Normally I write about reasonable subjects which I think are relatively important, at least to me. There has to be some merit to the subject. But, this once, I will make an exception. I have a comment or two about the group of people in the United States who are concerned with Full Body Scans at airports. This group of people are not only morons; they easily qualify for being in the top 10% of all the members on the Low Grade Morons list.

Let me set the scene. There exists Terrorism in the world, today. It is more focused, and more active than terrorism which has been practiced in the last several hundred years. I am not focusing on the Terrorists, nor their objectives. Perhaps I will make comments on them another day. But for the moment I would like to point out that Terrorists have decided to use airplanes as a means of killing people. I remind you of the events of 11 September 2001. There have been other air crashes, caused by terrorists or simple malfunction, over the past few decades. In each case the loss of life has been complete, or near to it.

Airplanes are always full of a highly combustible mixture: fuel. They generally fly quite high, which means that the external air pressure is very low, so blowing a hole in the fuselage will cause an immediate decompression, almost always causing a fatal crash. The authorities have come to the realistic conclusion that allowing people on airplanes with their own personal explosives, specifically carried with the possible intention of blowing themselves and everyone with them out of the sky, is not acceptable behavior. Such behavior is forbidden, and the authorities decided to take steps to keep suicidal maniacs with their explosive devices off airplanes.

The concept of screening arose. Initially it was merely annoying, and added additional time to your arrival and eventual departure on your airplane. But the increasingly strident voice and efforts of terrorists and the parallel path of technical development of equipment and material which can explode with sufficient force to cause an airplane to crash has caused the world authorities, but particularly American authorities, to take greater and greater precautions.

One of the technical strides has been the development of very low radiation machines that can see your entire body, as well as anything which is not human in origin: a bomb, or dangerous weapon. These machines work by looking through your clothes and show an outline of your body and any other items you may be trying to bring on board, illegally. Sounds good to me.

But a group has arisen which think this is an invasion of their privacy. Most things don’t surprise me, but this is a posture which has left me figuratively, dumb founded. There is a little secret which I am now going to reveal: all men and all women look the same. There are small variations in size, shape, etc. But there are no women who have three legs; and no men who have two behinds. So, NO ONE has a body that has not been seen before.

The aptly named Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has taken the thoughtful step, to protect the sensitivity of the flying public, of allowing only one trained observer to privately see the image in a closed room, down the hall from the machine. The observer doesn’t even know the physical image of the person being scanned. All they see is an outline of the naked body shape, and hopefully, no bombs or weapons.

But, the Low Grade Moron (LGM) Group feels that somehow this electronic screening is somehow a blow to their sensitivity and privacy. They would rather be not searched, at all. I have not asked them, but I wonder how they feel about being blown out of the sky?

I marvel at various things I encounter throughout my voyage through life. Some are very interesting, intriguing, and exciting. Some astound me because of brilliance or stupidity. The case of the LGM is one of the latter.

Now I am going back to contemplating the reason for the Universe. A pleasant Thanksgiving to all readers.  

The elections are over. At least for a while. There are other things to think about and comment on.

A friend of mine sent me an email about the Hubble Telescope (HST). The Hubble Telescope is one of the largest and most versatile space based telescopes. Launched in 1990, it is a vital research tool and a public relations boon for astronomy. The HST was built by the United States space agency NASA, with contributions from the European Space Agency, and is operated by the Space Telescope Science Institute. It is named after the astronomer Edwin Hubble. (The background of the Hubble Telescope is based upon the Wikipedia article found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope)

The HST is one of NASA’s Great Observatories. Hubble’s orbit outside the distortion of Earth’s atmosphere allows it to take extremely sharp images with almost no background light. Hubble’s Ultra Deep Field image, for instance, is the most detailed visible-light image ever made of the universe’s most distant objects. Many Hubble observations have led to breakthroughs in astrophysics, such as accurately determining the rate of expansion of the universe.The telescope is now expected to function until at least 2014, when its ‘successor’, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is due to be launched.

As part of its operation astronomers decided to point the Hubble Telescope at a dark spot out in space and they left it pointed in that direction for 10 days. The results encouraged them to try again for an additional 11 days. What they saw is available as video (with sound): http://tinyurl.com/rdzpzu

This is all a prelude to my observations and comments about the implications about what they found.

My friend who sent me the information and video connection observed: “This is incredible. Doesn’t this make you feel small?” In answer I wrote back the following: “In answer to your question the answer is NO. I always felt that man was insignificant.”

I continued to ruminate about the implications of the photos and their meaning.

