Driverless cars ... the future?

Discussion and enthusiasm about the advent and development of driverless cars is beginning to get traction in our daily discourse. As Uber, WAYMO, GOOGLE, and others invest in this new technology, it’s really easy to get sucked into the excitement surrounding it. It energizes that circuit in us all that wants a flying car. But when the hope and euphoria wears off like the smell of a new car, what’s the practical reality look like? And what has to happen to our culture in order to enable it? ...in my opinion, nothing short of a cultural revolution. 

There are countless applications and markets in which driverless cars will both thrive and flounder. Let’s start with driverless rideshare because that’s where I think it’ll first go “live”.  Uber is testing driverless cars in several markets, but at the moment there are “co-drivers” who are responsible for every traveled mile.  Remove this sentient being from behind the wheel and let’s imagine just a few of the challenges. 

1. “No driver” means there is no one to whom the passengers are accountable. As an Uber driver who has driven a third of my trips in the evening, I can tell you that having a driver in the car isn’t always enough to keep the passengers “in line”. Mayhem can ensue when inebriated patrons climb into the car. In the driverless model, how will they be monitored to ensure the integrity of the car is maintained?  Foul smells (often from previous passengers), “biological releases”, and (as an extreme example), illegal narcotics are just a few of the conditions that must be monitored. Would you get into a car without knowing whether the previous occupants had been “doing blow” in the back seat?  You can undoubtedly expect a delay at the airport when the dogs get a whiff of the residue on your clothes. Do I even need to mention the potential for a driverless car delivering a lethal package?
2. No amount of software development will overcome the challenges presented by riders. One in five of my airport passengers are not in the designated rideshare pickup location. Phone calls have to be made to figure out a resolution. An even higher percentage will pick an arbitrary airport delivery destination. (There are three terminals in Phoenix and each are separated by a significant distance.  Terminal selection/destination has to be confirmed every time.) Multiply that complexity by ten when trying to accommodate inebriated riders. My riders are a mix of locals and tourists, who have trouble communicating where they are to someone who knows the area! Cell phone geolocation still isn’t accurate enough to solve this issue. I’m almost amused at the thought of 2,000 drunk riders (on a slow Saturday night in Old Town Scottsdale) trying to figure out which of the countless identical fleet Uber cars was the one they ordered to take them home!
3. Cultural enrichment and social connections are at stake. We have become increasingly disconnected from one another as a society, often enabled by technology intended to bring us together. Rideshare has managed to bring us back together, even if only for a brief moment. I spent many years in a line of work that inspires (and promotes) paranoia and cynicism with respect to people and society. Driving Uber has restored my faith in people and also given me a much more representative view of the “real world”...and it looks nothing like what we see on MTV.  Riders have not only become accustomed to talking tmo a stranger hired to serve them, they’ve become interested in it.  It has become the sociological equivalent of wine tasting. A cultural enrichment occurs, even if only superficially, when a rider and driver from diverse backgrounds connect, no matter how briefly. Perspectives are shared, and that is everything. 
4. Passenger diversity is a hard egg to crack.  Twelve years ago, I would have said (like many ambitious entrepreneurs, these days) that everyone should own and drive a Prius. I was so excited by the technology, I believed it should be imposed upon everyone! But, I’ve escaped my bubble and have been exposed to the extreme diversity of needs that passengers have. Passengers who are infirm or need basic assistance with medical devices/equipment is a growing market. Wheelchairs, crutches, and other durable medical equipment need an able-bodied assistant to load/unload. Ignore this market at your peril. Don’t even get me started on riders with spatial relations problems. (I had one rider who ordered UberX - which could have been a Prius showing up for them - that had six pieces of luggage and a 9’ box with a projection screen in it.) Some riders request multiple waypoint stops, that even the current app doesn’t accommodate. Parents use their accounts to put minors in vehicles, unaccompanied, in violation of the terms of service. Accompanied or not, they are often small enough to require (by law) a car seat. Half of the time, parents don’t have this critical safety feature for their children.
5. You can’t just ship off your kid. The best argument that I hear for driverless cars is personal ownership. “I’d love to program my car to take my kid(s) to all of their appointments.” That’s reasonable and probably the most enticing vision for driverless cars...and myopic. In the same spirit of #3, parents would now become less connected with their children and their lives. Several times a week, the kid would literally get shipped off to whatever sport or music lesson that represened the time sink of the week. How effective are those efforts when there’s no one from whom the child can seek approval, validation, and support? There would be time and aggravation saved on the front end, but when the effectiveness of the endeavor is measured, it becomes a total loss.  

Peeling back this onion further, let’s consider the commercial part of the equation. What reaction would you expect from truck drivers as they’re replaced by driverless trucks? This isn’t a fantasy, this is being actively explored with driverless containers on the road. Much like the impact of rideshare to the taxi and limousine service, there will be a significant disruption and revolution to follow. I could go on ad nauseam, extending the conversation into farming, air transportation, shipping, etc. And while I applaud the entrepreneurs who are finding new and exciting ways to reduce costs and increase profits, we can’t lose sight of the human factor.  With over 300 million people in the US, we have the largest “car culture” in the world. The diversity in our car selection is even more than our ethnicities. Cars are a passion...owning them, driving them, enhancing them.  There are television shows, magazines, and countless websites dedicated to evaluating cars, all of which are used to inspire us. We talk about our car history in the same voice as our dating history.  I, along with millions of Americans, love to drive! Driving offers me the opportunity to think about life, soak in the incredible beauty of the world around me, and find inspiration I never knew possible ...and you can take away that freedom, liberty, and control when you’re prepared to pry it out of my cold dead hands! Over the last 30 years, I have driven in 43 states and two Canadian provinces. I’ve traveled over 750K miles and when ranked among other American drivers, I barely break the top 10%.  We. Love. Driving.

 I concede that driverless cars will inevitably be a part of our future...but not without a cultural revolution. And fundamentally, we should be asking ourselves, are we ready to be the sheep and never again the shepherds?

Is it time to legalize drugs?

This linear, defeatist thinking is so emblematic of ...well, drug users.

First, you have to reject the premise that the biggest danger is on the street corner. That's a narrow, myopic view of the true peril, which exists at the management level.
Second, if there was a genuine concern for the user (the unfairness of their incarceration), then where is the consideration for the deleterious effects drug use has on their lives.
Third, we're not talking about legalization here, we're talking about decriminalization. In practical terms, the best that is possible is that you'll raise the bar by which a drug-based transaction is illegal. The "free market" has rules, regulations, and laws that manage it. What compelling reason does "upper management" have for entering a market in which they've operated with impunity for so long? Where's the effort toward "stakeholder buy-in"? Do we, as a nation, simply say "if you play by our rules, it might eat into your profits, but we'll stop hunting you?" Does that pass the sanity check? I suppose it might if you were high...
Fourth, legalization/decriminalization is not a new option; it's practiced in a number of other countries. How many of those countries, however, are attributed with 25% of the global GDP? How many are considered super-powers? How many have the economic backbone to collapse and restore itself every other decade? Before seriously considering this option, ask yourself what global complexion are you willing to let this country take on.
Look, I understand that the drug war that Nixon started hasn't been executed with the surgical precision that more recent conflicts have, but have we really run out of ideas toward either solving this problem or accepting a manageable level? Why is ceding the only remaining option? Because we're lazy? Unimaginative? Unintelligent? Or simply distracted by the all-consuming munchies...?

Calling it like I see it...

What do you call a person who…?

• Recriminates Americans, but takes no personal accountability
• Rushes to judgement on those who are not of the same race, but refuses to pass judgement on those who are
• Expresses open disdain for America, American policies, and specific groups of Americans
• Takes the message of enmity global, so that all of America’s enemies can be inspired in their hatred for us
• Works to undermine the Israel as a Jewish state by openly supporting the Palestinians and condemning U.S. Middle East policies
• Enables hostile terrorist states in their quest for weapons of mass destruction
• Claims Muslim heritage while attending Christian services
• Excuses the acts of religiously-motivated, criminal violence
  

As soon as blood is spilled, you call them terrorists…until then you call them Mr. President.

