~synthesis~

the pope loop

My list of questions if the Papacy was a job won via interview, and if I were on that interview loop.

1. Name the one thing you believe every Catholic must be/have - the one thing without which you would not consider that person a Catholic.
2. Name the one thing that if a person was or believed it, you would consider them a non-Catholic.
3. Beyond the "typical" officiating work of a Cardinal, what ONE thing would you (as Pope) define as your priority for the next three years?
4. As Pope, will you focus more on regions where Catholicism is on the rise or in decline?
5. If you had to strengthen the Church's relationship (alliance) with another mainstream religion, which one would you select? What would your goal be in doing this?
6. Are there any aspects of the Church's teachings (traditions/rules vs. religious tenets) that you believe should be reevaluated based on changing times (between now and when these traditions/rules were established)?

My ideal candidate's answers (bearing in mind I have no affiliation with the Catholic Church, nor am I religious):

1. A practitioner of the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, combined with love thy neighbor, which I believe are two sides of the same coin.
2. That harming another or allowing them to come to harm is acceptable.
3. To turn our religion from a series of "No's" to a conversation about "Yes" - assuming the worst and a model that scares people into behaving seems antithetical.
4. I will focus on people in need no matter their faith or location.
5. I would pick Islam. The loudest fringe always subsumes people of moderate voices; this is and has been true in our faith, and it is so in others. It saddens me when the fringe uses faith to advance a self-serving agenda, and it scares me when they advance a violent agenda. I would seek to build a bridge between moderate Catholics and Muslims in the hope that our combined strength and tolerance will help the fringe find its way to the middle.
6. I believe Catholicism is centered on the notions of faith, love, tolerance, and service. Anything beyond this is a matter of time and place. I would look at homosexuality, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the Church as subject to reinterpretation.
   • I would rather people are guided by their faith in God and love for each other when it comes to which gender they should love and marry; our teachings should focus on faith and love, and we must trust in God that people will choose wisely, and then accept the guidance God gives them.
   • I would urge adults to view parenting as their most important role; one that must be entered into intentionally, and when ready. There is nothing worse in the world than a child suffering needlessly because their parents are not able to care for them; I would support the use of contraception to prevent this form of child abuse.
   • Rather than being celibate, I would like to see the leaders of our Church be exemplars of healthy, successful marriages and parenting.
   • I would hope that one day soon the person answering these questions is a woman - there is no reason why it should not be so.

stimulating peace

America is a generous country - from 1946-2010 (in 2010 $), she has given just under $2.1 trillion in foreign program and military aid. Impressive, and well... it makes me proud to be an American.

Over this period, the #1 beneficiary of American largesse is Israel ($185 billion or 8.9% of all aid).

Israel receives American aid with good reason - they are the longest-standing democracy in the Middle East, and they have the most effective lobbyists in the world. The value proposition is the preservation of Israel in the face of their anti-Zionist neighbors.

I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and except for the (very) rare zealot, the people I’ve met care little about the Jew/Muslim issue - their focus is their family (health, economic, social wellbeing). This is because the people I knew were gainfully employed and had something besides zealotry to live for.

Are there freaks on both sides that are filled with hate? Of course, but not as many as we might think. Do some of them wish to create armies with which to wreak violence? Yes - on both sides. The media’s relentless and gawky focus on the ugly side of humanity is why we think they represent the majority.

America also has it’s share of hate-filled people, but it’s not so easy to achieve critical mass here - most Americans have too many other things to live for/distract them. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement petered out because people soon had better things to do than sit in tents and be irritating.

In 2010, America gave Israel $2.8 billion ($386/person or 1.3% of Israeli GDP) in aid. The West Bank/Gaza received $693 million - $4/person or 10% of GDP. Israel’s GDP/capita is ten times that of their poorer neighbors; the average income in Israel is just over $30,000/year vs. just under $2,000/year in the West Bank.

Is it any wonder that it’s easy to recruit Arab “soldiers” - they literally have nothing better to do, and very sadly, nothing to live for but dying. Having just $5.50/day will lead anyone, however civilized or educated, to desperate acts. It’s not hard to see how a Palestinian parent might join a terrorist organization, or “volunteer” a child to the “cause” - it’s the only available way to feed their family - they’re that poor.

Has the $185 billion in American aid done anything to create a (self-) sustainably peaceful Israel? No. Should we stop? No. Should we continue doing the same thing? No. So...?

Our goal is the long-term preservation of Israel; we should then stop funding their ability to kill Arabs (majority of US aid to Israel is military), and instead help Israel by enabling the Arabs' economic viability.

Employment is the offspring of the marriage of demand with capacity. If America were to proffer large tranches of demand (we will buy $X millions of products Y1, Y2, etc. for the next Z years) to the Palestinians, the result would be widespread employment in Gaza and the West Bank. We would phase out our investment as they became self-sustaining.

This would profoundly change the dynamic in the region. If you had two ways to feed your family - send your daughter to her suicide-bomber-death, or work at a job, which would you choose?

If the majority of Palestinian families are earning enough money to cover shelter, food, education, healthcare, etc., and if they are then earning just a bit more so as to buy that new iPad Mini or a TV, I guarantee you they will not reelect Hamas. They will choose a commerce-minded government bent on improving their economic situation even more. Israel won’t matter except as a trading partner; they’ll be too busy playing Angry Birds, watching Desperate Housewives, and thinking about what they’ll buy with their next bonus.

Now think of how much more stable and peaceful Israel would be. The best way to end war is to give people something more valuable to live for.

America should never weaponize other countries. Peace through prosperity should be our foreign policy motto.

less walls

An act of God (Sandy) resulted in $billions committed to reparations, many benefit concerts by famous entertainers, and a ton of political action.

What, I wonder will an act of man (Sandy Hook) provoke?

It is not realistic to think that even the slaying of 20 children will create a sufficient change of heart to provoke new laws. So I don't expect this country will suddenly become anti-gun, nor do I expect that America will legislatively and enforcement-wise shift from being the most weaponized country on the planet.

What then is possible? What then is realistic? Many are comparing the regulation of cars and driving to guns, but this doesn’t apply either. There is simply no practical way to achieve this.

A knee-jerk reaction will be a demand for guards, stronger doors, and metal detectors in schools so that students are protected. But this is also wrong - I’m reminded of something I wrote a few years ago:

South Africa is one of my favorite places. In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they are surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 feet) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

In America, every time people do bad things, we act passionately and aggressively to build bigger walls - from tough on crime to anti-terrorism to anti-lunacy. The reward for every bad act is a curbing of everyone’s freedom. America imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world - by far. I imagine we also spend more on law enforcement than anyone else.

I believe all of this “tough on X” bluster actually creates more criminals. That the extolling of bad acts in the media actually spawns more bad actors.

Instead of improving things, building bigger walls has only made us more vulnerable.

I believe our friends in Soweto have it right - in the face of bad behavior, our reaction must be to demand more freedom, less or no walls, and more opportunities to be there for our neighbors; to be able to see that there is trouble and come to their aid. There is no shortage of heroes in our world let us give them a chance to save us.

As ever, I am inspired by Aaron Sorkin and Josiah Bartlett. These 3 minutes and 37 seconds are worth another look.

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

child abuse

Have you ever seen a therapist or a counselor? Does your employer have workplace policies that protect you from isms (ageism, sexism, racism, etc.) or undue physical hardship (excessive hours, moving heavy objects, etc.)? Are you able to take a day (or a few days) off if some thing personal comes up? Are there advocacy groups to support you if you feel in some way wronged by your employer, or if your life is in some kind of stress or distress?

Despite all this "help," many of us will come home after a tough day at the office and feel horrible, exhausted, drained, and just ...done. How often have you heard (or said) the words, “I need a drink”??

Adults have advantages: we are mature, we have freedoms, we can speak for ourselves, we have advocates and advocacy groups, there are laws that protect us, and perpetrators of “bad” behavior are prosecuted or sued everyday. Lawyers who specialize in these issues are prolific, and work on a pure contingency basis - caring for adults is a thriving business.

While it’s disappointing that all this is needed, at least we have access to support, friendly ears, and recourse.

What about our children?

They have access to a fraction of the resources or recourses that we do; they even have fewer legal rights! Worse, they’re going through one of the most difficult things in the world - transitioning from child to adult - puberty, growing pains, emotional transformation and upheaval, sexual awakening, first loves, responsibility...

Add to this, middle and high school are pivotal to their one (really only) ticket to happiness, good health, and independence in life. Without a great education, their destinies are ...uncertain at best.

Stress, complication, emotional overload, difficulty, rule changes, a persistent feeling of powerlessness. This is what confronts children in our society.

Talk about pressure.

Who is their advocate?

• Parents? Nope - most parents delegate their children's upbringing to school as soon as they're in full-time school. More often than not, they side with the “system,” telling the child it was much tougher when they were growing up.
• Teachers? Nope - they are similarly victimized by a system that mandates ridiculous measures of performance, absurd outcomes, embarrassing working conditions for relatively little pay, and lately, a ton of social vilification.
• Government? Nope - kids don’t vote.
• The legal system? Nope - it’s almost impossible to sue the government or a school. They are happy to sue teachers (who are the vogue target these days), but nothing else gets any traction, and teachers are broke anyway.
• The media? Nope - they love to hype stories of bullying, suicides, other abuse, but they don’t do anything about it or cause others to change.
• Who?

No one.

Humans are designed to forget the worst experiences we have - otherwise no woman would give birth to a second child. Teenagehood is not a happy time, but once past it, our memories become very selective. As proof, think of how many times you said, “I’ll NEVER be like them [parents/adults] when I grow up.” And then...

Adults (even parents) may not remember or even understand what it is like to be a teen/student; BUT they are CONVINCED they know what’s right for kids, what they need, and how best to help them become adults.

So here’s what we (adults) have decided is the optimal approach to “educating” children:

1. At the beginning of each year, they are notified of the school rules [you *must* click this link (note: this is for middle school)!], which presume every child is a cheating, lazy, misanthropic vandal. Animals are held in higher regard and given more love and understanding. [If you treat impressionable kids like criminals, how do you expect them to behave? Is it any wonder bullying, delinquency, etc. are on the rise?]
2. Each student in a grade is assumed to come in with same knowledge, context, motivation and home life, and expected to learn the same thing at the same time and in the same way. There is no room for individuality; there is no tolerance for “deviants.” [If they had their way, I think Education America would prefer every student to enter the factory as powdered potatoes and exit as identical, extruded McDonald’s fries/graduates.]
3. They must wake up at 6:30AM and be sitting in class by 7:30AM. Most walk through metal detectors, into buildings that more closely resemble factories or prisons; all are assessed for attendance and dress code. [Do you need a jolt of caffeine so you can face the morning? Do you feed your 6-year old a shot of Red Bull before school? "Of course not - that would be horrible and cruel! How dare you!" And yet you expect them to learn things at 7:30AM.]
4. Sit with 29 others in a room designed for fewer, where they are required to be attentive (silent), docile, take copious notes, and speak only when spoken to. [Schools, like prisons are designed to control and monitor the population, not to enable learning.]
5. Change rooms every 50 minutes, "enjoying" a steady stream of lectures covering new and altogether unrelated topics, and of course, be assigned copious quantities of homework. [Are you able to learn so many new and disconnected things everyday, with just a break for lunch (crappy food) and then pass the tests??]
6. “Learning” is measured by completion of homework assignments and of course lots and lots of tests. In all cases, students are judged individually - teachers are required to be vigilant in preventing plagiarism, cheating, and other bad acts. [When’s the last time you took a test that judged your whole year as a success or failure?]
7. The children are required to carry 15-20lb packs containing expensive and outdated textbooks to and from school. [Workforce rules protect most adults from carrying this much weight every day. But not so for our children and their growing bodies.]
8. Adults in "higher" institutions have deemed that grades alone wont get a student into their university - they need a gazillion extra curricular activities, to be a volunteer, have interned somewhere, and written an essay begging to be considered for admission. And if the gods smile and they are accepted, they have the privilege of graduating just slightly more educated, saddled with at least $75k in debt because of the exorbitant tuition.

So this is the best way to prepare our children for adulthood during their already difficult growing years. Who knew?

