Random Fate

Some on the right are beginning to notice...

...that they are not getting what they voted for.

In other words, the neoconservative agenda is not what it promised to be.

Warning - this one is long... with subheadings...

Anyone who thinks this is black and white has not read up on the subject...

Professor Bainbridge, at his eponymous weblog, has apparently stopped toeing the party line:

It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.

---

While we remain bogged down in Iraq, of course, Osama bin Laden remains at large somewhere. Multi-tasking is all the rage these days, but whatever happened to finishing a job you started? It strikes me that catching Osama would have done a lot more to discourage the jihadists than anything we've done in Iraq.

These are points that if made by someone on the left side of the political spectrum, they would be immediately be dismissed as "partisan politics" by the right-wingers in blogworld.

With them coming from an avowedly and proudly self-proclaimed conservative from the old mold, if the discussion quoted above is any indication of his provenance, can the accusation of "partisan" continue to be leveled at any and every one who condemns the new-mint neoconservative policies that appear to have if not completely failed, have fallen far, far short of what was promised by the acolytes of the new faith?

It's hard to answer what is wrong, when nothing is right...

Meanwhile, political science professor Dr. Stephen Taylor (who from my reading at least appears to be right-leaning) at PoliBlog offers this concern regarding the current draft of the proposed Iraq constitution:

I have long wondered if the usage of “federalism” in the press is accurate, and have thought for a while that it was not (and Shugart’s post today confirms it). Indeed, what seems to be on the table is a form of confederalism or a strange hybrid of kinda-sorta-federalism with a unitary government–neither of which is a very good idea.

Indeed, this sounds like a potential disaster–but I will think some more on the topic and wait and see what is actually in the document.

In short: the confederal version (a Kurd zone, a Shiite zone and a Sunni zone) is a recipe for breakup, and a Kurd + the rest of Iraq version seems to equal a relatively quick exit for the Kurds, which would cause problems with the rest of Iraq, not to mention Turkey and Iran.

Did they not consult with anyone who knows something about constitution design and institution arrangements? It would appear not.

And at this point I am more prone to believe the negative assessment vis-a-vis getting a draft to parliament, rather than the optimistic one.

To say that his analysis and questions are troubling is an understatement.

Elsewhere in the world, since both Iran and Kim Jong Il, the dictator in charge of a North Korea that likely has the very nuclear weapons that Iraq was discovered to NOT have, a regime that desperately needs hard currency incidentally, has already been mentioned by Professor Bainbridge, perhaps we should discuss what I have often argued is the true medium to long-term existential threat to the United States, which is China, not terrorism (a tactic, not an ideology) or Islamofascism:

China today differs from Japan in 1980s
Country may be a far tougher force to reckon with going forward

Associated Press
Updated: 4:59 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

NEW YORK - It sounds like history repeating itself: The United States faces a huge trade deficit with an Asian country, which is also under intense scrutiny for its interest in buying U.S. assets and having a currency many deem undervalued.

Today, that best describes how China is viewed. Two decades ago, Japan came under similar attack for its growing global presence, and that spurred all sorts of protectionist talk out of Washington.

The Japanese hysteria eventually died down as the country fell into a long recession. But don't look for that to happen with China, where its politics combined with its potential for growth may make it a far tougher force to reckon with going forward.

---

There are also significant political differences between the two. While the Chinese have been more open to foreign investment than Japan, there are some concerns that the communist political structure means that the Chinese won't embrace all kinds of foreign involvement such as an American company buying a big Chinese company.

In addition, Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss points out that China's huge population — which he estimates is 10 times as large as Japan's — means that China has the capability of taking over world production of just about everything.

So talking about China today as though it were Japan 20 years ago might not accurately size up the situation of this fast-growing empire. China's might just be beginning to build its power as an economic force.

To the dismay of many Americans, that will likely mean a bigger, bolder China to contend with for many years to come.

If we do not defeat ourselves through our over-reactions to perceived dangers by passing or making permanent laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act that arguably are unconstitutional (the requirement of judicial approval for search warrants, anyone?) and other ineffective but freedom-denying actions that degrade the very liberties we proclaim to be defending, then we may very well not be able to combat the economic threat posed by China.

Recall, we did not defeat the Soviet empire through a direct war. We won through other means.

In other words, "It's the economy, stupid."

Think of the Web as a big bathroom wall, and everyone has a marker...

Those bloggers and professional editorialists who repeat the current right-wing talking points blame the so-called "liberal media" for poisoning the atmosphere regarding Iraq by the insidious plan of the heinous MainStream Media (MSM) to only present the bad news out of Iraq while completely ignoring the good news.

An aside here, if I had to don body armor and only go out with an armed platoon of the US military to "report" on the situation outside the infamous Green Zone in Baghdad, I would question the efficacy of the occupation of Iraq, too.

However, returning to the substance of the accusation of a "biased media", it is interesting to observe that many of these same writers who are claiming that the supposedly biased media are turning the citizens of the United States against the policies of the administration in Iraq, implying that citizens are incapable of making their own judgments and instead swallow what they are fed by the MSM whole, are the very same writers who were proudly proclaiming that those very same average citizens are now miraculously smart enough to make their own choices regarding retirement planning and investing, so it is vital (according to the right-wing talking points) for both fairness and the future of the retirement system that we make Personal Accounts a key part of the Social Security system.

Do you sense an inconsistency here that is rather insulting to the "average Joe", just as insulting as is the arrogance of the left-wing?

At times I suspect that both extreme wings suffer from the same syndrome of hubris and smug certainty that they are the only ones who know what is right, but the right-wing is better able to come across as "folksy" while the left-wing doesn't hide their own version of the same elitist arrogance at all.

I wonder, which is truly more honest...

Anything can be put to use, even the dead...

In an ironic symmetry, recently John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!, a milblogger who leans right but is happy to engage in reasonable discussion, posted on his agreement with a Christopher Hitchens article in Slate decrying using the dead to make a political point, a condemnation that I agreed with if applied to both wings equally. Hitchens wrote:

Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.

Yet today, Blackfive, a milblogger who also leans right but doesn't seem to drink the right-wing kool-aid wrote this at his eponymous weblog (NOTE - bolded italics added):

One point (and not critical of the above post by my pal Andi), I really do object to using the name "Sheehan" to identify the protests. I doubt very much that Army Specialist Casey Sheehan would appreciate that. Instead, let's call it Cindy-fest or something else. Cindy-land. Cindy-stock. Anything but Casey's name.

To put it bluntly, Blackfive has just ventriloquized the dead by stating that he knows better than what the mother of Army Specialist Casey Sheehan knows her son, the dead Casey Sheehan, would appreciate.

Ventriloquizing the dead? Everyone is doing it.

I know the irony was unintentional, but that is what makes it all the more cold and hard.

The only lesson history has taught us is that man has not yet learned anything from history...

Even though I did not like George W. Bush even before he became President of the United States, recent trends are not good for our nation (thanks to Jonathan Singer posting at The Moderate Voice for the link):

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.

This is the second month in a row when improving economic ratings have not been matched by higher job approval ratings for Bush. A total of 24% of Americans now say their personal financial situations are getting better, up from 17% in July, and 27% say they believe that their personal financial situations will be better off a year from now, which is up from 21% in July.

(Full disclosure: I lived in Texas long before George W. Bush became President and observed his performance then... along with the very American tendency that I do not like sons of privilege who have never held a real job, or even any job that was not acquired through who your father is rather than what you have actually accomplished on your own... I ask the hyper-partisan among you to give me an example of where any business that George W. Bush was in charge of prospered under his leadership, or indeed any job he did not get through who he was related to but instead based upon his qualifications and what he had achieved)

How can any American who is interested in the success of his nation, regardless of his partisan leanings, take joy in this?

I take no joy in it, because it shows the failure we are undergoing despite the price we have paid in treasure and, far more importantly, lives both lost and damaged beyond any repair we can give them.

It only gets worse, however:

Militias wrest control across Iraq’s north, south
Newly empowered Shiite, Kurdish forces hold mixed allegiances

By Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:19 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

BASRA, Iraq - Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, forces represented by the militias and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents say they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.

Militias gain power, but authority unclear

The parties and their armed wings are sometimes operating independently, and other times as part of Iraqi army and police units trained and equipped by the United States and Britain and controlled by the central government. Their growing authority has enabled them to seize territory, confront their perceived enemies and provide patronage to their followers. Their rise has come because of a power vacuum in Baghdad and their own success in the January elections.

Since the formation of a government this spring, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, has witnessed dozens of assassinations, claiming members of the former ruling Baath Party, Sunni political leaders and officials of competing Shiite parties. Many have been carried out by uniformed men in police vehicles, according to political leaders and families of the victims, with some of the bullet-riddled bodies dumped at night in a trash-strewn parcel known as The Lot. The province's governor said in an interview that Shiite militias have penetrated the police force; an Iraqi official estimated that as many as 90 percent of officers were loyal to religious parties.

Across northern Iraq, Kurdish parties have employed a previously undisclosed network of at least five detention facilities to incarcerate hundreds of Sunni Arabs, Turkmens and other minorities abducted and secretly transferred from Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and from territories stretching to the Iranian border, according to political leaders and detainees' families. Nominally under the authority of the U.S.-backed Iraqi army, the militias have beaten up and threatened government officials and political leaders deemed to be working against Kurdish interests; one bloodied official was paraded through a town in a pickup truck, witnesses said.

Violence a black mark on U.S.?

"I don't see any difference between Saddam and the way the Kurds are running things here," said Nahrain Toma, who heads a human rights organization, Betnahrain, with offices in northern Iraq and has faced several death threats.

Toma said the tactics were eroding what remained of U.S. credibility as the militias operate under what many Iraqis view as the blessing of American and British forces. "Nobody wants anything to do with the Americans anymore," she said. "Why? Because they gave the power to the Kurds and to the Shiites. No one else has any rights."

There is more, and none of it promising.

In other words, if not a complete and utter failure of the administration's handling of the post-war situation in Iraq, the reality there is far, far from a ringing endorsement of the policies and leadership.

Yet, the warbloggers who chanted "weapons of mass destruction" for months and months before and after March of 2003 until ultimately they were proven completely and totally wrong continue their drone of unquestioning support despite the incompetence their revered leaders have shown.

Is it any wonder that this poem from almost a century ago, written in the wake of the First World War seems even more applicable now?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
   -William Butler Yeats, January 1919

After pulling together all of these seemingly disparate threads and slogging through all of this text, one must ask what is the pattern?

The answer is simple.

We are being distracted by things that are not true threats, and neglecting the real perils to our nation.

Islamofascism?

Yes, it is dangerous, but will it ever overthrow our government unless we help it from within through ill-considered laws that are contrary to the liberties envisioned by our founders?

No.

China and other rising powers in Asia (including India, the largest democracy in the world)?

That is where the real confrontation to our current pre-eminent position of power technologically, economically, and militarily (for the three are linked far more profoundly than most realize) in the world lies.

How do cultures die?

When they are more concerned with internecine conflicts over ideologies that are more similar than the fundamental culture is to the external threats opposed to them.

We have to step outside our ideology, outside our partisan talking points, and deliberately choose to look at the world as it is.

The consequences if we do not?

I leave the rest of the math as an exercise to the reader.

Technorati Tags: commentary, patterns in the white noise, politics, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, some thoughts

...on thinking outside the box

When I was in graduate school, on an exam in my Classical Electrodynamics class, we were asked to re-derive the Maxwell Equations assuming that in addition to the existence of electric charge, magnetic charge also was present in the universe (aka magnetic monopoles, of the north and south variety, analogous to positive and negative charge, magnetic monopoles definitely do NOT exist by the way).

The details of the theory are not important, but the implications of what we were asked to do are. In straightforward terms, we were asked to derive the fundamental equations that would govern the behavior of electricity and magnetism assuming that the universe was a different place; not as it exists, but a "what if" scenario.

Then, using the newly derived "electric and magnetic charge" equations along with the Maxwell Equations, we were given a set of real-world measurements and asked to use the two different sets of equations to predict the electric charge density and magnetic charge density required to account for the data.

Needless to say, the "electric and magnetic charge" equations resulted in answers that either did not converge to a solution or gave results that were not reasonable.

This is a routine exercise both in the process of learning the "how" of science along with being a key part of the methodologies of experimental and theoretical research. Working out what would happen if some variation up to and including the opposite of the theory or hypothesis under consideration was valid allows us to figure out what the results of an experiment would be, and then helps when the data is taken and must be interpreted, because data rarely matches the model cleanly enough to yield no doubts.

Engineers refer to this as "thinking outside the box".

Here at Random Fate, I put categories on all my posts, displayed prominently above the post title on both the main page and the individual entry pages. While I readily confess to having the traditional tendencies of any technologist to be anal retentive, I categorize so prominently for a reason beyond any need I might have for order and classification.

The categories of the posts are intended to be an indication of what I am trying to communicate. Opinion is not intended to be balanced and is therefore publicly acknowledged as "opinion". When I write something I label as commentary, I strive to be relatively balanced, as evenhanded as any human can be.

In posts under the heading Patterns in the White Noise I am trying to go beyond the short-term, ADD nature of both weblogs and the so-called MainStream Media (MSM) to find broader patterns that may be of interest or concern.

When I categorize a post as some thoughts... I am in effect "thinking out loud", trying out thoughts that may be well outside of my opinions and beliefs, trying the "what if" scenario, working out the math to see if the results conform with reality.

Recently, I wrote a post that briefly mentioned the bombing of Hiroshima by the United States near the end of World War II. I was trying to illustrate the limitations of using old thought-models to understand the current world, in other words using limited theories to explain data that went beyond the limitations, hence the categorization and title of the post "Some thoughts ...on using Newtonian Physics in an Einsteinian universe".