Causation thought re: Cap and Trade

“In the future, hot air will be the most widely traded commodity on the planet”.
What are the mechanics behind Cap and Trade? The regulations set forth by the government on carbon emissions are designed to punitively manipulate businesses into improving their systems such that they meet said regulations. Given that the trading of carbon emission credits has doubled in the last year and is expected to exceed $2 trillion a year, it should be noted that a great number of businesses (namely clearing houses and banks) will stand to profit hugely. Simply stated, others in this world will benefit from the punishments doled out to American businesses. At what point will those same banks, traders, and investors be disinclined to make available the financial resources businesses need to improve their systems? I can’t believe it will take very long, at all. It will be at the moment in time that we’ve finally ensured that no measure of success will ever be achieved, and the failure will be attained with mortal certitude.
Where is the morality in this? Where is the morality in profiting from the punishments of others? Allow me to be a hyperbolist for a moment and posit that the day will come where punishments will make for good “action” in Vegas. “I’ll give you 5 to 1 odds that SCAQMD (Southern California Air Quality Management District) comes down on {insert manufacturer of choice, here}, and hits them with a fine that will cost them {pick a dollar figure}. Double-or-nothing that they lay off jobs to recuperate the costs.”
Coming back to reality, it’s not hard to extend the metaphor to Wall Street, the Nikei, or any other international exchange that trades “carbon credits”. Again, where is the morality in this system? Should we simply accept that cost of American jobs is the price we pay for propping up undeveloped countries in the third world? How much are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of global citizenship?

It's no joke...

I’m tired. I’m tired from having the same conversation. I’m tired of being condescended to by people who have the least stable foundation from which to even try it. I’m tired of being personally attacked when my opinion runs contrary to others with whom I’m conversing. Most of all, I’m tired of dealing with people whose politics are their substitute for religion.
Think about it. The last time you had a spirited discussion with a liberal, think about how it went. Were you called “uneducated”? Did it devolve into a series of unmitigated, malevolent character attacks? Did any evidence-based discourse ever take place? Perhaps it might have included emotional arguments disguised as logic. The moment you hit the wrong button (e.g. using the “S” word), an atomic bomb went off in the room. It was as though you penned a cartoon about Mohammed. It was as though you were Judas and your pockets jingled with silver. Heretics being stoned in the middle of the town square were treated better. And if that injury wasn’t enough, they were family…
There is no one who actually knows me (you’d be surprised how little family can know you) that would ever characterize me as ‘uneducated’. My Bachelor of Science degree notwithstanding (from a private university, by the way), I spend a great deal of energy absorbing information on a broad array of topics, enough to be conversant, if not fluent. That, of course, includes exploring the perspectives of those with whom I’d likely disagree. But this is where I typically get shut down. This is what tires me. There’s a fine line between persistent and stubborn, and in these cases I’ve been less successful in knowing just when to quit, of knowing when further discourse is not going to yield any new intelligence.
I can’t purge the argument from my head though, (which is probably why I persist to begin with), so there has to be some outlet; thus, this blog. It’s a long prologue to this topic, but, all of that was in my head, too. Warning: this is a logical, evidence-based argument.
Obama is a socialist; my eighth grade civics class and Wikipedia agree.
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
As I also learned in Civics, it is not a political system it is an economic system distinct from capitalism. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Are you a socialist?
· Do you believe there is an unfair concentration of power and wealth within a small populace?
· Do you believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed among the populace?
· Do you believe that production, distribution, and trade should be nationalized?
· Do you believe in the selective nationalization of key industries, dominating inordinately large segments of the whole economy?
· Do you believe in tax-funded welfare programs?
· Do you believe in regulation of markets?
Affirmative responses to all of these confirm that you believe in socialism. Fewer affirmative responses move you further to the right of socialism, but still well within the definitions of market socialist and social democrat.
Seriously, whatever happened to getting what you earned? I’ll tell you what happened; we lost touch with one another and, therefore, lost the perspective of what it takes to earn what we have. I continue to wonder if, under a socialist economic system, the minimum wage would evolve into the standard wage. One hour of worked performed by anybody, doing anything, would be worth the same.
Now, there is a fair argument to be made that Obama is a market socialist. Many of the tenets he espouses fit that model: production is publicly owned (General Electric, General Motors, et al); prices are determined though government committee (e.g. the proposed panel “managing” the national health care system); employee owned/managed enterprises (e.g. any business whose union has controlling interest). But the argument falls apart as soon as you examine his statements and actions, such as his appointment of a Supreme Court judge for her position on social equality. For the love of Pete, “redistribution of wealth” was a campaign slogan. I’m beginning to get the sense that those who would cast aspersions at others being “uneducated” are realizing it within themselves; they’re realizing that they didn’t understand what he was saying during the campaign. They just thought he was the best looking, most well-spoken president we’ve had in a while.

My Free Speech

Do not tell me to calm down! Do not tell me that I shouldn’t be emotional! Do not, do not, do NOT infringe upon my free speech! My speech is intelligent, emotional, and has some color. Don’t you dare presume to suppress any part of that composition! My free speech is mine and I control how I deliver it. Now, shut-up and take it like a man!

The descent begins...

I can say it; I was wrong. I was wrong when I said that the American public elected Barack Obama because he was their hope for redemption. I now realize that it was so much more than that. Whether blindly or completely aware, this country has signed up for a future so much more horrific than a little ascetic salvation. No, this will lead to asceticism of the worst kind...forced. I've said for the last 10 months, this president isn't Clinton III, nor Carter II; he is FDR IV. (For those of you who don't know history that pre-dates your primary school days, FDR was elected to 3 terms - yes, three term- before dying in office.

Say what you will about the public's sigh of relief over finally breaking the final color barrier, but don't say that it's the last we'll hear of it. Far from it, I'm afraid. Any resistance to the president's policies, no matter how logical the argument, will be rebutted with racial epithets. You heard me...those of us who see the peril of the acts forthcoming and vocally object will be labeled as racists and discarded out of hand. There is no faster way to feel marginalized and disenfranchised in this country, and the sensitivity to it seems to have disappeared like the Golden Gate Bridge in a morning fog. If you think I'm off my rocker, let me offer a piece of empirical data... During his second major press conference, yesterday, President Obama took questions from 13 journalists (and I use the term loosely) over the course of 57 minutes. Of those he responded to were notable networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,FOX), a few online journals, (e.g. Politico) a few periodicals (Stars and Stripes, Ebony). Yes, I said Ebony. That ground-breaking, hard-hitting magazine, so noted for... uh...I don't know. Notable NOT called upon were the nation's three newspapers of record. For those of you who don't know anything about journalism, the standard in this country is that a newspaper only has to be written at a 9th grade reading level, with the exception of three. These are periodicals of record that are written at least at a 12th grade reading level and are THE periodicals that are kept in historical archives in the libraries across the country. Those newspapers are the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Say what you will about the writing and political bent in any of them, but don't reduce them to something lower than Ebony Magazine! Not about race, huh? My ass!

And yet, all of that isn't what keeps me up at night. Yes, the close proximity of the Mexican border, coupled with regular violence in our otherwise affluent neighborhood does its fair share, but that's not it. Obama, to his credit, can see what's wrong with the current state of things. His approach to changing it, though, is comparable to throwing dynamite in a pond. That's never been an effective approach to culture change management. If you think I'm wrong, then ask yourself, how much are you committed to your community vice yourself. If the ratio is 10 to 1, then you're the next soldier in his army of change. If you're a typical American, and have grown up with our self-interests first and foremost in our minds, then you are going to be very miserable for a very long time. Join the club...we have hats.

Alexander Tytler

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

• From bondage to spiritual faith;
• From spiritual faith to great courage;
• From courage to liberty;
• From liberty to abundance;
• From abundance to complacency;
• From complacency to apathy;
• From apathy to dependence;
• From dependence back into bondage.

Although unverified as the source, Tytler lived in the late 1700s.

If I'm making a fair assessment, our country is deeply entrenched in Stage 5. I hope I never live to see the next stages.

Self Flagellation

Mere weeks before the election, I had an epiphany. It occurred to me why Barak Obama had such significant support throughout the country. As I listened to talk radio and references to him as the”Messiah”, it finally hit me why the moniker was so apropos. Looking back over the last 8 years, it’s easy to see the way society has cultivated a healthy dose of self –hatred. The actions of the administration have either been tolerated or detested. Whereas the global perception of the U.S. becomes a direct reflection upon its constituents, the self-loathing was continually fueled by outside forces.

Then along comes Barak Obama, by all accounts an outsider; barely born a U.S. citizen, brought up outside the mainland culture of the U.S. His coming of age, though, could not have been better timed. The societal self-loathing had reached a crescendo, committing to geo-political policies that left nearly everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. The only thing worse at this point than staying the course would be to reverse course. In either case, both were considered “evils”. What society needed was a leader to make the decision for them, to execute the desired plan they were secretly unwilling to articulate.

Society needed someone to make the self-loathing cease. They needed someone who was willing to take the heat for the decision they refused to make – to withdraw militarily from the world stage. Moreover, the long-standing angst over our global citizenship with regard to the environment could not be ignored any longer. If that wasn’t enough, Obama brought more latent issues out into the open, such as the state of the health care system, that hadn’t been addressed since the first Clinton presidential term.

