~synthesis~

We talk about enemies more than we used to

I was just watching a rerun of one of my favorite shows - The West Wing, specifically an episode from the first season entitled Enemies. This episode ends with Josh Lyman (Deputy Chief of Staff) solving a problem for the President in a very smart and elegant way. And at the very end, he says to the President "Mr. President, we talk about enemies more than we used to."

This episode aired in November 1999. I imagine that we're talking even more about enemies today than ever before in the history of this country.

Recall the refrain during the last election cycle. In both primaries and during the general election, the most frequent discussion was about the ability of the candidate to deal with people or organizations deemed to be against America. In previous elections, it was about being tough on drugs, or tough on crime. In fact, it wasn't possible to win unless you were able to demonstrate that you could hunt and jail people! In every case, the dominant voice is negative. It's about "them" being bad, and "us" being good. It's about eradicating them (whether the "them" are American citizens or not) to product us.

There is truth to the fact that placing trust in someone will create trustworthiness. For example, if you ask a stranger at the airport to watch your bags while you go to the loo, your bags will be safe when you come back.

Looking for the good in people is very likely to result in good being found. Looking for the bad in people will, guess what? result in bad being found.

Put yourself on the other side of this. If someone thinks the worst of you, believes you're evil, thinks that you are less than they, what is your natural reaction?

Now go further, if the person that thinks the worst of you has a full belly, a large home, cars, TVs, and lives in a place of relative safety, health and prosperity, how would you feel? What is your natural reaction?

And now imagine if no matter what they did, we embraced them.

For example - instead of imprisoning and jailing drug addicts, what if we embraced them, helped them, and gave them the means to manage their addiction? Would we have more people in jail or less? Would we have more contributing members of society or less? Would we have more active drug addicts or less? Would the nation be spending less money on crime and more on prevention and help? Yes. Is that a good thing - yes!!

I was recently in a place very much like what's pictured here; where predators, prey, hundreds of species all live together in harmony. They have found a way, despite having much smaller brains than we have. They allowed us in their world without judgment. I remember being in the midst of a school of hundreds of yellow snapper, in that case they allowed us in their very midst, to in some way participate in their rituals.

The rest of the world once viewed America as the promised land; they believed the words on the Statue of Liberty. It now views America as a mass of self-ordained moral superiority that looks upon the rest of the world with disdain.

We talk about enemies more than we used to.

Do you feel stimulated?

There is an $825 billion economic stimulus package before Congress. Add the $700 billion that was passed just a few months ago, and we're north of $1.5 trillion!

How does this plus wars on two fronts get paid for? Where is all the money really going? How does a citizen evaluate these expenditures and determine whether they are wise, and whether they will result in turning the prosperity tide?

As I understand it, the purpose of a stimulus to the economy is to increase the flow of money in the system (and not expand the wallets of the CEOs that got us here). That is, people buying and selling and earning and spending. That flow creates a virtuous circle that moves the economy towards robustness. Economic confidence is one measure of this. There are many others - employment, the money supply, inflation rates, etc.

So - how have we done lately?

Almost exactly a year ago, President Bush implemented a tax rebate to "give the economy a shot in the arm". Several months after the "stimulus", we're in a state that most closely resembles the Great Depression. Looks like President Bush missed - he shot the economy in the groin instead...

Then there's the first $350 billion - how many of you have benefited from this? Have any of you noticed an improvement of any kind since the money was distributed?

And what does the new administration wish to do? Go right back and hit our poor economy the groin yet one more time!

Looking at the bill the House just passed, there's basically zero dollars that go directly to people that would spend it in ways that would help money flow. Take a look at it. The only "cash" that goes to people that would actually spend is tax rebates, and we (and our groins) know how effective they are.

I wrote twice (here and here) about how to help the economy by actually giving money to people who can spend it. But it does require more work, than just giving huge sums of money to very few people. Both of these suggestions require a more structured federal involvement, but interestingly, don't require a whole lot of corporate oversight or regulatory action.

I think doing these two things have a better shot of working and cost vastly less than $1.5 trillion. Your comments are welcome.

Clarity of Thought

I had a most excellent time being away from technology these last few days. It turns out I didn't miss the lack of electronic access one bit! While many things happened back in the real world (corporate layoffs, the Palin book deal, oh and that lightly-attended rather minor event in DC on the 20th), I managed to survive not witnessing any of them in real time:)!

Being away from the fray did allow for time to reflect, organize thoughts, and gain clarity about many things.