My brief mentioning of the bombing of Hiroshima was quoted completely out of context by someone whom I did not think would try to score cheap political points by engaging in such egregious distortions. I am not linking to the offending post because I am not interested in starting a pointless pissing match. Instead, I am trying to illustrate what I see as a grave drawback and potential problem relating to the interaction of weblogs and politics.

What I wrote, in the best context that can be provided without requiring a reading of the entire work, was:

Linear thinking in a complex, multifaceted, nonlinear world is simple-minded at best, and can lead to catastrophe.

Yet, most thinking on both the left and right in America is still linear, us-versus-them, whether "them" consists of the political opposition or "the terrorists", whatever that nebulous term really means.

For in the end, what does "terrorism" mean? In these days when we are about to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon in warfare, and where we recently commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps created in Europe by the fascist regimes led by Nazi Germany the question has not been fully answered, and not the least because of the tactics used by the victors of six decades past.

Germany set up a deliberate mass-murder holocaust directed against a group because of their religion, and Japan practiced genocidal warfare on a scale still not fully recognized in the West. Both Germany and Japan were defeated by the United States and allies using tactics that today would be called "terrorist" by the bombing of cities in nominal aims of disrupting production of vital war materiel in campaigns that by even the standards of the day were indiscriminate. The fires of Dresden and Tokyo stand in accusation of the terrorist aspect of the assaults.

These tactics are defended as what was necessary to defeat evil.

In these days of the Global War on Terror, who has the privilege of defining what is "evil" so that terrorist tactics can be used to defeat it?

If "evil" is that which seeks to destroy your culture and way of life, then can we truly call the Islamofascists "evil" when in their eyes the West, led by the United States, is destroying what they believe to be the basis of Islamic culture and way of life, and they use terrorist tactics to defeat what they perceive as "evil"?

"Evil" and "good", the two sides of the edgeless coin of bipolar thinking.

One side or the other, impossible for the coin to land on a nonexistent edge that might bridge between the two sides.

I was attempting to turn the "War on Terror" rhetoric on its head in an effort to find out if there was a non-obvious way to end or at least reduce the threat posed by the Islamofascist terrorist organizations.

I was rewarded by an out of context citation that referred to my discussion of the Hiroshima bomb as "someone in the moral equivalence industry" trying "to argue that the dropping of the atomic bomb was an act of terrorism."

I was very angered by this distortion, and unfortunately I reacted in a way that does not reflect well upon me, much to my regret.

In addition to leaving some rather heated comments to the post that referenced my words far out of context, I put up on Random Fate the following quote:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
   -F. Scott Fitzgerald

I still believe in the truth behind that statement, but the insult towards the person I perceived had offended me that I included in the accompanying text only added fuel to a pointless fire.

As we all learn the hard way, however, good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgment.

In the end, it is the hardest lesson in life, what is done is done and cannot be recalled.

Yet in of itself, the incident shows the limitations of our ADD attitudes as we are constructing them in this brave new world of weblogs.

Attempting to "think outside the box" by presenting as rational what is apparently "unthinkable" to some results in cherry-picking of passages out of context to prove a point that has nothing to do with the original context.

Striving to understand instead of simply react seemingly results in more misunderstanding than illumination if the thoughts are expressed aloud.

Expecting people to be willing to make the intellectual effort to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time, especially on topics close to their heart, is unrealistic.

The final conclusion: Assertions that the advent of weblogs encourages a more widespread "discussion" that is more "balanced" than that displayed by the much-derided MSM is a will o' the wisp that if followed will indeed lead us astray.

We have the same blatant and subtle partisan distortions, the same out of context quoting, the same cherry-picking of events and data; the only difference is it is now being done by people who are NOT being paid to do so.

This is progress?

Until more people are willing to put in the skull-sweat to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function, we will grow more and more unable to cope with the complexities of the world.

As the phrase I used to create the title of my post that was selectively, distortedly quoted said, "We must stop using Newtonian Physics in our Einsteinian universe."

If you insist on adhering to the old models, cherry-picking your data, selectively quoting when it gives your "side" an ephemeral advantage, whatever the Hell "advantage" means today, go elsewhere and do not bother to read what I post here, for the work I put into these writings is not for you.

If you are willing to look at my arguments as a whole, not focusing on what offends your sensibilities but instead examining why you are offended, then please, read on, comment, argue even, but do NOT pick pieces to assault as if each piece represents the whole of my beliefs. If you do so, you only reveal your own small-mindedness.

The small-minded may well be the death of the grand ideals that are the foundation of the United States.

Technorati Tags: some thoughts

...on using Newtonian Physics in an Einsteinian universe

Back when I was in high school and college, there was a BBC series that was rebroadcast on PBS called "Connections", and as has become the custom with most shows on public broadcasting in the US now, it had an accompanying book, Connections, nominally, and in this case likely, written by the presenter of the series, James Burke.

This series (and book) showed how seemingly disparate discoveries in science and technology were connected together, hence the title.

For example, did you know that restrictions on the ivory trade created a connection between billiard balls and the development of the atomic bomb?

The series and the book were filled with odd but relevant threads that run through the history of science and technology.

There were two subsequent series named (inevitably, sometimes with the numbers as superscripts to imply "squared" and "cubed"...) "Connections 2" and "Connections 3", along with yet another series that focused on connections between events that were a bit more momentous, called The Day the Universe Changed.

It was the first series and book (both sadly very hard to find now) that had the most profound effect upon the development of my thought.

Other things I have learned have also had significant effects on the patterns of my thinking.

For example, the thought-experiments, the gedankenexperiments of Einstein or Schrodinger that ultimately revealed the limitations of Newtonian Physics when it came to the realm of extremes, where in acceleration or size, and resulted in the formulation of the theories of Relativity (both Special and General Relativity) and Quantum Mechanics (with all of its permutations).

In other words, Newtonian Physics was sufficient to explain the vast majority of everyday phenomena, but the universe changed (or our perception of the universe changed) once the failure of Newtonian Physics was revealed in the extremes.

Our perceptions went from a clockwork system of Newtonian Physics to the relativities of an Einsteinian universe and the probabilities and uncertainties of Quantum Physics.

That change in perception created an upheaval that had not been seen before in the argumentative but ultimately sedate realm of science, and that kind of shock has not happened since.

Einstein provided many different insights into Physics, not just the Theory of Relativity. He also provided insights that helped lead to the development of Quantum Theory. The class that had the largest effect on my mode of thinking when I was in graduate school was in Statistical Mechanics, which provides a Quantum Mechanics foundation to Classical Thermodynamics, which is a field that causes most engineers to groan and proclaim, "I hated that class!!!"

Learning the quantum statistics that underlie the classical conceptions forced me to look for the hidden foundations behind the conventionally accepted "realities", and my world has never been the same.

A "quantum leap" in physics is a very small change in energy states, but in common parlance it has become slang for a huge change in fundamental beliefs and principles, in no small part because of the foundational shift in thinking required to change from Newtonian to Quantum realities that Physicists were forced to undergo at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

We are in sore need of a "quantum leap" now.

Simple, linear thinking was fine for a bipolar Cold War world, but in our brave New World Order which is far more disorderly than those who boldly proclaimed an end to history imagined, linearity and bipolarity are both luxuries we can ill afford.

Our old model to understand the world and its threats is completely inadequate. The world has changed, yet we are like the Physicists at the turn of the Twentieth Century, still using Newtonian Physics to try to understand and make predictions in the complexities of an Einsteinian universe.

Classical Physics worked for many years, for centuries, and in many situations still provides results that are useful on a practical scale. When the situation changes because of scale of either relative velocity or size, or both, the Newtonian models break down and yield results that are completely wrong.

Simple, linear thinking worked for many years, for centuries, and in many situations still provides results that are useful on a practical scale. When the situation changes because of the scale of either relative populations or cultural collisions, or both, the linear models break down and yield results that are completely wrong.

Linear thinking in a complex, multifaceted, nonlinear world is simple-minded at best, and can lead to catastrophe.

Yet, most thinking on both the left and right in America is still linear, us-versus-them, whether "them" consists of the political opposition or "the terrorists", whatever that nebulous term really means.

For in the end, what does "terrorism" mean? In these days when we are about to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon in warfare, and where we recently commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps created in Europe by the fascist regimes led by Nazi Germany the question has not been fully answered, and not the least because of the tactics used by the victors of six decades past.

Germany set up a deliberate mass-murder holocaust directed against a group because of their religion, and Japan practiced genocidal warfare on a scale still not fully recognized in the West. Both Germany and Japan were defeated by the United States and allies using tactics that today would be called "terrorist" by the bombing of cities in nominal aims of disrupting production of vital war materiel in campaigns that by even the standards of the day were indiscriminate. The fires of Dresden and Tokyo stand in accusation of the terrorist aspect of the assaults.

These tactics are defended as what was necessary to defeat evil.

In these days of the Global War on Terror, who has the privilege of defining what is "evil" so that terrorist tactics can be used to defeat it?

If "evil" is that which seeks to destroy your culture and way of life, then can we truly call the Islamofascists "evil" when in their eyes the West, led by the United States, is destroying what they believe to be the basis of Islamic culture and way of life, and they use terrorist tactics to defeat what they perceive as "evil"?

"Evil" and "good", the two sides of the edgeless coin of bipolar thinking.

One side or the other, impossible for the coin to land on a nonexistent edge that might bridge between the two sides.

Bipolar.

Simple.

Clean.

Easy.

The simple, bipolar-linear thinking of those who cry, "All Islam is evil" and "Kill the terrorists" and "If you're not 100% in agreement with me, you're against me!" leads to the kind of contradiction where a simple change of viewpoint makes what was once "good" become "evil", where the only difference between the Islamofascists and "us" is what and whom we choose to protect, and not how we define "evil" if "evil" is "that which is trying to destroy our culture and way of life".

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

At small scales or high relative velocities, Newtonian Physics breaks down, and if actions are taken based upon the predictions of Newtonian Physics, disaster can follow. Even in the (comparatively) simple Physics involved with space shuttle and satellite operations, NASA takes Einsteinian factors into account.

Should we do any less when determining strategy for the survival and success of our nation?

What are the fundamentals?

What are the forces that underly the effects we see?

How can we blunt those forces and redirect them to paths that do not result in more enemies for us?

Do not merely label the opposition "evil".

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
   -Sun-Tzu

While "torture them until they spill all" may be satisfying on a visceral level, does it really move us towards our real goals?

The best vengeance is living well.

We cannot live well if we create as many enemies as we kill or imprison.

What are the fundamentals?

What are the forces that underly the effects we see?

How can we blunt those forces and redirect them to paths that do not result in more enemies for us?

Even with a full toolbox to support him, for a simple-minded man holding a hammer every problem is a nail, and the results are disastrous, predictably so for those who see the toolbox, but sadly not for the simple-minded man who only sees the hammer in his hand.

We must stop using Newtonian Physics in our Einsteinian universe.

Yes, the math is harder now, but are our goals not worth the effort of thought necessary?

---

UPDATE: I have posted a follow-up to clarify some points entitled "Forest and trees".

Technorati Tags: patterns in the white noise, personal, some thoughts

...on thoughts better left unsaid

There are a large number of posts I have started and abandoned in the past weeks, often abandoning them not only because of my dissatisfaction with the quality of my writing, but also because of the lack of symmetry and balance in the posts themselves. The titles include, but are not limited to:

Confusing appearing with being

Long ago...

It's past time we accept that ALL reporting is biased...

And one that actually has a quotable passage:

An odd linkage of popular culture and politics of the day...

...comes from Salon.com (you can watch an ad to see the entire story, to me it's less obnoxious than a registration):

But before we all hail George Lucas for raising the level of political discourse in American cinema (and on that score, the accolades have already begun to roll in), let's remember that all of the "Star Wars" movies -- even the genuinely superb "The Empire Strikes Back" -- have a relatively simple piece of rhetoric as their backbone: Good must triumph over evil.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that as a theme for a series of fantasy movies. But it's much too simplistic to be taken seriously as a political statement. And it's the kind of oversimplification that plagues both sides of the current political divide. Neither of the Georges -- Lucas or Bush -- seems to realize that a black-and-white ethos is no template for a world that too often includes shades of gray.

I've read the published script for the soon to be released, ostensibly last-ever Star Wars movie, and there are some not-so-subtle digs that are sadly made more relevant by the recent passage of the Real ID Act as an amendment to a military spending bill along with many of the other bills passed into law, executive orders, and other changes in how the government exerts its power over citizens in the years since September 11, 2001.

Lost innocence?

The Star Wars movies going from good non-political popcorn-movie fun to a political statement on freedom in the United States is an unintentional metaphor that almost perfectly describes the path trodden in the years since the release of the first movie, going from the apparently clear and seemingly symmetric dichotomy of "good guys-bad guys" inherent in the Cold War to the confused moral and factual ambiguity of a so-called War on Terror that appears to be more of a fabrication of the spin-machines than a true conflict of civilizations, regardless of how some wish to portray it.

---

I write a lot, and I delete 90% of what I write.

Theodore Sturgeon once wrote, "Ninety percent of everything is crap."

I often fear that more than 90% of what I write is crap, which is why at least 90% of it is deleted.

An unusual case of symmetry in areas I have wished to post has arisen where others have posted on the topics from their respective points of view and I can retain the balance, and despite the seemingly unrelated nature of the posts there is more than one thread connecting them.

The fundamental connecting thread, the weakening of their respective arguments by naked partisan (and more than quasi-extremist) attacks on "the other side", which if not undertaken could have actually persuaded those not of similar political persuasions to support the cause outlined.

