A Scientist’s Doubt Defines the Beginning

The difference between a skeptic and a scientist is that while they both doubt, a skeptic's doubt defines her end and is her ceiling while a scientist’s doubt defines her beginning and is a trampoline to greater understanding.

I was a skeptic in my youth and it limited me. I have been a scientist for many years and it has broadened my vision. I sometimes wonder where my intellect could have taken me had I made that transition in my youth.

Hold onto your virtues, but do so as a scientist, not a skeptic. Our country has too many skeptics at this time and it will limit us. Be a virtuous scientist and let it define the beginning of your journey and not the end of your vision.

Loren M. Lambert February 4, 2016 ©.

On Populism

The interesting thing is, both the entrepreneurial moguls and the angry displaced American worker are seeking access to advantages that, if gained, have the potential of guiding us into tyranny.

I tend to gravitate towards the more progressive spectrum of the political divide because what I see in my own practice is that not only are the substantive rules of law being corrupted to serve the elite and very wealthy, but the procedural rules are being changed in manners that also tip the balance of power towards the very wealthy. I see this in a case I am trying in court at this very moment in which our corporate bankruptcy and business entity laws have allowed entrepreneurs to reap all the benefits of their investments without ever having to suffer any of the consequences of their bad decisions, nor their malicious and criminally motivated ones.

This whole phenomenon is made exponentially worse when these businesses can take both their ill-gotten and legitimate gains to further corrupt the political system by bankrolling those who would further bend the rules in their favor and keep them from suffering the consequences of their decisions.

Yet, it will be in an even uglier sight if the populist movement is so successful that it degrades into battles against certain religions, certain immigrants, and certain areas of the country. Such battles and depravity are inevitable unless the ruling class and elite are wise enough to relinquish their corporate socialism and their grip upon their privileged legal status and are required to bear their proportionate share of the burden and to suffer the consequences of both their bad and malicious decisions. They, like all, should rise based on merit alone. That isn’t what is happening today.

I understand and have affinity towards many of the ideas espoused by both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump. But intent matters, diplomacy matters, civility matters, practicability matters, economics matter and the heart of the leader pursuing those goals matters.

Loren M. Lambert February 4, 2016 ©.

Ancestors and Modernity

The question isn’t necessarily how our ancestors centuries ago lived like our imaginations envision they lived- as beautiful, active, vigorous souls, unburdened by the excesses of modernity.

The more interesting question is: if you took a spattering of those ancient ancestors and you plunked them down into our modern existence, then how would they live and why?

I suspect that they would have the same challenges that we have now because while the individual must have liberty and freedom for self-direction, the fabric of our society must be formed and shaped to allow us to achieve our best natures.

Without both interests being fully honored, we will not reach the perfection that is possible and within reach.
Loren M Lambert © February 13, 2016

The Power of Apologies

According to most Christians, the only person who is a good candidate for never having needed to apologize, was Jesus Christ and even he asked his followers to forgive his Roman executioners. So when did it become a sign of weakness to apologize for mistakes or lapses in judgment? If it’s not a sign of weakness for individuals to do so, why is it a sign of weakness for nations to do the same? Apologizing does not equate to appeasement, nor to declining to defend self, home, family, community or nation. It is a means of reconciliation and harmonizing instead separating and antagonizing.

Only the ignorant and the disingenuous would claim that the United States of America has never made a mistake and cannot benefit from apologizing, even when there may be fault applicable to both parties. That is true in a marriage, in a partnership and among nations. It is not a sign of weakness or cowardice to apologize, it is a sign of courage, charity and strength. Only the confident and the secure are able to apologize.

Are some Americans so insecure or so ignorant about our place in history that they are threatened when leaders or individuals seek to apologize for our mistakes and misadventures?
Loren M Lambert © February 13, 2016

“We Will Investigate That but You Should Know That If We Find That You're in the Wrong We Are Going to Come after You.”

(Please share this post with any police officers or HR representatives you know, I’d be interested in hearing what they have the say).

I have a case I’ve been working on involving a fatality in an auto accident. One of the witnesses was following behind one of the cars involved in the accident right before the accident occurred. She stopped to give assistance. She knew information that contradicted the official police report. Although she’s from a small community in which most people know each other, she has no relationship with the victims or parties other than having known one of the deceased in high school over 20 years ago. She tried to provide what she knew immediately prior to the accident. The police officer involved in investigating the accident immediately told her she was lying and that if she tried to give an official statement she would be prosecuted.

Let me acknowledge something. Her perception of what happened may be wrong, but that does not make her a liar.