When I got back, a good friend forwarded me a link to this great article entitled The Cook Doctrine at Apple. The article is about Tim Cook who as you all know is replacing Steve Jobs at Apple while he's on his health-related hiatus.

Here's the payoff quote:

We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products and that’s not changing. We are constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution. We believe in saying no to thousands of projects, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot. And frankly, we don’t settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong and the courage to change. And I think regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.

Talk about clarity of thought! There are very few leaders who can articulate their organization's ethos in quite this way. It does ring true, and what I really liked is the last sentence, which assures their constituency that things will be OK no matter who is driving the bus, and actually sets up a change-friendly environment.

Personally, I think Jobs will return, but later than forecasted. I think he'll have a smaller role (not unlike Bill Gates at Microsoft), but will still be the voice and face of the company, and when they announce their next generation products (like a light (under 3 lbs), long-battery life (over 6 hrs), touch-enabled MacBook Pro - please!!) in a year (I have no inside knowledge, just trying to get Santa to listen and put me closer to the front of the line), the person doing the show will be Mr. Jobs.

Going back to the quote for a moment, imagine if the Superintendent of your school district was this focused, or the Mayor of your city, or your employer. "We are committed to greatness; we will always focus on what we do, and ensure that we do it with excellence. We are open to new ideas, and even more open to looking at ourselves as critically as we do our customers, markets and competitors."

I imagine that Mr. Jobs has read the Art of War, and so has Mr. Cook.

Swimming with da fishes

Well, I'm off to Singapore and Thailand for a few days, and am totally excited at the prospect of also doing some scuba diving off the Thai coast.

I'll be on a liveaboard, which is a really great way to do a lot of diving in a concentrated period of time. The boat is called the Black Manta, and it will sail from Phuket around the Similan Islands where we will spend a few days getting wet and swimming with da fishes:). 

This is one of my favorite things in the world to do, and I can't wait!! The weather in Phuket today was Sunny with a high of 86F and a low of 69F (note to self remember to pack a sweater for those chilly evenings!).

I'll be back online Jan 27.

Winning Elections

Andrew Sullivan wrote a great post today about how gay people in California really feel about Proposition 8. And it got me to thinking - why did it pass? For that matter, why do most "righteous" cause-based efforts not succeed?

Some examples - Kerry/Bush, the environment/global warming, a woman's right to choose, equal pay, etc. Why is it almost inevitable that these causes end up having a steeper hill to climb?

With Kerry for example, he had (as most Democrats do) the vast majority of "cool" people on his side (whether that was Hollywood, music, sports, whatever). And yet he lost. As a marketer, advocacy and creativity are HUGE. He had both of these in spades, and yet...

Take the environment - even if you discount global warming, how is it that when the vernacular is "pollution" a word that has NO positive definitions, which no matter how you slice it is bad, the cause still suffers?

Here's my theory.

They care too much, and then get lost in the issue vs. the winning. When something is so deeply entrenched in your heart and stomach, your head walks away. Think of your beliefs, a brilliant idea you came up with, the "rightness" of it is never open to question. The whole organization is also emotionally wound to the point where they are easily fractured into small pieces vs. always unified.

To get things done, convince others, win big, you've got to get out of your heart and into your head. There is absolutely a place for emotion and passion, but if that's leading the way, you invariably get statements like: "I can't believe you don't understand this!!" or "It's so obvious - don't you see???" In both cases, make sure your face has at least 3 times more blood than normal, your voice is beseechingly loud and your hands are grasping at straws.

Now think about how Kerry was defeated or how the environmentalists are foiled. And look at the modus operandi of those players. Zero heart, zero stomach, zero emotion - just plain, cold, calculating strategy.

Are they better people? No. Are they smarter, clearly yes - they're winning far more frequently. Can you say Swift boat, or death tax? Can you say clean coal? <-- Just what the hell is clean coal anyway? It's absolute fiction! And yet...

...they won.

What do to?

The most brilliant strategist ever (IMO) is Sun Tzu. The Art of War, which was written 2,600+ years ago is an incredible book - if you need to win at anything, this book should be the first thing you read and re-read. Some noteworthy quotes:

Remember this always:

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Implication - the cause should be separated from the fight (think of Karl Rove?). The general must not look at the cause with bias or subjectivity. Be dispassionate about what you have, what you don't have, what you need and what you must do to win. It's not about the cause anymore. It's about winning.

Now this is how they win: 

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Surely there are literate people on both sides of these issues? Why isn't everyone reading this book?