But wait, there’s more! Shrinking federal, state, and local budgets have resulted in teacher layoffs, equipment reductions (no more labs), increased class sizes, school closures, elimination of most “non-core” classes (arts, phys-ed, clubs, etc.), the killing of recess (yes, recess!), and even guidance counselor layoffs in middle schools.

Rest assured though, our Defense budget remains largely untouched. Whew!

Adult feelings, wants, needs, and satisfaction are routinely surveyed by our bosses, who at least try to be responsive. When is the last time a school district asked its students how they like to learn, or what environment is most conducive to learning? And if they did deign to ask, did they actually listen, much less change??

Abuse is defined as "any action that intentionally harms or injures another person."

It is time that America admitted that her 50 million public school students are victims of wide-spread, systemic child abuse.

Do you recognize these words?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I bet the younger amongst us will. When, I wonder will they heed them and declare their independence from us despots??

As for me, all this typing has really stressed me out, and I’m feeling a tad overwhelmed. I'm going to visit my therapist, get a massage, have a martini or three, and then take a few days off...

feckless

Tony Karon argued yesterday that Israel's 'Diplomatic Tsunami' has arrived, I think he’s right, and it got me thinking about America’s foreign policy.

From Wikipedia, “a country's foreign policy... consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.”

For almost a century, America has been the world’s cop, the world’s strongest economy, and even the world’s authority on morality. From protecting Korea and Taiwan in Asia, to helping Japan and Germany with their post-war economic recoveries, to leading the world in communications and high tech and entertainment, to being Israel’s doting uncle, America has been a (really “the”) dominant force in shaping the world’s behavior.

America, the President of the United States, and the American Congress were regarded, respected, and feared as the pinnacle of freedom, integrity, power, and achievement.

When “powerful” is your norm, you assume infallibility and righteousness are forever yours. The most brazen example of this is the Bush Doctrine (aka National Security Strategy of the United States) wherein the American government empowered itself to preemptively strike any entity or sovereign state that it deemed threatening.

American foreign policy is/was not so much a diplomatic process as thuggery; using either the threat of, or the actual act of military or economic retribution to impose its wishes.

Wielding brute force will go to your head; when you have this kind of power, why bother with subtlety? Why waste time on nuance and wit when you own the most powerful one-two punch (US Military, US Dollar) in history? Sure it's dominant now, but time isn’t kind to those that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid; Davids are able to find slingshots, Goliaths are vanquished.

Ten years ago today, America was the victim of a horrible and criminal act, and it reacted with force and anger, some of which was directed against its own citizens, making us a lot less free than we’ve ever been. America is a more intrusive place to live today than it was on September 10, 2001.

That same act also robbed America of its integrity, as evidenced by three words - Guantanamo, Rendition, and Torture.

The American military is without equal in “traditional” warfare; the last time they were asked to fight one of those was 21 years and 40 days ago, and they were victorious. Since then, the “enemy” has been replaced with individuals and small groups of criminals who are inhuman, without honor, and lack any national affiliation. This is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Using the military to counter terrorism is like using a gun to kill a mosquito. You make a fool of the weapon, create a ton of random damage, and help the foe look agile and effective. Case in point - Afghanistan, ironically the same place where Americans helped the “locals” defeat the Soviet Union. American power does exist in reality, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is no longer mighty, nor is it feared. The thug mind assumed that every problem could be solved with the same weapon, and that delusion made a mockery of both the thug and the weapon.

Can we at least rest on achievement?

Going back to Karon’s article, taking its cue from Uncle Sam, Israel assumed that a powerful military and self-righteousness are all that’s required to maintain the status quo; but they didn’t count on the agility and effectiveness of the mosquito, which took the form of individuals and their desire for personal freedom and justice.

They did count on Uncle S to stand with them and “prevail” on the Turks, Egyptians, and even the Palestinians to respect and honor the integrity of Israel; and of course America did stand with its favorite nephew, but regrettably, with little effect. Nations (and worse, individuals) that once cowered are no longer bowed. They listened politely, but then followed their own beliefs rather than US "advice."

Why? Because today even America’s ability to get it done is suspect - the military will leave its last two theaters of operation without victory; the economy is weak and depleted; the government prefers ideology over strategy.

What was once a majestic and imposing and relentless is tired and fading. The “assets” that America has held dear for so long, it’s military and the all-mighty dollar remain, and remain strong, but only according to the definitions of the last millennium.

While the world moved on, America chose laurels and rest.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin’

These are harsh words on this sad day; but this is also a day of reflection, when we contemplate not just what was lost, but how we've changed, and what we've become. Reflection must encompass the whole image in the mirror, not just the convenient illusion. Humility always prevails over hubris.

inhumanity

What do the June riots in Vancouver have in common with this week's events in London? This Independent article posted by a good friend made me see things in a whole new light.

Each riot was sparked by an event - the Canucks losing the Stanley Cup, and a black man killed by the police in a way that raised the community's suspicions. The rioters in both cases are young (teens and early 20s) people. The police are not designed for, and ill-equipped to quell riots and prevent innocent people and local buildings/stores from being harmed.

[ASIDE: Domestic police forces ought not be militias, armed to the teeth, and bent on suppressing the citizenry; this assume-the-worst-of-our-people attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.]

There's one other thing the countries have in common: while both invest heavily in, and are reputed to have excellent public education systems, their schools are becoming increasingly mechanistic and factory-like. Success is measured by test scores; effectiveness is based on numeric data; and students are viewed as numbers (vs. humans), and assumed to be cheaters and prone to bad behavior, read: mistrusted.

In good times, economic success can overcome these failings, but with increased unemployment and more people falling below the poverty line, no-one is present to model a "peaceful national character and an accepted moral outlook" or the idea of civility for young people. Parents are too busy making ends meet, and there are few "good" influences in the media, or in our increasingly aloof neighborhoods.

Their most formative experiences happen whilst in school, and if the "texture" of that experience is "you'll be held back if you don't do well on the tests"; "we know you're a truant or are cheating and we will catch you"; and being treated as a data point and not a person, how do we expect them to grow into anything but disenfranchised young adults, who when presented with an opportunity to rebel against "the man" will gleefully take it?? This BBC interview of two young British rioters is a classic example of the result.

Why doesn't this happen as much in America (which has an even more mistrustful public education system)? I think it's because the local police forces are more violent and better armed.

[ASIDE: Domestic militia can discourage violence, but at what cost? Prime Minister Cameron just said, "There are pockets of our society that are not only broken, but frankly sick...It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to feel that the world owes them something." His remarks are political peacocking, and by weaponizing his police forces, he creates an even greater rift with the citizenry. Being 'tough on crime' is a failed strategy, as evidenced in America, which boasts the highest percentage of incarcerations on the planet, but no corresponding reduction in crime.]

It is regrettable that politicians can't focus on root causes. In all three (and many other) countries, our children are victims of an increasingly dehumanized education system. The powers that manage (districts, departments/ministries of education, etc.) and influence (Gates, etc. Foundations) public schools are filled with too few real educators, and too many MBAs, whose training in micro-thinking leads to disastrous macro-outcomes.

"Take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves" is a practice in most MBA programs (in their parlance: what gets measured gets done, just focus on optimizing your piece of the business), and is one of the worst things to happen to schools (and corporations) over the last generation. "Penny-wise and pound-foolish," or "missing the forest for the trees" are much more apt, but frequently ignored.

When you manage teachers based on their students' test scores, you demand that the teacher ignore the person in front of them, and focus ONLY on their preparation to answer a set of questions on a piece of paper. Learning is not a requirement; correct responses are.

More and more parents choose a school for their children based on test scores, in the mistaken belief that that's a "good education."

Is it at all surprising that young adults aggressively rebel when given the opportunity? Is it at all surprising that they have a diminished sense of civility and respect? Which adults treated them with civility and respect? What behaviors did their "models" exhibit towards them when they were most impressionable?

Learning is an inherently human act - the more you separate the person from their education, the less educated and "human" our younger generations will be.

The people to blame for the riots in Vancouver and London are not the kids (they are merely accountable), but rather the adults (parents and educators and policy makers) who created the education system in which they were dehumanized.

crossing lines

Over the last couple of days, a question has been bothering me - when do the ends justify the means?

I was driving home Sunday evening, and NPR was a-buzz about President Obama's impending announcement that American forces had found and killed Osama bin Laden. I watched the speech, heard the President proudly state that Mr. bin Laden had been "brought to justice," and saw the wild demonstrations in front of the White House and across the country. Americans had literally taken to the streets, were singing the national anthem, and chanting "USA, USA, USA." The coverage looked just like the demonstrations we've seen on TV of crazed Muslims the Middle East decrying America.

And I keep thinking of this rather crude joke:

A average-looking man walks into a hotel bar, sits beside a very pretty woman, and strikes up a conversation. A couple of drinks later, he asks her: "If I gave you a million dollars in cash, would you have sex with me?" She agonizes over this for several minutes and then says, "OK - let's do it." "Then how about fifty bucks for a blow job?" She slaps him, "What kind of woman do you think I am!?" she demands self-righteously. "We've already established that, now we're just negotiating."

If you draw a line in the sand and then cross it, how different are you from someone else who draws a line in a different place but also crosses it?

How different is America from Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda tortures people, attacks countries, and acts out of anger, all without accountability.

The intelligence that helped locate Mr. bin Laden came from a prisoner interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. Many are using this to justify the existence of Guantanamo, and the methods America used/uses (extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc.). Evidence gathered in this way is not accepted in an American court of law.

American forces invaded a sovereign state without the permission of its government to conduct the raid that killed Mr. bin Laden, and yet the US Government is now accusing Pakistan of playing a "double game." Invading a country is a criminal act, how will America be held accountable for that?

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the American Constitution respectively give us the right to due process, and to face our accusers in a court of law. Granted these don't apply in the case of a War, but why didn't America take the extra step of capturing Mr. bin Laden alive and trying him in open court? (Had I been President, I would have wanted him captured alive, returned to his native country of Saudi Arabia, and demanded that he be tried in public court in that country, by its citizens.)

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that does evil things in the name of religion. Its members are criminals and must be brought to justice. They interpret a book of laws (the Quran) in a way that makes it convenient to commit acts of terror and violence. The Quran does not preach violence and anger - hundreds of millions of peaceable Muslims are proof of that. But it, like the Bible have been selectively interpreted by bad people to justify evil acts.

There is a quote that is falsely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. but is still worth reading: ‎I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

America is a nation founded by people of integrity - its principles and laws were conceived and crafted by brilliant men who understood the power of freedom, the path to prosperity, and the fallibility of man. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written to guide this country towards a future different from the oppressive Britons of that time; one that would form a republic governed by the people, and guided by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is an incredible country, which despite its size has been pivotal in shaping the path of this entire planet for decades.

I can't help but wonder if by crossing our own line in the sand, we have turned what was a brilliant beacon of hope into a fifty dollar hooker.

the greater bad

Have you ever told a white lie? I have, many times. We tell them because it's convenient or more tactful than the truth, thinking that serves a greater good.

Saying those trousers don't make you look fat is one thing; claiming that we should invade a country because there is incontrovertible proof (a lie) that they have weapons of mass destruction is an altogether different thing.

Or is it? In both cases the truth was stretched; the consequences (they do look fat vs. thousands dead, $billions wasted) were ignored; and the liars weren't held accountable.

Where should we draw the line? When is it polite or forgivable vs. unethical? Most of us push personal limits, but rarely legal ones - the threat of being caught and the possibility of harming someone prevents me from speeding excessively. What constrains governments?

In democracies policing the government is the job of the opposition party(ies) and voters, though recent history hasn't shown either to be effective. Freedom of the Press is a constitutional safeguard, but most journalists work for news media owned by large corporations (=bias), and others (liberal MSNBC, conservative FOX) are excessively partisan. Plus let's face it, they're not motivated to find truth as much as they are to get elected or draw eyeballs.

Our governments (America, Britain, Sweden, etc.) are conspiring to undermine and attack organizations like Wikileaks, and many are rising up against the government to "fix them." Read for example John Pilger's speech at a recent Sydney Town Hall meeting, where he implores the ~2,000 people that attended to rise up and demand change. Will they succeed?