I have interviewed hundreds of people who have been business owners, management employees, government officials, HR department employees or have been supervisors. I have heard these persons in positions of power say--when interviewing an employee who claimed to have information about wrongdoing or claim to have been a witness to or the victim of a particular type of harassment or discrimination–they started the interviews with such employees with the statement, “if I find out you’re not telling the truth I am going to fire you.”

I have also interviewed hundreds of employees. I have heard many employees indicate that, when they came forward with information that they thought was helpful to the company or the governmental agency because they had been a witness to or victim of wrongdoing, harassment or discrimination, verify that they had been threatened with termination if what they were telling their bosses or HR representatives could not be shown to be the truth. (The other interesting side note is that the same bosses and HR representatives have a problem with recording and often have policies against it).

Let me acknowledge that some employees are incorrect about what they say they have seen, heard or experienced. But that does not make them liars.

Let me further acknowledge that there are a few rare individuals who make up information to report to the police or their employer. When that occurs, action can be taken but threatening somebody with a criminal prosecution or termination will silence good people long before it stops those who purposefully lie.

Here is some actual testimony of a police officer from a police force within the Wasatch front: “We get complaints, there is no question. Nobody is ever happy all the time with police officers and so complaints come in. And when those come in, it's my opinion when you field that complaint as an investigator like that, the first thing that should be said is, ‘Well, if you are willing to fill out a written complaint and -- we will investigate that but you should know that if we find that you're in the wrong we are going to come after you.’”

Why do so many people in positions of power not understand that such attitudes and statements are a problem? Does it surprise us when horrible things go wrong in police forces, corporations, government agencies when such attitudes are shared by those who should know better? It shouldn’t because these wrong-headed attitudes are strongly held by many who do not understand how difficult it is to come forward with information about wrongdoing, harassment and discrimination.

Loren M Lambert © January 23, 2016.

Who Won Republican Debate? Who Lost?

Winner: Fox News--I have to take my hat off--they put on a good debate.

Who lost along with Trump?

We will lose if we elect most of the Republican candidates because they will unnecessarily take us to war, they will arm those who will use those same arms against us, they will alienate our allies and we will stand alone. They will not make us great but will bring us down to the petty level of our enemies, and they will create more terrorists than they will kill, as we return to thinking that belligerence, torture, and destruction perpetrated abroad against those outside the confines of our borders and not under the cloak of our flag of citizenship, will make us safer at home and will not bring the same to be rained down upon our own children.

It is not a war against depraved warlords we fight, it is a war of ideas, philosophies, ideals, ethics and morals. We need to worry more about winning the hearts and minds of those under either the spell or the heel of their oppressors and less about death, war and destruction.
Loren M. Lambert © January 25, 2016

“Oafissication Atrophic Sympathetic Syndrome” or “OASS” Strikes Seven Out of Ten Affluent White Male Men

I recently learned, in the middle of the night, that I suffer from a mild form of this condition. So I know something about it.

Oafissication is a condition that usually strikes men, rarely women, between their 40s to 60s, and oddly enough, a high percentage of those with a net worth over $500,000. However, it can affect all adults over age 12, during or after puberty, and all socio-economic groups. It is now considered a stage of development or better said, retro-development in many males’ lives, between the height of physical health during a male’s 30's and before aging completely robs them of their virility in their 70's.

It occurs when a person’s incipient thoughts about their material world, incipient business ideas and their unspoken biases and prejudices are transformed into ossified convictions. This usually occurs when a person has reached a certain amount of expertise or excellence in one very narrow realm of study or economic achievement and that person then extrapolates from that success and believes he is competent in all economic endeavors and in all intellectual disciplines.

It also causes a person to believe that everything he says is ingenious- not because it is, but just because they say it and to look back on his or her life and reconstruct it so that everything he has done was a success, whether this is actually the case. He also believes that he is still as attractive as he was in his or her prime and that anyone who pays attention to him are interested solely in him and not his money or positions of power.

Surely and slowly, such persons, without significant intervention, by age 65 to 70 turn irretrievably into an oaf. Some of these oafs are viewed as lovable and endearing grandfathers, depending upon their dispositions, so that their outdated and bad ideas can be seen as simply a remnant of their ignorant pasts, but others become boorish, overbearing and intolerable- especially if they obtain positions of power that give them authority over other human beings.

In his psychological evaluation, the Donald (Trump), was determined to be terminally stricken with this malady. Please send donations to me and I will use them in a manner that advances ameliorating this condition in all those who suffer from it.

Loren M. Lambert, © Jan. 12, 2016.