It is critical to always know that:

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that every time a "righteous" cause loses, it's because they were outwitted, and not because they were wrong.

Bottom line - winning is about winning. Once you've won, then go back to the cause. Don't let the people who lead the cause lead the battle. They're obviously not good at it.

Now look at Barak Obama's campaign and how it was run. He's read this book, maybe even twice...

Advanced Student Learning

Joel Klein and Al Sharpton published an open letter on education to President-elect Obama in Monday's Wall Street Journal. In it they spoke about the disparity between white and non-white academic performance, the generally poor performance of schools that are "racing to the bottom" in efforts to teach students to pass increasingly dumbed-down assessments.

Klein and Sharpton are co-chairs of EEP (Education Equality Project), whose mission is to bring equality to education and ensure that only measures that help advance student learning are passed. They support charter school options as well as a rethinking of the teacher union tenure and compensation plans.

In the letter, they ask President-elect Obama to develop national standards and assessments for student achievement, and re-purpose the $30-billion spent federally in K-12 education to support the recruitment and retention of the best teachers in under served urban schools.

I disagree.

First the money. The one (and only) carrot the Federal Government has with education is their $30 billion. It must be used to guarantee student learning advancement. If it is used to fund teacher salaries, then it doesn't assure the outcome they want. Putting their $ into payroll turns it into an entitlement, not possible to move it, ever. That doesn't make any sense. 

I absolutely believe that teachers should be paid like doctors and lawyers, and more importantly get the respect they've earned, but this proposal sounds like a totally unmanaged activity and I don't think we should spend anything much less $30 billion that way! How do you control where the funds go and whether a given teacher's work merits an increase in pay? Finally, it's the job of the States to cover payroll not the Feds.

Second, the assessments. Their own letter says that assessments are a huge problem, and have always failed. Why go back to the same place over and over again? I believe we should not spend time and energy trying the same failed approaches to solving this. We know that every child is different, so standardized assessments are implicitly unfair. We also know that bureaucracies are not agile. Why then make assessments, which take years to put together and even longer to adapt to changed times the cornerstone of improving student learning? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If you're interested in what I'd propose, I've written about this here, here, and here.

And if you want read even more, here's my suggestion of what the President-elect's inauguration speech should say about education.

I love what EEP stands for (improved student learning), but don't think this letter and their request of the new administration reflect that ideal.

The polls have closed...

Thank YOU!!!!!

<<UPDATE>> It's official - thank you again for all your votes, we won:)! <<UPDATE>>

And while the winner hasn't been declared officially, the results thus far have vastly exceeded any expectations I might have had!

When this blog was selected as a finalist I was excited with the hope that one or two other people would look at this blog and hopefully get involved in some of the conversations and out of that would come a few more readers and a bit more debate. My second (ego-based) goal was to not come in last.

And then came Wonkette and Rumproast and through them a whole bunch more traffic and votes than I'd ever imagined!

Suddenly, rather than clawing up from the bottom, things changed altogether. I empathize with all the other finalist blogs in this category - random chance allowed me to get lucky.

In the end, I congratulate Wonkette and Rumproast for their presumptive success in their categories, I congratulate all the other finalists in this and all the other categories, and more critically, express my heartfelt gratitude to every one that voted for me and this blog over the last week and promise to do my best to live up to your votes.

Thank YOU!!!!!

All we are saying...

...is give peace a chance. We all recognize John Lennon's lyrics. Here's my favorite rendition:

My entry entitled A Provocative Defense followed by Outfoxed have sparked debate, and with good reason - it's about a seemingly endless fight between two communities separated by religion but united in so many ways.

The first time I flew to Tel Aviv, I was coming from Dubai, but had to fly via London. Not only was it not possible to fly directly, but if my passport were stamped by Israeli immigration, I would not be allowed entry into most Arab nations. When I got on the British Airways flight at London Gatwick Airport, I was surprised (and a bit worried) when I saw that about a third of the plane was Muslim/Arabs. After a peaceful flight, we landed in Tel Aviv, where I figured the Muslims would be separated out and "specially" dealt with. 

But that didn't happen, far from it. Arabs and Jews live together in Tel Aviv. They live in peace, they live without the acrimony and warlike sentiment that our media portrays. My favorite bakery in Jaffa is Abulafia which as you can see in this BBC report has been in business in since 1879 (that's 130 years!), and is owned by the Abulafia family who are Arabs. Abulafia is an institution, and if you visit Tel Aviv, you must go at least once - ask anyone.