The ethos of government is integrity, it achieves sustainability through accountability, and its strength comes from transparency. The authors of the American Constitution and the Magna Carta believed this, but time hasn't been kind to our leaders.

Rather than aiming for the greater good, our governments are bent on sweeping their bad acts under the rug. Democratic governments come into power through a process of lies and exaggerations (aka elections); and from that beginning, they have no precedent on where to draw the line once in power. We citizens are so drawn to the political rhetoric that we forgive current and prior bad acts and vote the liars back into power!

Look at China's alternate fuel (vs. oil & coal) investments - they are NOT interested in climate change or reducing greenhouse gasses; they are simply uncomfortable being dependent on foreigners for something so critical as power. Their motivation is energy independence and market advantage; any climate change impact is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct.

There is no greater good, there is only what's good for the government of China, or America, or whomever.

It's naive to think that politicians will suddenly develop morality. Politicians are designed to self-aggrandize, grandstand, and win elections. Serving constituents is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct. Political ethos is tied directly to ego and a compass that points to power and reelection.

Voters are no different - we're self-centered as well. Whatever the situation, most of us will first figure out how it helps or hinders us, and then (if at all) consider societal consequences. We therefore "reward" the politicians that we believe will help us most, or more specifically, help us most right now.

Our elected officials have been conditioned (by the voters) to tell us only what we want to hear, whether that's a promise or a threat (or a lie). We apparently don't care about truth, we're just looking for a good pandering.

Shame on us - the burden of citizenship and the right to vote is enormous and not to be taken lightly. No wonder our leaders routinely aim at the greater bad... we ask them to.

pro child-labor

What's the return on investment of education? Why bother? Why especially in poor communities? Just because I/you/we believe education is a silver bullet doesn't mean it is. As a skeptic, I can find many examples of education shooting blanks or even causing harm.

If I'm a parent of a family living in one room in a shanty town or village, why should I bother wasting my kids on education? How is grammar going to feed us? How are fractions going to heal my sick baby? How is history going to clothe us? I need none of this; it's a waste of my children's time and life. Go away.

Today UNESCO released The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, which states that: "Armed conflict is robbing 28 million children of an education by exposing them to widespread rape and other sexual violence, targeted attacks on schools and other human rights abuses."

Their agenda for change includes: "tougher action against human rights violations, an overhaul of global aid priorities, strengthened rights for displaced people and more attention to the ways education failures can increase the risk of conflict."

UNESCO is asking for US$2 billion to cover current budgetary shortfalls, and changing the proportion of humanitarian aid that goes to education (currently only 2%). All worthwhile goals, aimed at giving "them" what we have. But as Einstein famously said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.

Yes - 28 million children aged 5-12 are not in school, yes this is a crime, and yes it will result in bad things (disease, starvation, rape, war...). BUT - building more schools isn't the complete answer, nor is training more teachers or distributing textbooks or laptops.

Philanthropy is the least effective way to affect change. The best way is for the community itself to change because it values that change over existing subsistence priorities. This is the crux of sustainable transformation.

To get kids into schools, the parents need to be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Not "right" based on some abstract morality, but right based on what they care about, they need, and they value. This is what matters most; what we believe is irrelevant.

Parents will compel their kids to go to school if it enables survival of the family. If you can't directly and immediately connect to that, parents will choose other subsistence (food, shelter...) needs over education - you would, I would. Moreover, the "ROI" of education happens after graduation - that's at least a decade out! If you're starving now, that kind of future is meaningless.

We in the wealthy world delude ourselves into believing "if you build schools, they will come," or "it's so obvious - why don't they understand it?"

Ironically, we're clothing our ignorance in empathy, and believing that empathy will save the wretched from their ignorance!

We must give parents something they need now in exchange for their children's attendance:

1. School as a farm. The students will learn innovative farming techniques; they will plant and harvest crops; they will be required to work the farms in exchange for being fed and bringing food home for their families.
2. School as a factory. The students will learn innovative production techniques; they will create and produce goods that we will sell; they will be required to learn factory-work, in exchange for being fed and bringing goods home for their families.
3. School as a clinic. The students will learn about health care; they will assist in providing services to the injured and sick; they will be required to clean and cook and feed patients; in exchange for being fed and bringing food and medicines home for their families.

Yep - this is putting 5-year old kids to work. CHILD LABOR - get used to the term; learn to like it.

Children are not in school because their parents value subsistence over education. "In exchange" for being fed and bringing food home every day, these children will also happen to learn literacy and numeracy + skills that can help improve their family's health and standard of living. BUT if they don't get fed and bring food home, they will not have reduced the family burden sufficiently to warrant their parents' commitment.

We suffer from the desire to assuage our own guilt and feed our intellectual egos by over-engineering things. The issue is not education, it is survival. Education is nowhere near the top of Maslow's hierarchy for a reason. It's not important enough when you and your kids live on 500 calories/day, with dysentery and AIDS.

This feels dastardly - railing against child abuse/sweatshops/etc. is ingrained in us - but we're wrong.

If UNESCO is serious about getting 28 million kids in school, they need to first employ them, and then educate them. Let's spend money on that.

cojones

Anyone who has run a business will say you can create bottom-line impact (grow profits) by cutting costs, but that this is a short-term fix; if you can't grow your top line (sales), the business is at risk. And if you keep cutting and cutting, your top line will eventually shrink as innovation, product quality and customer service decline.

When looking at where to cut and where to invest, you focus on how the business will look 3-5 years out and make your choices strategically. Which engines have been around a while and have fat in them? Which will create future value? Which ones were important, but have now outlived their usefulness?

Good leaders will make the tough calls, making big cuts in some programs, investing significantly in others, and killing some outright.

Bad leaders implement death by a thousand cuts, trimming each department by 5 or 10%. They will have done no real thinking, conducted no real analysis, and certainly made no real decisions. They are afraid to to be bold.

The same holds true in government - President Obama and Speaker Boehner have on opportunity to achieve strategic and sustainable impact through their budgets, but unless things change in the coming weeks, they will shirk it in favor of being safe. A plague on both their houses!

In 2010 the Feds took in $2.162 trillion, and spent $3.456T, creating a deficit of $1.294T. The best Obama/Boehner have come up with is a paltry 1.7% ($60B) reduction in spending. Worse, most of the proposed cuts do nothing to prepare the country for tomorrow, enable growth, reduce unemployment, or create a more self-sustaining economy. For shame!

Four programs account for 60% of the 2010 Budget - Social Security: $695B + Defense: $664B + Medicare $453B + Medicaid: $290B = $2,102 Billion. All-up (Fed + State) spending on Education is ~$600B for 2010.

If I were in their shoes, I would:

1. Grow the Top Line (increase income): simplify the tax code, eliminate ALL deductions:
   -- Business tax: flat 3.5% on gross receipts
   -- Personal flat tax: 0% below $50K, 15% between $50-100K; 25% from $100-200K; 40% above $200K.
   This includes all Federal deductions (tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). States that tax must adopt a similar model. For 2007 (most recent year with comparable personal and business data), this would have increased net Federal income from $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
2. Rethink Defense: in 2009, America spent $664B - more than then next 22 countries COMBINED! We need to move away from being the planet's cop, and simply protecting the United States with the following cuts:
   -- 2011: budget capped at $500B total by phasing out ALL American military forces abroad
   -- 2012: $400B capped with cuts including reductions in nuclear arms.
   -- 2013: $300B cap
   -- 2014+: Cap = 10% of total Federal income (which per #1 above = $270B in 2007, or roughly 2.5 China's budget.
3. Redefine Social Security: Introduce legislation to add a means test + change the eligibility age to 68 in 5 years, and 70 in 7 years. Yes, this a bait and switch for many taxpayers, but one ameliorated by #4 below.
4. Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid, replace it with Universal Health Care ensuring health, medicine, dental and vision care for all Americans. As with the rest of the developed world, the costs will be shared at about 65% federal and 35% businesses. Insurance companies will suffer (yes!); some employers (particularly small businesses) will also take a hit (though their taxes (#1 above) will actually go down); most large companies will actually save money because this insurance will cost less than what they're paying now. Employees will have more disposable income, greater job flexibility, and of course be healthier.
5. Cut Education: Add a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, federalizing education, consolidating the nation to 50 school districts (one per state), and 3 years later consolidating further to one district. This would save $225 billion in district payroll alone. Enact a one-time $100B capital improvement program + $25B for a complete national curriculum with teaching resources.
6. Change Culture: do you know what LOBA is? It stands for "Lower of Budget or Actual" - this is how government budgets are set, and effectively how people are measured - your budget next year is the lower of what you did spend or were supposed to spend. The motivation is to spend everything you are given whether you need to or not. Per my post on simplicity, we should measure government employees on their ability to spend well, reward outcomes vs. process, and prioritize fewer, simpler objectives. By changing the culture, we can create a system motivated to spend less and do more vs. the opposite. This eliminates the need for the thousand cuts.

Difficult times require drastic changes. If the Republicans are to be believed, America is headed for bankruptcy, and will become the next Greece. These six changes would create a culture of lean efficiency, shrink or cut programs that are outmoded, and invest where it makes sense to enable future growth.

We need leaders who can guide this nation through the tough times ahead, and prepare the United States for sustained prosperity in the future. Legislators who waste time trying to save $50-100 million on trivial initiatives are afraid and useless. We have serious problems, and we need serious people to solve them.

President Obama, Speaker Boehner - let's see what you've got.

in the best interests

Are you familiar with the Butterfly Effect? It states that a small change in one part of a system can dramatically affect outcomes in another part of the system, or more poetically, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.

A look into the roots of recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt reveals that some of their inspiration came from far-away sources like American Gene Sharp, and the Optor in Serbia. They were bolstered by a history of civilian uprisings against authority - from Kent State in May, 1970, where students reacted violently to President Nixon's announcement that the US had invaded Cambodia, to the African National Congress and people like Steve Biko rising up against Apartheid in South Africa, the list goes on.

Lives have been sacrificed and countries have been shaped through civil disobedience, but sadly, humanity is not yet civilized enough to claim that this phase of our "development" is over. Recent events in Bahrain eerily echo what happened at Kent State 40 years ago. We are at least consistent...

Our hackles are raised when our sense of what's right is shaken; we feel righteous indignation when what we know to be fair and just is violated; indignation turns to anger when the perpetrators are those entrusted with authority and expected to represent the will of the people (their victims).

What about those on the "other" side of these actions?? I think/hope most are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the people, that they are doing what they know in their hearts and minds to be the correct response given the situation and available information.

Look at President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, and how we see that the information he believed to be true and verified was a lie. Look at the actions of the British Empire, who for centuries believed that they were "civilizing" the Colonies. It's easy to fault their actions in hindsight, but in that moment, in their moment, I can't honestly say what I would have done, given what was known to be "true" at the time.

In their minds, they were doing what they felt to be "right." If any of you are or were children, were you ever "subjugated" by your parents for doing or wanting to do something you thought was OK? Did you swear that you'd never do that if you had kids, then when you became parents, you put the screws to your kids in much the same way??

Context matters. Our judgment about the best interests of those in our charge is at best complex, and infrequently based on pure, unbiased reason.

Parenting is different from politics - in politics transparency matters, due process matters, and the voice of the people matters. In the politics of a democracy, these are sacrosanct, aren't they?

Texas Governor Rick Perry believes that abstinence is the only way to teach sex education, and he has invested more than any other state on promoting virginity before marriage. Texas has one of the worst-performing public school systems in America, the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate, and more sexually-active high school students (52.9% June/08) than the national average (47.8%), when recently questioned about his decision cut education budgets, close schools, lay off teachers, etc., but maintain abstinence funding, he responded: “I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to arbitrarily rewrite the rules governing public service employment in his State. His legislature will vote to ratify this despite strong opposition from the people of Wisconsin. His rationale - we can't afford to do what we were doing, we must live within our means, and this is the only answer - I/we know what's right.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have always acted in what they believed to be the best interests of Tunisia and Egypt respectively. King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa has always acted in what he believes to be the best interests of Bahrain. Each of these leaders' assumptions have been challenged over the last weeks.

We in the West have looked on these events with some feeling of superiority, sanguine in the belief that at least we live in nations with government[s] of the people, by the people, for the people.