With that said, with Obama’s ability to empathize with the emotionally damaged constituency, he also brings salvation through pain. Atonement can’t be achieved without a “higher power” providing absolution, through whatever means. As their Messiah, Obama will bring that absolution to those who seek it. He will forgive the sins of those who illegally enter this country, influence the economy, and offer only burdens in return. He will bring absolution to the wealthy who feel no responsibility for their wealth, who will “share” it with the less fortunate so that they may mitigate the feeling that it was ill-gotten. In so doing, he will also assuage the guilt of those who believe our country suffers from the Microsoft Syndrome. That is to say that our global, economic domination (like Microsoft) has no morality to it.

The significant irony to all of this is that the cure to what ails us is so draconian as to stagger the mind. In India, there still remains a remnant of a pre-Christ religion known as the Jains. One of the tenets of Jainism revolves around absolution through asceticism. I contend that it is a modern form of this that will ultimately satisfy the masses who believe Obama will deliver them. Through pain is absolution. The real question for the rest of us, whose convictions have not faltered over the last two terms, is how much pain will we ultimately endure? Will one term be enough? Will two? Or, if you subscribe to Obama’s rhetoric, three?

As I conclude my thoughts on the matter, it further occurs to me what the next decade holds for us. I contend that we aren’t in for an extension of the Clinton years. Instead, I ardently believe the next decade will hearken back to FDR and the social programs that emerged from the Great Depression.

Naom Chomsky and the War on Drugs

He has opposed the U.S. global "war on drugs", claiming its language to be misleading, and referring to it as "the war on certain drugs." He favors education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[45] In an interview in 1999, Chomsky argued that, whereas crops such as tobacco receive no mention in governmental exposition, other non-profitable crops, such as marijuana, are specifically targeted due to the effect achieved by persecuting the poor:[46]
"US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control."[47]

While I agree with:
• Its language is misleading
• It’s a war on certain drugs
• US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals
• The criminalization of certain substance is a technique of social control

I disagree that:
• Marijuana is specifically targeted due to the effect achieved by persecuting the poor
• It isn’t about substance abuse
• That substances are criminalized when they are associated with so-called dangerous classes

I recently had a discussion with my 20 year old niece who, admittedly, consumes marijuana. My contention is that most of us have missed the broader picture and a radically different alternative reason for why “drugs are bad, m’kay”. When are drugs (even legal ones, like alcohol) typically consumed? …when the consumer is in a vulnerable, depressed, or stressed condition. Who goes home after work and says, “Wow! This has been a great day! I think I should top it off with a doobie!”? Here’s where the real problem comes in. Those insecurities, vulnerabilities, and stressors are motivators – things that get us off our ass to be better than we are. We will never advance as individuals, communities, or a society if our culture is rooted in chemically-induced apathy. Now, if there was a drug to chemically induce ambition, I’d be all for it!

The “war on drugs” has been poorly focused, and poorly communicated, but it doesn’t target the poor. The poor are already victims of either the lack of aptitude or the lack of ambition. Drugs are simply enablers to the perpetual condition. The real war is a conflict between progression and regression. It’s also a war against those who recognize it for what I believe it to be and would want to further stifle the progression of our country/culture (e.g. Colombia, Mexico, other terrorist states). Free market solutions only work if they don’t hinder the free market process (ie. disabling the traders from being able to affect the trade).

The substances aren’t criminalized because they’re associated with mortally dangerous classes; they’re criminalized because they threaten the integrity of our working class upon which the fundamentals of our economy is based. It just so happens that it tends to be the sociopathic sample population that commits such an aggression for both the satisfaction of the corruption and the reward of the commerce.

The problems with Education

Recently, I overheard two colleagues expressing their frustration over recent experiences with their childrens' educators. Normally, I would filter out the low-pressure venting that occurs, but this topic is emotionally compelling to me. As someone who was associated with Education for more than eight years, I’ve composed a perspective that these ladies were lacking.

This wasn't the first time I've been in this position, nor will it be the last. I've had this conversation, or ones like it, countless times over the years. Even though I haven't been associated with Education for some time now, nothing has changed for the better. In fact, one might argue that the condition of the Education system, and those who involved with it, has only deteriorated further.

Let me set the expectation now that this will be a multi-part diatribe. I've never fully captured my thoughts or opinions on this matter before, so this will be a good opportunity. I have, however, long since begun to outline them such that they could be fleshed out and conveyed easily and cogently.

First, I'd like to say the problems with Education are multi-faceted, complex, and significantly resistant to change. Despite what any politician will tell you in the upcoming months, it's not as simple as anything. In Bush's more notable campaign, he hung his hat on "accountability". While it was good ploy that resonated with many, it was little more than a motivational tool. It shouldn't escape anyone that we are a very prideful culture, and as such, tend to be motivated when we're told we're "dropping the ball", not meeting expectations, and not taking responsibility for our actions. The portion of his gambit that I did enjoy, however, was that it was the first time I'd heard a politician suggest that the culpability for the failures in Education was shared between families and educators. I agree more...

I take the position at a higher level of abstraction; one that wouldn't be easy to convey on the bully pulpit. The problems with Education stem from systemic and cultural considerations. By systemic, I mean those factors that directly pertain to the education system itself. Off the top of my head, I can name six. Make no mistake, however, our culture is equally responsible and flawed.

So, here we are again... dusting off the electronic diary, as it were. Much has happened, but I'm not a historian, I'm presentorian. (nice, huh? Came up with that all by my lonesome.) But let's at least reset ourselves with who the hell I am...

Life according to Jamie...

• Honor before loyalty
• A little contrition goes a long way
• Perspective is the most valuable thing in life
• Seek out your limitations; let others help you do so
• Let no one be more critical than you are of yourself

I'll expound on each in future posts.

More to follow...

Higher-Order Thinking

"The hallmark of a civilized society is not the sophistication of its technology. The hallmark of a civilized society is higher-ordered thinking and behavior that reflects it."

If I had to answer the question, “what do you mean by ‘higher-order thinking’?” I would have a difficult time describing it. But since I have nothing better to do…

In my mind, the expression “higher-order” conjures mental images of mathematical equations and graphs. By definition, the order of an equation is established by the highest exponent in the equation. For example, y equal to x squared is a second-order equation; y equal to x cubed is a third-order equation. A more accurate definition would include the contribution of other ordered variables within the equation. For example, y equal to x cubed times z is a fourth-order equation; y equal to x cubed times z squared is a fifth-order equation. Are your eyes glazed over yet?

So, what does this have to do with “thinking”? Well, let’s use history as a source of examples. Those who believed that the world was flat could be described as linear, or single-order thinkers. When Cristobal Colon (a.k.a. Columbus) postulated that the world was round (or more accurately, spherical), he, and others like him demonstrated higher-order thinking. A sphere, after all, is described by a second-order equation. Taking this example one leap further, eminent theorists have postulated that the universe is a sphere that is constantly expanding. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. What’s important is that such an incredibly complex concept can be conceived and reasoned.

At the risk of impugning many religions, the notion that any single set of “rules of man” is complete and “righteous” does not employ or demonstrate higher-order thinking. By contrast, the concept that the “rules of man” are ever-changing and evolving offers a more thought-provoking supposition.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

Actionable Intelligence

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (NCT) has been broadcasting their public hearings this week and, unlike those who have gone before them (Joint [Congressional] Inquiry on Intelligence), the information coming through to the attentive audience is insightful and thought-provoking. This independent group of experts, politicians, and insiders are finally bringing to bear the widest possible aperture on the circumstances surrounding the events that led up to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. Unlike the Joint Inquiry, their investigation has a “unique breadth and scale”, to include addressing policy, culture, military, and intelligence factors. What is most significantly being revealed are critical elements of the bigger picture.

In the book “Losing Bin Laden”, the author recounts many critical judgments that were made where we sacrificed the opportunity to prevent future al-Qaida violence. The NCT has, a year into its investigation, reached the same findings. Namely, on four separate occasions, the President (Clinton) was given the opportunity to kill Usama bin Laden (UBL) and on each occasion, the decision was made (by the collective intelligence in the room) to not take action. The chief reason in each case was a cited lack of “actionable intelligence”. Specifically, there was only one source providing the location of UBL with no corroboration.

As they say, hindsight is 20/20, but let’s move on and draw a parallel with the current state of affairs. Our present President (Bush) did take action based upon, what I consider, a similar level of intelligence. In some cases, the information was uncorroborated and later debunked. However, he took the risk in the face of the potential consequences and invaded Iraq, deposing their regime. In his opinion, there was “actionable intelligence”.
My ire is raised as I recognize that when faced with virtually the same degree of “actionable intelligence” (little to none, depending on who you ask), each President made a decision that ultimately resulted in a black eye. Clearly, in both cases, a decision had to be made. In one, no action was taken; in the other, the opposite. How can both roads be wrong? And in that situation, where is the middle ground? What is the right decision? Is it simply a matter of degree? The lesser of two evils? I suppose it’s a matter of your perspective.