So how is it that an Arab family and their business is so entrenched in Israeli life? The Israeli Jews I have met don't view all Arabs as terrorists. Rather they view terrorists as being evil criminals representing only hate, and all Arabs as people. The Arabs I've met don't view Jews as evil and needing to be eradicated from the face of the earth; they view those that wish them harm warily, and all Jews as people. Talk about enlightened.

Neither side bears anything like the animosity I read about in the news, or hear from select political figures. They're already peacefully coexisting. I felt/feel safer in Tel Aviv than most cities I've been to.

Imagine what it would be like if we could transcend our prejudices as well as the Israelis and Arabs that I've met are able to?

Outfoxed

Alternate title: Is it still wrong if the good guys are the terrorists?

Last week, in response to my entry A Provocative Defense, one commenter (George) pointed me to this blog, which very eloquently argues why "Israel cannot accept its citizens being fired upon, full stop." A very good point. No government should stand idly by while it's citizens are being attacked.

I also read another amazing blog entry which had this quote from yet another amazing blog entry:

Speaking over the phone from Beersheba, Gordon said: “We just had a rocket about an hour ago not far from our house. My two children have been sleeping in a bomb shelter for the past week. And yet, I think what Israel is doing is outrageous. ... The problem is that most Israelis say Israel left the Gaza Strip three years ago and Hamas is still shooting rockets at us. They forget the details. The detail is that Israel maintains sovereignty. The detail is that the Palestinians live in a cage. The detail is that they don’t get basic foodstuff, that they don’t get electricity, that they don’t get water. And when you forget those kinds of details, all you say is, ‘Why are they still shooting at us?’ That’s what the media here has been pumping them with, then you think this war is rational. If you look at what’s been going on in the Gaza Strip in the past three years and you see what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, you would think that the Palestinian resistance is rational. And that’s what’s missing in the mainstream media here.”

"Gordon" refers to Professor Neve Gordon of Ben Gurion University of the Negev.

Boy - these are rather dichotomous views. How to reconcile? Some questions/answers:

1. What does Israel want? It claims to want peace, coexistence and prosperity.
2. What does the United States want? It claims to want peace, coexistence and prosperity.
3. What do the enemies of peace want? Hate, fear and power.
4. What price are #1& 2 willing to pay for what they want? They state, money, diplomacy, military action (lives).
5. What is it that the enemies of peace have that gives them so much power? As I commented, they invest more in the well-being of their constituency than their opponents.

Huh?? That doesn't seem right! The people who wish for hate, fear and power also invest in food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc. for their "constituents," but those who wish for peace don't?  How does that happen?

I think #3 has out-foxed #1 & 2. How? Where #1& 2 have been busy with their political masturbation machinations, #3's been busy investing in their peeps.

Why has the United States not invested to build hospitals, schools and help create a thriving economy in Gaza and the rest of Palestine? If they were living with health and prosperity, there would be no fighting (they know the Israelis have superior defense and offense capability, and they'd have too much to lose).

Bigger question - why hasn't the US pushed Israel (with whom it has such a special relationship) to co-invest? Surely it would cost less to do that than they're spending flying Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East every week to eat hummus and pontificate? Surely it would cost less than the lives that have been lost or wounded as a result?

There's an incredible irony here - while the protagonists focused on PR and politicking, the "antagonists" (who don't need any of that political cover) have devoted their time to two things - how to keep their peeps happy, and how to goad their enemies to take actions that keep their funders juiced and willing to open their wallets. <-- You can bet that Hamas comes out of this war wealthier than they went in - all the other anti-Israeli players will ante up, I'm sure. How will that help the situation?

Looking ONLY at the activities here, one might almost give credit to Hamas for at least having done something in service of these poor refugees stuck in Gaza. No one else has. No one else has cared.

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT condone terrorism nor do I support Hamas or claim that they are righteous. Terrorists are criminals and should be found out and tried under the full weight of justice and international law. But if you look at their strategy, they've sure outfoxed the "good" guys. What's more, the lopsided results of the bombings (see below) have given them a lot more social credit than they had three weeks ago.

According to the Washington Post, the death toll is 889 as of Sunday (876 Palestinians and 13 Israelis).

Surely the Americans, British and Israelis might have been willing to invest as above to avoid a situation that has cost 13 deaths already?

I guess it boils down to love thy neighbor vs. is it still wrong if the good guys are the terrorists?

Boundary effects

Seth Godin struck a chord with his post on boundaries. I had never thought about it quite like this, but the way a person or an organization deals with its boundaries is pretty telling.