I wonder - are there butterflies in Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain?

make tweets not war

I'm a pacifist - I don't believe that civilized people or societies ought to kill. I'm not saying you don't defend yourself, what I am saying is that killing and war perpetuate killing and war.

Take the situations in Tunisia and Egypt today - these are largely peaceful actions (the protesters in Egypt are actually searching fellow protesters for weapons to ensure this!), where the people in interest of self-determinism are asking their current leaders to step aside in favor of a new, populist government. Americans know this all too well, for this is how the US was founded. Democracy at its best.

Contrast this to Western attempts to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan by invading these countries, killing soldiers and civilians alike; destroying lives, property and infrastructure; perpetrating corruption on a massive scale; and installing ineffective, destructive, corrupt and lawless governments.

Lest we forget, this has cost Western citizens $TRILLIONs and achieved nothing. The two countries are more violent, anarchy reigns, and the terrorists are stronger and better funded.

We can hope that as with America in the 1770s, Tunisia and Egypt will emerge as sustainable, vibrant, pluralist, democracies, simply because their motivation to change came from within. We can hope that their actions will lead other countries around the world to embrace a similar path to peacefully oust oppressive leaders in favor of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Rarely if ever does imposed rule prevail over self-imposed rule. In Tunisia and Egypt, the most powerful weapons used were Facebook and Twitter, the military stood by and watched. Imagine the outcome if these had been weaponized protests - more deaths, military suppression leading to Martial Law and more deaths.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is generally interpreted to mean, "we never want to be controlled by other nations or their armies - we have the right to create our own military to ensure our security." I couldn't agree more.

Oddly, many interpret the Second Amendment as an imperative to bear arms, where every American must be weaponized to ensure freedom and peace. It is this ethos that led to the many wars America has unilaterally declared on everything from drugs to terror to sovereign nations. It is this same ethos that has made the NRA such a strong political force in this country, and that created SCCC - Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (formed after the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University), boasting over 42,000 members and chapters on > 350 campuses across America.

Civilized behavior requires that we exercise judgment, that we think and then act, and that we choose paths that lead to better than worse outcomes. Humans are not (yet) civilized - how often have you reacted without thinking? How often have you followed the crowd in a frenzy of emotion? Have you ever regretted things you have done as a result? Take a look at this video of a 15-year-old burglary suspect being assaulted by police officers in Houston, Texas. I bet these officers deeply regret their actions.

Houston police officers are carefully screened, evaluated, tested (polygraph, drugs, etc.), and trained for one full year (6 months each in the Academy and on the job), before being "given a badge." And yet they were unable to control their actions in this, a situation where they were not in danger (actual or perceived), and where they outnumbered the suspect 8:1. According to the SCCC, to carry a concealed weapon in Texas, you must be 21 or older, not have had trouble with the law, be of sound mind, attend 10-15 hours of training, pass a written test, and successfully shoot 50 rounds at the gun range.

I'm thinking back to how "civilized" I was at 21, or how much I retained from my driver's education classes (about 15 hours in class), and whether I might be suited to carrying a concealed weapon in the name of "personal protection"??

One of the rights of being an American citizen is that you get to vote; the 2008 national elections enjoyed the highest voter turnout since 1968 - 56.8%. This means that 43.2% of eligible voters chose not to participate, and yet there are five Constitutional Amendments + the Constitution itself that expand voting rights!!

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is not the mantra of a society aspiring to be civilized.

anger

Does it feel like the world is angrier today than ever before? Perhaps it's just that communication is so easy, that every action (more often every bad action) in the world is made more visible. But I think it's more than that.

A 22-year-old man shot a Congresswoman in Arizona. There are violent clashes in the Sudan during a referendum that will decide whether the country should be split in half. A few days ago, Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, Pakistan was assassinated; his death was celebrated by a segment of the country that decried his moderate views. The assassin was showered with rose petals and garlands during his appearance before the court. What provokes all this anger?

Extremism exists in every community - that's reality. The "edges" have historically not been as visible to the middle, but the media in their relentless quest for shock-journalism are changing that. Once they become visible, it's much easier for the edges to collect fellow extremists, and wannabe extremists with the tools the Internet makes available.

What were scattered, random, disconnected micro-freaks are finally able to coalesce into much larger, more coherent, better funded, and very real threats to the mainstream. Of course the media will now shower ever more attention on these now macro-freaks, and in doing so, legitimize them (can you say, "Joe the Plumber"???). This is when things get scary.

Being legitimized means that you are accepted as part of the zeitgeist - you are now acculturated, and scarily you are a "respected" force. Look at Moktada al-Sadr who recently returned to Iraq from exile - originally a cleric in a small town, he became political by weaponizing his community, and inciting them to resist. He became a force when CNN and the US Army began to pay attention to him, and this enabled him to recruit more micro-freaks to the point where he went macro.

The scariest part is when a mainstream player decides that to become even more "main," they must incite the fervent and freakish edges to their cause, thus expanding their base with people more driven to act (donate, vote, rock the vote, etc.). Frenzy is currency is politics - the ability to drive your constituents into a frenzy is considered a good thing (for any party); it is defined as:A state of violent mental agitation or wild excitement; temporary madness or delirium; a mania; a craze. Is it hard to picture violent acts resulting from this? If you can drive your constituents into a frenzy against your opponent, your chances of winning have gone up significantly. Honor and being honorable are seen as weakness.

Going back to the Arizona case, the same NY Times article talks about how Sarah Palin's Facebook page contained a map where every "enemy of Palindom" was identified with cross hairs. It's interesting that she just chose to take this down now, in the wake of the Arizona shooting (the Congresswoman is one of the "targets" she identified). Is that an admission of guilt?

I wrote a post after the US Midterm elections last November questioning whether Democracy is simply the lesser evil, and that there must be a better form of government that is at once both pluralistic and of integrity.

No doubt there are horrific examples of wanton violence in non-democratic states around the world, and when they occur, the "voting" countries all rise up to condemn them. And yet more and more we see horrible acts of violence in the name of winning elections in democratic countries, yet no-one rises up to question that.

Campaigning and then governing based on anger is no different than despotism and fascism when it comes to the price exacted on humanity and integrity. In fact, the advantage with despots and fascists is at least you know what's coming and can, to an extent, steel yourself. With democracy acts of anger are random and spurious, and always catch you by surprise and unprepared.

Until politicians (and voters) can agree that winning with integrity is preferred to winning at all costs, acts of anger will occur even more frequently - this isn't the last time a 9 year old girl will be killed by politics.

bumfuzzled

There's been a lot of furor lately about WikiLeaks and the US State Department documents they published (vs. stole). The United States Congress is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Senator Joe Lieberman in a recent Fox News interview stated that Assange (an Australian) should be tried for American treason! He is also contemplating charges against the New York Times for bad citizenship! Do Senators now get to fabricate their own laws? Next he'll outlaw literate people - oh wait - that was Pol Pot.

Every government/police system in the world wishes to prosecute Assange for his part in publishing these documents. I bet if they had their way, the US Congress, Interpol, etc. would also want to prosecute everyone who tweets or blogs, and possibly everyone who's under the age of 25 just on principle.

According to www.senate.gov, the average age of this, the 110th Congress is 57 years (55.9 House, 61.7 Senate). This is one of the OLDEST Congresses ever. The average Congressperson was born in 1953, when TVs had two channels, no remotes, and black & white pictures; they were teenagers before it was even possible to send telexes. They graduated from university five years before CNN was created, a decade before personal computers became commercially available, fifteen years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and almost a quarter of a century before mobile phones were broadly available. The world's population has almost tripled since they were born.

Sadly for them, we are in the midst of the Communication Revolution. Going from the Industrial Revolution (their world) to the Information Revolution to this, the Communication Revolution, we have shifted from standardization (Ford Model T) to discoverability (Internet/Google) to transparency & immediacy. While foreign to these relicsleaders (many of whom have never even read email), the need to be transparent and expect to have anything be immediately exposed for all to see is today's reality. Keeping secrets like you did during the age of Leave it to Beaver, in a time where the latency between information capture and global distribution is measured in seconds is absurd.

Congresspeople: the good old days are over. The RIAA faced this with online music, the MPA is facing it with online films, and you are now facing it with pervasive (and unfettered) access to information. The systems you employed to safeguard your secrets are antiquated and designed for the Cold Warriors, not today's average 12-year-old. But like your much-vaunted HUAC and Senator McCarthy's demagogic anti-communist investigations, you have charged decrepit freaks like Lieberman to persecute these modern "evil-doers" in the name of National Security. Bravo.

History will judge you as it did McCarthy and HUAC - as a Congress unable to fathom a changing world, using its power in desperate ways to impose order, and putting its energy into holding on to the past vs. leading your country towards a brighter future.

Punctuating the 2010 US Government's reaction to this leak is their edict to all government employees instructing them NOT to read any of the WikiLeaks documents. Quoting MSNBC, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a strongly worded memo to all employees and contractors telling them that not only may they not “download or attempt to download” any of the classified WikiLeaks memos onto their computers, they also may not “discuss the content” of such “potentially classified” documents “with persons who would not otherwise be authorized access,” according to a copy of a Dec. 3 memo from the department’s Office of Chief Information Officer. NASA and the Library of Congress have blocked the WikiLeaks site from their employees.

As a Homeland Security employee put it, "So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me."

Remember - these same government leaders have publicly decried the Chinese Government for impeding free information flow to her citizens.

The modern world has left the aging US Congress and various government Ministries bumfuzzled.

How does one de-fuzzle? I don't think it's possible - with apologies to canines everywhere, you can't teach old dogs like Lieberman/Pelosi/etc. new tricks - they're simply too withered, and sadly too entrenched.

Giving them some credit, they do understand that the WikiLeaks episode portends an even more dangerous future - one where no secrets are safe, no back-room dealings are kept in the back room, and what happens in Vegas becomes a TV movie that everyone can watch. Their strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, not realizing that their very acts (which only serve to extend the story) are actually helping seal their fate.

That this is news to Congress is not surprising given their agedness, but it is surprising that one of the youngest (and most tech-savvy) presidents in history is behaving so much like his septuagenarian colleagues.

Or is it that the very act of joining the government not only bumfuzzles but also calcifies?

lesser evils

How do democracies work exactly? Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." He also said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Watching the recent election in America, I imagine voters from both parties will agree with the second quote. Except for countries with an utterly homogeneous population (Scandinavia comes to mind), are there any democracies where political success doesn't require an opponent against whom you must incite passion?

One of our basest instincts is fight or flight; we act when we perceive a threat. Politicians have figured this out (Karl Rove is probably the best) and know that the only way to "rock the vote" is to get people afraid enough of the "other guy" so that they donate $$ and vote for you.

Surowiecki, in Wisdom of Crowds argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them." Now try to imagine the wisdom of 46% of the American electorate that wanted Sarah Palin (now a reality TV horror show) to be Vice President in 2008. The ONLY way this happens in a "wise crowd" is if the alternative (Barak Hussein Obama) is portrayed as so vile and horrific that it raises your righteous indignation to the point where you're able to stomach the lesser evil.

Politicians want voters to do three things - donate money, vote, and convince others to vote. They accomplish this by appealing to the basest instincts and fears, and by counting on the fact that the electorate has a very short memory when it comes to promises vs. actions.

There is a fourth social/constitutional expectation, which is to care, be discerning, and make intelligent choices; but let's face it, that's asking a lot, and you know that politicians would prefer you let them do the thinking...

The election process is no longer an assessment of a candidate's past performance, intentions, and ability to create value for their electorate; it is instead an exercise in emotive herding. Look at either side's campaign in any election around the world and you will see that most if not all of their "voice" is aimed at your gut and your heart, and NOT at your head. Most if not all of their voice is also not about their candidate, it is about how bad their opponent and his party are. A good campaign manager (Rove et al) knows the issues that will incite their base, and more specifically how to spin them to achieve maximum enragement. The better the manager, the more sustained the effect of the spin.

The best way to move a community is to find or fabricate an enemy. People only coalesce when they have something to oppose. I do not believe it is possible to sustain a mainstream movement based solely on a peaceful or positive intention. If you have no opposition to rail against and vilify, you will not be able to keep your audience.