First from Thoughts in the Daedalnexus (thanks to Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice for the link), where there are a few swipes at "the right" that were not needed to make the fundamental case:

I have a question. Are we at war, or aren't we? We have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan killing and dying on the President's orders, so in that sense we are at war. Bush II says we're at war, and when the President says so, his authority gives his words more weight than, say, mine. But in almost every way I can think of, we're not at war. Engaged in a dangerous conflict, yes, not actually at war.

How have we, as U.S. citizens, been asked to sacrifice for the so-called war on terror? We've been asked to give up some civil liberties in the pursuit of "homeland security," but that's pretty much it. Cutting our per-capita gasoline consumption would dramatically reduce the profits of nations like Saudi Arabia, nations that have been shown to bankroll Islamist terrorism. Reducing the flood of money going into terrorist bank accounts would probably have a dramatic effect on the conflict. Instead, Congress has refused to even consider raising fuel efficiency standards, and the IRS still gives a tax credit for the purchase of large trucks and SUVs purchased by small businesses, making gas consumption MORE attractive, not less.

We're running a huge budget deficit that is partly the result of our continuing military actions abroad, yet the President and Congress have not asked the American people to pay the higher taxes required to make war. Not only that, but taxes have actually dropped dramatically since the supposed war started.

Perhaps most damning in many respects is the fact that we have not been asked to sacrifice ourselves, our children, our husbands, or our wives to the war effort. Our professional, all-volunteer military (read "mercenary army composed of the undereducated and the poor") has not yet been supplemented with draftees, something that is all but inevitable in a real war. Instead, our government is requiring year-long tours of duty in a combat zone with six months or less R&R before being redeployed to another combat zone. This tactic is gradually killing military preparedness, driving the most experienced soldiers out of the military altogether, and making recruitment more and more difficult for the Army, the various National Guards, and the Reserves.

If the United States is truly at war, we should behave as if we are. Instead we're cutting our own throats economically and militarily, and we're bankrolling the very enemies we're in conflict with. We cannot continue to destroy ourselves this way. Unfortunately, I have little confidence that the federal government can change this suicidal course. It will take the people realizing that they've been led astray by ideologues and idiots before a new course out of this conflict may be charted.

A not unreasonable set of questions, but unfortunately diluted by the remarks starting with the parenthetical "read 'mercenary army composed of the undereducated and the poor'". I know more than a few of those who have served and still serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and they have NOT been undereducated, poor, nor mercenary. To a man (and yes, all the ones I know are male) they have been intelligent patriots who are well educated and serve because they believe in the underlying principles of our nation, not because they are being "mercenaries".

So, even though I am predisposed to accepting the argument presented, the partisan swipe renders it almost unappealing to me without a tremendous effort to overcome my emotional negation.

Similarly, a post from Donnie (now posting under his real name) at Cadillac Tight, in a post on 24 July that seems to have disappeared from the post chain but still exists in the RSS feed and on his server, again the underlying theme of the post has merit, and is something I have been meaning to post upon for a long time, the inadequate (to say the least) compensation we offer to those fighting for us, but the argument is weakened by the partisan swipes, this time directed at "the left":

Not so fast, Chomsky...

---

Well, yeah. Recruiting is a problem in wartime, after all...and I'll discuss that a bit further down in this post. First, though, let me point out to the left side of the blogosphere that they may not want to climb too many steeples to shout this news from, as one of the article's points is:

an improving economy

Sigh. DCSPERS, what can we do with 'em?

Gah! Remember, lefties, your "worst economy since Hoover" posts of the past (we do, you know, we remember), and consider how we'll jam them down your throats once you start gibbering and capering about as if this Times article is GOOD news for your side.

Now then, recruiting. Yes, there's a war on, and before I get into any suggestions about how to address the recruiting problem, let me just say for the record that I think this administration has made a very big mistake in this regard. I understand the rationale behind the "go about your normal lives" approach to handling the domestic side of the war, given I have a pretty good understanding of the terrorist's goals - they'd like to fuck up our infrastructure something fierce, and rationing, et. al. would do a large portion of that job for them. Where I disagree with the president's approach to "business as usual" is in how he's neglected to reinforce the fact that while those of us who have already served our time, or who can't serve any time for one reason or another should, actually, go about our business, those who haven't served, but can, SHOULD.

And yeah, we're at the point where that needs to be said, and reinforced, and said again. This administration isn't doing that, and I'm fully aware of why they aren't - it's a political decision for them, and it by God shouldn't be. Look, there's no election looming on the horizon (last time I checked, 2006 is still 15 or so months away), the Rove "scandal" isn't all it's cracked up to be, the SC situation was brilliantly handled with a perfect nominee, and things, in general, are well for the Republican party. It's beyond time to get back to the business of prosecuting this war.

So, that kind of leads me into some recommendations. First, what I already said: Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Bush need to make it clear, by whatever means necessary, that recruiting is a problem, and that Americans who are able to serve their country in uniform should do so, for the same reasons they have in the past, from Valley Forge to Normandy. This nation is at war, because it has been attacked - we are not involved in a "Police Action", or a "Peacekeeping Force" - we are AT WAR. We are defending our country against an aggressive enemy.

Next - the new recruiting package is nice. I mean, folks, it's nice. Had I the opportunity back in my day of availing myself of those re-enlistment bonuses, enlistment bonuses, college funds, and special pay, I'd be a lot farther along in my retirement planning than I am now, of that I assure you. The mistake that's just waiting to be made here, though, is that I can guarantee you some nimrod in the DoD will propose rolling back all of those cool incentives once the war is over (or even after it's simply settled a bit). Don't do it. I beg you guys, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever persuasion you are, don't roll these incentives back. We need a professional NCO and Officer corps, and we need them to be by cracky excellent NCOs and Officers...what better way to keep good people than to, well, reward them for being good?

Fucking Java programmers straight out of fucking DeVry shouldn't make more money than seasoned 11-B E-5's. No way.

Next - Don't fuck the vets, man...don't fuck the vets. If you touch any VA legislation, or any VA funding, you'd by God better be improving it, not re-allocating it, or downsizing it, or "managing" it, or re-distributing it. You know, even in peacetime, fucking the vets is frowned upon - just ask William Jefferson Clinton, or John "Jeng-Giss-Khan" Kerry. You go and fuck the vets in wartime, and kiss your ass goodbye the next time you send those absentee ballots out to the soldiers, whether there's an (R) after your name or not. Guaranteed. Worse still, (R)'s or (D)'s aside, you're telling the very folks you want to enlist that you don't give a shit about them if they become disabled, or need lifelong care.

Don't even give anyone the impression that you're fucking the vets, OK?

Next - and this relates to the first "Next" - those contractors you are experimenting with? The ones who are supposed to replace E-1's through E-6's in specialist jobs? Cut that shit out, guys. That's not even remotely cool, it's stupid, stupid, stupid. Let me tell you something - you give an E-2 or an E-3 the incentives the Times article mentions, give them a solid benefits package, enough cash to play poker with their contemporaries on the outside, and a goddamned career they can both be proud of and support their families on, and you won't have to play fuck-fuck with "contractors". You'll also take a big step towards building that professional NCO corps I mentioned earlier.

Finally, and nearest and dearest to my own heart, the Combat Arms guys? The ones you take great pains to sidetrack extra pay to in various ways, shapes, and forms, but you really can't get them what they deserve, or need?

Pay those guys. Just fucking pay them, and pay them well. Give them the very best weapons and equipment money can buy, give them all the honor and glory you have to offer, give them better pay, and quarters, and ceremonies, and clubs and facilities and beer and fucking whatever it is they want. Give it to them - there's no excuse not to, all PC bullshit aside. Every Company Clerk I've ever known realized deep down inside that the guys with the bayonets deserve more pay and bennies than they do, so why the hell don't you, the fucking DoD realize it?

Pay them. Pay the goddamned Infantry, and the Artillery, and the Combat Engineers, and the Armor, and the Air Cav, and the Signal Corps guys in the field, more than you pay the Personnel Clerks, or the JAG clerks, or the Quartermaster specialists, or the MPs, or the Medical Service Corps (different from the Medical Corps). Pay them, pay them, pay them.

Pay the Paratroopers and Air Assault soldiers well. Pay the Pathfinders and Jumpmasters better. Pay the Rangers more than what a fucking plumber takes home. Pay the Special Forces guys better than the Rangers. Pay the Delta guys, and the senior NCOs and Officers in each Combat Arms specialty even more. Cough it up, pay 'em.

Cut out the bullshit with the National Guard guys getting second class equipment and billets in fucking wartime - if they are going to see the goddamned elephant, give 'em a fucking cattle prod to use, at the very least.

Get rid of even the appearance of under equipping and/or underpaying our most important citizens, and you know what? You'll recruit more of them.

That is all.

Again, the points made are valid from any reasonable standpoint, and in my opinion outstanding and should be immediately acted upon, but the impact is diminished because of the swipes at "the left" before the opening of the statement of what is needed to fully support the Armed Forces we need.

Civil discourse, I've given up on that as a chimera that never really existed.

Now I have been reduced to being focused on showing how arguments are lessened by the partisan attacks.

One of the most critical and insightful military historians of recent times, B.H. Liddell Hart, wrote a book called Strategy, which extolled the virtues of the indirect approach.

I think that many of those who are making partisan arguments could learn much from this book, and this indirect approach.

In an indirect approach to their goal, perhaps, just perhaps, they may very well persuade those who otherwise would not have listened.

Technorati Tags: commentary, some thoughts, weblogs

...on "defending the flag"...

As some may have noted, I made an couple of editorial comments in my description of my day in Paris during the final stage of the Tour de France, where the American Lance Armstrong won his seventh consecutive victory.

Lance Armstrong's victory is his alone, and it does not confer glory upon the United States.

This attitude that somehow athletes confer some kind of glory upon their mother country is something that continually irritates me when the Olympics come around. Just because an athlete is from a particular nation, the achievement of that athlete has little or nothing to do with the virtue or vice of that nation.

For an example, look at the medal counts of the former Soviet Union, or the formerly openly-named "communist" and still repressive China.

My "editorial comments" in my post on my experience in Paris were:

American flags were much in evidence, if not always treated with respect:

And then, there are idiots who show less understanding of what the flag represents than those who choose to burn it in protest:

I saw a LOT of idiots choosing to use the American flag as some kind of cape, as a fashion accessory.

If anyone misses my point, here it is in plain words: Those who burn the flag of the United States have a better understanding of the significance of that flag than the yahoos who wear the flag as a cape, being in their own feeble minds "patriotic" when an American wins an athletic competition.

The prompting of my post here was from Indigo, of Indigo Insights, a kind soul who I believe would never want to stir dark thoughts in any patriot, who pointed me to a post at A Collection of Thoughts, which pointed to a post at Blogcritics.org by Kit Jarrell on the movie Black Hawk Down.

To start, I will not dispute the feelings that are stirred by the movie itself.

As a patriot, I did choke up when I saw the heroism depicted in the film.

I understand the limits of the military mindset, however, and when this statement is made:

My belief in freedom and my willingness to do whatever it takes to defend my flag is second only to my belief in God. Yet there are times when I ask myself what the point is. All these blogs, all these soldiers and veterans and people who understand what the price of freedom is - and yet the country is still clueless. The colleges and their anti-recruiters, the feminists and their sanctioning of killing our children, the constant head-in-the-sand syndrome about Islam and its followers. We're being invaded from the South, by people whose only goal is to have a "better life" by taking what is not theirs. We're being infiltrated by terrorists whose only wish is to see us all dead.

I must protest.

There is more to the sacrifice of military service, including the ultimate sacrifice, than merely defending "the flag", but unfortunately, all too often that is what the rhetoric and the outrage reduces the significance of these sacrifices demanded down to, defending a piece of colored cloth...

There is far more to the sacrifice than a colored piece of cloth.

If you are not willing to defend the right of "the colleges and their anti-recruiters, the feminists and their sanctioning of killing our children, the constant head-in-the-sand syndrome about Islam and its followers" to say what they say, then you have no idea what that flag represents.

For it is what the flag represents that is important, not the flag itself.

That is why I did not go to the the multiple idiots I saw wearing the US flag as if it were Superman's cape in Paris at the Tour de France and say, "Do you know you're defiling our nation?" because they, in their limited little minds were not defiling the flag but promoting their patriotism... despite what I may have felt.

The flag is a symbol.

It is not the fact.

Defending the flag is defending the symbol, it is defending the ideals of freedom, but it is NOT defending the freedoms themselves, and if you decry those freedoms while claiming you are defending the flag, can you really say you are truly defending what that flag stands for?

What does the American flag stand for?

What does it mean when this flag is "desecrated"?

"Desecration" is a religious term, the definition of which is. "To violate the sacredness of; profane."

Are we to worship the flag?

I don't think so.

To hold our principles and fundamental beliefs as written in our Constitution in high regard and worthy of defending, even at the cost of one's life is not dishonorable, to the contrary; however, to elevate these things to the status of "sacred" and the flag that represents them defies the principles themselves and is indeed meriting the status of dishonorable if this sacredness is expected of others else brand them as "traitors".

If you do not understand this, then you do not understand these fundamental principles themselves.

Sadly for us all, there are far too many ready to hurl the word "dishonorable" if not "traitor" at those who fulfill the principles but not the vocal fealty to the foundations of our liberties.

In the end, vocal fealties count for nothing, actions based upon principles count for everything.

Look at actions, not words, actions that have truly significant results.

Take the time to think, don't merely hurl accusations.

