A Middle Eastern Thought Experiment

Sometimes when we are presented with a problem, aspects of the problem have strong emotional effects. Such effects often make solving the problem more difficult than it really is. Such emotional aspects cloud our thinking. Our feelings preclude certain logically possible solutions. Thus, we can reject out-of-hand, or not even identify, logically correct solutions.

One method that can be employed in such circumstances is to change the actors and the actions to some less emotionally charged scenario. It is often helpful if another person performs the recasting. Their resulting scenario becomes merely a thought experiment. A thought experiment we can consider logically. And, therefore, develop a logical solution.

I that manner, let me posit a thought experiment. I’ll provide some of my own analysis. I’ll let you consider what you think is the logical solution. And then, I’ll translate the thought experiment back into the real life problem. You can see if you would have come to the same conclusion had you been considering the “real” problem.

Here is my thought experiment.

You are a Black man living in a mostly white neighborhood. You are a nice guy and don’t cause trouble. However, Old Man Thompson (an entirely fictitious name), is a nasty hold over from the days of bed sheets and burning crosses. He has an extreme dislike of Black folks and lets everyone in the neighborhood know it.

A few weeks after cold weather arrives, the neighborhood children start pelting you with snowballs. Now this is odd as it hasn’t snowed yet and therefore the children cannot be making their own snowballs. Yet, they seem to have an endless supply. They pelt you whenever you go out side. This makes walking your dog or riding your bike impossible.

A snowball here or there isn’t going to do much damage but there are so many you are being injured. And your dog is suffering. You’re not even safe in your own house, as they have started pelting your house and breaking windows. Something must be done.

You spend the weekend watching the neighborhood with your binoculars and discover the source of the snowballs. Old Man Thompson has an ice machine going in his back yard and is passing out boxes of snowballs to the children along with lectures on how bad black folks in general and you in particular are.

What do you do to address your problem? Let me suggest a few alternatives.

1. Just put up with it?
2. Start throwing snowballs back at the children?
3. Move out of the neighborhood?
4. Call the police on the children?
5. Call the children’s parents?
6. Call Old Man Thompson?
7. Call the police on Old Man Thompson?
8. Start throwing snowballs at Old Man Thompson?
9. Call a lawyer?
10. Build a snowball shield?
11. Steal or disable the ice machine?
12. Other.

Let’s examine each of these possibilities logically.

1. Just put up with it.

This is a fine solution if you want others to know you’re patient and not moved to anger. In the short run you can probably succeed. However, in the long run your dog and you die.

2. Start throwing snowballs back at the children

This might make you feel good. You’re bigger and stronger than any one of the children. You can through a snowball that might knock a smaller child down. However, there are a lot of children. How long can you do this before their parents get involved? Is attacking children really a good idea?

3. Move out of the neighborhood

OK if you can afford it. But most folk can’t afford it. And besides, is this really a solution? Old Man Thompson will continue to spread hate and can now point to your departure as a victory for his ideas and the children’s behavior.

4. Call the police about the children

In a rational world this sounds good. Let the authorities deal with the children. You don’t have to do anything. The police do what they are supposed to do – keep the peace.

Unfortunately I need to modify the story a bit here to reflect the real scenario. The police refuse to do anything. Worse, they blame you for starting the trouble. Oh they post a sign saying that throwing snowballs is not acceptable. But they don’t even lecture the children despite seeing them throw snowballs at your house.

5. Call the children’s parents

Again, in a rational world one might be successful with this approach. It requires, however, that the children have parents, that the parents want a quiet neighborhood, that they are capable of controlling their children, and that they also think Old Man Thompson’s view of the world is wrong.

Unfortunately, the real scenario requires that most of the children have no parents and those that do are the grandchildren of Old Man Thompson. The parents think the children are justified in their behavior.

6. Call Old Man Thompson

You can imagine how well this would work.

You’ll appeal to his what? Conscious? Sense of fairness? Tell him that he’s wrong? That he’s doing something bad? Are you going to plead? Threaten? Explain? Ya, right!

7. Call the police on Old Man Thompson

We’ve been here. If the police think the children are fine then at worst they must agree with Old Man Thompson at best he intimidates them. This just isn’t going to work.

8. Start throwing snowballs at Old Man Thompson

Might make you feel better. Might even get him to stop if he gets hurt. Of course he still has the ice machine. Where are you going to get an equal number of snowballs? You could buy your own ice machine. In the mean time you’re going to have to survive all the children’s snowballs until Old Man Thompson stops supplying them.

Is this a good approach? Well, I’d say yes – if it works. If it doesn’t you’ve really pissed off the old man and he may bring in the police on his side. If he doesn’t give in pretty quick, you’re in even bigger trouble.