For example, Palin = plain spoken, apple pie, maverick, god fearing, gun-toting, hockey mom. Anyone who is NOT this (Obama) is evil - "she's one of us," and he's not. You can't trust him, is he even American, his name sounds Islamic, he's... Politics today is more about creating caricatures than it is about addressing issues. With the prevalence and reach of media, the voters' connection to the caricature (or the idea) is more profound and more long-lived than their connection to the person.

These days democratically-elected candidates can't be mainstream, they have to be fringe, and they have to establish and nurture a polarized constituency. Once in power, the majority pushes their agenda; and the opposition/minority needs to do everything possible to not just impede that agenda, but to inflame their constituency into a rage against the incumbent. That's the only way they can raise enough money and rock enough voters to win next time.

The effect? Unless one party has a massive majority across the entire government, nothing of substance will happen - the citizens' lives aren't materially improved. The legislation that does get passed is rife with compromise and a pale shadow of what was promised. The spinners happily point the finger at the "enemy," and the citizenry's belief that the real cause of all their ills is at the other end of the spectrum (government and voters alike) is deepened. And the government oscillates between extremes - nothing gets done.

Think of how most advocacy groups function; they don't talk about the rightness of their cause, they create momentum by promoting the wrongness of their opponent. Do you think the Pro-Choice community would survive over time without extolling the threat that the Pro-Life movement represents and vice versa?

Now think about YOUR feelings - is your reaction stronger to an anti- message or a pro- message? Are you more like to vote or contribute or participate because of a fear of what might be if those other idiots get their way, or because you feel passionate and positive about your candidate and their platform?

I think the Tea Party movement in the US began because they wanted to change this dynamic, to see a government and citizenry closer to what the Founding Fathers intended. But in the end, they sacrificed integrity to pander to the media, grow their membership, and raise money, and ended up becoming a fringe instead of a mainstream voice.

If the byproduct of a democracy is that half the citizens hate the other half and wish evil upon them, how is this civilized? How do we claim to be civilized?

The opening Churchill quote has given us permission to be complacent, to concede that there is no better government than a democracy. That's not acceptable. Our imperative should be to prove him wrong, and not acquiesce to democracy simply because it sucks less than the alternatives.

community v ambition

First, it's been quite a while since my last post. A lot's been going on over the last months, and as a result, I prioritized other things over ~synthesis~, but I intend to amend that from now on! I thank all of you who sent me emails and were concerned about my well-being - that was surprising and sincerely appreciated - a thousand times thank you.

Second, I've decided to leave Microsoft - my employer of many years - and embark on a new journey in the world of education and start-ups. The next weeks and months will be spent refining the vision, finalizing the business plan, and of course, securing the funding to make it happen. I may do some consulting work in the interim, but hope to devote most of my energy to creating this new future with the goal of making a difference.

Community v ambition: I was visiting with a friend recently and we got to talking about her recent adventure in India, and then about some of the differences in the way people approach life (broadly speaking) in "developing" vs. "developed" worlds. Out of this came this idea that there are two extremes in how we approach life - community and ambition.

For most of our existence on this planet, community has been fundamental to survival. As competition grew and threats increased, people coalesced into communities where roles were defined, and they took care of each other. For example, in a true community, there are people who will hunt, grow, prepare food, build shelters, heal, and defend the community; more often than not, the children will inherit their parents' roles as they grow older. Similarly, you won't see daycare or convalescence or retirement homes - the young, the recovering and the aged are cared for within the community. The very idea of saving for retirement doesn't occur or exist.

The community can and does sustain itself with relatively lower stress - certain issues that individuals face simply don't arise; and others (will there be enough food today, what if bad weather damages our homes) are dealt with more easily because the burden is shared by the entire community, and there is comfort in that. People never go it alone. The community creates a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, and a sense of beholdenness.

At the other end is ambition. It argues that the individual prevails over everything, that we each go it alone, and that success is self-created, and self-enjoyed. "Ambitious" parents expect their kids to leave the home after secondary school, go on to university (in another town) and then the working world, happily leaving them in the bliss of an "empty nest" - this concept simply doesn't exist in the community.

Ambition is also a zero-sum game - there are winners and losers in everything - and that's how "keep score" and gauge your progress. It's a bit weird that ambition requires us to prevail over fellow humans - a rather counter-to-Darwin strategy.

To and "outsider," community is an oddly stagnant thing - "don't they want/expect/desire more than the status quo?" I am an outsider (ambitious) - but I wonder where happiness lays, where less strain and stress, fulfillment lie, and whether individual outcomes are on an equal footing with community outcomes.

The recent election in the United States was largely a celebration of individual ambition over community impact. Most if not all of the issues in play asked why the one should pay for the many. Incumbents were vanquished because they supported legislation that required individuals to spend their money in support of others. While there is a party line, most members of the party only agree on one thing - that the other party must be stopped. Outside of that, their perspective is largely individual.

Most large corporations believe success comes by pitting individuals (their own employees) against each other (in a zero-sum performance management scheme) in an effort to achieve greater team performance. BUT because success comes comparatively, many of their own employees (presumably rigorously-selected and trained, etc.) must "fail" in order for some of their employees to succeed, and theoretically for the company to succeed. Hmmm... "For us to be a great company a proportion of our employees must be failures - we have therefore designed our system and set our expectations to achieve this."

Does that compute?

It is fair to argue that the community forsakes the individual - the "communistic" view requires each of us to sublimate our desire for the broader good; the innate artist must be a hunter; or the budding mathematician must be a seamstress because those are the things the community requires. They must forgo their uniqueness.

In my family - we often wonder at the fact that the only times we get together is for weddings and funerals, that as much as we say "we must do this more often," actions speak louder than words, and the next reunion is when someone else bites the dust.

Is there a happy medium where the individual is celebrated, and yet a vital and contributing, and nurtured member of the community? Or does the one implicitly pollute the other? Is individuality inherently a corruptive agent in the community? Is there a limit to the amount of corruption that a community can withstand before it evaporates? Does community suppress innovation? Does community perpetuate stagnation?

Over the last ~3 years, I've had the honor to be a part of an amazing community - those that are passionate and committed to improving education around the world. It is vibrant and passionate and energetic and able; but are we really a community or are we just ambitious individuals who share a common goal?

Is there a pendulum effect? Will Western society move back to a community base at some point? I was in Cape Town a couple of weeks ago, and saw community power first hand; but I fear that progress trumps stagnation, and while I appreciated what they have, inside me is the desire for it/them to be more...

benevolence

I finally saw The Hurt Locker - it is a powerful film, one that among other things, gives you a visceral sense of life in Iraq for the American (and other) soldiers, and of course for the Iraqi citizens. What an awful reality to be faced with.

America invaded Iraq first to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and then to liberate her people from a tyrant. Was Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Yes. Did he harm his citizens? Yes. But all in all, how did the people of Iraq live before America invaded and how do they live now? I know something of life in Iraq (and other parts of the Middle East) before the last war, and if "Hurt Locker" is any indicator of their life today, then Iraqis are absolutely worse off now. The saddest part is that their future looks even bleaker. Democracy is NOT working in Iraq or for that matter in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iran, or...

If you've read this blog before, you know I'm a laissez-faire pacifist who is a strong believer in the democratic ideal. This post is not a war protest, perhaps opposite - it's a bit weird to even write this.

America, and to a lesser degree allies like Britain, believe that they should evangelize (and enact) democratic self-determination for everyone in all countries around the world. This doctrine is based on the premise that democracies are more likely to be good trading partners, and less likely to be enemies, and that it is the path of righteousness.

Despite this path, you have to look no farther than America to see that she has more laws governing behavior, more money and resource spent on policing the law, and more people in jail than any other country in the world. For example, in the US, every year there are 88.7 million cases in state courts and more than 1.1 million cases in federal courts; which means for a population of 300 million, more than one in four people go to court every year! This not only a lot of rules, it's a lot of rules being policed, broken, and prosecuted.

Britain has a massive CCTV surveillance system, and America may have an even more comprehensive surveillance system, but I presume various national security statutes prevent their true nature from being disclosed. Again - a massive investment in watching people on the assumption that rules are being broken.

Despite being the home of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, these two democracies have a palpable mistrust of their people, and their governments are creating new rules every day, increasingly investing in citizen oversight and control.

So... how is this different from the totalitarian states we're trying to bring into the fold of democracy? How democratic is Iraq today? How democratic are the states of Arizona or Texas today?

Is this type of "control" a societal reality no matter the form of government? Are we all naturally such rule-breakers that structure and order are needed to keep us in line?

Is democracy the best form of government? Surely people so prone to "straying" shouldn't be entrusted with electing their own leaders? Surely so mistrusted a population requires a much more "assertive" governance model?

Think about "successful" countries, ones where progress is happening, education, healthcare and economic standards are improving, and where there is more optimism than pessimism. According to Geopolitical Monitor, the ten biggest non-BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) countries "on the rise" are Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Poland, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Iran, Argentina and Thailand. There is a mix of government models here, but in reality, most are more authoritarian than anything else.

Could it be that people need (and even prefer) to be governed with a "firm hand"? Could it be that people are not happy until they're explicitly told what to do? Could it be that many people seek the authority of organized religion when they perceive their government to be too lenient or loose? Could it be that all we really need are enlightened despots?

When people are granted freedom, the first thing they do is figure out how to take advantage of it; governments create laws to prevent "bad behavior"; people find more loopholes, and the cycle repeats.

I'm not saying I want to give up my freedom and my right to choose, to speak, to believe, indeed to pursue happiness. I'm simply noting that whenever we have it, our tendency is to abuse it, and then complain (or lobby) when it is taken away. What if we just resigned ourselves to the fact that we were not meant to be free, and what we really need is a ruler who already has everything and a small enough or well-fed enough ego to do the right thing by us?

Is it best for us to live in a benign state of oppression? Would we be happier? Or is happiness perennially fighting "the man"?

revelations

I found this fascinating animation of the history of religion across the globe (click "Play" below). Hinduism began 5,000 years ago, followed by Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and then Islam, which came into being in 570AD.

Some observations:

1. Five major religions cover the globe, the youngest of which is fifteen centuries old.
2. Despite all "modern" claims of "Internet time," etc., no new religions have spawned or spread for quite a while.
3. The two most populous and fastest-growing nations on the planet essentially have their own religions, but neither of their religions is bent on "evangelical expansion."
4. The smallest (by population and geography) is Judaism, and the largest is Christianity.

Historically, the spread of religion occurred through conquest and evangelism/missionary work. During this time, some of the religions competed (and combated) with each other to win followers, but at some point it seems a detente of sorts was achieved, creating a relatively steady state. (This is not to say that peace broke out, but that the geographic distribution has remained largely the same.)

In 888 (a fortuitous year!), block printing was invented; movable (clay) type arrived in 1041; and then Gutenberg came along in the 1440s. By the end of that century (1499), an estimated 15 million (mostly religious) books had been printed. The most famous of these of course is the Gutenberg Bible, which among other religious texts (like the Koran), helped promote and proliferate Christianity and Islam through the centuries that followed.

Four hundred years later, communication changed - beginning with the telegraph, followed 30 years later by the telephone, and eventually with wireless telephony and the Internet. Despite this increase in publishing capacity and reach, the big five have remained relatively static. Until now. I believe the next decade will see the rise of an altogether new type of religion, one more connected to the e-world.

Atheism is not a religion (by definition); they would say that their "faith" is science and logic, and that they are not evangelical. Today most Atheists are individuals without affiliation; but with the likes of Richard Dawkins, I believe a movement is forming, and its leaders (will) wish to establish a widespread sociopolitical force with structure, membership, meeting venues, corporate sponsorship, etc.

They could choose a political approach. While compelling, I don't believe the ROI is interesting - too much work for relatively little gain. I think they will instead choose the non-political tack, and like the big 5, use the strength and size of their base as clout to affect social and political change. Does this make them a "religion"? I think so - here's a paragraph from Wikipedia's article on religion (I've highlighted in blue the text that I believe applies to Atheism the religion):

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

New religions have historically formed in "space," gaining traction among those who had not yet encountered religion. Today fundamentalists in Christianity (American religious right, Tea Party, etc.) and Islam (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) are a polarizing force; there is enough concern about this in the minds of their moderates (and especially the younger generations), that Atheism could be a viable alternative. Differences on issues like personal freedom, selective accountability, abortion, gay rights, women's rights, the use of violence, etc. just might be enough to tip the balance in favor of "defection."

