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...
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
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
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
Thursday, February 12, 2004
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.
"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.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
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.
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...
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!
"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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