Now, I recognize that in Clinton’s case it wasn’t a matter of whether or not it was appropriate to liquidate UBL, but, rather, whether it was worth the collateral damage that might accompany it. The fear of failure was so rank, however, that “inaction” was the only probable decision.

In high school, there was a guy who was sent to us after having spent a year in juvenile detention. His posture and demeanor were constantly threatening and intimidating. At any moment, you feared that he might assault you, leaving you bloody in the courtyard. Some people did their best to avoid him at all costs; to circumvent any potential for a conflict. It didn’t eliminate him as a threat, just their exposure to the threat. By default it increased everyone else’s exposure. It wouldn’t be long before the threat was realized by those who couldn’t escape him. In other words, it was statistically impossible to avoid being victimized. Some of the more “confident” young men in the school chose, on the other hand, to take matters into their own hands and preemptively “eliminate the threat”. Personally, I thought it had a 50/50 chance of being an effective approach to deterring any further aggression from him. The key I realized, after it occurred, was the overwhelming force that was applied. The “confident young men” came in force and they “communicated their message” quite effectively. Did it come to blows? Yes. But here’s the thing…it came to blows with two parties that were active participants and accepted the potential consequences going in. All parties were suspended, but for the remainder of the year, no further aggression was realized.

Whether you’re the one to avoid conflict or to face it head on isn’t the issue. It doesn’t boils down to what kind of person you are, but, rather, what kind of person you want to lead and protect you. In the case of two Presidents, I want the one who is willing to take risks, to make mistakes, and accept responsibility for his/her actions...
I’ll close with this quote to give you further pause…

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller

Muslims vs. Jews (part two and a half)

"Later in an interview with Al-Arabiya satellite channel, Prince Sultan again denied an Israeli claim that the [Saudi] Kingdom had foiled an attempt by a Saudi pilot to carry out a terrorist attack on Israel.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia totally rejects this report. This never happened and will not happen,” the minister said. He expressed surprise at some Arab channels and newspapers giving credence to what Israel says.

So, am I the only one who recognizes that this implies that Saudi Arabia would endorse/support, at least tacitly, terrorist plots against Israel?

This is real, people. His comment indicated that they would NOT stop a terrorist plot against Israel. This doesn't bode well for everyone else... This isn't as "harmless" as one might think. In this dynamic security environment, if you wanted to plot terrorist attacks against interests worldwide, then you could do so with impunity in Saudi Arabia as long as they believed your plot was targeting Israel.

Muslims vs. Jews (part two)

Let's take a quick look at current events; something of more interest than the historical precedent cited below. The hot topic on the lips of the inhabitants of the Middle East is the security wall being constructed by the Israelis. Opponents insist it's a land grab into Israeli-occupied territory of the state of Palestine. Proponents insist that it's necessary to protect the citizens of Israel against militants and terrorists. They, of course, cite 870 deaths and 6,000 wounded since the latest intifada began in September 2000.

Recently, a resolution was introduced to the U.N. Security Council - the only assembly in the U.N. with binding powers - that condemned the construction of the security wall and deemed it illegal. Ten nations voted for the resolution, four abstained, and one voted no, and consequently vetoed the resolution. The veto, of course, was issued by the presiding Security Council President, John Negroponte(and representative of the United States).

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=8560&Cr=middle&Cr1=east

Now, before you jump to any conclusions, there is a bigger perspective to consider. First of all, the resolution was drafted by four countries that, by demographic, are predominantly Muslim and have histories of anti-Jewry "proclivities"; Syria (oooh, big surprise), Malaysia (look up Dr. Mahathir), Pakistan (a country sympathetic with territorial conflict issues(see Kashmir)), and Guinea.

I, like many others, have fundamental issues with the argument altogether.

• There is no sovereign state of Palestine; there never has been. The name "Palestine" was given to the region by the Romans, after the Philistines. They were eschewing the more common reference of the time, Judah (or Judea).


• The so-called Palestinians are, by and large, ancestrally connected to other countries and NOT Judah-cum-Palestine. Those countries include Greece, Turkey, Assyria, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and countless others. ...Homeland my ass! Arafat is Egyptian!


• If "occupied territory" belongs to the "occupier", then how does fencing it constitute a "land grab"?


• Too many have forgotten that the land "occupied" by the Israelis resulted from 1967 Six-day War that, by the way, was instigated by no less than 6 Arab Armies!(Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iraq, and Algeria) ...the spoils of war, I say.

This list of issues is far from complete, but it's a good start. Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat, founder of al-Fatah and former leader of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), is currently the president of the Palestinian Authority, a provisional governing body enabled by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, of Israel. While the leader of the PLO, for two decades Arafat pursued his political aims through terrorist violence. For his efforts, he gained nothing. In recent years, his policy has softened, but even now, when presented with the Road Map for peace, he still refuses to abandon armed conflict as a means to gaining Palestinian sovereignty.

So if you missed that, let me recap. The recognized leader of the Palestinians (and I use the term loosely) continues to support armed conflict against the Israelis.

Let's talk briefly about the reference to Palestine. It is, what I call, a Lenin-lie; Lenin has been quoted as saying, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". The notion that Palestine was ever a soveriegn state is no more valid than referring to New England as a soveriegn state of the United States; it was, and still is, no more than a geographical region that identifies a collection of states. If you want a truer comparison, I contend that the Mexicans have a more legitimate claim to Texas than the Palestinians have to "their land".

Now, if there was a threat between the borders of the United States and ...say Mexico, wouldn't a security fence be a logical precaution/solution? Oh...wait...we have one of those, don't we...and our "threat" isn't based on a history of terrorism, but illegal immigration.

Can you feel it....the aperature opening? Can you see the bigger picture beginning to emerge?

Soon, I'll discuss the geo-political ramifications of Muslim/Jewish conflict. It's both complicated and simplistic...

The Social Democrats

"Dean also said he wants to get rid of the Federal Election Commission that oversees campaign financing because it's toothless and serves the parties instead of the public. He wants to require broadcasters to devote a few hours of air time to public affairs every week."

Is it just me, or does this sound vaguely like the beginnings of state-run media? Hey, look people, we have CSPAN and CSPAN2. If we wanted anymore access to public affairs, we'd ask for it. As it is CSPAN(2) doesn't exactly draw my attention for a "few hours...every week".

Now, I would like to know how the Democrats can rail against "exporting American jobs" and in the same breathe insist that getting prescription drugs from Canada is the right thing for the country. Surely, I'm not the only one who sees this dichotomy...

Oh, and let's talk about the "Single Payer System" for Health Insurance. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but the last remaining vestige for qualifying as a "welfare state" is socialized medicine. The Single Payer System is exactly that. The implementation of socialized medicine. And what happens to the competition within privatized medicine? It disappears just like our "socialized" educational system.

Competition creates better products, period (political competition, notwithstanding). It's a fundamental principle of capitalism. Nationalize health care like we have education and you'll get comparable products and services.

On another note... Who the hell is voting for a leader who is fervently pessimistic about the state of things? Please, turn around and show me your back. I want to see if I can fit my foot alongside your head that is firmly planted up your ass... Progress isn't made with negative rhetoric.... No one surfs out-to-sea... Dipshits...

While I'm at it, let's examine some other Democratic rhetoric heard after last night's State of the Union address. Apparently, Bush broke his promise of "humble foreign policy" and yet the Democrats were calling for a "better state of the union". While conceding that the country was strong, they insisted it could be stronger. A call to arms was made to make the country the "best" in the world.... Wait a sec... I thought we WERE the best! That's what we keep telling everyone! Hey...I'm a realist... Better is the enemy of good enough... Remember, "the glass is too damn big". Work to the requirements. Arrggh!

Muslims vs. Jews (part one)

Until recently, I didn’t have a substantial appreciation for the complexity of the situation that exists in the Middle East with respect to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. Truth in fact, the conflict, as I’ve discovered, would be better characterized as Muslims versus Jews.

As I’ve trudged my way through “From Time Immemorial…”, I’ve learned some very important distinctions. First of all, many Israeli Jews are, in fact, Arab-born. Second, the so-called “refugee problem” in the area is attributable to the Diaspora as much as it is Palestinians displaced after Israeli statehood in 1948. Third, not only have Arab countries refused to aid the Palestinian refugees over the last 50 years, but they’ve contributed to the problem by both expelling Jews in their countries and using the plight of the Palestinians as a political lever to sustain the conflict between Islam and Zionism.