The ideal for Atheism is morality and integrity founded on science and logic. Atheists will shirk terms like "believer" - instead I imagine them using a tag line like: "We don't believe; we are." But they will also struggle with the same issues that beset other religions or large organizations - how to create an effective and deserving leadership hierarchy, how to impose or enforce rules, and how to deliver value. Traditional religions deliver value in the form of answers to these three questions:

1. Why am I here?
2. What happens when I die?
3. Whom do I blame (corollary - who will absolve me?)?

Atheism does not view these questions the same way, so a new approach to value-creation will be needed, one that centers on the attributes above - morality, integrity, science and logic, but also one that gives those that are seeking an alternative a place to belong, where they can feel at home. If the leaders of Atheism can find this, I believe the next decade will host a new religion, and one that achieved critical mass by filling a void that the other five didn't realize was there.

madiba

I saw Invictus again on my flight home yesterday. In the film, President Mandela is called "Madiba" by the people of his tribe; I equate its meaning to something like sensei + wise man + father, or sensei:). "Invictus" (below) was a companion to Mandela during his 27 years in jail. The spirit of this poem (Latin for "unconquered"), combined with his belief in all the people of South Africa, helped make Madiba Madiba.

Most boards and recruiters don't seem to believe a Madiba is needed for success; in most organizations - public, private, or government, the leaders I've observed are much more pragmatic. Their focus is on specific, measurable, and externally-acknowledged outcomes. These are important, and certainly one outward measure of an organization's performance, but if you think this is the only thing, then your true and long-term success is at risk.

Mandela inherited an incredibly complex country - one with angry (but victorious) black people and nervous white people; one where the economy was in the tank; and one where crime and violence were rampant. In the commercial world, this might be akin to management/union acrimony + a recently-merged company (perhaps former competitors) + impending lay-offs + a very competitive marketplace with shrinking margins. Of course Madiba needed to focus on the economy, on crime, and on justice, just as the companies need to focus on their metrics - you have to keep the boat afloat.

But Mandela approached his presidency in a particular way - symbols meant something, honor meant something, and the people (all the people) meant something. Sure there were measurable outcomes, but they weren't meaningful if they weren't underlied by the symbols.

This reminds me of a recent experience: someone I know is in the job market; in the opening section of her resume, she introduced herself beginning with the word "passionate." Her mentor urged her to remove it, saying - "'Passion'? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Employers will dismiss you outright. Instead write about the quantified and documented things you have done, and the skills you bring to the table. That's what matters."

Sigh...

Of course skills and experience are important, but they're just table stakes. They might allow you to play the game, and perhaps even win on occasion, but to achieve real, sustained, and enduring success, you need heart; you must feel it in your stomach, you must care, and you must have profound passion for your "cause." I would hire one person with genuine passion vs. ten with skills - ask any true leader (government, commercial, or sport) and see what they say.

Just as a great corporation is first the people and then the product, Mandela needed to do more - he needed to galvanize a country - bring together violently opposed people to form one country, one people. He needed to instill the shared spirit, intent, and integrity that is South Africa in every South African.

Mandela knew that metrics alone weren't going to renew South Africa; he knew that speeches alone would not unite the country; he knew that foreign investment alone wasn't going to stop violence. He needed his people (all his people) to be ONE in the cause of their country, and he needed a symbol through which to do this - in his case it was the 1995 Rugby World Cup. He needed to create, as Seth put it, True Fans of South Africa among her citizens.

If there is no "WHY" in your organization or community, you are at risk; the "what" or the "how" will only take you so far. He understood this instinctively, and he also understood that the worst thing in the world was for him to use his electoral victory as a black man to create a new separateness with a reverse apartheid. That's why he honored the Springboks and their colors (something deeply tied to the whites) vs. getting a new name with new colors. And that's why he needed to turn the blacks around, and have them, along with the whites, all become true Springbok fans.

Madiba's stubbornness in fighting his fellow blacks on this was critical. For organizations (political or otherwise), their leaders MUST have this kind of wisdom, this kind of strength, and this kind of resolve. As he said in the film, whilst arguing with his advisers, "This country is hungry for greatness [and this is how I will help them achieve it]."

Shosholoza

all for one...

When something becomes too big, it is or is perceived to be domineering and dictatorial. America was formed in response to an overbearing Britain. To quote the Declaration of Independence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Brilliant.

In writing the constitution, the framers were mindful of this, and built a structure intended to prevent a federal government from ever getting too big. They did this by separating power in two ways - federally with three "independent" branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and overall with federal, state and local governments (or more appropriately - federal and not federal).

But today these layers are so tightly connected that they can't really act independently - the state and local governments are so economically beholden to the Feds that there is no practical checks/balances capability (biting the hand that feeds gets toothless pretty quickly).

I favor a (benevolent) central model vs. a local/state/federal model. The American system is redundant, inefficient, and with a dearth of great (even good) leaders (but a surplus of great egos), suffering from bad management and egregious excess. In tough time, the more layers you have the less revenue each layer is able to collect; the less each layer is able to raise, and with bad management, the more the whole system (not to mention the citizens) are at risk.

Creating a central government would of course require a serious Constitutional amendment, but is closer than you might think. If this had been a slightly deeper and more protracted recession/depression (Detroit plans to literally shut down parts of the city because it's too expensive to service them (street lights, police patrols, trash pickup, etc.); elsewhere schools are closing, teachers laid off, hospitals are cutting back, state employees are furloughed, it's endless), I bet a dozen States would have declared bankruptcy and ceded control to a higher power, ultimately creating the United State of America (note the singular).

It's not just America - Greece, Spain and Portugal in the European Union are all struggling. The "Northern" Eurozone (Germany, France) and their taxpayers will bear the brunt of bailing them out, and while they agree the bailout should happen, there is also resentment. "Why are we always sending € billions to them?? All they ever do is go on strike and take vacations!" In the United States we have angst against Wall Street, the automobile manufacturers, and even consumers who can't manage their own debt; think of how New York and Texas will feel if they have to bail California out.

What happens if the United States or European Union fails? What then?

We need a different approach to government.

Most people don't like centralization, believing it results in bloat, bureaucracy, declining services to the citizenry, and worst of all, the risk of an unchecked power running roughshod.

I agree :-) -- BUT - I'm pretty sure we already have this in our current Federal/State/Local government model???

The Constitution delineated Federal responsibilities based on specific portfolios (foreign policy, treasury, military, etc.) combined with omission (what's left is state or local). This was fine when things were easily separable, and there was physically no way for a central government to reach and connect to every corner of the land. Neither is true today. Not only are there overlaps in purview, but the physical portfolios are so intertwined that changes in one have ripple effects on others, and most critically the citizens.

Is there a way to create a government system that achieves both the efficiency and equitability of centralization with the effectiveness, local empathy, balance and accountability of de-central? I wrote about federalizing education, where the Feds were responsible for "the what" and the schools (local leadership) "the how." Extrapolating this to the larger context:

The What - Centralized Laws, Mandate and Funding. This body will set:

1. Rights - create the fundamental laws and principles that should govern the land
2. Vision - define success, identify the "customer," the desired outcome, and how it will be measured, and most critically, have a long-term perspective
3. Funding - raise money and provide financing; $$ per outcome, penalties for non-performance, bonuses for exceptional performance
4. Oversight - policy and remediation; clear process to track performance, and manage poor performance
5. Synchronization - look across programs to create leverage, economies of scale, manage interoperability

6. People-focused - they serve at the pleasure of the citizenry

The How - Decentralized Service Delivery. These bodies will be:

1. Focused - suited to one task (middle school, building bridges, public transportation, hospitals, etc.)
2. Public or Private - could either be government owned with federal employees or private
3. Local, regional or central - organizational structure and span based on need (TSA = central, road builders specializing in cold weather = regional, school = local or regional or national)
4. Outcome-driven - compelled to deliver per the metrics and oversight above
5. Creative - not constrained by "tried and true;" free-market approach to problems and opportunities
6. Customer-centered- their customer is the central government, whose customer is the citizenry

Is it this simple? No - but I think simplicity + decoupling funding and oversight from execution is how a government should be run.

spastic knees

Humans are competitive. We can't help it, it's a genetic and certainly Darwinian response to our environment. We compete for damn-near everything, and imbue this spirit in many things we create, including the businesses we build. Even non-profits compete with each other.

There are many schools of thought on "how to win" - most favor forceful and immediate action. "Shock and awe" is a phrase I hear all too often in the corporate setting. The belief is that a perceived threat should be squashed immediately, before it grows stronger and becomes harder to overcome. This is true in medicine, sports, business, politics, warfare, etc.

Is shoot first and ask questions later always the best way to go? If time heals all wounds, does it also heal conflicts? Does patience mitigate threats? Does looking at the whole chess board help you decide the best move, or is it better to just focus on the pawn that's being attacked?

Seth Godin's Rights and Responsibilities post makes a great case for stopping and thinking about your ultimate goal and sustained success vs. the short-term preservation of status quo, or worse, a knee-jerk and ultra-myopic negative reaction to what is really an opportunity.

Seth's story about how corporations react is classic, and typical of micro thinking - something that, yep you guessed it, I attribute to the profusion of MBAs, PR people and lawyers. Enough said.

But there is another example of jerky (or spastic) knees that has been prominent this week, and for many months now - the Republican Party. I was happy when Barak Obama was elected President, but was worried about what would happen, because the Democrats also won majorities in the House and Senate. I was worried because the Democrats are horribly inept and factional - they have a proven inability to get things done; from the outset, rather than focusing on governing effectively and with dignity, they strutted and preened like unattractive peacocks.

What should the Republicans have done in response to an overwhelming loss and a bunch of preening Dems? If you combine the thinking of Machiavelli (my interpretation: power through cunning and guile) and Aikido (my interpretation: convert negative energy into something that is a conflict-free, positive outcome for both), what do you get that might be worthwhile?

Rather than form a strategy (be smart, focus on serving the citizens of the country (your employers), and think about crafting a situation that would demonstrate your mettle and leadership, and allow the others to inevitably screw up), the Republican Party chose to pout. Rather than govern, they chose to obstruct, and follow Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I can imagine a conversation like this among the leadership: "we only measure success in one way, in this game, at this hour, with this play. We will start now, and we can only win by thoroughly destroying those godless Democrats - damn the collateral damage. Let's go!!"

Lao Tzu once said: "Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?”

Western companies and certainly the political parties have never read this, or hear of Lao Tzu - more's the shame.

As the mud settled they should have realized that to win, they needed to transcend their very conservative base and win back Reagan Democrats (or perhaps in that moment, Obama Republicans). They needed to look at history and their knowledge of those on the other side of the aisle to know that the Dems are simply incapable of being one team and working effectively. Instead, they chose and continue to choose to focus solely on vilifying those rightfully elected to govern, obstructing any kind of governing, further polarizing the country, and moving relentlessly to the right.

It eludes me - they made themselves look just as bad.

And if you watched any of the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference, did you hear anything about what a Republican leader would do if they were in charge? All I heard (and have heard for months) is how evil the "other side" is (again - these are not terrorists or drug lords or even Communists, but fellow Americans), and how they intend to do everything to stop them on behalf of all that's righteous in America. There is no plan other than "stop them." Not what we will do, but what they mustn't do.

For America (and Americans) to be successful in this century, her leaders must forsake their primal desire to win. Her leaders must be able to think clearly and deliberately, and take on the mantle of responsibility to the citizens of this country (ALL the citizens, not just the ones that voted for them).

Stop and think about how many times you've swung at a pitch in the dirt (knee-jerk reaction to someone doing something perceptually bad to do you or yours), and regretted it.

Think about stopping for a moment, taking a deep breath, and then doing the right thing.

blast off

There is something in our make-up that makes us dislike the incumbent or “the man” or anyone else who is in a dominant, authoritative position; we are much more likely to root for the underdog than the favorite (whom we generally view as arrogant, overbearing and well, not nice). As an employee of a corporation that was the subject of a government investigation of behavior due to noteworthy market success, I know this all too well.

