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!