Don't Trust the Crowd

I spend very little time in the financial pages of the newspaper but a heading caught my eye in the Nov. 22 edition of the Washington Post. It was by Bob Frick, Kiplinger writer on "Personal Finance." The heading read, "Don't trust the crowd if you value the truth."



Frick was commenting on the tendency of investment clubs to concentrate on one method of choosing their investments and not tolerate dissent in the group. Challenges to the prevailing opinion are often met with deep skepticism if not hostility. That phenomenon is called "group think" in which he explains, people seem to adandon reason and simply follow the crowd." Psychologists through experiments have concluded that humans seem to be hard-wired to believe what the crowd tells us. Further, tests show that disagreeing with a group stimulates the pain centers of the brain.



That may explain why the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures spoke of themselves being in agony. Their lonely voices raised against the group think of their day gave them a perpetual headache. And, of course, their criticism of the policies and action of people in high places gave them the reputation of being a headache to those who wouldn't tolerate dissent.



The model for going against the stream of public opinion is Jesus. Following his daring act of cleansing the temple the were a number who observed this demonstration of discernment and authority and as well as other dramatic signs and decided that here was where there was excitment. After describing the event and the crowds reaction the gospel writer, John, concludes, "But Jesus on his part, would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and need no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone." John 2:23ff.



It was clear that the crowd is fickle, responding to unreliable whims and appetites. In short an unreliable guide. Especially is this true of a population for whom self-preservation and nationalistic pride is their ultimate concern. It seems this concern develops into a demonic spirit that is extremely difficult to resist or break. Inevitably it is wrong and leads to sorrow and loss.

What's a Budget Buster

David Broder is a serious pundit for the Washington Post and waxes as serious as he ever gets in the Sunday, Nov. 22 edition when he analyses the health care plan before the Congress. He takes the pessimistic view quoting studies that show there will be no savings and that it will be more costly in the long run, shot run, or in any run at all.



I doubt if Broder wrote the title to his piece at least the words do not appear anywhere in the column. The column is headed, "A budget-buster in the making." The title takes the piece to the extreme to create the maximum amount of skepticism and fear.



But it is curious to me that in the matter of health care for the nation's population that lacks there is this effort to claim it is too costly, dangerous, and disasterous. The nation has been dealing with budget busters for decades without a whimper. Bridges to nowhere have stretched to the horizon for years and the states smimply clammord for more. Subsidies have been doled out to various idustries and farmers like sugar cookies without one tear for the poor budget. And all wars win the instant status of "holy" and are funded willy-nilly without consideration for budgets or the future generations. The tack of the previous administration was to keep the cost of war out of the budget lest it been seen for what it is--a budget buster.



Meanwhile, out of sight is a "black budget," reported by Chalmers Johnson. Officially known as "Special Access Programs" which are devoted to secret millitary and intelligence spending. Unsupervised, and unreported, this budget is really a black hole into which billions of dollars disappear. There can be only an estimate of the total devoted to the secret projects which the GAO places at $30 to $35 billion per year. Where are the pundits, the congress people, the editors who lament the misuse of so much money that could be applied to the health and welfare of the nation?



But the funding of the military becomes a deep, dark secret that defies any effort to bring to light or bring to accountability. Again it is Chalmers Johnson who reveals that the deputy inspector general at the Pentagon "admitted that $4.4 trillion in adjustments to the Pentagon's books had to be cooked to compile...required financial statements and that $1.1 trillion...was simply gone and no one can be sure of when, where or to whom the money went."

It makes absolutely no sense to me that there are those who have a hissy fit every time a suggestion is made that health care will cost something and turn a blind eye to the ways in which the present way of spending money drives the nation into deep and dangerous debt. The national priorities are clearly set by powerful interests that benefit a priviledged class, primarily the indutrial/military complex rather than the desperate needs of people.

An Unrecognized Cost of War

I've always believed that war isn't good for anyone. The true cost is never known, at least never considered, especially when preparing for the next one. And the winner doesn't bother to consider the cost they have paid, except for the soldiers that didn't come back or the amount the nation has gone into debt financially. But in this present war there are costs that are especially obvious that goes beyond body count and billions of dollars.

The cost that seems to be for the first time recognized by the nation that considers itself the winner are the thousands of soldiers that are suffering mental and emotional disability. I have heard one third as the percentage of combat troops who are disabled or crippled by mental trauma. And another figure I heard today is that last year 140 military personnel commited suicide. This year they project the number to exceed that. This number does not include veterans, only those presently still in the armed forces. Plus each one of these casualties represents families, mothers, fathers, spouses, children, and others who whose lives are damaged or devastated by the agony of grief and added burden.

The armed forces admit that they do not have enough trained counselors to handle the number who need help. Further, one counselor who was interviewd on PBS said the purpose of their counseling was to return them to their unit as soon as possible. If being in their unit is the source of their problem how can they hope to regain mental health by returning?

It seems to me that clear thinking people who are considering the use of war as an effective instrument of dealing with problems would say that perhaps war has a cost that makes it too expensive to use, at least when there is another option available. The manufacturer whose equipment seriously injured one third of its employees would be forced to devise another way of making its product or close down.

I would be ready to help paint the sign: War Closed Until It Becomes Safe.