Statements like this are commonplace. We (myself included) think them and make them all the time. The problem is they’re not always correct. In fact, I think they’re often completely backwards. How did the women know that his being a teacher caused him to analyze everything? Instead, maybe it was his analytical nature that carried him down the path to teacher-hood.

You might think I’m nit-picking here (I’ll grant I do that a lot), but I think this everyday “trivial” thing actually has some potentially big consequences.

Take, for example, higher education. Most people think that you go to college to “get educated” or “get smarter.” But what if the cause-and-effect here is backwards? What if it’s not “going to college makes you smarter” but “being smarter makes you go to college”? There’s a lot of evidence that the correct way to look at college is, in fact, the latter of those two phrases — enough evidence that I know someone writing a book on the subject. If enough people (particularly those in charge of public policy) think “college makes you smart,” then policies get pushed that encourage college-attendance. But if it’s being smart that makes you go to college, maybe there are a lot of people going to college who shouldn’t be. Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this example any further, because soon enough we’ll be able to read an entire book about it.

I merely want to encourage you to try to pay attention to all the times in the day that people make claims that “x causes y,” and then stop, and really think about it. Question it. Say to yourself, “Does x cause y, or does y cause x?”

• My thoughts on The Grey
• My thoughts on any of the many TV series I’ve watched over the past year — there are quite a few
• My current reading queue, which has changed quite a bit since the last update
• My thoughts regarding having worked for the US Army for the past two years*, sans top-secret information
• A basic economics lesson: how wealth is created
• Frances the Mute deserves a post
• Why voting is silly
• Why you should vote for me when I run for _______
• And I really need to put together a prominent disclaimer for people who stumble onto this site that they should be wary to take anything I say or write too seriously

* My first day on the job was 16 Feb 2010.

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.

The same full-length quote was then restated in the LDS General Conference six months later by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, one of the Tweleve Apostles in the LDS church.

Does that mean I can now consider the other writings of Dr. Williams scripture?

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

Well, here’s how it works, in detail. And here’s my simplification: You come up with an issue you think the White House should address, you enter the details in their online system, then you try to get 25,000 people to sign onto your idea. If it reaches 25,000 people, the White House has said they’ll respond to your petition.

As we all know, Chris Dodd is a douchebag moron hack corrupt individual (in regards to his involvement with the RIAA/MPAA), so somebody thought, “Let’s have the White House open up an investigation on this guy!” The petition easily got the 25,000 necessary “signatures,” and this is how the White House responded:

The White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.

What am I missing? Isn’t the point of the Executive branch to enforce laws?

Oh well. Hope and change.

The problem I have is when people claim they like books, and then the conversation goes something like this — and mind you, I’ve had the following conversation several times (with some variation, of course)…

Other Person: “I like books!”

Brandon: “Really? I like books, too! What kinds of books do you like? Have you read anything good recently?”

OP: “I really like fantasy books.”

B: “Oh great, me too! Have you gotten through Lord of the Rings yet?”

OP: “Oh no, I started it once, but it’s so long. I loved Harry Potter, though. I’ve read them all three times. And I recently finished the Hunger Games series. Have you heard of that?”

B: *struck by sudden fear* “…um, yes. Have you read any of the Narnia books at least?”

OP: “Oh, I saw the movies.”

B: *realizing I need to quit talking to this person about books ASAP* “Well you should definitely try reading them some time. You could probably blaze through them in a few days. So, uh, are you excited about them making Hunger Games into a movie? Let’s talk about movies and TV.”

So the moral of the story: If you’re going to claim to be a book lover but your knowledge of the topic is confined to modern pop fiction for children, please be aware that you sound silly claiming that you are a book lover.

Or just throw out a caveat, and I’m more than willing to cut you some slack.