The Usual Suspects

Since 1948 and the establishment of the Jewish state (of Israel), hundreds of thousands of Arab-born Jews have been expelled from their homes and their countries, separated from their possessions and their heritage at the whim of the predominantly Islamic regimes. The numbers listed herein compare the estimated Jewish populations before 1948 with those as of the early 1980s. (Source: “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine.”) I must admit that I had to take a moment to re-read this table several times to let the information sink in. The Jewish migration was literally orders of magnitude… The abatement of the Jews in these countries wasn’t an overnight phenomenon and not entirely due to emigration; a portion of the population attrition can be attributed to a number of pogroms.

Touted as one of the more “moderate” countries toward the Jews, Morocco currently has the most Jews of the listed Arab countries (18,000 as of 1982). In 1948, however, there were more than 265,000 Jews in Morocco. The second largest attrition of Jews was found in Algeria. Before 1948, the population was estimated between 130,000 and 140,000. By 1982, that number was between 300 and 400. Iraq went from approximately130,000 Jews to 200-300 in 35 years. Current estimates put the Jewish population in Iraq at about 20. In Egypt, the Jewish population was attrited from 75K to 250. Tunisia diminished its numbers from 105,000 to less than 4,000 (a liberal estimate). Libya has all but eradicated its Jewish community, reducing it from 38,000 to a paltry 15-20. These numbers don’t get any easier to follow, so let me simply summarize.

The total estimated number of Jews in Arab countries prior to 1948 was approximately 836,000. By 1982, that total was slashed to just over 29,000. Thirty-five years of Diaspora (Jewish emigration) and pogroms (massacres) have changed the face of the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Aden, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Libya have all contributed to the modern-day version of the Jewish Exodus. While not specifically mentioned, there are other Arab countries with culpability. In 1948, there were no Jews living in Jordan. In addition, Saudi Arabia cannot be charged with exiling or massacring Jews; they aren’t allowed into the country. There have been rare, notable exceptions, to include U.S. State Department officials who were granted access, but even foreign journalists have been denied visas due to their religious affiliations.

What’s the deal?

So, naturally the question arises, “Why is there such enmity between the Muslims and Jews?” Certainly, Islamic fundamentalists would cite passages from the qur`An (Koran) that specifically moralizes the persecution of the Jews. Furthermore, many Muslims point to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as though it was a Jewish manifesto for world domination.

I believe most Muslims today would cite the Damascus blood libel of 1840. And while a number of authorities have exposed the blood libel for the fabrication that it was, some lore is impossible to excise from a culture. To this day, Syria is the harshest Arab country toward its Jewish population, denying them the right to leave their country…a fundamental human right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At this point in my education, I am of the opinion that the “cradle of civilization” hasn’t matured beyond puberty. You know what I’m talking about…the pubescent adolescent who is angry at everyone and everything. In a constant condition of the “world revolves around me”, their quasi-paranoid perceptions lead them to believe that “everyone is out to ruin their lives”. Their tenuous grip on reality is threatened by those who are stronger, smarter, and more emotionally stable. In defense, they shelter themselves, and attack anyone who might even resemble a threat to their fragile stability.

In an interview in 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acknowledged that “seventy percent of this Arab-Israeli conflict is a psychological problem – it has only thirty percent substance.” Not only do I agree with Sadat’s assessment, – albeit oversimplified – but I would take it a step further and assert that their progress as a civilization is impeded by the same challenges.

The hallmark of a civilized society is not the sophistication of its technology. The hallmark of a civilized society is higher-ordered thinking and behavior that reflects it.

Traditionalism vs. Secularism

Once again, I lay awake watching FNC and wondering what I’m doing on this planet. The topic for the moment on The O’Reilly Factor is, in effect, whether to return the country to Traditionalism or Secularism as a result of next year’s election. And once again, I have to ask… “Why does it have to be one or the other?” Polar opinions are starting to drive me crazy. I appreciate the value of presenting opposing opinions, but let’s dispense with the pretense that one of the two will be victorious. Ultimately, the Middle Way will prevail because nothing else will be effective.

Am I supposed to believe that by electing Bush that we’ll become a “traditionalist” country? I’m sure in some part that’s true, but it’s impossible to apply it universally. And why do you suppose that is? Because there is enough support for the opposing opinion to “reinstall” it in 4 to 8 years (or at least try).

When will we realize that the Middle Way is what we’re operating to and focus less on political affiliations and more on effecting the appropriate changes in our society?

Comment This!

I've added the commenting script to the blog so readers can simply add their responses directly attached to the blog. Just click Comments at the bottom of the blog. Enjoy!

Social Decay and the Middle Way

Are we regressing as a society to completely digital thinking? Must everything be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? Zeros and ones?

When I look at the political landscape in this environment of impending presidential elections, I’m reminded that the country is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (red and blue, respectively). While they aren’t truly polar opposites on the political scale, the are certainly closer to the middle than other, more eccentric political groups. It is amazing, however, that we ever get anything accomplished.

So today, I hereby proclaim a new political ideology that I shall call the Middle Way. All right, so it’s not really a new ideology - I stole it from Buddhism - but it would be new to the majority of people in this country. It shall be based upon the simple precept that truth will only be found where our collective perspectives coincide.

It is commonly accepted that a compromise is a lose-lose proposition. When two parties compromise, they sacrifice their positions to meet a middle ground. We must first and foremost dispel this for the sake of the greater good. If we are going to ever accomplish anything we must stop clinging to our polar positions with pride. It is time to respect the views and opinions of our “opponents” and begin the journey to the Middle Way. The fastest flow of the river is in the middle…

Of course, we’ll need a slogan… Rome wasn’t built in a day and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that cultural change is painstakingly slow. Members of the Middle Way answer the question “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” by replying that “The glass is too big.” (Of course, I intend no offense to Buddhists, who might take a more philosophical approach.) So there it is: “The Middle Way...because the glass is too big.”

I know what you’re thinking… No, I’m not on drugs (unless my wife slipped something into my eggs this morning). It’s just that I’ve been worn down by divisive politics, divisive social commentary, and destructive criticism, in general. Has our myopia gotten so bad that it’s incurable? That we’ve become incapable of seeing the bigger picture?

I admit that 10 years ago I would have said, “Screw this! Why are we spending money to fix problems in foreign countries?” I was an isolationist, but largely because I couldn’t see the big picture. I lacked the perspective to realize that America, with one of the strongest economies in the world, had a significant impact on global economies and cultures. And the cultural impact is the one that has really hit home. As I learn about the perceptions of the billions of much less fortunate people in this world, I realize that we are a victim of our own success. “Corporate America”, while a distinctive group within our society, is axiomatic to a large part of the rest of the world. Consequently, we have fostered a sentiment of pathological jealousy that has risked our lives and the lives of others affiliated with us.

Let's take a common "big picture" issue that can seem to come to a satisfactory closure. How can we combat the simple economics of narcotic trafficking if we can’t offer an equitable alternative? The morality of it notwithstanding, (an issue I won’t begin to debate) the simple landscape of the situation reveals that if we destroy the cocaine, marijuana, and opium crops of Columbian farmers, we have effectively rendered them unemployed. And what do unemployed people do to feed and shelter their families? Anything they can…

Let’s take another simple example of foreign economics. Provide a country with tools and resources to instantiate twentieth century technology in their society and you’ve just created a new customer for services to support it. In addition, this customer can be served by the growing number of other global service providers. By creating a simple demand in a ‘burgeoning market’, you’ve substantiated the foundation of a global economy.

Want more “big picture”? Let’s talk about “trickle down economics”. It’s a term that was popular during the Reagan administration, but largely unpopular with the Middle Class. The oversimplified outline of this concept is based upon putting more money into the hands of the wealthiest so that they, in turn, will invest in the companies that employ the nation’s work force. By default, or so it seemed, the working Middle Class will then benefit from the company’s new-found cash reserves. Like many economic policies (communism, for example), it’s only flawed in its application. The key to making Reaganomics (as it was coined) work is the Labor Unions’ ability to squeeze those reserves out of the tight fists of company executives.

Now, while I’m at it, I’m going to return fire at those who find it necessary to vilify the “wealthiest 10%”. Let’s talk about the wealthy, shall we? In October 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that showed to be among the wealthiest 20% a household need only to report an annual income of $88,000. To make the Top 10 List, you merely have to make $122,300. Scrape up another $44,200 (to sum to $166,500) and you be among the elite Top 5 percent!

While we’re at it, let’s talk about tax liability. Household incomes totaling $50K or more shoulder the burden of 92.8% of the federal income tax burden (under 2000 law). Change that number to $100K and the number drops to 67.8%. When the truth falls out, household incomes summing more than $200K per year bear 45.2% of the tax burden.