These photos caused me to consider the question which has plagued mankind since we swung down from the trees, or crawled out of the sea. What is the reason for the Universe? Why does the Universe exist? And, in conjunction with that, if there are over 100 Billion Galaxies, (note galaxies, and within each galaxy there are millions, perhaps billions of stars), what are the odds that we, mankind, are unique? It is clear that life as we know it is either unique or it isn’t. If we are unique, then we are a product of incredibly small probabilities. Statistics being what it is, I am inclined to believe that we are not unique. There are probably other pockets of life in the Universe, and given the number of celestial bodies, probably a large number of places where life exists.

Now, let me pose a question: If you were the Creator (not a subject that I can speak about with any authority) and you decided to have a little fun and create LIFE, where would you

put it? Everywhere? Make it spread out with a high probability of existing in each galaxy? Perhaps.

But if I was in charge I would experiment by placing life on a small planet in a modest size galaxy, far from everything. The concept is similar to those scientists who experiment with VERY dangerous things such as nuclear devices. They would like to experiment with something like that in a safe place…..far from everything, etc.

As far as I can see we are a microscopically small blip in the Universe, and the experiment about Human Life on Earth will almost certainly end in the next few thousand years. It will come about because we can and certainly will kill ourselves off through making incredibly stupid decisions on a small, finite planet with very limited resources. If you don’t believe this then educate yourself about the most recent elections in the United States and the implications about the leadership.

If I were the lab instructor and looked at the results of the experiment of life on Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy I would give the student a C, or perhaps a D, with a note that would say something like, “interesting.”

The American election of 2010 has occurred. The public has voted, and decisions on the political life of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 37 Senators, along with a myriad of officials from every State in the Union, have been made. There were some surprises. But, in general the polls, which have grown in number and sophistication were correct in predicting the outcome.

I am not a political junkie. I have a modest interest in the political world, but generally from the point of view of my safety rather than waiting for a flash of wisdom. I want to watch what my leaders are doing so I can take safety measures, if at all possible, in my own life. I look at the utterances of all politicians with a general air of skepticism. It is my observation that the primary focus of all politicians, regardless of the level and responsibilities of their office, is to get reelected. I recognize that job security is a concern for all of us in the working world and politicians, being human (although that is something which will engender a debate in some circles) also want to keep their jobs.

What has astonished me this election, more so than elections in the past, is the unending series of programs with commentators discussing the meaning of the election. It is my personal observation that virtually every one of these august, wise observers of the body politic have it all wrong. They have become victims of their own beliefs, rather than carefully analyzing the meanings of the election.

The phrase that I hear over and over again from commentators of all political colors of the spectrum is how the message to the voters was badly conveyed. It was either not transmitted well, or badly designed, etc. But the comment is almost always about the message from the ruling groups, or even the loyal opposition, and how it was not well delivered. I think that is nonsense.

My observations of the American voter is that they have a low opinion of the political process, matched by an equally low opinion of the practitioners of the political life. Americans generally are interested in the World Series, professional football, Dancing with the Stars, reality TV, and gossip about members of the entertainment and sports worlds. They pay attention to politics when they have to, exercise their franchise (roughly 40% voted in this election, which is better than most off-year elections) and then go back to the interests of their own lives. Politics and government is not one of their major interests, nor perhaps even one of their minor interests. But they have to deal with it when the need arises.

But the American voter is very interested in his own life: his job, the general economy, the well being of his family and friends, and other facets of his surroundings. And, at the time of this election, he was not satisfied with the current state of his daily life. He did the one thing that almost voters do in such circumstances: he voted against the people in power. I think that this one fact explains the general wave of defeat encountered by the Democrats. The Republicans are euphoric. They seem to feel, as determined by their public statements, that the electorate has finally seen the wisdom of the Republican philosophy. I think that they are in for a very nasty shock two years down the road; and maybe sooner with the modest but real success of the Tea Party members.

There is a strong belief among political professionals (elected officials) that they have the answer, and the detailed theory to back it up. They are living in a dream world of their own making. Current polls indicate that the majority of the electorate has very little confidence in either party. Why? Because of the current lives that most people are living in the United States. Neither party has delivered, and the party in power loses when times are bad.

The statement, issued several weeks ago by the National Bureau of Economic Research that the recession ended in June 2009 (roughly 17 months ago) may be true in an academic sense, using standard accepted measures of economic behavior. Ask the generic member of the electorate if they believe that.

It is my opinion that if the economy is in good shape two years from now, and unemployment is down to 4-5%, inflation is under control, and people feel content with the future looking bright for them personally, and they are not worried about their jobs or their futures, then all (or most) of the incumbents will be reelected. This includes President Obama. If the situation in two years is similar to the current state of the economy, job market, real estate world, etc., then the Republicans will be defeated, President Obama will be a one term president, and the Democrats will again come to the victory celebration.

The pundits are clever, well educated, and very experienced in national and local politics. But their theory that if the politicians had simply given the right message to the American electorate the results of the election would have been different. Nonsense. It is actions, not words that count. And people are still worried about their jobs, their lives, and their futures.