Technorati Tags: commentary, some thoughts

...on perspectives

Technical presentations tend to all follow a similar format, with a brief overview of the object of study, a description of the experiments performed, a presentation of the data, a discussion of the implications of the data, and conclusions along with directions for future work.

One oddity I encounter in dealing with the different cultures and languages that are part and parcel of my job is how this format is subtly altered by word choices made under the influence of the culture and language of the authors.

One example of this is how my French colleagues title as “Perspectives” the section of a presentation that is typically labeled by a native English speaker as “Conclusions and Future Work”.

Rarely do native English speakers discuss or even acknowledge “perspectives” in technical or scientific matters.

Yet perspective influences everything, from how data is interpreted, to political views, to how we interact with other people, even to how we love.

Some trap themselves inside their own perspective and cannot see beyond it.

Some see many perspectives but are unable to choose between them.

Some try with varying success to balance perspectives and make a conscious choice of viewpoint.

Some lose perspective and say things that are beyond the pale.

My recent two-week vacation from everything, including blogging, was in no small part to enable me to regain some perspective on many things.

Taking a step away can provide good insight upon returning. For me, however, I gained some unexpected perspective during my travels.

I was stuck in an airport due to a three hour delay in my flight, so I went to the only bar in the terminal I could get to without having to leave the security area. I sat down at the only seat available at the bar, next to a man in fatigues who was drinking a beer and having a casual conversation with a few folks next to him.

It only took a few brief moments for me to realize the bartender was far from competent, so instead of ordering my preferred drink when traveling, a bloody mary, I asked for a double Glenfiddich, since that was the only single malt Scotch available. With no mixing required, consequences arising from the lack of skill evident in the bartender would be avoided.

I couldn’t help but overhear the conversation of the Sergeant on the barstool next to me as he spoke with a father and son in the adjacent seats. I heard the same feelings expressed by the civilians, even to the same sentences used, that I have heard countless times in my travels since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started, the “what’s it like there”, the “I hope you stay safe”, culminating in the “thank you” that although heartfelt has become a platitude.

The father and son left to catch their flight, and as I ordered my second drink, the Sergeant turned to me and said, “So that’s what I’ve been smelling next to me for the past few minutes.”

After a brief discussion on the merits of various drinks, I asked him if he was regular Army, coming or going, and where he had been. He was regular Army, on his way to a two-week leave in the US, coming in from Iraq, where he was stationed north of Baghdad.

The inevitable question from me followed. I asked how bad was it really there, after telling him that the news I get is that in France, not the US, and may not be the same perspective he is accustomed to encountering from civilians who have no first-hand source in the war zones.

He said it is not as bad as it seems when listening to the news in any country, but he said he still had a big problem with what is happening. He stated it flat out, “Why am I there? That’s what I want to know. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and I have yet to hear why I’m there. I just want that explained to me, and I haven't heard any explanation, just bullshit.”

I was speechless for a moment, and before I could reply, he continued, “I need to go catch my flight, and I need to leave behind this beer, but after all the others I’ve had today that may be for the best.”

I murmured goodbyes and platitudes as he walked unsteadily away.

Later, when I was on my delayed flight, I overheard another conversation. This one was between two pilots in the row behind me; apparently, they worked for the airline and were going from one city to another because of some foul up in how the pilots were distributed. They had just met, and I heard their mutual self-introductions during the time I couldn’t use my headphones during take-off.

One of the pilots apparently is in the reserves, and he was talking with his colleague about his stint, his recent assignment in Iraq, and how he wanted to get out of the reserves. He said, “Rumsfeld is ruining the Army. The generals told him that to occupy Iraq we needed more troops there, and he ignored them before the war, and he’s kept ignoring them. I don’t mind being in a war, but when you fuck up and then keep on fucking up, I’m not going to be killed because of this jerk’s incompetence.”

Two anecdotes do not constitute a trend, but from these conversations, I received a view of perspectives unexpected to me.

These viewpoints do illustrate that despite the ranting and raging of how the “biased media” is distorting perspectives, not all is sweetness and light either.

Perspectives, it must be written in the plural, because there is far more than one on any matter, regardless of how small.

The majority of weblogs I read lean opposite to my preferred politics; I choose to read them to ensure I do not trap myself in an self-reinforcing resonance of my own perspectives.

Much has happened in the last two weeks to generate a lot of heat but little light in blogworld; the echo chambers have been ringing loud.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Conner announced her retirement, the Tour de France started, in the Gulf of Mexico tropical storms and hurricanes reminded those who forgot the power of nature, and in London terrorists reminded those who forgot the power of hate.

It is the power of hate that is the most troubling, but not the hate expressed by the terrorists. That hate is obvious, the origins are visible to those willing to take a step outside of their own point of view into a larger world, and defeating that hate is achievable if not easy, but victory over that hate is only possible if we ourselves reject that hate.

Unfortunately, we do not.

Instead, we revel in our hate. We hate the terrorists, we hate Muslims, we hate creationists, we hate scientists, we hate Republicans, we hate Democrats, we hate conservatives, we hate liberals, we hate moderates.

We hate.

We embrace a perspective of hatred and reject all other viewpoints.

We enjoy our hate.

If we did not then why do we resort to it so easily and so quickly?

Hate is easy to find. Just read any politically oriented weblog and you will find it, often in both the comments and the posts themselves.

Instead of writing what they are for, what they believe in, people write about how evil the “other side” is, even if that other side consists of fellow citizens who also want what is best for our country.

We are trapping ourselves in prison of our perspective, unwilling to see outside one point of view and acknowledge a larger world.

Our enemies trapped themselves in a prison of their perspective, a perspective of hatred they use to justify atrocities upon “the enemy”.

Beware when fighting your enemy that you do not become him.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, some thoughts, weblogs

Times, oh how they change...

... I once dated a drop-dead gorgeous librarian-type back in high school... dishwater blonde hair... a marvelous creature at the tender age of 17.... I was 16 at the time... never got past first base with her, though... very, very religious, she was.. hey, that was cool with me... I was always a slow starter anyway... we'd go parking in the seclusion of a farmer's backroad and just hold hands... talk... maybe a few kisses... it was real Norman Rockwell stuff... I was pretty inexperienced, but she was truly virgin territory... through those initial fumblings, I slowly taught the lass the ropes... she was a project I didn't mind working on... taking sweet, sweet time to mold her... she turned out to be a pretty good kisser after six months of practice... but, I digress...

... she broke it off with me while I was enjoying the pleasantries of 3rd phase at Parris Island... I remember it explicitly... I was stringing up concertina wire on Elliot's Beach when I got the Dear John letter... I was crushed... she'd blitzed off to university when I headed to boot camp... there, she met some college bookworm with a 20 dollar coiffure who stole her heart... it was a real low... a sweaty Marine recruit bested by a collegeboy... probably named Todd... or Chip...

... last night, I was given a tidbit of news that still has me reeling... a friend of mine that I haven't seen in 10 years dropped by... and as you always end up doing, we began reminiscing about back in the day.. well, a few tumblers of Scotch later, and our old yearbook was dragged from the shelf.. fingers were pointed to pictures of pimply kids with mullets... stories were bandied... it's amazing to see how the memories of same events are juggled by the years.. I remember one way, and he another... anyway, conversation rolled around to Those Who Were Dated....

... my little girl?... my sweet and innocent?... the shy, trembling one who ditched me because I wasn't a virgin... pigeonholed me as not worthy as a future Husband because I'd gotten laid before meeting her?.. well, at the tender age of 24 she had evidently blossomed... according to the tale I was told, she was filmed... filmed, I say.. getting gangbanged by an entire football team... caught in the act by a college linebacker with his Momma's camcorder... Great Bloody Hell, people... at first, I was speechless...

... and then, I was stunned.... how could MY demure coquette - the girl I'd spent 6 months taking cold showers for - spark an entire TEAM?... I was hurt... I was shocked... but as my disbelief slowly slipped into an accepting astonishment, I began to imagine... never in a million years would I have dreamt of such an outcome... such a turn of life's road... impossible.. incredible... and as I sat there lost in the moment of whirling possibilities, I became aware of one thing.. salient in purity... crystalline in purpose... no matter how long it may take... no matter what mountains I have to climb... I have GOT to find that video...

Kelo Decision Not End of World?

I picked up on Ann Althouse's observations here.

Jack asked me to guest post, and I'll pop in from time-to-time.

....regarding federal funding of stem cell research

This may possibly shock some of my regular readers, but I can see the fundamental point of those who oppose government funding of stem cell research when the stem cells are derived from either aborted fetuses or embryos from fertility treatments that will never be implanted into a womb because they are not needed.

Do I agree with that fundamental point? No, but I can see where the objection arises, and I cannot condemn the objection.

Let me make myself clear, I am a cold-hearted SOB when it comes to "potential" children. If they are not already viable outside the womb, I do not regard an embryo as a human being, much less a person.

In other words, I feel that the valiant efforts to save premature babies that otherwise would not survive without the heroic intervention now commonplace is in reality breeding us for having more premature babies, not saving life in the long term.

If you feel that makes me a cold-hearted SOB, I wouldn't necessarily say you are out of line for thinking or even saying so.

Given that is my belief, according to my personal set of morals and ethics, it is OK to create embryos or clones for the express purpose of providing spare parts for people already alive, and it is OK to use embryos that would otherwise never be implanted to become babies as a source of stem cells for research into many seemingly otherwise insoluble afflictions.

However, I am very willing to admit that my views are far from the mainstream, and I am also very willing to admit that it is difficult to argue with those who believe that human life begins at conception.

Yet, I am completely unwilling to have those who believe that human life begins at conception enforce their beliefs upon everyone.

I do believe that restricting government funding of stem cell research in some fashion is a reasonable compromise, as long as privately funded research is NOT restricted.

Does this put the United States at risk of falling behind other nations that have fewer moral qualms?

Yes, it does.

Some who are self-described as on the right-wing side of the political spectrum are not entirely happy with the position of the Bush administration on this issue.

For me, one who is a self-described moderate who leans left, there are so many other areas in which the United States is endangered that I believe are far more critical, areas that I believe are worth much more effort to ensure that my nation remains pre-eminent than stem cell research that I conserve my resources for what I believe are the key battles.

Let President Bush exercise his veto on this issue, I prefer to save energy for the more important fights on fundamental principles affecting people already alive yet denied basic freedoms we ourselves declared essential in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

...on the theory of evolution

It's as much a FACT as our THEORY of gravity.

Unless you don't believe in that one, either...

As I wrote to someone who commented to a previous post, "I wish this were satire...":

Actually, we have a better understanding of evolution than we do of gravity. Gravity is the only one of the four fundamental forces we have not been able to unify together in the elusive "Theory of Everything", the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear/atomic strong and weak forces have all been unified, but gravity refuses to cooperate on that.

Saying "creation science" is on the same level as the theory of evolution is calling something "science" that is inherently unprovable. Science is all about proving or disproving hypothoses using the available evidence, and seeking out new evidence by defining and performing experiments. "Creation science" is religion, not science, and using the word "science" to make it an acceptable alternative to a widely accepted scientific theory is simply an attempt at framing the argument using Orwellian newspeak.

Neither evolution nor any other widely accepted scientific theory that I am aware of deny the possible existence of a God or gods. However, that should be kept in the arena of faith, and out of the public schools, unless you want a special, comparative religion class taught that gives ALL religions equal time and equal weight. Just don't call it "science" because it is not.

We are "forced to regurgitate" LOTS of things we may not necessarily believe, OUR ENTIRE LIVES.

I thought my English literature teacher was full of shit, but I still had to regurgitate what she wanted.

Where are our evangelical saviors on that issue?

Be realistic.

Regarding "theories" versus "laws" versus whatever else, let me explain a little recognized fact. Newton's Laws of Motion are WRONG. They are merely approximations that have since been corrected by Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. In other words, something we still call a set of natural "laws" are not entirely correct, and instead are a special case of a more fundamental set of rules (aka equations).

So, don't get caught up on the "theory" label. Evolution is MORE of a fact than many so-called "laws" that are not in dispute.

Unless of course, we are going to say all of science is full of shit.

Then throw your computer out the window, tell your diabetic friends to not take that new insulin substitute that can be taken by a nasal inhaler that was made by genetically engineering some bacteria, and stop eating anything you don't grow yourself, because we now have genetically modified foods in EVERYTHING, even Doritos.

Science works, and our lives are better for it.

I resent being told that "creationism" is a "science" when the BASIS of science is to make hypotheses that are provable or disprovable. "Creationism" and "God" are NOT provable NOR disprovable and BY DEFINITION do NOT belong in a science class.

In other words, Church and State SHOULD BE SEPARATE, and GOD should NOT be in science class.

Science does not deny the existence of a God or gods. It merely tries to explain how the universe works. God can be present or absent.

However, God should NOT be discussed in a science class, or it BECOMES a religious class, and THERE is your defying of separation of Church and State.

One final warning, our idiocy on this matter endangers the future of our nation, for the greatest existential threat to the future of the United States is not Islamist terrorism (which coincidentally uses religious faith to enforce a discipline on its followers) but China.

The United States was not always pre-eminent in science and technology, and we are in serious danger of losing what lead we have left.

Technorati Tags: commentary, evolution, opinion, science

...on the endings of beginnings

Sluggy Freelance is an online comic strip I have enjoyed reading for several years, although some of the experimentation that the author, Peter Abrams, has indulged in recently is not quite as entertaining. Not that I begrudge him his attempts at stretching his creativity, but much of the fun factor is missing.

Pete himself has recognized this, and he now has a co-artist/author who is publishing one strip a week set during the "bikini suicide frisbee days." An example of the spirit of those early days of Sluggy Freelance can be found in this particular strip:

Read the following strips to find the pleasant chaos that made it fun.