While the United States government actively pursues those commercial entities that might or do have a monopolistic position, it has exactly the opposite view when it comes to its role as a nation among others on this planet. In the latter, it relishes being the superpower. Oddly, Americans are surprised when citizens of the “lesser” nations vilify them and perceive America (and Americans) to be an arrogant bully.

I was listening to Warren Olney of NPR’s To the Point talk about nuclear disarmament, America’s stand, possible strategies, etc., and got to thinking: why does the USA care about any other nation’s nuclear arsenal? The Nuclear Nations are America, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel; does anyone really believe that any of these nations intends to nuke the US? If so, to what end? If there was an "end," how would a treaty of any kind prevent them from doing it? Even if they had signed a treaty, what real assurance does anyone have that they are doing what they said they would (especially if we believe they’re bent enough to want to nuke someone)??

For those nations that aren’t officially in the “gang” but might have weapons (many think Iran falls into this camp), not only is a treaty meaningless, but no intervention has worked so far. If one of them were to nuke anyone else, the risk of profound socioeconomic retribution from the rest of the world would be enough for "thinking" leaders to re-think. For non-thinking leaders, well - they are really terrorists and not sovereign leaders, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. With the end of the Cold War and Détente, I don't believe a government screwed up enough to use the bomb would view the threat of nuclear retaliation as a real deterrent; and most of these nations, as NATO and the Warsaw Pact found, would view the cost of creating and maintaining a nuclear arsenal prohibitive.

Some argue that we should ban nuclear weapons altogether, that no nation should have these weapons. I think that’s naïve – there’s no way to enforce it (just look at how difficult it is to assess (forget control) Iran’s nuclear posture), nor is there a realistic expectation that mere words and signed documents will result in disarmament – if that were possible, then the armistice following The War to End All Wars would have, and the last century would have seen ZERO demonstrations of military force.

A new "we can now kill each other less" treaty between the US and Russia was just signed; besides a strong statement of improved relations (a good thing) between the two countries, there's no real change that I can see. Does it, as President Obama said take us closer to global nuclear disarmament? I suppose, but not in a way that will ever actually get us there.

Historically, the most successful approach to eliminating a class of weapon has been to invent a better, more effective replacement. The Neutron Bomb was one attempt (lots more radiation but less physical damage), but it didn't do so well. The Strategic Defense Initiative was another attempt, but let's face it - every time someone claims they've "secured" a thing, people will take up the challenge to prove them wrong, and even the threat of SDI sparked innovation in warhead delivery vehicles.

It seems to me that most "productive" replacement for nukes is biological weapons - they create no physical damage, but could result in pandemic-proportioned human havoc. These weapons of mass destruction flaunt any current definition of preventative security (consider a suicide "bomber" who is infected with a dormant but highly contagious virus, and invisible even after they've put their shoes back on, shown security their laptop battery and verified that they only have little bottles of liquid in the one plastic bag). But once on the plane or upon arrival, the contagion wakes up and bad stuff happens. How would you detect or prevent this?

I ask you - would you prefer this or nuclear weapons? Clearly the latter is better-understood and more defensible, but I'd sure as hell start thinking about measures to protect us from the former!

So what ought America do about all this? I think the first step is to stop being a self-declared superpower and stop being a unilateral, self-righteous voice in global policy. Take the bull's eye off your back (or front) as it were. It is true that any nation can be a victim of terrorist acts, but why willingly put yourself in their cross hairs?

America is like the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of geopolitics. Both have rabid fans ("their" people), but everyone else (by far the majority) just plain hates their guts. I'd want to be more like the friendly and benign Minnesota Twins or Green Bay Packers; or in geopolitical terms more like Bermuda or Canada or Finland - strong countries to be sure; independent, successful, but not vilified and never does one see their people or leaders burned in effigy by screaming hordes on CNN...

American interests are not served when America is a bully - more often than not, these actions (immediately or eventually) result in more harm, more risk, and more wasted money and energy. About the only example I can think of where America's military created a positive outcome is Japan following World War II - ironically an act that ended with the Enola Gay dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima. Compared to pre-WWII, the US and Japan are friendly and mutually supportive states. I don't recall any American military intervention that has led to net improved relationships other than this one?

America Green Bay Packers-style would unilaterally reduce nuclear arms (just to save money and reduce military complexity) to a handful or even nothing; it would stop calling other countries out and instead work with developing countries to build friends and form sustainable economic relationships; it would reduce the number of off-shore bases; it would not worry so much about being a world presence (or enforcer) and instead focus on being a world citizen.

This could result in taking the air out of other, angry sails that today are powered by a shared dislike of America vs. any higher purpose. In effect, the most powerful defense for America is to be less offensive.

guantana-no

America has had a presence in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 1903. It is the oldest American overseas base, and the only one hosted in a country with which the US has no diplomatic relationship. Cuba has disputed the US' right to this property, but to no avail.

Over the last decade, the Base has become an icon for critics of American foreign policy - it is emblematic of how the government skirted its own laws and Constitution by denying due process, and imprisoning and mistreating (including torture) those who were suspected of terrorist actions against the United States. This behavior has robbed the USA of moral high ground globally, it is used as a recruitment tool by terrorists, and worst of all, it is a powerful statement about absolutes and integrity.

The government is now seeking to close the prison (not the whole base) and have the prisoners stand trial on US soil; Congress has thwarted this pending the creation of a well-thought out plan.

Setting aside the fact that a country should be unequivocal in adhering to her own laws even when inconvenient, for that is what keeps us from being lawless, what can be done to solve this problem?

I think it's a four-step process:

1. Declare Guantanamo (as the courts have) American soil and subject to the same rules of law that govern a resident of say, New York City.
2. Transport a legal team comprising Federal judges, clerks and attorneys to Guantanamo to securely try the remaining prisoners at the base vs. transporting them to the mainland.
3. Upon completion of the trial, close the entire Naval base at Guantanamo and return the land to Cuba.
4. Tear down the Cactus Curtain, formalize diplomatic ties with Cuba, and hope to spark American travel and commerce.

The impact could be significant:

• Save money - this is much cheaper and safer than holding trials in the continental United States.
• Save more money - reduce Defense expenditures by closing the base (Guantanamo has minimal strategic advantage given bases in nearby Florida).
• Stimulate US economy - move the 9,500+ soldiers to existing US bases, thereby contributing to those local economies.
• Eliminate terrorist recruiting tool - by legally (and openly) trying the prisoners and closing the base altogether, terrorists can no longer point to Guantanamo to spur recruitment.
• Improve global perception - countries and people around the world will view this as a positive step that may spark improved political and economic ties with America.

I've always believed that American influence abroad should be based on economic policy vs. military action. By closing the base, the US can close the chapter on this part of its history, and move forward with less baggage.

mind the gap

This phrase is indelibly etched into my brain from my days riding the London Underground - and it has so many meanings.

Transparency International published their 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index last month, no surprises - poor nations are perceived to be more corrupt than rich nations. The authors of this survey are mostly of the top twenty nations, and their definition of corruption is very top-20 nation-ish. I was born in Tanzania (126th), and have spent time in some of the more "corrupt" parts of the world; I'm not saying that inequity and corruption are not present, I'm saying instead that there is a gap in the understanding of how things get done in the top-20 world vs. the rest of the planet.

How much would the list change if we added a new measure to the index - efficiency of outcomes? It would include tax rates, lobby/PAC spending, pork-barrel budgeting, government-led "preferential" spending, etc. It should also include the time it takes to get something done and the extent to which ethics and that nation's constitution are violated or flaunted by the government.

We in the "developed" world suffer from the arrogant righteousness of our way vs. "theirs", and measure others based on what we value, and not what they value. I wonder what would happen to the index if "tolerance and respect for others" was included?

American foreign policy is all about minding (or managing) the gap - it hinges on the premise that US success requires every "them" to look like "US" - it is more "Soviet" than the Soviets were. Like the Soviets, America prefers to use force as the first resort and diplomacy simply to manage perception - I wonder when President Obama will replace every American ambassador abroad with a US Marine General?

The NY Times published an article today that contrasts America's approach in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) to China's - it's an excellent read, I say this not just because it vindicates my recent post on Afghan redemption :-). Afghanistan is blessed with abundant natural resources; China (and India) recognize this and are doing something about it. The Americans in the article scoffed at China's overspending to win the contract, but how different is that from TARP in America (the overpayment is less than 1/10th of 1% of TARP, and equal to the cost of sending 1,000 troops to Afghanistan for a year)? From the article (my emphasis):

Nurzaman Stanikzai was a mujahedeen in the 1980s, using American-supplied arms to help drive the Red Army from his homeland. Today he is a contractor for M.C.C., building the Aynak mine’s electric fence, blast wall, workers’ dormitories and a road to Kabul.
“The Chinese are much wiser. When we went to talk to the local people, they wore civilian clothing, and they were very friendly,” he said recently during a long chat in his Kabul apartment. “The Americans — not as good. When they come there, they have their uniforms, their rifles and such, and they are not as friendly.”

...

The Chinese, meanwhile, have rebuffed requests to join the Afghan war effort, saying that national policy forbids military action abroad except as part of a peacekeeping force. Instead, China’s foreign policy is based on commerce. Its state-owned companies have been snapping up energy and mineral resources worldwide for years now, often by overwhelming competitors with lavish offers.

...

The Afghan government is seeking bids for its second great mineral project, a behemoth called Hajigak that is said to contain 60 billion tons of iron ore. There are seven finalists — all companies from India and China. M.C.C. is one of them.

China and India it seems have a foreign policy strategy, while America has foreign policy attitude.

According to BillShrink.com's analysis of the most profitable companies in the world, 2009 was a tough, tough year - aggregated profits for the top 100 dropped precipitously, lowest in at least the last five years. The top 6 are all oil companies, and together their profits totaled $163 billion; despite the tough economy, the United States is home to fully half the most profitable companies. I wonder which countries will host the most profitable companies at the end of the next decade?

Some gaps are shrinking and others widening... which ones are we minding?

Oh and the United States is ranked 19th least corrupt, China 79th, and Afghanistan 179th.

entropic policy

Entropy is the tendency of a system to move to its most energetic (entropic) state. For example, you expect ice to melt, turn into water and evaporate into the air. In order to maintain H2O in its solid state (ice), you have to apply energy (a powered ice box/fridge); otherwise it will eventually dissipate into water vapor.

Social entropy is a similar concept applied to people - we have a tendency towards anarchy unless society applies extensive energy (laws, police, Dick Cheney, etc.) to rein us in. The NY Times reported today that the level of social entropy in Iran has increased to the point where the government is expending significant energy to control it and keep the community "intact."

We may be dormant (complacent) for a long, long time simply because we don't know better - think about the fall of the Iron Curtain; think more about the shifts in perception/behavior/desire/unrest in countries like Japan, China and Korea. But once information about a less-constrained society is "available," it is almost inevitable that shifts happen. This is how America was colonized and eventually formed as an independent state.

What catalyzes significant changes to the social entropic state? Fear? Hope? Freedom? Safety? Opportunity? Risk? I think it's all of these (and more). There is enough knowledge and insight to be able to predictably shift a society's entropic state either from within or from outside; there are also evil and benevolent ways to do this.

Vis-à-vis Iran, I think Secretary Clinton must rethink her position - weaponizing nuclear technology is a threat, but the current tack (attack, provoke, vilify, and (over)react to every twitch) demonstrates how easily Iran is able to goad and manipulate America, and is clearly NOT working. To the contrary, and not unlike the War on Terror - Iran's hand is strengthened at minimal cost to them.

America in true Aikido fashion, must take advantage of Iran's inertia and momentum, and divert her attention from weapons, warfare and terrorism into defending the status quo inside Iran. It must do this in a way that is not invasive but rather creative and filled with guile (a foreign concept in the good ol' US of A). The recent Iranian election combined with the death of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri have opened a door for the West - one that they can help widen by being good global citizens and in no way referring to, commenting on, or vilifying the current regime.

I'd create a US-government-sponsored scholarship fund for all Iranian (why stop there - all Middle Eastern) students that covers expedited student visas, transport, tuition + room & board at any American high school or University, provided the Iranian student is able to gain acceptance (i.e. they are evaluated equally to any other candidate), and they successfully undergo a careful security screening. Clinton's statement should say "we wish to celebrate our friendship with all Middle Eastern countries (including Pakistan and Afghanistan), and do so by offering to help their children be as well-educated as possible and as well-prepared as possible to meet their future and achieve their greatest potential."