How about this:

• 7.8% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 10 percent and bear the burden of 62.1% of the Individual Income Tax Liability.(under 2000 law)


• 15.4% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 20 percent and bear the burden of 75.0% of the Individual Income Tax Liability. (under 2000 law)

You know, if these people continue to cast epithets at those who aspire to be wealthier, then where is the social incentive? Isn’t that what we aspire to in this country? To be wealthier?

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, by affiliation, but it is because I share the perspectives and views of both that I’m considered a Moderate…a member of the Middle Way.

Enough for now...

Parity in Discipline

The more I read Schechter, the more I realized that he (and others like him) are incapable of recognizing simple contradictions. Aside from the arguments about the pre-war planning and the lack of pre-war planning, there are more generic, global contradictions that are ignored.

As the reasons for the war were promulgated, there was constant push-back about the lack of parity being addressed. “So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, and other countries. Do you plan to invade them too?” This argument suggests that a consistent approach be taken with each “offending country” in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. While I agree to an extent, the issue that I have is that these are the same people arguing about how wrong the U.S. Attorney General was to suggest that courts not deviate from federal sentencing guidelines for criminals (i.e. consistent sentences for the same crimes). If you don’t want to apply it nationally, why would you want to apply it globally? This contradiction seems to go unnoticed.

For any given infraction of the law (nationally or internationally) there are a number of factors (both mitigating and aggravating) that guides the sentencing rationale of the presiding authority. Some criminals, for example, can be recognized as being beyond rehabilitation, remorse, or reconciliation. I am, of course speaking of both national and international criminals. Contrary to “popular belief” (a concept I abhor), all people are not the same. They may be ‘created equal’, but they are not ‘equally created’.

I don’t want to leave the impression that I support the application of universal consistency. Quite the contrary, it is completely appropriate to relate to friends and enemies with the temperament with which they deserve. Remember the first logical fallacy, “All things being equal”… I'm sorry, but my position is that Justice is only blind when she's sleeping. Equal treatment under the law is bereft of compassion and neglects the human condition. When Justice is no longer doled out by humans, THEN we'll have equal treatment under the law...and won't that be fun...

Guerrilla Warfare, Freedom Fighters, Insurgents, Terrorists, et al

The “raiding” that is being employed in Iraq has been a topic of criticism of late. Not by American media, ironically (or perhaps not), but by Iraqi citizens themselves. The operations being prosecuted in the Sunni Triangle are following a simple precept: Arabs are motivated by greed and humiliation. They are, by and large, emotional human beings whose spirit and drive swings quicker than the mood of a menstrual woman. When the armed forces got as much as they could through the appeal of easy money, they switched tactics. During recent events, where property was “disposed of”, it became a tactic that addressed BOTH greed and humiliation. Now, it is openly recognized that this tactic can either leave them feeling defeated or raise their ire to a fevered pitch. In either case, rational, calculated thought goes right out the window...and the resulting mistakes mean victory for the troops.

I can’t count how many times I have said that the administration's understanding of the culture of these people is feckless? This is a simple illustration of that, is it not? Even I can see that these actions have the potential to further bolster the indignity of the people. The problem is that while everyone screams that this is a terrible and awful way of prosecuting an operation, no one is coming to the table with an effective alternative.

But these “decent people” (as they’ve been deemed) are, by and large, simple-minded people of the same ilk regularly recruited to sacrifice their lives for the sake of honor. And while I'm chiefly referring to militants and terrorists, I contend it applies to members of the armed forces of any country. And while they are away from their families they do unspeakable things that even their closest family will never know.

To the defenders of those “decent people”, I say “Don't be naive.” Those people of Tikrit are just as capable as anyone of being the next suicide bomber that kills tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. In fact, they represent the typical profile. Under-privileged. Uneducated. Disenfranchised. Suffering from poverty of dignity. Moreover, the Arab terrorist is pathologically jealous. Internally they feel unredeemable, except through acts of self-sacrifice.

I'm sick of hearing the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's bullshit and blurs the line of what little morality there may be in open, armed conflict (a.k.a. WAR). While I don't support the guerillas in the article below, I don't classify them as terrorists. They clearly target military forces and not civilians. Make no mistake, however, they are combatants and, as such, are not protected as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, if coalition forces are raiding homes of engineers, wholesalers, and retired generals, then by Jove, they're on the right track.

This is war. It isn't over. No one said it was over. Bush said there was an end to major combat operations (defined as company-sized (or greater) conflicts between opposing forces). That's not an end to the war. You can look for two indicators for the war to be over; the release of all prisoners of war and the replacement of the occupying force with a peacekeeping force. Those things will define the war's end regardless of the return of Iraqi sovereignty. No, I contend that the condition that exists in Iraq is akin to Martial Law, and by definition certain civil liberties are superceded until common law is in force. And they haven’t earned that right, yet.

(Take note of the surprise of the family at the admission of complicity by one of the people being interviewed. How could they not know?)
AP: Iraqis Say Saddam Not Leading Attacks

Book Review

To say that Embeds: Weapons of Mass Deception was a big disappointment would be dramatically understating the truth. Filled largely with unsubstantiated opinions and redundancy, I found it very difficult to glean anything of value from the 250+ pages. When statistics and independent evidence were used, it was spun so poorly that I had difficulty keeping my mind from wandering.

The substance of the book was centered around the role the media played in the days leading up to, during, and following the recent war in Iraq. It addresses political motivations of the media, journalistic integrities, and the biased and unobjective reporting that was done. It sharply criticizes the American media for not only supporting the war, but implies that it promoted it as well.

While I respect the fact that Mr. Schechter has/had an alternate viewpoint to convey, he did so in a way that turned me, the reader, off. Since I did give it one mark (out of five), it would be appropriate to list its merits.

• I learned that liberals tend to rely on the credentials of a speaker to substantiate their statements.


• I learned that I wasn’t the only one “displeased” with the media coverage of the war.


• I learned that even people who have been high-level executives in their respective industries can still miss the bigger picture while nit-picking at the details.

I, personally, take great exception to the first bullet on two accounts. First, it implies that people with impressive credentials don’t make stupid statements (and/or are infallible). We don’t have to look too far to invalidate this assumption. Second, it further implies that ordinary people are incapable of profundity. Forget about how a patent clerk changed the world, some MENSA members are truck drivers. NEVER, EVER, EVER confuse ambition with intellect. Success (ergo impressive credentials) is a product of dedication and perseverance, not necessarily genius.

"Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." – Calvin Coolidge

The second bullet is a stretch... I needed to come up with three things...

The third bullet troubles me deeply. While I respect the need to address the finer points, it seems invalid without the context of the broader perspective. Schechter, in fact, alludes to this (by criticizing the narrow views of the embedded journalists) without thinking of applying it to himself. Never mind that I found much of his content to be factually incorrect and/or incomplete.

Admittedly, I was emotionally stirred by this book (although not in the vein that Schechter was hoping for). As I read through it, I found myself writing responses to incomplete/myopic/incorrect passages in his book. I stopped by page 134, drained and exhausted. Typed, my responses fill nine pages. I'm open to sharing them, but you probably won't find them particularly lucid; my grasp of the English language suffers as my emotional state heightens.

This book took me far too long to read. Many passages within were repeated verbatim. The themes, quotes, and evidence were recycled more than aluminum cans. It was, by far, the biggest “plate of cooked spinach” I’ve ever had. And like large quantities of spinach, Schechter’s book “fills me with the urge to defecate”.
{Sidebar:I have $20 for the first person who can identify the song and artist of that lyric.}

Simple Economics

In this welfare state, the simple economics of the flow of money is not plainly explained. The consequence of this is a level of ignorance for the motives of our political/governmental leaders and their initiatives. I do believe that a substantial portion of our nation’s citizens do grasp the basic tenets of the system, but as I listen to the debate over the $87B allotted for Iraqi reconstruction, I’m increasingly less encouraged. So let me see if I can boil this solution down to the basic elements.

There are a couple notable populations I feel we need to recognize for the context of this discussion. First are the average citizens who work in the private sector. These are taxpayers who work for companies/corporations who aren’t directly contracted by any branch of the federal/state/local government to perform work. Their income levels vary from the highest to the lowest. Next are the people who work for government contractors. Often referred to as “welfare for the middle-class”, employees of these companies provide products and services directly to government agencies through contracts. Finally, there are the “civil servants”, people employed directly by government agencies. For everyone’s edification, military members fall into this category.

The impact the government has on the economy should start to become apparent. Conceptually, at least at this point, it represents half of the economy’s contribution. Government contractors typically sustain their longevity with commercial contracts, as well. The fickle nature of politics and government funding makes the formation of companies who rely solely on government contracts a risky endeavor.