9. Call a lawyer

This is a solution most folks jump to right after calling the police doesn’t work. Problem here is, what’s the lawyer going to do? He can’t control the police or make you snowballs. He can’t control the children of Old Man Thompson now the children’s parents. He can’t control the children. The police are the government’s action players. The courts, politicians, and lawyers are just mechanisms to direct the police. They don’t really DO anything - ‘cept take your time and money, of course.

10. Build a snowball shield

Take another sip of that Kool-Aid…

11. Steal or disable the ice machine

This is going to get you into all kinds of trouble with the police. However, it will provide a respite. The children are going to run out of snowballs pretty quickly and you’ll be safe. If the police are worthless at enforcing laws to protect you they will probably be worthless at enforcing laws to hurt you. Here you’re taking a chance. But you’re probably safe from the police doing anything that hurts you.

Of course, Old Man Thompson can just buy another ice machine. He does, however, have to consider that you can steal or disable the new one too. Now Old Man Thompson is faced with giving up, a long string of ice machine purchases, or changing the game.

At this point the situation comes down to who can spend the most - Old Man Thompson buying ice machines or you taking them out. If it’s less expensive to destroy an ice machine that purchase one and if your resources are proportionally equal to Old Man Thompson’s, then the contest could go on for a long time. In the mean time you don’t have to put up with the neighborhood children throwing snowballs at you, your dog, or your house. It’s a stalemate but one your can live with.

If taking out Old Man Thompson’s ice machines are more costly to you than buying them is for Old Man Thompson then you have a problem. He can replace them faster than you can take them out. This approach just won’t work under these circumstances.

Oh you might get lucky and frighten Old Man Thompson. Then he would not buy a new ice machine. But Old Man Thompson is probably not the intimidatable type. This approach becomes a gamble based on your assessment of Old Man Thompson’s psychology.

12. Other

Here are a few additional solutions.

Kill Old Man Thompson.

Quick, completely ends the problem but might get the police to actually do something against you. And worst case, it angers the children so much they buy ice machines. But it may also intimidate the children and their parents and even the police. Besides, can the police do anything worse that the children are already doing?

Kill the children

More difficult than killing the Old Man and it only solves the problem for a generation. The parents will have more children. Old Man Thompson can buy a second or third ice machine and build up an arsenal of snowballs. This approach probably has an even higher risk of getting the police to take action against you. And besides, it really pisses off the parents. There is a big intimidation factor but it leaves the real source of the problem around to continue causing trouble.

Kill the parents

You can figure out why this isn’t a great solution. It doesn’t address the root cause and it doesn’t stop the snowball throwing.

Kill the neighbors who don’t have children.

Seems ridiculous but is relevant to our thought experiment.

Take a while to think about this little thought experiment.

Now answer this question. Why did the Israelis (our Black Man) choose solution #12: Other – Kill all the children, kill some of the children’s parents, and kill some of the neighbors who don’t have children?

In our little thought experiment, the police represent the UN. They aren’t going to do anything to anyone. They are not a threat. Old Man Thompson represents Iran. Iran is not only providing the neighborhood children with snowballs (missiles and car bombs), but is vigorously selling oil to buy more ice machines and winter weather making devices. The children represent Hezbollah and the other Islamic terrorist groups. Like deranged, vicious children they have no real snowballs of their own, no morals, and no conscious. The neighbors with no children represent the Christian and neutral Lebanese. They are afraid to speak out lest they become targets of the children. The children’s parents represent the Hezbollah supporting Lebanese.

So what was your solution to the neighborhood problem? Would it have been the same if you had been solving the problem presented by Hezbollah and the Middle East?

Illegal Immigration and Politics

There simply is not an illegal immigration problem. Nor is the problem is solely one of political ideology. Rather, it is a legal problem. Take, for example, the position that the United States is a sovereign country with the obligation to protect its citizens from ‘external threats’ as described in the US constitution.. Include in the idea of ‘external threats’ a decrease in individual citizen’s physical security, invasion, and economic loss to citizens and US businesses.

Next ask the question, “Does illegal immigration constitute an ‘external threat’?”

This question devolves to each of it’s components:

Component	Situation	Threat
A decrease in individual citizen’s physical security	There has been an increase in murders, sex crimes, and physical assault against US citizens directly proportional to the number of illegal immigrants	Yes
Invasion	There are, by most accounts, over 10 million citizens of other countries in the US with out the permission of the US government and in violation of US laws. This is an invasion.	Yes
Economic loss to citizens	Wages in jobs filled my illegals are static or lower than prior to the invasion. This is an economic to US citizens in these and related jobs. US citizens cannot work for these wages while paying taxes, FICA, and meeting other requirements of employed legal residents.	Yes
Economic loss to US Businesses	Some US businesses competing in international trade acquire a competitive advantage through lower wages. In the long run, taxes must increase to support the unfunded social services required by illegals. Other businesses facing increased shrinkage, poor quality workmanship, increased security requirements, on-the-job language issues, labor disputes, and dissatisfied citizen employees face immediate financial burdens	No/Yes

A reasonable person would look at the above table and conclude that the United States is indeed experiencing an “external threat.”