What will happen?

1. First (and this applies to everyone in the Middle East), parents will see a possibility for their children to create a better future; they will see a possibility for their families to be more than they are today; they will see a possibility for achievement and attainment that secures the destiny of their progeny, and they will push their children towards it. The side effect is that they will view America as someone that can and is helping them.
2. Second, the Obama Administration uses this to fund expansion of schools in America from the ground-up, improve cultural awareness between Middle Easterners and Americans, and save money because this is way cheaper than war. This is about as good a stimulus package as you might find.
3. Third, it is a way to create a vestedness for America in the Middle East (in particular with those who are susceptible to terrorist recruitment); despite being disaffected, you are less likely to want to bomb the country in which your brothers and sisters are studying for fear of killing your brethren (and biting the hand that feeds you) - I'm not saying this is a guarantee (suicide bombers do kill their own today), but it does engender better feelings.
4. Finally, in Iran specifically, this is a way to empower to those that challenge the status quo by recognizing and offering them a chance for a better future for their children. The Iranian government will want to resist this dilution of their power base and way of life, and focus more energy on resisting it. They will try suppression, but that will only work for so long - a willful citizenry can be very powerful.
   At some point they will have to offer a better alternative to keep Iranian students in Iran (especially as Iranians see their peers from other Middle Eastern countries flocking to a better education), with better and more "open" local schools, more freedom of expression, etc.
   They will have to respond knowing that their actions will affect their ability to trade globally.

If we use society's natural tendency towards entropy and self-determination, not usurp a country's right to self-determination, and honor that country's people by hosting and educating them in our nation, good things will come, and they will live in the form of lasting friendships and better understanding. There will be a harmonizing of all our states of entropy.

the war on peace

One of our (Americans in particular) most powerful motivators is winning. From its inception, America has had to fight for what she believed, and keep fighting to achieve progress. More often than not, America won - the economy grew, its role on the world stage grew, its contribution to the sciences and entertainment grew, its ego grew, etc. It is therefore clear why this competitive instinct is so deeply-rooted in the American "system," and how it is fundamental to her approach to life, the universe and everything.

From birth to school to work to love to death, Americans view life as a zero-sum game. At birth we're competing for cutest baby, baby closest to the XXth percentile of development, etc.; next it's getting in the right schools; then the best jobs; the best girl/guy; etc. In every instance, keeping score is about besting someone else - the pie is only so big, and for us to win, others need to lose.

The competitive instinct can sometimes lead one astray - there have been many American declarations against rather unlikely foes. Some of these "Wars" include: Poverty (Johnson, 1964 - winner: poverty); Drugs (Nixon, 1969 - winner: drugs); Terror (Bush, 2001 - winner: terror); Greed (US Congress 2008/9 - winner: greed); ...

Even corporations have gotten into it - one recently declared War on Cost. If they actually win, price = free; success = bankruptcy. Not sure the shareholders will approve.

It is pretty hard to spot(!), but did you notice a trend among all these wars? Each has cost a ton of money, wasted a ton of lives, burned a ton of energy, and in every case, resulted in more of the "bad" thing than before the "war" was declared.

Hmmm...

"My fellow Americans there is a cancer among us, it is evil, it is insidious, and it is fomented by those will not stop until they have found the best in every one of us. I call upon every red-blooded American to stand with me, and in the spirit of our founding fathers who prevailed against a superior foe armed only with the power of their ideals, rise as one to combat what is surely the most diabolical axis of evil that has beset our glorious nation.

My fellow Americans - I stand before you today with pride and purpose to declare War on Peace. Peace is the most powerful foe America has ever faced, but I am confident that our relentless pursuit of failure will once again restore our faith and ensure our prosperity.

This is just the beginning - lead by Peace, this axis of evil contains two other collaborators that must also be quelled. Immediately upon losing to Peace, and in the spirit of all that is great, we will first declare War on Wellness, and then War on Education.

Thank you, God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America."

Yes we can!

redemption

In September 2002, President Bush established a Doctrine, which among other things, stated that America will not only wage war on countries that directly and immediately threaten her, but also wage war on countries or organizations in countries that might at some point threaten her.

In December 2009, President Obama endorsed this doctrine when he announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Afghanistan or the Taliban pose a direct or immediate threat to America. Some argue that Al Qaeda is a threat, but the consensus is that they are based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

So much for a different strategy with the new administration.

But this isn't really the problem. The problem is the absurdity of a "superpower" declaring war on a few hundred disaffected criminals (it's the equivalent of Apollo or Zeus or Poseidon declaring war on the four guys that maliciously starched their chitons). America didn't stop there - they called "them" evil. Intentionally or not, both Presidents Bush and Obama created a much larger "them," one spanning both a whole race (Arabs) and a whole religion (Islam). It gets worse - unlike the superpower who lords her wealth and excess over the planet, these millions of "thems" happen to be among the more impoverished on the planet - so it's kicking sand in the faces of people who are already buried up to their necks.

If you're a sports fan and someone from a rival team thoroughly insults "your guys," are you angry? Do you want to get even, pray that your team beats the crap out of theirs? Yes, but you're not going to take a gun and actually attack their players, you've got too much to lose.

Imagine if you were one of "these people" (poor, without education, without hope) and you were dissed as roundly and viscerally as America just did - the insult wasn't just to your sports team, it was to your religion, your very way of life, your family, and your heritage. How would you react? How would you react with literally nothing to lose?

Now imagine you're a well-funded ~200-person organization looking for recruits to help reassert "our pride and honor against those arrogant infidels that have called our race and religion a cancer, and maliciously killed our women and children." Don't you think that if you offer them a chance for "respect" (not unlike what gang bangers offer young children in many American cities), and give them money to feed and educate their families, that they'd happily join up even if it was (literally) a suicide mission?

For the last eight years, America has wasted more than $210 billion vainly attempting to "eradicate evil" - an evil (Taliban) she helped create and arm when the Soviets invaded not so long ago. Now they will double down with new troops, and activate a strategy of, are you ready for this - training and arming local militias!!!

Jeez! Can we be any dumber than this??

Has anyone ever successfully created peace, democracy and good will by training and arming small communities of testosterone-filled destitute, tribal warriors??

What if instead of giving them a reason and capacity to kill, we gave them a reason and capacity to live? What if the United States worked with other developed nations to create a multi (say 10)-year trade agreement with Afghanistan where their crops (all but opium) were bought by "western" countries at premium prices - one that made it worthwhile for Afghans to put down their guns and ammo, and pick up their hoes and fertilizer? What if we provided them with tools and resources to create more arable land (irrigation, soil improvement, seeds, etc.)? What if we helped each community that was interested build a local cooperative from whom we would buy products?

The next two years are expected to cost Americans ~$100+ billion/year. Let's instead spend that money (along with $$ from other wealthy countries) to overpay for agricultural products. Let's help Afghanis develop the means (over time) to sell their products competitively. Let's give the people of Afghanistan a reason to live and a means to care for their families, and a sense of self-worth that makes it impossible for any terrorist organization to lure new recruits.

Surely this is a truer path towards peace and a self-determined society?

democracy

Leonard Cohen is one of my favorite artists - he is a brilliant poet and a great entertainer - I was (ironically) listening to Democracy as I was reading the news:

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

The NY Times reported that Dede Scozzafava (R) suspended her candidacy for an upstate New York Congress seat this weekend. Scozzafava's support of gay and abortion rights caused conservative interest groups to embark on an extensive radio and advertising campaign against her (despite he being a fellow Republican). Without missing a beat, the RNC switched its support to a more "mainstream" conservative candidate, but they never consulted the district in question, which of course is upset because the new candidate is a national choice and not a local one.

This is not about calling out the Republican party - this could just as easily have happened with the Democrats if a candidate wasn't "on board" with one of their core issues.

I'm not an alarmist, but the first thing I thought of after reading this article was these words: "Our job as Americans and as Republicans is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they've been sent to do their traitorous work." -- As spoken by Senator Joseph McCarthy in a 1952 speech at the Republican National Convention.

Those were complex times, when fear prevailed in the face of a very scary enemy and the government felt empowered to do whatever was necessary to win. Sound familiar? As today (with Newt Gingrich in the NY Times article), there were cautionary voices that spoke out, most notably:

Sir, I detest, I abhor their [communists'] philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.
–Ronald Reagan, testifying to HUAC as president of the Screen Actors Guild (1947)

It's easy to understand why the conservative Republican community is so bent on protecting itself. After years of dominance, the last months have been a struggle. When you face this kind of test, you think about what got you here (your last win) and try to recreate it or protect it. In the corporate world, it's strategic entrenchment - where a company tries to milk its cash cows to the last drop, forgetting how they began in the first place, and as a result allowing others to eat their lunch, their dinner, and future meals as well.

A set of principles galvanized a group of people to form the Republican party. If I were in their leadership today, I would remember that moving away from a successful approach is incredibly difficult, and requires serious conviction. But the alternative is someone else eating your lunch, dinner and all your future meals...

As Cohen said:

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

define winning

When a good leader embarks on a journey, he knows why they're going, where they're going, and when they'll finish. The goals and outcomes are clear. Achieving them is a matter of execution and circumstance, but beginning with a clear statement and vision of what success looks like is crucial.

Seth Godin wrote about the problem with transoms being that it's too easy to throw stuff out there in the hopes that something sticks. He argues that without credibility you will likely struggle to make yourself heard above the fray, that companies could make it easier for people to share ideas with them, and who knows what could come of that?

It underscores idea that good leaders know their destination when they embark. If you want your idea to be heard, or you want to be open to new ideas, create the circumstances to ensure that you will get what you want. Don't just hope that good things will come.

But in our world, the focus all too often is on the symptoms and processes and not the underlying cause or the eventual outcome. Your odds of blundering into a good outcome this way are infinitesimal. This is why so many people feel like their company or government seems to relentlessly churn over the same ground every bloody day. There is never real progress, just "metrics that show progress." It really does suck to be us, and worse, we don't seem to be able to get past the suckiness.

Take education - what is the goal? Is it happy teachers? Beautiful schools? Quality curricula? More budget? Competition with other countries? Improved assessments? What about healthcare? What outcome do we want to create? Is it happier doctors? Cheaper medicine? One payer? Happier insurance companies? Universal access? Better hospitals? More innovation?

In both cases, we rudderless because there's no clarity about the end goal. Shouldn't education be about ensuring that every child is best-prepared to excel in whatever future they choose? Shouldn't healthcare be about creating the healthiest society possible? Why don't we measure effective education by what students are capable of doing after they graduate? Why don't we measure effective healthcare by how infrequently people need to go to the doctor?

Without clear guidance, a team flounders. Without clear guidance, a nation can flounder as well. Take the "war" in Afghanistan. What is success? Is it the eradication of the Taliban? I despise what they stand for, but that feels awfully like extermination, or genocide. The Taliban are a socio-political faction in Afghanistan. Others might not agree with their principles, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to erase its member from existence. I know many people who are passionately opposed to President Obama and the Democratic Party, or Gordon Brown and the Labor Party in the UK, or whatever, but I don't see those opponents building a military machine to exterminate them. We are civilized ...aren't we??

Is it the eradication of Al Qaeda? Terrorism is the use of violence to provoke social change - this is a criminal act, requiring a police force not a military. You don't stop violence with violence - you feed it. It is exactly the reaction they are looking for, and exactly what they can then use to recruit more poor and desperate people to their cause. Racism is a form of terrorism, but Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

If the goal in Afghanistan is to exterminate a political party, we should stop and ask ourselves what that says about us. If the goal is to eliminate terrorism, we should stop and ask ourselves how that work began in the United States of America with the (ongoing) elimination of terrorism against black (and other) people.

Frank Rich's OpEd in the NY Times compares (as many others have) Afghanistan to Vietnam - wondering if we will make this same mistake yet again? I see that the President is taking a step back to deliberate. It is true that Al Qaeda attacked America, but they are a band of criminals, not a sovereign nation.

I hope at a minimum the President's deliberation yields a clear statement of the meaning of "winning"; but I really hope he realizes that the only nation that has declared war thus far is America.