Now that we’ve identified the players, let’s talk about the game. The interesting thing about this next step is that it’s fairly universal. The objective is simple really; circulate the cash. That’s all we do, from an economic standpoint. We circulate cash. To make this easier to understand, though, we’ll start with a private sector scenario. The consumer (from any one of the aforementioned groups) buys a product or service. That cash is taken by the seller, divided and redistributed. It is mostly divided between the employees of the company and the government. Of course, the employees divide that between the government and another variety of sellers…and the cycle begins again.

In the last example, the government had their hand in everybody’s pocket. Since they represent half of the economic equation, it shouldn’t be too surprising. This is how the government “earns” money to pay for its employees (whom they also tax) and purchase its goods and services through private contractors (or directly). For every transaction, the government continues to take its cut. Effectively, any product or service that the government purchases, it gets a discount at a rate equivalent to the prevailing tax rates. Should it be a surprise that government contractors hike up their prices on government contracts? The irony is that government employees, per se, are paid much less than their counterparts in the private sector.

Taxes, taxes, taxes. When a company sells a product to a consumer, the government collects a sales tax. When one company makes a profit from investing in another company, the government collects a capital gains tax (also applies to individual investments). Then there are less logical taxes, such as the death tax and the marriage penalty. Under closer scrutiny, one might conclude that the government collects the death tax to claim the last of a citizen’s contribution to the economy. Following that logic, you might conclude that population growth is key to sustaining the economy. More people translates to a higher demand for products and services, ergo, more potential tax revenues. This logic would further explain the “marriage penalty”. Essentially, married couples without children bear a higher income tax burden than those with children. Democrats would lead you to believe that it’s because families with children need that extra money that would otherwise be used for taxes. The Republicans might argue that the marriage penalty (as it is referred to) recognizes that couples without children aren’t contributing fully to the growth of the economy (by not adding to the demand for goods and services associated with rearing children). Therefore, the government will get their money through greater tax burdens.

As hard as many would like to make it, this isn’t rocket science (as a rocket scientist, I can vouch for this). Admittedly, there are a couple of complicating factors, but put in the context of the “circulating cash paradigm”, it’s really quite uncomplicated…

What is the impact of personal credit? It circulates more cash into the economic system…that is until the debt is repaid. Take a country who is deep in recession and I’ll bet you’ll find that the average debt burden per capita has been significantly reduced over recent years.

The national debt, however, is a little more complicated. Less tax revenue or over-spending can both contribute to the national debt. Budget deficits, however, circulate more money into the private sector, increasing personal incomes, establishing new levels of living, and thereby, creating the potential for more personal debt.

Until recently, I was not a proponent for foreign aid as a government policy. What I’ve come to realize, however, is that foreign aid begins the cash circulation paradigm with other countries. Give Israel, for example, $54 million dollars in loans to spend on U.S. military contracts. The after-effect is the need to sustain a new demand (e.g. spare parts, upgrades, follow-on orders, etc.), thereby decreasing the international trade deficit and infusing other countries’ monies into our own. Supply African countries on the cusp of modern technology with computers, and they’ll eventually reach the same stage all of us have…constant sustainment of equipment, software, and upgrades. The most effective business model that was adopted from the government by the private sector was to freely distribute its product, get the consumer hooked (thereby establishing a demand), and then charge for the upgrades and accessory products. It’s how Microsoft, Netscape, AOL, and many others became the corporate giants they are today. (They, of course, sustain their success by regularly introducing innovation into the market.)

The capitalistic nature of this country has inspired me to have some more controversial ideas about how our government operates. Opponents to euthanasia, I contend, might actually be more concerned about the impacts to the economy than the moral ramifications. I’d apply the same to capital punishment and laws against suicide. Your life is not your own, it belongs to the economy. Of course, that’s an extremely unqualified generalization, but I can’t help but feel that there’s a grain of truth out there. Cynics have asserted for years that many of the world’s major diseases are far to profitable to cure. A diabetic without health insurance can easily spend $400 per month in supplies needed to manage his or her disease. Multiply that by the millions of diabetics worldwide…

As insane as it may sound, there is balance in the world. Think about the real tumult a world at peace would foster. As Iraqis would be quick to point out, with a 65% unemployment rate, to which they greatly attribute the dissolution of the military, “peace” has brought violence, corruption, and real danger. …I know…that’s a dramatic oversimplification, but look for the grain of truth in it.

Politics

"Politics is the pursuit of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become important in the eyes of more trivial men." --George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958)

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." –Plato

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." --Also by Plato

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'." --Larry Hardiman

"In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant." - Charles de Gaulle

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -- Vladimir Lenin

---

Liberty and Freedom

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." --Malcolm X

"...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

---

Citizenship

"Too many people are only willing to to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people. Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things *I* think I should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other's people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own." - Tony Lawrence

"He that will not reason is a bigot, He that cannot reason is a fool, He that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." --Mark Twain

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller

"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice and politics without principle." --Mahatma Gandhi

More and More Spinach

One of the things that I have extolled the most is the value of perspective. To me, it requires being secure enough with oneself to consider alternative viewpoints, even if they tend to contradict preconceived (or established) judgments. Having said that, I turned on PBS tonight to witness the rebroadcast of the Democratic Presidential Candidate debate. A panel of three posed questions to the nine (9) candidates currently running for the Democratic Presidential Candidacy. The audience was comprised of the Congressional Black Caucus in Detroit, Michigan.

I thought that I was going to have the opportunity to learn more about the potential candidates. I thought that I was going to gain some insight as to who the eventual winner would be, competing with President Bush in 2004. To my distaste, it was another plate of cooked spinach. I would suffer through about seven or eight minutes before I had to change the channel for a moment. What I learned is that I sure as hell don't want to pay for the pipe dreams that these nimrods are selling! But before I summarize the candidates, I have to express my total disgust at the moderators and authors of the questions presented. It was readily apparent that "hard-hitting journalism" has evolved into epithets in the form of an interrogative. To say that I was appalled understates the physical reaction that was taking place in my stomach. I never supported Political Correctness because it went too far to protect the delicate sensibilities of others, but this effrontery went too far in the other direction. Why is it so hard to find a happy medium, people?

Riverbend, I have a 9-man (read human, as usual) puppet show that rivals yours! (Reference to the Iraqi Governing Council/CPA) You don't have anything on this motley crew! We have drama, fantasy, and delusions of grandeur. We have provocateurs, panderers, circus performers, and ringmasters. At any rate, here's what I took away from the "debate". It's not thoughtfully substantial, just my impression, so take it as a grain of salt...rock salt, that is.

Kucinich: I have no idea where this guy comes from, but the ideas that come out of is mouth are Utopian. What world is he living in that he thinks that a Department of Peace will change the face of this country and the rest of the world? Hey, I respect the work of Martin Luther King, but those days are long gone. It's a different culture, a different society, and these people have different needs. Developing a new bureaucratic system (he proposed a cabinet level department of the Executive Branch, akin to the State Dept. or Department of Interior) to try to affect cultural change in this country has no chance of succeeding, even if you could find a way to measure its success. This man has so many fantasies, he ought to work for Disney. He doesn't project the image of a leader, and in my opinion, would undermine our diplomatic position in foreign affairs. He is the antithesis of Bush; be careful what you wish for.

Kerry: A Senator from Massachusetts, (Didn't I see him on Cheers once?) he extolled the virtues of the Clinton domestic agenda. If I wanted CLINTON back, I'd vote for his wife! One of the few who actually feigned intelligence, Kerry took a familiar approach with his attack of the "top 1%" wealthiest Americans. People, stop already. The wealthiest 10% earn $85K per year; the richest 5% earn $150K per year; the top 1% make just over $265K per year. (My numbers are about 3 years old, but we're still within the realm of reason. Oh, by the way, the top 1%, for whom everyone has so much disdain, shoulders 30% of this nation's tax burden...You're welcome.

Dick Gephardt: So, Kerry isn't alone on the "Clinton Economics" train; he has Dick riding shotgun. I used to think that this guy was a serious contender. His charisma on the House floor was really unmatched. What I discovered tonight was that he spoke loudly but had no substance to speak of. Danny Schechter, whom I'm roasting on another spit, coined the word "jingoism" in his book. Well, Gephardt was full of them. His political assaults on Bush were little more than schoolyard chants that are more irritating than anything....and I quote: "Like father, like son; after four years, this president is done." Who is he pandering to? I mean really? What audience finds that inspiring? I want to know so that I can either avoid them like SARS or take them out back and facilitate some "arbor education".

Joe Lieberman: The self-proclaimed "Independent in a Democrat's body" is a man look for a Party. I didn't understand half of the answers to the questions he was asked. To my fault, I was expecting him to answer the question. It was a moment of weakness... of late night television... yeah, that's it. This guy doesn't stand a chance. He sure as hell doesn't understand the Middle East. "A peaceful Israel right next to a peaceful Palestine..." It'll never happen, my friend. Tell them, Riverbend... What's the first phrase out of a Palestinian baby's mouth? From the River to the Sea!