The early days of Bloom County have a similar, quasi-anarchic and amicably subversive feel that is so hard to capture and so easily lost.

Some call it "jumping the shark" enshrining an infamous episode of the television sitcom Happy Days when Fonzie performed a motorcycle stunt a-la Evel Kenivel by jumping his bike over a shark tank.

Somehow, the fun goes away.

The endings of beginnings and the loss of innocence and naivete occurs with almost everything, not just comic strips and television shows.

Sometimes the end of the beginning is noticed at the time it happens, sometimes it is not recognized until well after the change in spirit has taken hold.

As with any loss of innocence there is a wistful longing for the pure, artless, fresh fun that is no more.

Another beginning has sadly ended; the "bikini suicide frisbee days" of blogging are over.

I suspect those carefree times ended with the election of 2004, when it became more important to post politics than silly quizzes, and it became more important to bash the infamous MSM instead of continuing to build a true community of strangers who became friends who had never met.

Where does it go from here?

That is up to us to decide.

Perhaps we should try to recapture some of the fun, some of the unaffected guilelessness, some shadow of the spirit of our bikini suicide frisbee days not so long departed, but already dearly missed.

Technorati Tags: weblogs

...on the wound that will not heal

On my bookshelf here in France is a book I brought with me when I first moved here from the US that I planned (and still plan) to read, The Fifty Year Wound: The True Price of America's Cold War Victory by Derek Leebaert.

I have not made time to read the book yet, but the title is very evocative of something I have long felt about the Cold War.

I lived through the latter part of that indirect combat, with all the fears of the cold, inexorable logic of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, giving my teenage hormone-heated dreams a nightmarish tinge, a fear of dying in a nuclear furnace before I had the chance to truly live.

Although the United States seemingly emerged intact from that conflict with no direct collision of the powers involved, a struggle by proxy with strange periods of seeming amity between the contestants, there was a price that was paid; a price not solely paid in the lives lost during the era, nor in the murders arising from the subsequent terrorist actions seeded by actions taken with no thought to a future with a change in the equilibrium of mutual destruction.

The price exacted was not only in lives, and not only in treasure, but also of the soul.

Those who lived in the era know; for those who did not, please ask those who did.

The old wound will not heal, for it was deep.

The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.
   -H. L. Mencken

From old wounds honor dies.

Look at those who claim to be worthy of being our leaders now.

Look at how they assert they have a unique insight into what is "moral".

Look at their actions, and their explanations that "I did nothing illegal."

Nothing illegal...

Moral men they are indeed.

.
.
.

And yet, we need men of honor if we are to survive and thrive.

Even accounting for political posturing, the two are far from the same.

In our fifty year wound, honor seems to have bled out along with the blood and treasure sacrificed.

An age of irony is no substitute.

But we will be crushed upon the anvil of irony, because an honorable man can no longer survive to become a leader...

But a moral man will, if he proclaims his morality loudly enough.

All things, good and bad, come to an end.

To what end is up to us.

Choose wisely when a moral man comes calling, for the men of honor have already been sacrificed.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion

...on the death of a man who was called "Pope"

When CNN International was reporting on the masses viewing the body of Pope John Paul II this past week, they had in their bottom "headline bar" (I don't know what else to call it, right above the ticker, but at the bottom of the screen, summarizing the images on the screen for those with the sound turned off I expect) the text, "Adoration of John Paul II Continues".

The choice of the word "adoration" disturbed me, possibly because of how it was used in the context of the churches I attended as a child.

I looked up "adoration" at dictionary.com and received this result:

ad-o-ra-tion (noun)

   1. The act of worship.
   2. Profound love or regard.

The first definition was the one I was most accustomed to from my history with religion, with my take on the second definition reserved for an extraordinary romantic love that is rarely felt and even more rarely expressed.

Hence my discomfort in the use of that word for the viewing by masses of people of a dead body.

Now, another fly in the ointment of recent amity in matters religious engendered by the death of Pope John Paul II, ironically arising because of an issue that he did not properly address, whether due to illness or from an unwillingness to see the greater harm I cannot say:

A support group for sexual abuse victims has condemned a decision by the Vatican to choose Cardinal Bernard Law to lead a Mass for Pope John Paul II.

Cardinal Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in 2002 following accusations that he covered up sexual abuse of children by priests.

Members of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests are flying to Rome to protest at Monday's service.

Cardinal Law is scheduled to lead one of nine memorial Masses in Rome.

The decision to have Cardinal Law lead a Mass for the recently deceased Pope is mysterious to those of us not members of the Catholic Church, and possibly to those members not "in the know" of the politics behind the decision.

It would seem obvious to those of us on the outside that this is an issue easily avoided.

Apparently not.

Sources in the Church say the decision on Cardinal Law probably only reflected the importance of his current post as archpriest of St Mary Major Basilica.

Cardinal Law is also eligible to vote for the new pope.

Pope John Paul II was an extraordinary man, put in an extraordinary position, in an extraordinary time. That convergence resulted in the ordering of history in a manner that may have ultimately resulted in less bloodshed than would otherwise have occurred in the inevitable fall of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.

Despite this convergence, however, he was still a man, with all the flaws that go with the legacy of being human.

Flaws that exist in the Church he was the titular head of for so long, flaws that continue today.

We are all flawed, bad goes with the good, just as good goes with the bad.

We should choose very carefully who and what we choose to "adore", and when we choose to do so.

...on a larger responsibility

Pennywit posts on some partisan breast beating (as he terms it) that reminds me of a post I have been meaning to write.

Commenting upon the referenced imagery of "sycophantic readers moaning with the exquisite pleasure that comes only from having one's biases expertly stroked" is far too good to pass up.

Unfortunately for me, I can only seem to pull off one substantial post a day, and sometimes not even that, not while simultaneously holding down my day job when it consists of searching through hundreds of patents to make sure the technology I am trying to patent hasn't already been covered.

My brain, along with the rest of me, isn't as young, durable, flexible, and indefatigable in a perceived good cause as it used to be.

However, before I forget, I do want to briefly discuss again the larger responsibility that the vision evoked reminded me of, a topic upon which I have posted before.

We all have to live together.

As I linked to earlier today in a long piece that I fear few will read, people of good faith can balance competing principles differently without being evil.

We ALL have to recognize the larger responsibility.

The larger responsibility of recognizing that not everyone thinks alike, and it is not our task in life to force them to think the same.

The larger responsibility to respect the beliefs of others.

The larger responsibility of not only accommodating the beliefs, but making room for them, sometimes at some small expense to our own cherished beliefs.

The larger responsibility of recognizing we are a community with far more in common than we have with those who want to destroy what we represent.

I like quotes, because they capture in a few words what can often take paragraphs to explain.

Here are two of my favorites that are the MOST relevant in this time and place:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.
   -Benjamin Franklin

Don't REACT...

Winning partisan points is not the be all to end all...

Think...

...on lives and deaths

For the culture in the United States, issues of life, and especially of death, are rarely dealt with in proportion to the whole, to the larger picture.

I attribute part of this inadequate and anti-survival response to the tendency of Hollywood to always provide us with happy endings, a feel-good termination of the stories they present so they can make more money. We want to go see something we can walk out of the theater feeling happy about, because learning things is too much work.

Our modern myths, our archetypal tales, they all now end happily. The boy gets the girl, the hero's best friend isn't really dead, the bad guys wear black so they are easy to recognize and in the end they never win.

Real life isn't like that.

Real stories often don't have endings, they just fade into memory and eventual forgetfulness...

Any endings that we do have are messy, inconclusive, with always many of those involved unsatisfied and angry if not completely unaccepting of the ultimate outcome, fighting beyond all reason.

What few victories we have to point to are ephemeral, incomplete, and unsatisfying...

Emotions always rule over a reasoned analysis of priorities and relative weights...

The heart is important, but it should NOT ALWAYS overrule the mind.

As I have written before, the cultural heritage of the West, and of the United States in particular is missing a balance, a yin and yang; instead we are a culture of absolutes.

Absolutes always require definitives, notwithstanding that the messiness inherent in life denies us that comfort of unambiguity.

Absolutes betray us with their seductive certainties that force us to ignore wholes in favor of pieces.

Even the most fundamental of sciences, Physics, has an acknowledgment of the uncertainties of the universe, hence the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and probability clouds of quantum mechanics.

You don't believe in probability clouds and uncertainty? Stop using your computer displaying this text then because it is based upon these very principles.

Determinism died in the early twentieth century, there is no more clockwork universe. It is all clouds of uncertainty.

Uncertainty which gives hope for the existence of a soul.

A cold, clockwork universe leaves no room for a soul, no room for self-determination, no room for free will.

Until it was discovered that having an observer affects the result of what is observed and the clockword gears vanished.

A more definite statement of free will cannot be made.

I strive for rational analysis of all issues, even if they directly affect me. My goal is always a cold, clear determination of the facts and the most probable outcomes.

There is more to life than rational analysis.

I always try to temper my reasoning with a recognition that the heart does matter, and not all hearts see things the same.

This is why EACH life is valuable.

Like I have written repeatedly here on Random Fate, it is all of ONE piece. Respect for life doesn't just involve a mass of cells slowly self-differentiating, or a non-sentient mass of cells living on because the reptile brain we all have refuses to die...

Life is the single mom holding down two jobs with no child care beyond her oldest child watching the younger, a woman who has to choose between paying the house note and buying shoes for her son...

Life is the teacher who has to choose between buying groceries and paying for the supplemental insurance to cover the "pre-cancerous lesions" that her uterus has, a possible complication that is not covered by her pitiful, public health insurance from the school board because it's a "pre-existing condition"...

Life is the pregnant woman who has no health insurance through the custodial company she works for because although she works over 40 hours a week, she's called "part time" and not covered by the company plan, so she gets no prenatal care...

These are all stories from people I know.

A true "culture of life" does not ignore these facets, these LIVES already here; a true "culture of life" does not instead choose to focus solely on making sure that no abortions are ever performed or feeding tubes removed from those whose brains have been replaced by fluid while making grand gestures in the name of publicity.

Hence my cries of "Hypocrisy!"

Lack of recognition by the so-called "culture of life" of the ENTIRETY of ALL lives is inconceivable to me, but this lack becomes blatantly obvious when the other actions of those who claim to be trying to establish this "culture" are considered...

It drives me mad.

Therefore, my lack of lengthy posting on serious issues in the past days until this evening.

I have been mad in both senses of the word, insane and angry.

The heart does matter.

However, sometimes, we have to ignore our hearts when they cry out in pain for the individual, because there are larger matters.

Sometimes, we have to look at helping the many rather than the one.

A vocal minority, if not most, apparently are not capable of this fundamental survival trait of differentiation, and I fear they will drag those of us who are capable of this horrific but necessary triage down into Hell with them.

...on life, death, and the tragedies of absolutes

I have strong feelings about the case surrounding the Schiavos, as most do. It is doubtful that any family has not had to deal with issues if not identical, at least related to those that this case raises.

My family is no exception.

These strong feelings raise a poisonous atmosphere in which people feel justified in assigning motives to the actors involved, somehow reading hearts at a distance when often we do not even truly know the heart of those with whom we share a bed every night.

I have tried to avoid adding to the turmoil of emotion, with my innate disgust from the foul stench arising from the use of emotion by the political manipulators repelling me from the thought of using the same language. However, in the process I fear I have come across cold, calculating, not recognizing the basic humanity inherent in the situation.

That is far from the case.

When my family had to deal with the related issues, I was forced to examine my feelings and thoughts; so long before the Schiavo case became the cause du jour, I already had firm beliefs and decisions made.

Those decisions and beliefs were not based solely on a cold, calculated analysis of the issues, but also included the human element in larger measure than many would expect.

Even now, I know the grief of loss, the hole in life left by the departure of a loved one, the suffering of absence, the gaping void from which dampening grey pain emanates to cover everything, removing all color, quelling all laughter, blinding you to the rainbows.

We all have these crevasses in our existence, these gaps in our souls.

In the dull colorless silence, the questions arise:

What if I had chosen B instead of A? Did I fight hard enough? Did I believe enough?




Did I love enough?




That dark chasm can quickly become a black pit of despair in which to lose one’s soul.

Matters of life and death are never comfortable, and the dreaded abyss lurking always at the edge of thought yawns in patient anticipation of the eventual, inevitable encounter.

I have had those conversations in that witching hour of eventide with my former wife, conversations of life and death, of what to do if the worst happened.

Quiet but heartfelt discussions with the woman with whom I shared a bed for years, the woman whose heart I eventually discovered I did not know.

Who are we to condemn a man whom we have never met, who has spent over a decade fighting a battle that he could have easily walked away from, who spent those dark hours of the night when dawn seems but a distant hope with the woman he loved, a woman he now feels is dead in all that she was except body?

Who are we to condemn the parents of that woman? Who are we to say they should not fight as hard as they can for their daughter? Who are we to say their hope is illusory?

Who are we to judge?

Sadly, tragically, our cultural heritage is one of absolutes, one of judgments.

Despite our idealized abstract figure of justice holding scales of balance in her hand, we are not a culture of balance. Our religions are not ones of balance, but instead of the quest for a paradise that is the absolute victory of one side.

No yin and yang to be balanced.

No light and dark that need each other to exist.

No balance.

Without balance, without acceptance that insistence upon unconditionals requires destruction, we create these tragedies of absolutes such as this one now playing out, with the horror for the participants lost amidst all the sound and fury.

Life is not black and white, nor is it shades of grey; life is an infinity of colors. If we see only in black and white, in absolutes, we suffer the tragedy of ignoring the whole, of not appreciating the true beauty inherent in all life.

