluging MSNBC with vitriol of the most inflammatory nature. Fire up your e-mail clients and write to countdown@msnbc.com.

Second, I’d like to point out the new version of propaganda that Rove has perfected: the timing of news releases to coincide with trivial news articles. It was no mistake that Faux News covered the Aruba story almost non-stop for five months. Everything else in the news at the time was extremely negative for the Republicans. Now, however, with the recent media feeding-frenzy over the resurrected JonBenet Ramsey case, one has to wonder: what else was going on?

The Republicans have become masters at misdirection. When news that is critical of the administration, or can be seen as a huge indictment on the activities of certain Republicans, they trot out the smoke and mirrors. Most people wouldn’t notice this unless if they do a fair amount of digging around on the Internet. Let’s face it: most people are lazy when it comes to keeping abreast of public and civil affairs. The Right Wingnuts use this to their advantage, as it seems all five media conglomerates that control the majority of print and broadcast media are riding in the GOP’s pockets.

Think the Smoke and Mirrors argument is a little hokey? Check out this link from Think Progress. Yes, that’s right, Honorable Judge Taylor found:

“In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids.”

Who in the media reported this? I’m a news junkie, but I found not one whisper, one tittle of information on this in the broadcast news. (My television is usually tuned to CNN most of the day, and MSNBC for Olbermann’s show.)

A better understanding of the issues surrounding this case can be found on this article written by Thom Hartmann. Also, check out this link on the “coincidences” between the release of unfavorable news items towards the administration and the raising of the threat level. Scroll down half the page to get to the Top 10 list, written on October 12th, 2005, is enumerated by Keith Olbermann.

To wit- the Bush Administration broke the law. A federal judge has found that not only was the law broken, but the Constitution was violated as well. Rather than cover this news, the media decided that a decade old sensationalistic news story was more worthy of top coverage. The GOP gets another “Get Out of Jail Free” card yet again.

How is this not propaganda?

Where is the Outrage?

Okay, I’ve about had it. I’m tired of people not utilizing their critical thinking skills. I’m tired of people just accepting a proposition because someone in authority said that this is the way things are. Most importantly, I’m tired of the mangled mess the English language has become in the media. Case in point: Islamo-Fascism.

I know this phrase sounds great for provoking fear, especially since it is aimed at middle-aged Caucasian Christians. The fear that it evokes is great for boosting readership to Blogs and for spiking the ratings game in favor of an article, newscast, radio show, or forum. The ratings are good for delivering advertising and widening one’s mind share in the info-tainment industry that used to be a News Industry. However, all of these things are bringing people more into the keeping of fantasy, fear-mongering, and irrationality then into the light of seeing new facts, evidence, and reason. The main culprits at this juncture are (gasp!) the Neo-Conservative talking heads, lead by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Bill o’Reilly. You would think that with their track record of breaking ethics, lying, terrorising their audience, and distortion of the truth that people would take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

First off, to educate most people who haven’t been bothered to actually research anything that they’ve heard, there is no such thing as Islamo-Fascism. Fascism is defined by Mussolini, the first leader of a Fascist state, as corporatism. A better definition would be to define fascism as the marriage of governance to corporate power. In extrapolation of this definition, we see that the wealthy elites are the ones that control the direction of the country. However, here are some other qualities of a fascist regime:

1. Within a fascist state there is extreme nationalism, with a xenophobic outlook on other nation/states and peoples; usually expressed with an outpouring of flags, memorabilia, mottoes, and other emblems of nationalism.
2. Scapegoating. Facsist regimes increasingly scapegoat the “other” as the cause of the nations problems. This usually takes the form in labelling as the “enemy” liberals, intellectuals, unions, academics, scientists, and others, either inside of the state, or outside, but usually both.
3. Censorship, either through direct state control of the media or through indirect economic means. Actual news is anathema to a fascist regime and its policies, so the news must be replaced with propaganda.

While there are other tell-tale symptoms of a fascist regime, I believe these are the most obvious ones that a person should watch out. All of these took place within the states of Italy, Germany, and Spain during the Second World War, but those states do not by any means exemplify the only ways that a fascist regime can exist within the world stage.

Now, take these definitions and apply them to the Middle East and Muslims, can we see any Fascism? I do not believe so. The thing that I see when I look at the political structure of the Mid-East is state after state that is an Autocratic Theocracy, a much different animal from Fascism. Most political scientists would agree with this assessment.

Why, then, would the right-wing press within this country refer to Islamo-Fascism all the time? Outside of fear, I believe that the answer lies with the psychological concept of “projection”. This is a feature by which a person attributes to others the ideals, values, and fears that the person adheres to. With the U.S. having taken an extreme turn to the right, most right-wing commentators are unwittingly subscribing to a political philosophy that they say they do not agree with, and yet do agree with according to their actions and their indirect rhetoric. It is akin to the Creationist labeling Evolution as a Faith, even though it is nothing like a Faith. Or the adulterer accusing others of committing adultery. The analogy can go on and on.

For example, let’s look at the title of a book written by one repugnant wing-nut, Michael Savage. The title of the book? _The Enemy Within_. If you read the book with a definition of fascism to the side, you would immediately see that everything that he accuses Muslims and Mid-East countries of doing are the same things that he is doing. While evoking the cry of “Islamo-Fascism!” he has set himself up as a Fascist as well. Will the irony never cease?

To quote from an anonymous source, “If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!”