Carol Braun: My impression is that she's in it for the experience and to benefit the image of the Democratic Party. As the former ambassador to New Zealand, don't expect any ground-breaking foreign policy out of her. She'll learn from this and try it again a couple of more times. In twenty years, it's quite possible that this country will be disposed to elect her or someone like her.

Howard Dean: The only other candidate who abandoned the circus performance and gave the appearance of a thoughtful person. While it is my best bet that he'll end up winning the nomination, I don't think he'll mount a significant challenge to Bush. In the hour that I watched the debate, if you want to call it that, I found myself saying "I'm not paying for that" at least twice for him. (More often for others.) The one thing about Dean is that he's very principled. Unfortunately, that implies that he's unyielding and uncooperative (stubborn, really) in matters where he's already made up his mind. Politicians aren't supposed to have principles; they reflect the whim and will of the people they represent. After watching Carl Levin in a Budget Hearing recently, this became quite apparent. Don't blame the politicians for being bafoons; if they're doing their job right, you should blame their constituents.

General Clark: In order to become a general in the armed services, you have to be appointed by Congress. That would imply that you have to have some political acumen to rise to that position. While retired General Wesley Clark does, in fact, have some acumen, he won't last long with many moderates in this country by dodging the details of his foreign and domestic plans. To say that he danced would be understated, but it was less like Fred Astaire and more like "Elaine" on Seinfeld; spasmodic describes it best. The guy just doesn't know if he's coming or going.

John Edwards: You know, it's late, and I should be going to bed, so all I'll say about Edwards is this... No more confederate southerners, please!

Al Sharpton: The thing about Al that concerns me the most is that he has the capacity to exhort a large enough population, especially in the urban areas, to be dangerous. He's far and away the most charismatic and his dancing is very smooth. If you're smart enough to lift the veil, you won't find much substance to this provocateur, but his run for President will garner him a lot of political power, which he can either wield or yield for the right price. For certain, he will be able to pave the way (much like Carol) for those who would follow in his footsteps in future elections. Beware of this character... He is the Ross Perot of the poor folk...

Good night...

Freedom of Speech: Part One

Having suffered through two-thirds of Danny Schechter’s book, Embed: Weapons of Mass Deception, I am reminded of one of Mark Twain’s pearls of prose: “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.”

One might argue that my critical assessment of Mr. Schechter’s work is premature, given that I haven’t finished “consuming” it. I’m sorry, but my gag-reflex can really only handle 20 pages at time. Much like cooked spinach, it’s going down, but very slowly. All I can say is that the “Great Dissector” has it coming…

As I began reading the book, I thought his premise would be founded upon Hansell Duckett’s sentiment when he said, “What this country needs is more free speech…worth listening to”. But after my first “gag”, I was left with the impression that this is a man who was ‘excluded from the party’ and is rancorously pissed about it. So, here’s part of my “dissection” of his perspective…

"He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon

Pearls of wisdom that I would offer to Mr. Schechter as I attempt to heed them myself…

PARITY

One of the characteristics of the media that has turned me off over the years (which has compelled me to turn them off) is the lack of parity. It’s a deficiency that Schechter alludes to in his book, but not in the manner I would have hoped. While I agree with him that the media did not take an objective approach to the war in Iraq, that’s where it ends. His complaint seems to be less about the objectivity and more about how the media has “swung to the right”. Largely known as a liberal organization over the years for their self-appointed role as government watchdog and champion of human interests, it seems that the prevailing focus has swung more toward commercial interests. Consequently, he asserts that the journalistic integrity has been sacrificed at the alter of politics and commercialism. I agree, but that’s not the problem, Danny-boy. The problem is that you still associate the media with journalism.

Members of the media (whom I’m loathe to refer to as journalists) have forgotten what their role truly is; they are living witnesses to history. Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge (or let anyone else acknowledge) their shortcomings in this capacity. Any law enforcement official in this country will tell you that given a room full of witnesses to a crime, there will be a room full of different accounts to it. Why? Because we all bring our own perspective to the same world. There is no single truth, only perspectives that coincide from time to time… As I read his pompous outpourings over the criticism the media and its constituents received from our government, I wondered where the parity was. What gives them the exclusive right to criticize the government with impunity? Are they really beyond reproach? Are you, Peter Arnett? Are you, Geraldo Rivera? Are you beyond reproach because you wave the banner of the First Amendment? Just out of curiosity, would you be as self-important if it had been the 10th Amendment?

I think what bothers me the most is that our media is the face that other countries believe reflects our society. That deeply concerns me, just as it should concern many of the world’s 1.3 billion Arabs that Al-Jazeera reflects their culture. …but that’s another rant.

In his book, Schechter makes fun of Donald Rumsfield and the manner in which he “takes down journalists”. He cited a news conference where a reporter interrupted Rumsfield’s response with a follow-up and was “shushed” like a father quiets a child. Apparently, not only are reporters beyond reproach, they are also above polite manners and common courtesies. Little did Rumsfield know that the reporter was wearing a button on his lapel that said, “Please don’t talk when I’m interrupting. It’s rude!” (Just kidding, folks.)

HONOR BEFORE LOYALTY

A thoughtful discussion (which I found wanting in the book) that I would have enjoyed is the dichotomy between honor and loyalty in the context of journalism during wartime. How do you balance the loyalty to your country and countrymen with what you believe to be “the right thing”? Personally, I am of the mind that honor always comes before loyalty. Journalists, however, are faced with a real challenge of staying true to themselves (as they are defined by their journalistic integrity) while striving to protect the country that has granted them the freedom to do so. Here’s where I would use Peter Arnett as a good centerpiece for the debate. My position is that, while Peter may have been satisfying his journalistic integrity (and I use that loosely), he lost his balance. He was fired for his disloyalty, not his principles (or adherence to them).

Independent reporters present a different challenge insomuch that they are often not affiliated with a country (by way of a media organization). They, however, simply lack the balance between their ears. Driven by who-knows-what (pride, perhaps), they put themselves in harm’s way in an effort to “scoop the story”. Schechter mentions four such journalists in Iraq who were arrested and detained by military forces. While they are ostensibly non-combatants, they have the capacity to draw imminent danger to those around them. How many of us have seen a news crew on the side of the road and wanted to stop to see what was going on? Why? Go home and watch it. The mentality in the back of our minds, though, is to solve the mystery immediately. Still not convinced? During the 1990’s the media visiting Iraq were very closely scrutinized for fear that they were CIA officers collecting intelligence under the cover of journalism. During the recent war, each correspondent was paired with a “minder” that accompanied them to all “newsworthy locations”, monitored the questions they asked, and reported back to the Ministry of Information on a daily basis. Why was the Ministry of Information bombed? The government claims “command and control” operations were being conducted within it. Qadm, the liaison between the Ministry and foreign correspondents was, in-fact, an Iraqi intelligence officer. And how might we know that? It could be that we DID have CIA operatives posing as journalists (or among the “human shields”). So, who’s to say what the allegiance was of the four independent journalists in southern Iraq? At least we KNEW that the embedded journalists weren’t betraying us…Then again, that’s open for debate, isn’t it…

Peripheral to this discussion, I would have liked to see Schechter objectively address the nature of propaganda. In the balance between honor and loyalty, there is a subplot that addresses war propaganda for and against us. (I think it’s fortunate for our media that it’s not considered a military function by the Geneva Conventions.) Critical of our media for being a propaganda machine for the Pentagon and Bush administration (which I won’t contest), Schechter fails to recognize that the stories he longed to hear/tell about (e.g. Iraqi civilian casualties, the inefficacy of PSYOPs, changes to the “war plan”, imprecise “smart bombs”, etc.) were clearly tools of propaganda for the Iraqi regime and its supporters. Personally, I don’t think it’s any wiser to tell both stories (arm both combatants equally) than it is to choose either side (in the case of journalism). Stay the fuck out of it altogether, is what I’d prefer they did. The last thing our military machine needs is 200 million micro-managers, inspired by these emotional instigators, weighing in their public opinion. The chance for them to do that was in the beginning, before the war began, and they did…we did. As a military veteran, my position is, “sit-down, shut-up, and let me do my job”.

As I rant on, I find my disdain is surfacing more plainly. So, as long as I’ve long since departed from the “high road”, let me close with this. My grandfather used to tell me a joke that I haven’t truly felt the gravity of until recently. It’s decidedly controversial and I’ve modified it to serve my point here…it’s just as poignant nonetheless. Without further ado, I’d like to recommend the world’s three shortest books (in addition to the ones at the right):

• Who’s Who from Texas A&M


• Arab Heroes of the 6-day War


• Ethics in Journalism in the 20th century and beyond…

Stay tuned…