If we insist upon untarnished, unqualified unconditionals, then we cannot comprehend the entirety, the whole.

We cannot truly appreciate this life of which we have been gifted.

Without feeling the cold, how can we know what warmth is?

Without enduring the night, how can we see the hope in the dawn?

Without suffering the emptiness, how can we truly appreciate love?

Without comprehending the loss, how can we understand what we have?

Life is more than one side or the other.

Life is more than birth and death.

Without knowing the dull grey despair that blinds us to rainbows, how can we ever recognize the wonderful, beautiful smile that will color our days?

...on liberty and freedom

What exactly are liberty and freedom?

We say we want to spread liberty and freedom through the world, but what exactly do we mean when we use the words “liberty” and “freedom”?

Do these words mean now what they meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution? Do these words mean the same thing in different nations and cultures? Do these words even mean the same thing within the US from one region to another?

One man thinks that liberty means the ability to travel within the US without having to show government issued identification. He deliberately created an incident where he tried to fly to Washington, DC, to meet with his Congressional representatives and requested to be shown the regulation that required showing a government issued ID before he could get his boarding pass. He was not shown any regulation at the airport, and in the legal maneuvering since his initial demonstration it has come out that the regulation cannot be shown because it is “secret”.

Most people have no problems in showing identification when they travel by plane. It seems a reasonable and not excessively intrusive means of at least discouraging people who intend harm. However, the use of secret regulations is more than a bit troubling.

Is liberty the ability to travel without having to submit to government officials or their delegates whenever they say “papers please” like in the old World War II movies?

The recent revelations that information that is in many cases considered private (such as Social Security numbers, military records, health records) being not only sold for profit but sold to criminals who used that information to perpetrate fraud seems wrong on many levels. Not only is it that the companies who are profiting from this information do not have to get permission to use personal information in this way, but also by virtue of not having a prior established business relationship with the people whose information is being traded they are shielded from lawsuits when that information is sold to people who misuse the information.

Is freedom the ability to live without having personal information traded and sold for profit, especially to criminals who cause us harm in perpetrating identity theft?

Our credit ratings are now a vital part of our “profile” that is used when corporations do business with us. If we are late making payments on one credit card, a different company that we also hold a credit card with can raise our interest rate or demand immediate payment, even if we have always been on time with them.

Is liberty the ability to live without businesses being able to blackmail us through a mysterious “credit rating” which we are not allowed to know exactly how it is calculated?

As a part of immigration enforcement and the Social Security system, to obtain any job that pays well enough to support a family, a Social Security number and some type of proof of identity has to be shown to the potential employer, who is acting by proxy to enforce US immigration law.

Is freedom the ability to work without having to register with the government?

In order to have a functioning society, some limitations on freedom have to exist, otherwise even more conflict and strife would occur than what we suffer now. In other words, my freedom to swing my arm around ends where someone else’s nose begins. Unfortunately, many people don’t think about that when they start swinging their arms around, or dumping used motor oil into a creek, or filing lawsuits because they spilled hot coffee in their lap.

Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What are the essential liberties?

Have we already given those liberties up?

Have we already lost our most precious freedoms? We still vote on our government, don't we?

We say we are a democracy, so we have the freedom to choose who represents us in government. How free is that choice? In the 2000 Presidential election the major party candidates were the son of a former President, and the son of a former Senator. It is within the bounds of possibility that the 2008 Presidential race could have the major parties nominate the wife of a former President and the brother of the current President, who is also the son of a former President.

Look at the composition of Congress. What was the distribution of wealth and income in that group before they were elected? A cursory examination reveals that the median wealth and income of each Congress for the last 30 years has been well above the national average and within the range of what most people would call “rich.”

Is liberty the ability to choose leaders who are like us and not members of some elite club of the rich or politically connected?

What is freedom? What is liberty?

What do we mean when we use these terms?

We need to ask ourselves, do we walk the walk that goes with the talk we talk?

Are we as free as we think we are?

Do we keep the liberties we think we do?

What do we mean when we use the words "freedom" and "liberty"?

...on families...

Families.

We all have them, even it we chose to be a self-imposed exile from them.

You can choose your friends, but you cannot choose your relatives.

Some have to strive to keep their families together and solvent.

Others have no family at all.

In the end, what do we have to turn to?

Some choose to be alone, others are alone through circumstance, some have many obligations, and most have families that they jokingly say "burden" them but hopefully provide far more joy than pain...

As with everything else, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

...on numbers

We deal in numbers every day. Our bank account balances, how much cash we have in our wallets, how much gas costs, how much milk is in the fridge.

Two die in a car accident on the freeway.

Thirty killed in Iraq today.

Thousands of troops involved in peacekeeping missions.

Tens of thousands dying in a famine.

Hundreds of thousands killed in a tsunami.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
   -Senator Everett Dirksen

Trillions of dollars in a national debt.

What do these numbers really mean?

To quote a tyrant that I wish we could say was inhuman, but instead shared our DNA:

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
   -Joseph Stalin

Numbers....

Abstract, clean, aniseptic...

Until we actually pause in our day and recall what those numbers are really counting.

Take that pause.

...on objectivity and centrism

As can been seen from following the links in the post below, I irked someone by appearing to say that I'm loftily objective while failing to truly be so.

Since I am not the "big-blogger" he is, I cannot hope to win any pissing match with him and his legion of sycophants. However, I will respond in my forum against accusations that I believe are unfair. For example, the apparent belief by Rob that I say I am absolutely objective, when I cannot recall ever saying I am truly objective.

Do I try to be objective?

Yes.

Do I succeed at being objective?

No.

No one is perfectly objective.

I like to call myself a "centrist", not in the least because I despise the thoughtlessness of ideologues, but also because I do constantly strive to look at the data and choose what I perceive to be the best course based upon both my fundamental principles and what I see to be the "common good".

Let me provide some perspective. I work as a scientist. I prefer to call myself a scientist because both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in Physics, although in the course of my undergraduate career I ended up taking the same number of engineering courses as people with a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. I do medium to long-term research in new materials and structures to be used in VLSI and ULSI integrated circuits for one of the top ten semiconductor companies. I have been with this company for almost nine years, and technology I have worked on is in PalmPilots, cell phones, Apple computers, printers from too many manufacturers to list, pagers, network routers, and any number of other applications. I have four issued patents (that I can definitely recall, there may be one or two I've forgotten), four additional patents currently submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and I have had over 35 publications in technical journals and conferences.

It is a key part of my job to review data with as much objectivity as possible in order to extract out the meaning in that data. Unfortunately, at the scale that I work, the data is not clear and concise. Instead, we are forced to seek small trends hidden within a lot of noise. I have a talent, developed or natural, of being able to look at a large amount of data and extract out trends that are not immediately apparent. This ability has led to my success and to the patents and papers I have to my credit.

It is a key part of my job to be objective in looking at data. Do I always succeed?

No.

No one is perfectly objective.

However...

I do succeed at seeing the actual trends within the mass of noisy data more often than not, even when the data points to a conclusion that is not in alignment with my hypothesis and my bias.

This is why my company was willing to pay all the money needed to move me to France.

Let me provide some additional perspective on how I view the world. A while back, I wrote "I see relationships between quantum mechanics, the pre-election video released by Osama bin Laden, the apparent divide between the Red States and the Blue States, the reaction in blogworld to the retirement of Dan Rather, the controversy over the Marine shooting an apparently surrendered man in Iraq and the reporting of the incident, other aspects of the ongoing fighting in Iraq, the opposition of France to almost every US foreign policy, the election in Ukraine and the consequent increased visibility of the attempt by Vladimir Putin at establishing a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, and several other threads in the tangled skein of the world." So much time has passed that it is difficult for me to find the relevant links that would allow me to show how all these disparate things can be related, so instead I will try to give a better idea of how I view the world. Since some seem to take deliberate offense to what I write, it seems useful to show how just because I say "this is wrong" doesn't mean I have not considered all the factors, nor does it mean that I am completely opposed to whatever point of view doesn't perfectly align to what I am saying.

That is the irony. In a recent post I included the following quote:

Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.
   -Kurt Vonnegut

As is implied in what Vonnegut says, there are more than two kinds of thinking, more than only left or right, more than liberal or conservative, as the media like to pigeonhole everything. It brings to mind something from the immortal bard, Shakespeare, who wrote:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare (Hamlet at I, v) (in another irony given what prompted this post, in a post defending Rob, who is now choosing to attack me for my views...)

However, as unwilling as the extremists in any part of the political landscape are willing to admit:

In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be.
   -Hubert H. Humphrey

A brief aside here, I use quotes from others because although I want to develop myself into an excellent writer, there are so many ideas and concepts that were so well stated by others that the quotes convey my meaning far better than anything I could write using more words, so as any good writer does, I plagiarize, but at least I give credit where I know who to credit (or blame...).

So, how does quantum mechanics relate to all of this?

One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that you can know the position or the velocity of a particle to any precision, but you must pay the price of a corresponding loss in precision of knowledge of the other factor. This has profound implications, because our minds are inherently set up to believe in the clockwork universe of Newtonian Physics, where if the variables can be known to any precision, we can absolutely predict the outcome of any action. The uncertainty principle resulted in the realization that at very small scales, the exact position or momentum (velocity) of any particle cannot be known to the ultimate precision that our clockwork-universe minds demand.

In other words, quantum mechanics predicts "clouds of probability" where an electron (or other particle) of a certain energy or speed can be found. This has been shown to be true endlessly, and it was one of the principles that resulted in the development of both the fission and fusion bombs (each of which I have the technical knowledge to construct, if not the materials). The math used to solve the equations needed to build either the fission or fusion bombs was relatively simple enough to be figured out on an old computer that is not even 0.1% as sophisticated as the computer you are using to read this right now.

A $10 pocket calculator is now sufficient to do the minimum of math necessary to build an atomic bomb.

Frightened yet????

I had to understand and reproduce all of this work before they would give my my Master of Science degree in Physics.

Here is another thing to contemplate. I score between 145 and 165 on IQ tests, depending on the test, how much sleep I've had, and how much Scotch I had the night before the test.

Which means that I do well on standardized tests...

It also means I understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, statistical dynamics, and on a larger scale, how the world works, and not only when statistics are applied. Ask me again why my average return on my investments has been over 13% for the last 10 years.

In the end, learning both quantum mechanics and statistical dynamics changed the way I view the world. I no longer view anything as black and white, as right or wrong, as any kind of certainty.

Everything is indeterminate, with what we call "the collapse of the wave function of probability" determining the outcome of any experiment. There are any number of thought experiments (Schrodinger's cat, for example) and real-world examples (the double-slit experiment) that show the truth inherent in the uncertainty principle.

How does this relate to the larger scale world, the world not affected directly by the small scale required by the uncertainty principle?

No one, no matter how well informed, can fully know all the factors that go into any situation.

So, in the end, all situations, whether on a personal scale or something that affects thousands or tens of thousands of people, has its own uncertainty associated with it.

You can discuss "moral clarity" all you want, but there is no absolute "moral clarity", because as long as there is more than one single human being existing on this planet, there will be more than one view of morality.

Are all views of morality equal? That is a moral judgment in and of itself, is it not?

So, if you are willing to say, "my way or the highway", then that means you are willing to accept the solution arrived at by the Nazis, that is the final solution, destruction of all who do not believe as you do.

You're not a Nazi, you say? Therefore, you must have some kind of accommodation to those who do not believe exactly as you do then...

Which therefore leads to the realization that you cannot say that your morality must triumph above ALL OTHERS to the extermination of those who do not believe as you do.

This ain't rocket science.

So, ultimately, the "probability cloud" of moral behavior collapses in each individual case to what is believed by those affected directly or those involved through a recourse to public institutions.

This is how everything is related to quantum mechanics.

Regardless of whether the trooper who shot the person in the mosque in Iraq was justly in fear of his life and safety or not, he will have to live with the consequences of his decision for the rest of his life, and how he himself deals with those consequences may have little or nothing to do with what the Marine chain of command ultimately decides was reasonable for the situation. It is his perception of events that will determine the course of the rest of his life.

Taking the life of another human being is rarely a trivial thing, and in this case, I doubt the man involved thought it was trivial or will ever forget his decision.

If you can't deal with this kind of moral relativity, you don't deserve to be called an "adult".

Do the questions I ask in reaction to the televising of his decision detract from the ultimate rightness or wrongness of his decision? No, they do not. However, those of us who sit comfortably in our homes need to fully understand the daily, hourly, and instantaneous decisions made on our behalf by those who have volunteered to give up so much of themselves to serve a greater good, the defense of our country, and in many cases, the defense of our society, in addition to those made in reasonable defense of their own lives.

Broadcasting the effects of our asking this of these good men and women, even to the effect of showing those men and women in a less than absolutely perfect light, is also an integral part of our responsibility in knowing and understanding what we are asking. We MUST know what we are asking them to do.

Does this mean I am saying the sacrifice is too great?

No, it does not.

If you are so simple-minded to think so, you do not deserve to be called an "adult".

Questioning the reasons behind asking for that sacrifice is an obligation of those making the request, an appreciation of that sacrifice that is NOT a denigration of that sacrifice, nor is it saying it was not "worth it", despite what the distorted lenses of some might cause them to read of anything that does not at first appear to be in complete lock-step with their views.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I don't claim to be perfect, nor perfectly objective.

I DO TRY to step outside of my own head and perspective, constantly, something that those who like to throw rocks are all too hesitant to do.

I wrote in another post, "It is the falsehoods masquerading as truth that fear the light of scrutiny." If your beliefs cannot stand to be questioned, are they really worth the mindless allegiance you give them?