Open Markets, Open Source, and Open Minds

They are at it again. They have been with us the whole time, lurking in the shadows, pulling strings without being seen, and pushing their pawns across the board almost unnoticed. They are devious, cunning, sometimes extremely charming, and deceptive. They have more resources at their disposal than some small countries do. They congregate in groups and lobbies with nice sounding names- names that, if given little thought, sound like their goals would be to the benefit of all. This is just part of their deception. Their ability with the English language is second to none, at least in their marketing efforts. They control almost all the media outlets in the country. Most of the things you see on network and cable television news is controlled by them. They are the reason why the “country” is obsessed with news items like Terry Schiavo and Aruba. Their Mantra? “Free Markets”! However, in looking closely at their political persuasion, they want anything but what they espouse.

Most people are familiar with the term “Neo-Conservative”. What most people do not know, though, is that the term was coined by the Neo-Cons themselves. The term, meaning “New Conservative”, has rapidly been pushed to the brink of nothing more but a euphemism for “Fascist”. With fascism comes the marriage of corporate power to government power. In the end, the people who run your lives are the same people who are on the corporate boards and in the halls of power. With this power comes the destruction of regulatory practices that actually keep the market free. You see, there exists a paradox in actually having a free market economy. Most economists could tell you this in their freshman level college classes, and many do. The paradox is this: In order for a particular market to be truly free, it must be regulated to keep the playing field level.

What does this have to do with Open Source, though? Well, the same analogy applies. With open source code, the code is freely distributed and added to. What makes it work, though, is a system of procedures to edit the code, authenticate it, and make sure it works with the rest of the tree. To do this, various mailing lists, IRC rooms, CVS repositories, and procedure guides are created to keep the flow of information freely flowing without it devolving into utter chaos. (Coding is, after all, all about structure and algorithm.) In other words, in a comparatively open environment, a lot of protocols and procedures are put into place to ensure the value of the Opened Source Code. The same is true of markets. In order to have an Open Market, there must exist regulations and laws in order to keep said market from floundering in corruption, cronyism, and anarchism.

But wait! The Free Markets People claim that the “Invisible Hand” of the marketplace will correct all such abnormalities. Sometimes this is true, but only in a commodities market. However, this mantra is nothing more but a form of ideology that ignores real world settings and mechanisms. To see the blatant truth of this, just look at the energy sectors of countries that “opened” up their markets, stripping out most of the regulation inherent within. Those markets collapsed, prices rose to the point where only the affluent and rich could afford them, unemployment went on the rise, the value of their currencies sunk, and general fiscal and social chaos was set loose upon their lands. How can a free market exist if the same Chairman of the Board for the corporation is also the main funder behind the government? How can people survive in such a fascist state?

They can’t. We are seeing it all the time in the countries of South America. Take Argentina as the latest example of this thinking. They were forced by the World Bank and the IMF to “open” certain sectors of their economy, to tie the value of their currency to the value of the dollar, and to ban unions. The result is the economic meltdown that they are even now in the midst of.

But it gets better! The people behind such disasters such as Argentina, Chile, and Peru, now want to import this type of economic policy into the United States! Look at the energy crises in Southern California. After the de-regulation act in the 1980’s that Reagan sought, energy prices throughout the States jumped! The utility companies were no longer bound by regulations to keep their equipment upgraded, to have supplies on hand in case if anything broke, and were allowed to seek the maximum profit possible. Anyone knows that to get to a grand goal, it is easier to work with others of the same interest to the benefit of all in the group, and this is exactly what happened in the energy sector. Utilities started forming partnerships and coalitions in the effort to raise the price of energy through the roof. Most of the Enron scandal is nothing more but this story writ large across the papers. However, where Enron became hubristic, the others were more cautious, and their gouging is going on even to this day.

The only way to escape this is to apply “Regulation of the Mind” to current issues. Just as Open Source software must have procedures and protocols, and Open Markets must have regulation to ensure a level playing field, so to the mind only works when properly disciplined with critical thinking. Man cannot survive by wishful thinking. We tried that once in the West. It’s an era referred to as the Dark Ages. The proper operation of the mind must exist within these Principles:

1. Checking of Empirical Evidence. As the citizens of the State of Missouri say in their motto- “Show Me”! Don’t take someone else’s word for it. This extends to newspapers and broadcasts. Check it out for yourself. If you live in the States or in Canada, then you probably live in an area where you have easy access to the Internet. Check out the papers on-line from first hand sources. Do fact checking. It’s not like it takes a genius to use Google, after all.
2. Logic! Logic only works if the premise is found to be true, which is reason for you to check out the validity of the evidence yourself. Then, ask yourself, “Are there logical errors at play here?” Most logical errors come from the Straw Man Argument (a caricature of the opposing viewpoint which is set up and then knocked down, often having nothing to do with the opposing view at all), Argument From Authority (so-and-so said this, and he’s an expert), Bifurcation Error (only giving two possible outcomes or possibilities, when in fact many more exist), and Ad Hominem (calling someone or a stance a pejorative, without dealing with the issue at hand).
3. Always search for more evidence, and always keep an open mind to the opposing viewpoint. After all, living is not a sport where we should just accept one viewpoint and cheer it on much like a fan of a Football team. It’s the paramount virtue, and we should strive to make it better, even at the expense of our own egos.

Hence, we see that that Paradox only exists within semantics. The rest is rational thought.