Every organization has walls. I think past success can be the biggest impediment. I was going to write a paper a while back entitled "past success is the greatest predictor of future failure". I would have cited Microsoft for their inability to get past Windows and Office; the Detroit Big Three who still build cars and negotiate with their employees the same way they did decades ago; and the music industry (and the RIAA) who still believes they can sell CDs the way they sold vinyl decades ago. These organizations could be on the precipice of not being able to live up to their past successes.

Why is this?

Individuals also live within boundaries. A fascinating post from TYWKIWDBI - I didn't realize how many people on earth from "successful" nations don't believe in evolution. Like the Flat Earth Society, they've put themselves in a place where progress is self-limited. A possible outcome (courtesy of Daily Kos) is that one in seven American adults is illiterate. Scary. What will the outcome be of the xenophobic desire of so many to build a wall between the United States and Mexico? I'm sure we can all name other examples. These individuals are at risk of not living up to those that preceded them.

Why is this?

South Africa is one of my favorite places (amandla awetu!). In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they're 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 foot) 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?

It tells me that at a minimum, I should be more open-minded towards those that don't believe in evolution or a spherical earth, be there to help if they are in trouble, and be less prone to arbitrary judgment and stereotyping.

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

How do organizations achieve this? Some answers lie in a very good business book I read a while back by Jim Collins called Good to Great. If you haven't read it, Collins looked at more than 1,400 companies' performance over decades to find 11 that met his criteria for significantly outperforming their industry over time.

He (and his team of 21 researchers) analyzed these 11 companies and came up with a set of common elements that the data showed was how they created and sustained success. This is one approach that not only works, but should also appeal to business leaders in the West, since it is required reading in most MBA programs:).

Of the various input principles (in the diagram), the one that connected with me the most is "Level 5 Leadership". Here is what you will read if you click on the image (which takes you to the workbook pdf) about this:

Level 5 Leadership. Level 5 leaders are ambitious first and foremost for the cause, the organization, the work—not themselves— and they have the fierce resolve to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. A Level 5 leader displays a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.

If you have the time, pages 4 and 5 in this pdf are worth the ten minutes you'll need to read them a couple of times.

The L5 leader's role is to build the right boundaries for their organization and for themselves, and to do it with that "paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will".

I don't think we need to wait until we're CEOs to exhibit L5 behavior. That can happen now, and I hope more of our community and national leaders read this book, and embrace the idea of "personal humility and professional will."

And the nominees for best new blog...

The 2008 Weblog Awards voting has begun!

There were 359 nominees in the Best New Blog category, and of those, 13 excellent blogs were selected as finalists, and in a fit of insanity, they also included my blog, to make 14 total. :)

This is a double honor - first to have been selected from 359 great entries, and then to be a part of such a great group of finalists. Having only been at it for three months (1st entry: Oct 6/08), I absolutely didn't expect this, and am totally chuffed!

One of the finalists, TYWKIWDBI has very kindly provided a summary of each of the 14.

Click on the picture to the right to vote.

The rules allow you to vote once per day per computer. Voting ends on Mon Jan 12, so if you're able, vote every day!!

Philanthropy, foreign policy and sustainable outcomes

There's a lot of talk lately about what role the Obama government should play in helping emerging countries ascend. Most attempt to marry philanthropy and relatively short-term, Western ideas about what we think "they" really need. I wonder if we're simplifying too much and over-committing to the idea of philanthropy?

When philanthropy does create an outcome, how long does it last once the funds and the Westerners leave? If the intervention is not in the natural flow of the local community, and something that they would make a trade-off for within their hierarchy of needs, how often does it succeed?

I'm reminded of a story I read a while back about a Microsoft executive who visited a school in Guatemala - essentially someone donated a satellite dish + internet access to a school; at some point they stopped paying the satellite bill, and there ended that project.

Sustainability is the panacea for all intervention. But things only stick if all the players wish it to, and would make the trade-off for it vs. other priorities. In many emerging communities, the other priorities include food, shelter, income, and healthcare. Even education doesn't always make the cut.

The most successful recent technological intervention in emerging communities is the mobile phone. The innovation was in the sale of cheap handsets and pay-as-you-go plans. The Western investment was typically to build the network (cell towers), and provision very simple, cheap handsets and SIM cards via local retailers.

It succeeded because it was about business not philanthropy. A market investment was made to create a symbiotic relationship - provide a service that the local community wants and willing to pay for. It took time for this to happen, but now there are ancillary businesses that have grown organically from this and it is self-sustaining.