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Federal government under the Constitution to take all possible measures to eliminate this threat. To the extent that the Federal government fails to perform this duty as required by the constitution, federal officers, judges, and elected representatives are guilty of violation of their oath of office. All such officials, judges, and elected representatives should be impeached. This is not a political or ideological issue but rather a legal issue.

Diet and Terror

Could the Middle Eastern diet be responsible for radical terrorism, perpetual poverty, and a generally self-destructive culture?

Michael Tulloch, an Experimental Psychologist at the University of South Dakota, thinks so.

According to Dr. Tulloch, “Back in the 1930s the United States Department of Agriculture was concerned about the loss of minerals in US farm land. The Middle East has been occupied by humans and intensively farmed for six to eight thousand years compared to only two hundred years in the US. It seems likely that this continuous agriculture has severely depleted the soil. Animals grazing on this land will also be depleted in nutrients essential for normal human development.”

Is there evidence to support his views?

The LiveScience article Something Fishy: How Humans Got So Smart(Complete article), describes the potential value of fish in the human diet. Stephen Cunnane, a metabolic physiologist at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec presented his research Saturday, February 18, 2006 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Even today, many people are dependent on shore-based foods. And it's possible, Cunnane speculates, that diets which aren't based on the ancient tradition put us at grave risk.

“Deficiencies in iodine and iron—minerals rich in a fish diet—can lead to cognitive degeneration. That's why companies added iodine to salt starting in the 1920s.

"’We're still vulnerable when we're not consuming that vitamin-rich diet,’ Cunnane told LiveScience. … If you take away the fuel, the brain suffers."

Contrast this article with the information contained in a recent NIH article. There, David B. Adams, Ph.D. reports the results of his study suggesting an association between greater seafood consumption and lower rates of bipolar disorders. The most precipitous rise in prevalence rates for the bipolar disorders generally occurs in countries having a seafood consumption of less than 50 lb per person (per year). (Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:2222-2227.)

Additional research shows young adults exposed to an enriched, stimulating environment during childhood may be at decreased risk for schizophrenia and criminal behavior. The enrichment program emphasized a stimulating environment and focused on three key elements-nutrition, education, and physical exercise. Program participants scored lower on tests of schizotypal personality and antisocial behavior at age 17 years and were less likely to have a history of criminal behavior. The strongest benefits were seen among children with evidence of malnutrition at age 3 years. The findings may be particularly relevant to poor rural areas of the US...and also to US inner cities, where rates of both malnutrition and behavioral problems in children are relatively high. (Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1627-1635. As found here.)

In another study, the adjusted mean MacArthur Comprehension score was significantly higher for children whose mothers consumed fish four times/week compared with those children whose mothers did not consume fish. The results indicate that a relationship exists between fish consumption by mothers during pregnancy and development of verbal and communication abilities in children. Even moderate fish consumption seems to have positive effects on children’s development (Daniels et al., 2004).

The availability of fish for human consumption can be found in AAAS articles (for example: Natural Resources and Waste) and in World Wildlife Fund Reports (for example: Living Planet Report 2002). Availability is assumed to be highly correlated with consumption for a given country. However, those countries with a large tourism industry may have consumption estimates skewed toward the tourist country of origin.

Never the less, the following map makes a striking statement. Access to fish alone is a fairly good predictor of wealth and civilization while lack of access to fish is a predictor of poverty and terrorism.



Dr. Tulloch proposes a formula that creates a nutra-deficiency coefficient. This coefficient can be found by multiplying [Cropland/person] by [Grazing Land] by [Fishing Grounds/person] by [the inverse of Years of Agriculture] by [Per Capita Income].

The first three factors of this formula relate to the availability of the three primary sources of foods: grain/vegetables, animal, and fish. The fourth factor is a stand in for measured soil depletion. The final factor attempts to adjust the coefficient for wealthy countries’ ability to purchase nutrition resources beyond their local capabilities.

It is difficult to evaluate how to scale the depletion factor - inverse of Years of Agriculture. Values vary from 8000 years for the Fertile Crescent to 200 or so years for North America and Australia.

Similarly, there appears to be no a priori scale for “Per Capita Income” which also has a large range.

Therefore, nutra-coefficient values were computed without the factors for Farming History and Per Capita Income. A nutra-coefficient was calculated for six representative countries yielding the following chart:



By simply combing crop and grazing land availability with the availability of fish, areas of the world with lower scores are found to be the source of today’s terrorism. Note the extreme value range in the above chart.

A Nutra-Coefficient can be calculated for nearly any country using values available in the WWF report referenced above or the USA's CIA Fact Book.

Related Links:

Kids' Asthma Linked to Maternal Nutrition