...on costs never counted

I've identified one of the root causes of my recent anger since my return to France from the US.

I have hesitated to post of it, but in the end I am not violating privacy like I feared, and besides, the man in question makes no secret of his problem.

When I returned for my visit to Austin over the recent holidays, I had an opportunity to see one of my best friends, a man who fought in the first Gulf War in 1991, when I was in graduate school. He is a few years younger than me, but he is aging much faster, not in small part due to what he saw, did, and was exposed to in that short, sharp war fourteen years ago.

He suffers from a case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) so obvious that I diagnosed it without the help of my DSM IV. A woman who I was dating at the when I first met him eight years ago worked for a couple of psychologists and had picked up quite a bit of expertise in the process; she spotted the syndrome immediately as well. He openly admits the VA has diagnosed him, but he refuses medication or any additional benefits.

When people casually discuss what is currently happening in Iraq, with no apparent thought to the consequences to those we ask to serve in the forces occupying the country, only counting those physically maimed or killed, I get angry.

When people casually say, "Democracy will come to Iraq, the news media is just exaggerating the bad news for their own agenda," I have to wonder, do they know what it is really like to be in fear of losing your life, the rush of adrenaline in the fight or flight reflex with no obvious target to fight or flee? A biochemical time clock that triggered too often creates permanent changes in the brain chemistry.

I do not know these things first hand, but I have indeed seen the consequences.

I am angry for my friend, who was critically wounded, not physically but psychically, 14 years ago. He suffers every day for a cause that was just, but still exacted a price that we do not fully acknowledge.

I am angry for those who are wounded now, not physically but psychically, NOW, for reasons that seem insufficient at best, and due to incompetence rather than a true lack of resources, paying the price of peace of soul because an old man in Washington refuses to see the truth on the ground.

When I was in undergraduate school, there was a Vietnam Veteran who was trying to get his Bachelors of Science in Physics through the same program I was enrolled in. At that time (mid 1980s) he was likely the same age I am now, 40, if not likely a bit younger. He looked like he was in his late 50s, aged far beyond his time. He had problems, too, problems I didn't really comprehend at the time, but after knowing my friend who paid the price in 1991 and every year since, I understand now.

Do those in power who decided upon war and how it is waged, the Rumsfelds, the Ashcrofts, the Gonzaleses, the Bushes, really, truly, ultimately understand the price they are asking of not only hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of our best and brightest in our armed forces? Do any of them know personally any close friend who suffers from the effects of what they are asking of our people?

Do those who casually write their weblogs, in the warmth and safety of their family and their homes, truly understand what is going on in Iraq? Do they truly understand the price paid, not only in time away from family and friends, births missed, spouses unsupported, but ultimately the long-term loss of peace of mind?

There are no angels in this abattoir we have helped create, only people, good and brave people we have asked to sacrifice on our behalf because we believe this is the right thing to do, people who are now condemned to a life perpetually diminished from the one they would have otherwise have, even if they are not physically maimed.

Did we really, truly count the cost BEFORE we went into this war of choice?

Do we really, truly understand the cost we are paying now?

Somehow, I suspect not.

World War I had it's "lost generation" of those potential greats who were killed by the hundreds and thousands in the senseless slaughter, a loss recognized and regretted in the span of time since. Who will mourn the multi-generation of those who are not killed in our new, low-casualty wars, but are distanced emotionally from humanity, those walking-wounded ranging in age from 18 to 60+? Who will even recognize the price paid, and our loss?

And in the end, I suspect that the result will not be worth the cost, paid not in lives but instead in souls heedlessly sacrificed with no accounting.

Is there any wonder I am angry?

...on hubris, humility, and object lessons

Yasser Arafat appears to be seriously ill. There has been much cheering from the peanut gallery over the prospect of his demise. The legacy that he will leave behind when he does finally shuffle off the mortal coil may very well be best said using the now infamous statement that "he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (for peace)." In a time when politics in the US is filled with canards, there is benefit in taking a step back and looking at opportunities both lost and gained.

Arafat had the opportunity to be the father of his country, but instead chose the path that kept the most power concentrated in his hands. This should highlight to us, the citizens of the United States, how incredibly lucky we are. We have our freedoms not through our own merits, not because we deserve them, but instead because there were a group of extraordinary men who did not focus on their own power other than the power expressed through individual votes of which they were few among many. First among these men was the father of our country, George Washington. Although he was not naive and understood the politics and maneuvering for power at the time of the American Revolution and the early decades of the United States (and yes, this cynical maneuvering did exist), he did not try to "win at all costs" as do our current crop of aspirants to the office first held by him. Instead, repeatedly he chose to retire from public life, first after the end of the American Revolution, resigning his commission as Commander-in-Chief of the Army to the Congress in December of 1783. This was key in avoiding what happened a little over a decade later in the wake of the French Revolution, when the successful general Napoléon Bonaparte parlayed his military success into a dictatorship in a pattern that sadly has been repeated all too often in the two centuries since. Washington returned to public life only after being called to preside over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and he chose to serve only two terms as President, despite knowing full well he could have been re-elected indefinitely. George Washington showed a humility all too rare even in the times he lived, a humility and dedication to public service over personal ambition which has almost vanished today.

Contrast this with the behavior of Yasser Arafat, given a golden opportunity to make peace in 2000, but instead choosing to walk away from it because he knew it would result in ultimately a loss of the power he has concentrated in his hands. He has continually shown the hubris of power, refusing to ever relinquish even a small amount to a Prime Minister to allow real negotiations to occur with the Israeli government, despite the continued suffering of the people he claims to represent.

More history needs to be reviewed to show that this comparison isn't completely disjointed. Recall the tactics used in the American Revolution, notably in the opening Battle of Lexington and Concord. The Minutemen shot at the marching British from behind walls, fences, ravines and any other cover along the road. These were regarded as barbaric and dishonorable tactics by the British, they could almost be called "terrorist" in nature when viewed in the context of the times. After a few pitched battles, General Washington realized he could never directly defeat a British army in the field without external help, help that we eventually received in the form of a French fleet that allowed us to win at Yorktown, years later. He spent the intervening years (yes, years, not months) fading before direct confrontation and holding together an army that was unpaid and unclothed, much less heartened by a victory the likes of which the modern America would demand within weeks if not days. What would the verdict have been on the Palestinian tactics two centuries from now if Arafat had not squandered every opportunity he had to create a Palestinian Arab state?

The object lesson here appears obvious, but there is more to the object lesson than merely "Arafat is an idiot who did his cause far more harm than good." Poor choices between hubris versus humility occur in the lives of everyone, with consequences both large and small. It is even appearing in many weblogs who played a part in exposing the fraudulent memos aired by CBS, where hubris is overcoming common sense and the classic pride which goes before a fall is prompting posting of writing that I suspect the authors will regret a decade from now.

However, the final object lesson to be drawn from this is that we should always remember our nation is a free and democratic nation in large part because of the choices made by this one man, not because we are "deserving" or "good" or through any effort of our own. As a nation, we should be proud of our history, but we should practice the same humility that was exemplified by the man we have honored deservedly with the title of "father of the country" and recall that it is only by good fortune that we have the gifts of freedom and democracy rather than the legacy that will be left from the hubris of a man like Yasser Arafat.

...on politics, weblogs, and the abandonment of thought and simple civility

David at ISOU has a concern that I share:

Yesterday I read a blog where a young conservative was basically celebrating our abuses of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, justifying them in the name of being tough on terrorism. When did we become a nation that emulated our worst enemies? When did we become a nation driven by fear and a need for revenge, rather than one of laws and justice? When did we become a nation that excuses evil in the name of self protection and self righteousness… Maybe it happened a long time ago, and we just didn’t notice.

Pennywit feels I'm not very optimistic, and after giving a list of rules to consider, he writes:

I could go on and on and on and on. But the message is essentially the same: Much of the shit going around today is just that: shit put out by assholes who don't have anything better to do with their time than rub excrement in the face of the body politic. (Don't thank me for the imagery. Thank Team America.)

Now, presented with that shit served up on a plate, you've got two choices. You can either eat that shit, or you can send it back and find a better meal. This political season, with its hatred, the polarization, the shouting heads, the threats, and the fearmongering, consists largely of people serving up shit and calling it steak. Don't you deserve better?

I have been asking his question, "Don't we deserve better?" and on some occasions demanding that we deserve better. Perhaps Pennywit is right, and I am not very optimistic. Given I've been saying the same things as he says for months and have only seen a downward spiral into a Hell of hate, I think my lack of optimism is understandable.

How do you stay optimistic when you want to tell people who you have come to respect through reading their weblogs that they are hypocrites? These are people on all sides of the political spectrum, people who pounce on every instance of misbehavior by their political opponents with loud cries of denunciation and saying "We're better than they are, see!?!" However, the silence is deafening when occasion arises for an equally loud condemnation of bad behavior by their side. Some lip-service is given to the thought that bad behavior on all sides needs to be condemned, but the outrage is selective, the offenses of allies are not actively sought out and when blatantly obvious are minimized, and the bad actions of opponents are written about with prose that is too purple even for a pulp novel. There are indeed some bloggers who have called their own on bad behavior, but the number of those bloggers is very small, and the number who condemn their own with the same vehemence as they use against their opponents is even smaller. As I have stated repeatedly, bad behavior can ONLY be policed and corrected by those on the same side, and it needs to be more than mere lip-service, because in our current climate all other voices are ignored or shouted down. Sadly, I see no one jumping OFF of the bandwagon of vilifying their opponents to take the time to curb their own rabid dogs. (Yes, John, I stole your metaphor)

I no longer give a damn what anyone has to say about how the candidate they oppose is "insensitive" or "inconsistent" or "lying" because all the overwrought accusations have lost any semblance of credibility with me. I'm tired of all the shouting with no consideration that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is correct 100% of the time. This means the left-wing is not always wrong or always right, this means the right-wing is not always wrong or always right. For every instance of insensitivity by either candidate, you can pull an instance of equal insensitivity by the other candidate. For every instance of inconsistency by one candidate, you can find an instance of equal inconsistency by the other candidate. For every instance of misrepresentation of their opponent by one candidate, you can find an instance of equal misrepresentation of their opponent by the other candidate. Anyone who has the temerity to point this out is shouted down by the ditto-heads in the comment section, assuming they don't start getting threatening email from those same ditto-heads or the even more despicable moonbats and nutjobs who are so loud despite supposedly being so few in number. We have gotten to the point to where the tyranny of emotion makes it impossible to actually admit that ANYONE who doesn't toe the party line with precision and repeat verbatim the current talking points might actually have something important to say that could help solve some of our problems.

Perhaps I am just tired and down because of my approaching milestone birthday. Perhaps I am just feeling disconnected because I am watching all of this take place from a foreign country that is all the more strange because it is familiar yet different. Pennywit has put into a short list what I have been asking of other bloggers for months. I hope he has more success than I did in persuading people to take off their blinders, change the lenses through which they view the world, even if only for a moment, and actually consider that people who don't agree with them are still people, human beings who deserve a fundamental level of respect and merit at the very least a listen. So yes, I am not optimistic, because I do see my country going to Hell, without even the benefit of being in a handbasket.

...on lessons once learned and now apparently lost

The world did not change on September 11, 2001. What changed was the perception of the world held by the average American. This is an important difference that has gotten lost in all of the sound and fury over the election, the "War on Terror", and the sniping between the radical left and the radical right.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the vast majority of Americans had only a superficial understanding of the world outside North America, when they bothered thinking about anything outside of the United States at all. For the decade before September 11, 2001, the United States did nothing to create the hatred that was manifested by the murders committed on that day. That hatred existed long before, was reared by the progenitors of a radical philosophy not unlike what has been seen many times in history, and continues to be nurtured by those same leaders and their successors. The followers have only a superficial understanding of the world outside of their own community, and that perception is distorted by both ignorance and the rage arising from feeling helpless. The truth is that they are not helpless, but that they are not willing to take responsibility for where they are. The truth also is that they have no true leaders willing to teach that responsibility and to lead them out of their self-induced poverty. Instead, they follow the leaders who blame others for their woes and offer a chance to strike back against those they blame.

The world did not change on September 11, 2001. What changed was the perception of the world held by the average American, but since that terrible day the world has changed, and not for the better. Unless the nature of those changes and the reasons underlying them are understood, America runs the risk of not only losing more lives, both of soldiers and at home, but also of losing the war we now find ourselves waging.

On the morning of September 11, 2004, the vast majority of Americans still only have a superficial understanding of the world outside of North America, when they bother trying to understand anything outside of the United States instead of simply reacting with fear towards the unknown. In the three years since September 11, 2001, the United States has engaged in one war directly linked to the murders committed on that day. That war has nearly been forgotten in the shadows cast by a second war that was justified using several reasons, and the shadows darken because the apparent clarity of those reasons has become muddied as time passes and more blood is spilled. Today, atrocity builds upon atrocity in a spiral of escalating horror because each barbarity numbs our souls more and our enemies need to keep the terror alive to feed their insatiable lust for vengeance.

Since what happened 35 years ago in the context of the Vietnam War is apparently more politically current than what is to be done now to fight the war we are in now, we should at least recall that war was lost not on the battlefield but in the United States itself. The divisions inside the nation forced the politicians to change policy in such a way that abandoned South Vietnam and effectively lost the war. As Napoleon said, the moral is to the physical as three is to one. The United States is now as divided as it was during the darkest days of the Vietnam War. Regardless of who wins the election in 2004, the administration that follows needs to explain to the entire citizenry of the United States the nature of the war we are now in, the larger war, not just the Iraq War, why this larger war needs to be fought, and how it can be won. We cannot win the war as a nation divided the way we are now. A leadership that consists of preaching to the choir the rosy scenarios of a democratic domino effect in the MidEast is not true leadership, and it worse than whistling in the dark. Unfortunately that is what I have seen in the past three years.