Historical successes include the TV and VCR, though they are used sporadically since they need continuous electricity, which a mobile phone does not. I think this is one reason why PCs don't (and won't) do so well.

I would make the bet in the mobile communication arena (vs. PC computing, or pure internet access, or whatever), and I would consider the following for-profit ventures:

1. Provide ubiquitous and very-low-cost mobile data plans, and provision low-cost data-enabled mobile phones
2. Build a simple, pervasive text and mobile data (3G, GPRS, etc.) e-banking and e-transaction service 
3. Create and distribute mobile educational curriculum, much like Kumaras Pillay does in South Africa
4. Develop mobile content on how to use #1 & 2 to create your own e-business in local languages

The Obama administration should promote investments that create a symbiotic relationship between the Western companies, local companies, and local consumers, but that's just fluff.

The Administration's real role should be to catalyze the ITU and the World Bank to negotiate multinational, multi-party deals that enable #1 & 2, and spawn companies in partnership with UNESCO to build pan-African (say) mobile curriculum for #3. If the large Western companies have a brain (and they do), they will help build #4 in each market to drive increased adoption and usage.

The "owner" should be Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State. It should take six months to negotiate the deals with the various parties, and 24-36 months before we see results from pockets of  critical mass. It should cost relatively little to do this (low-interest loans to upgrade cell towers for data access (~$25mm),  implementation of a simple e-banking model (~$1-2mm), and curriculum development ~$2-3mm)), and say 3-5 people in the Administration to oversee progress.

The citizens would benefit if the services were of enough interest to warrant spending their very scarce funds. The local companies would form organically and benefit their communities. The larger (and sometimes Western) companies would benefit because their markets had expanded.

America would benefit because it believes (as Obama said many times) in peace through improved global education, prosperity and communication.

A rising tide lifts all boats. As value is provided to the lowest layer, its worth rises, and goodness flows throughout the whole system. It might take more time (3-5 years) than we'd like, but the result is pervasive, locally-owned and sustained improvement, and a good step towards peace and prosperity for all.

A Provocative Defense

Newton's Third Law says to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This sentiment has echoed throughout time. The Bible, Tanakh and the Koran, among other texts all speak of this. A typical quote:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:27-31

There are some (but not enough) examples of leaders that have acted this way - Gandhi, King, and Mandela come to mind. All three were visionaries who, against tremendous odds and in the face of violent reaction, chose a path of peace and non-violence. Whether they read this quote or not, their actions reflected the words above.

The results speak for themselves. In each case, their actions precipitated a change from violence to peace, from discord to accord, from misunderstanding to coexistence.

I wrote recently about Suketu Mehta's editorial in the New York Times following the terrorist acts in Mumbai. His words reflect the intentions of Gandhi, King and Mandela.

But I have read many editorials congratulating the Israelis for their recent reaction to Hamas in Gaza. Most say that the only thing "they" understand is violence - you need to "take them all out once and for all."

Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

How many times has Israel reacted to terrorist acts with an equal (but not opposite) reaction? When did it result in peace? Is there any reason to think that this time will be different? Is there anybody out there who believes that rocket attacks will actually beget peace in the Middle East?

Terrorists are criminals. Their cause is not about faith, nor is it just. It is about the most evil kind of ego and power - period.

If you respond to terrorists with violence, they will go to the victims of your violence and recruit more criminals to their cause. Why? Because these prospective recruits had almost nothing to begin with (and hence nothing to lose), and now have even less, because their homes have been bombed and family members maimed. Violent responses only serve to create more terrorists.

If you and your family were bombed (irrespective of the "higher" purpose), how would you feel towards the bombers???

Is it any surprise that when you've had your life bombed out of existence, and having nothing left to live for, the reaction is anger??

We have learned nothing from Ghandi, King and Mandela. They proved that an "opposite reaction" to violence can prevail, and that the resulting change, while slow, is sustainable.

If instead of investing in weaponry to fight terrorism, we invested in giving people something to live for, a roof above their heads, healthcare, education, and the capacity to be economically independent, who among us really believes that they would still have the will to be terrorists?

Imagine what the reaction would have been if rather than beginning their rocket attacks at Christmas, the government of Israel chose to follow the teachings from their own Tanakh:

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God. Leviticus 19:34

...and came bearing the gifts of shelter, medicine, education and jobs for their brothers and sisters from across the way?

It's time to stop being insane.