The moral is to the physical as three is to one. We applied this in birthing our nation. The Founders in fighting the American Revolution never had the resources to defeat the British Empire. George Washington lost many more battles than he won. Independence was gained only when the British no longer had the will to fight to keep control of the rebellious colonies.

The moral is to the physical as three is to one. That should have been proven to us on September 11, 2001, where the efforts of 19 murdered thousands and terrorized millions. We will not win the war we are now waging by "nuking 'em till they glow," nor will we win it solely through other military means. In Vietnam, we won every battle, but we never destroyed the will of our enemy to fight. We run the same risk now if we do not attack our enemies in ways that destroy their will to fight, to sacrifice, and to die. We are not making these efforts to understand the weaknesses of what motivates our enemies, and we are not defeating the motivation that drives them to attack us. Until we do this, we are on the path to losing this war.

UPDATE: From Mark Helprin, an article that better states the point I try to make above. Read the whole thing, published by The Wall Street Journal at OpinionJournal:

We have followed a confusion of war aims that seem to report after the fact what we have done rather than to direct what we do. We could, by threatening the existence of Middle Eastern regimes, which live to hold power, enforce our insistence that the Arab world eradicate the terrorists within its midst. Instead, we have embarked upon the messianic transformation of an entire region, indeed an entire civilization, in response to our inability to pacify even a single one of its countries. As long as our war aims stray from the disciplined, justifiable, and attainable objective of self-defense, we will be courting failure.

Our strategy has been deeply inadequate especially in light of the fact that we have refused to build up our forces even as our aims have expanded to the point of absurdity. We might have based in northern Saudi Arabia within easy range of the key regimes that succor terrorism, free to coerce their cooperation by putting their survival in question. Our remounted infantry would have been refreshed, reinforced, properly supported, unaffected by insurgency, and ready to strike. The paradigm would have shifted from conquer, occupy, fail, and withdraw--to strike, return, and re-energize. At the same time, we would not have solicited challenges, as we do now, from anyone who sees that although we may be occupying Iraq, Iraq is also occupying us.

We have abstained from mounting an effective civil defense. Only a fraction of a fraction of our wealth would be required to control the borders of and entry to our sovereign territory, and not that much more to discover, produce, and stockpile effective immunizations, antidotes, and treatments in regard to biological and chemical warfare. Thirty years ago the entire country had been immunized against smallpox. Now, no one is, and the attempt to cover a minuscule part of the population failed miserably and was abandoned. Not only does this state of affairs leave us vulnerable to a smallpox epidemic, it stimulates the terrorists to bring one about. So with civil aviation, which, despite the wreckage and tragedy of September 11, is protected in an inefficient, irresponsible, and desultory fashion.

...

Neither the 9/11 commission, the president, nor the Democratic nominee has a clear vision of how to fight and defend in this war. Partly this is because so many Americans do not yet feel, as some day they may, the gravity of what we are facing.

Three years on, that is where we stand: our strategy shiftless, reactive, irrelevantly grandiose; our war aims undefined; our preparations insufficient; our civil defense neglected; our polity divided into support for either a hapless and incompetent administration that in a parliamentary system would have been turned out long ago, or an opposition so used to appeasement of America's rivals, critics, and enemies that they cannot even do a credible job of pretending to be resolute.

Will it take more atrocities, more mass-murders committed within the borders of the United States to wake up BOTH the left-wing and right-wing from their mutual fantasies of destroying their political opponents to see the true enemy?

note: The next to the last paragraph in the quoted passages above was edited to add "9/11" to the sentence beginning "Neither the commission, the president..." for clarity.

...on an opportunity squandered

Fascinating, how being in a different time zone can add an unexpected perspective to how news is presented in the United States, and weblogs are providing a lens to magnify the effects.

For decades I have read news from sources other than the United States-based news organizations, foreign sources such as The Economist magazine, the BBC World Service, translations of Japanese news, so the context in which I put the politics in the United States has always been different than those who get all their news from domestic sources. Now, living in France, I'm watching the 24-hour news cycle from a time zone that is six hours ahead of the East Coast and nine hours ahead of the West Coast, and the element of time that was imposed first by CNN with it's 24 hour a day news channel and more recently by the internet providing news on demand at any hour is becoming more obvious.

The political machines get the message of the day out early, try to develop themes of the week, hoping to avoid responding to outside pressures and getting off-message. It is scripted, calculated, and cynical, and yet why should it not be? We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated so long in so many ways by so many sources can we truly call it cynical for the machinations to continue? Being manipulated is so much easier than thinking. Reacting is easier than considering. Jerking the knee is easier than using the noggin. It is a tribute to the designers of the internet that it does not become overwhelmed after every major news event with all the bloggers out there rushing to post their reactions to "the latest." Note I said "reaction," not "thoughts," not "insights." There is no balance of reason with emotion, it is all reaction.

I find it sad, but not surprising, that there is so little thinking in blogworld. The king of all bloggers, Glenn Reynolds, provides little commentary other than the occasional single sentence or even more terse "heh" while posting links galore. Irony abounds in his self-appointed tile of InstaPundit, because even the talking head pundits on television occasionally provide unexpected insights. He is not alone in reacting rather than thinking, however. It is amazingly simple to predict what many of the "big bloggers" will write in reaction to any current news item. Insight is as rare as snow on the Sahara.

The furor du jour...

The drive to make a comment on everything, becoming slaves to the news cycle...

Writing without consideration becomes yet more blather adding to the chaotic cacophony that is creating obfuscation rather than illumination, confusion rather than clarity.

There is a heartbreak inherent in opportunities squandered that is all the more tragic when you recognize it as it happens rather when looking back over the years with the salve of time to ease the pain.

...on the power of words

In learning French, I have had occasion more than once to think about the meanings of words in terms not only the dictionary definition but also of the emotions that words evoke. Much of the art in writing for publication or for speeches is in finding and using the words that result in the desired reactions. There is a power in words, and some words have more than others.

Words can lose their power or change in meaning and induced reaction. Take one of the most obvious examples, the word “gay”. This word no longer means “happy” in American English, even though it is still a definition listed in the dictionary. For proof, just go up to a laughing man in a bar and ask him, “Why are you so gay?” His reaction will tell you what his definition of the word is, along with the emotion the word evokes for him.

Other words have kept the same meaning, but have lost the power to bring a strong emotional reaction. The word “war”, for instance. After the First World War, use of that word in a serious context had a strong undercurrent of fear that it did not convey before the deaths of millions, an undercurrent that was reinforced by the Second World War and then the prospect of nuclear annihilation. Then, the word began to be used in rhetoric. War on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs... Any time a politician wanted to spend money, they said we were fighting a War on Something. The public, being both more savvy and less intelligent than they are given credit for, recognized that the boy was crying “wolf” and the word lost the power it once had. Now, many are asking the question, “Don’t people know there’s a war on?” The answer: the public has been told we are in a War on Terror, just as they’ve been told about a War on Drugs for 20 years, a War on Poverty before that, and a War on Crime before that. Nothing significant changed during any of those earlier “wars”, so why should it be different now? A very savvy yet unintelligent question. The rhetoric has numbed the power of the word "war" to the point that many no longer feel the emotions once associated with it. So, how do we convey the serious nature of the War on Terror? I have no answer for that question.

What has happened with the word “war” should serve as an object lesson in the misuse and overuse of words in superheated rhetoric. We are in danger of having many important words and phrases lose their meaning and their power. When a right-wing nutjob like Ann Coulter calls a left-wing moonbat like Michael Moore a “traitor” for exercising his right to say what he thinks, no matter how distasteful, it deprives that word of the power it needs to describe someone like John Walker Lindh, a citizen who actually took up arms against the country. If the radical left-wing feels it is acceptable to equate President Bush with Hitler, how do they then describe the crisis in Sudan, where true government sponsored-genocide is occurring?

Oddly enough, it is the French who provide us with an irony that exemplifies the dangers in misuse of words. Well before the French Revolution, Voltaire provided in a very concise statement the true meaning of freedom of speech, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Yet, when the Revolution arrived, the word "traitor" was applied liberally, sometimes to those who spoke their mind, other times to those who were regarded as an annoyance. Eventually, the trials and executions for treason became so prevalent that people began to mutter about "The Terror". In an irony that could be called one of the prime examples of poetic justice, the man responsible for the most egregious misuse of the words "treason" and "traitor", Maximilien Robespierre, ended up in the guillotine beheaded after being accused of "betraying the Revolution," the same crime that he had heedlessly accused so many others of committing. When finally the public was exhausted from all the fear and death and numb to words, Napoleon arose and in providing the order so long disappeared also crushed the last vestiges of the democracy that had been stillborn in the excesses of the Revolution.

When winning rhetorical points in an echo chamber becomes more important than communication, democracy fails. When political opponents are labeled as “evil” and compromise becomes impossible, demagogues come to the fore and divisions are exacerbated instead of healed. When people become numb to words that describe the truly heinous acts humanity is capable of, it becomes all the easier to allow those acts to occur without restraint.

Words have power. Use that power wisely.

...on ranting versus discussing

From Virginia Postrel in a post discussing the power of words in the Berger imbroglio:

Argue the issues, folks.

Concise, and exactly what I want to say.

The vast majority of "discussion" I see on weblogs is not discussion at all, it is instead foaming at the mouth ranting. Rants have their place, some are quite amusing even if I don't agree with their politics, but like a spice in cooking if they are overused the dish is spoiled.

We have lost sight that many of those we disagree with may be motivated by the same love of country that we ourselves have. An editorial by Patti Davis in the Newsweek section on MSNBC.com discusses this motivation. While I don't agree with the politics underlying the conclusions in the editorial, I feel a key point is made in it:

A friend of mine said she didn’t want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" because she doesn’t like Michael Moore. “Because he’s bombastic and strident?” I asked, already knowing the answer.

“Exactly,” she replied.

I conceded that point—he can be both those things. But I tried to point out that he’s just the messenger in the film. And the message is an important one even if you don’t like the guy who is bringing it to you. Besides, he probably learned stridency decades ago and never un-learned it. What’s important is, when he stood in the kitchen with a mother from Flint, Mich., whose son had just been sent to Iraq and he agreed with her that America is a great country, I believed him. I think a lot of people did. I think my friend would too, if she ever sees the movie. That’s what I mean about his love for America—it comes through even if you don’t like his style.

President Bush, on the other hand, says that he loves this country and, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he does love his conceptualized idea of America. But I don’t think he loves us—the people who make up this land. The huddled masses. The millions of citizens who just want a peaceful, safe life. Those who want to put their kids through school and see them grow up; who want to take vacations to other countries without fearing for their lives because so much of the world hates us.

I would argue that Michael Moore has just as much of a "conceptualized idea of America" as President Bush, their conceptualizations are simply not the same. What I would not argue with is that both men are indeed motivated by love of America, or more exactly, by their love of the concept of America. In the end, America is a concept just as much as it is the physical manifestation of that concept.

While I do not agree with Michael Moore or his histrionics in presenting his views, I do not think calling him a "fat fuck" really advances the point of view that he is wrong any more than equating President Bush to Hitler "proves" that he is wrong.

If all you can do is say how stupid or evil your political opponents are, it makes me think you don't really have anything of substance to your views.

If all you can do is crow over the latest controversy involving your political opponents, it makes me think that you take joy in the misfortune of others, which does not make your cause look any better.

If all you can do is "cherry pick" your data, focusing on only that which either bolsters your standing or diminishes your political opponents without recognizing and acknowledging contrary data, it makes me think that both you and your viewpoint are inflexible and not capable of reacting appropriately when necessary.

Argue with the issues, folks.

I have loved the concept of America ever since I was first taught about the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. I hate what I see happening now, because it resembles far too much the divisiveness of the 1850s, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the near destruction of our nation.

The ultimate irony is that in the zeal arising from our love of the concept of America, we destroy underpinnings of that very concept when we refuse to see the humanity of our political opponents and choose to belittle or demonize them.

...on extremism

While perusing weblogs from all across the political spectrum, a thought struck me. There is something fundamental that extremists on both the right and the left have in common. The farther you go out from the center, the more the assumption takes hold that all "reasonable" people think like you, or would if they were merely enlightened by some means.

From a comment to a post on Centerfield:

Not only will we have our opinion, we'll deny that it's an opinion at all.

   -William Swann

This captures in one short sentence my problem with extremism, whether on the right side or left side of the political spectrum.

Extremists not only think that everyone should think like they do, but they're willing to take action or put systems in place to force other to conform to their personal vision of the world.

Does this mean anyone who has strongly held beliefs is an extremist? No. Strongly held beliefs are not in and of themselves extremist. The extremism comes in when there is (1) a fundamental assumption that every other rational, normal person holds those same beliefs because they are intuitively obvious, and (2) a complete vilification of those who do not hold the same beliefs.

It was F. Scott Fitzgerald who said "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Extremists fail that test.

From another comment on Centerfield:

Thus, borrowing from the common saying about how to help a man who is hungry:

- The right asks who is keeping the man from fishing for his own food. No one? Then what's the problem? ("Get a job!")

- The left wants to feed the man because he is hungry. ("Hey, we can and should help.")

Of course, as the saying goes, the real solution is to teach the man to fish. I would add that we also should make sure he doesn't starve first.

   -Erasmus

The real solution gets lost in the shouting from the extremists.