The election season of 2010 is drawing to a close. The possibilities for a Republican return to power in the House seems to be strong, and there is a good chance that they will also regain control of the Senate. In more polite times I would agree that this is a good thing. Polite times, in my political lexicon, mean that the two major political parties will pursue different means of contributing to the well being of the country. But, the foci of both  seems to be in defeating the other party, and if the country benefits, that would be nice but not of primary interest. Reelection of incumbents and defeat of the opposing party is what drives politics today. 
I follow politics with modest interest, and generally root for the underdog. That means that historically I follow a point of view that supports moderately liberal candidates; I am wary of demagogues. 
In the course of this electioneering period (which seems to be very long with incredible, even obscene amounts of money spent on the campaigns) I have discussed political theory and practice with long time friends. Many of them have more politically conservative views than I do, but they are all both bright and polite, so our conversations are frequently focused and not too emotional. Our friendships survive political differences.  
In a recent conversation one friend told me that he had voted for McCain in the 2008 election. His reason was that McCain was far more experienced than Obama. I thought about that. I had not voted for McCain, but I have been disappointed with Obama’s performance. This required some musing on my part. 
I stick by my immediate reaction and deduction that Experience is not enough. I give you as an example, George Herbert Walker Bush (the father). If you consider his resume, it is spectacular. In fact, if there ever was a training program to become the President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush followed it. He served in the military during WWII. He had a succession of one senior position after another. He should have been a great President, possibility the greatest President we have ever had. And yet, his performance was not noteworthy. It was not bad; but for a man with  his on the job training he should have been operationally spectacular. 
So, experience is not enough. What else can we consider? Vision! Vision for the country. The ability to recognize the errors of the past (recent and long term) and then select operational methodologies should be all that is required. Nope. Vision isn’t enough, either. In the language of mathematics, it is necessary but not sufficient.  
Obama had a clear understanding of the issues that he was facing when he took the Oath of Office on 20 January 2009. He spoke about several issues during the campaign. His understanding of the economy and the great, potentially disastrous dangers which the USA could face due to economic forces run amok, was clear. He understood the importance of Health Care Reform, and why it had to start. He was elected because he told a great story, and that is what the country wanted to hear. What happened? What went wrong? 
I think what went wrong was leadership. “The characteristics of great leaders is that they have the foresight to anticipate, the guts to commit, and the tenacity to execute.” This is a comment by Robert Galvin, Founder, Galvin Electricity Initiative and Retired CEO and Chairman, Motorola, Inc. My observations lead me to believe that Obama selected superb workmen for his administration, but led the band, poorly. His understanding of the problems was first rate, and his ability to speak on virtually any subject is outstanding. But he doesn’t stir his listeners. He organized poorly and focused on the wrong targets. His prioritization of his goals was wrong. And, he didn’t lead successfully.
The success of his campaign rhetoric, which was notable, was because he had a vision that he portrayed to the voters and which they desired. They saw a man who had the vision to state the problems and promise them action to resolve those problems. In defense of Obama, I think that as a technician, he did a good, maybe even great job. We did not fall off the financial cliff. The economy is getting better, albeit slowly. If we hadn’t had the stimuli the country could have, and perhaps would have sunk into an economic depression similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s with WWII to follow. The stimulus package(s) have started a regeneration of our infrastructure which is crumbling under our feet. This will take a long time, measured in decades. But, the focus of the country was on Jobs. While there are people who will concede that Health Care had to be reformed, and that the financial worlds had to be reined in and controlled, and that the infrastructure of the country had to begin the process of rebuilding, the great majority of people focus on the continuing job situation. People are desperate about the job situation, and the President is not solving the problem. 
Did Obama explain what was going on to the American electorate? Did he lead them in a concerted way to support his efforts? I think the answer is no. If he tried, he did not succeed. 
There are more things to worry about. I will not discuss them now. However this small exercise of thinking about our national leaders has led me to a short, succinct observation  about my belief in the qualities that a successful elected leader of the country must have: Vision, and the ability to Lead. Experience, is simply not enough because it focuses on what has happened, and not what must be done. 

I am a problem analyzer. I analyze problems and try to come up with possible operational scenarios which, if implemented, might solve the problem being considered. You will note that I do not state that the results of the analysis WILL solve the problem. Only the application of the method to solve the problem will give you the data which will allow you to draw the conclusion that the problem was solved or not. You should also note that I do not advocate a plethora of possible solutions for a particular problem. Frequently there are many solutions for a given problem and some are liked more than others. This preference may be based upon cost, time for implementation, and dozens of other possible measures of success. I don’t address that issue, either.

Why am I writing about this? It was triggered by a political advertisement in the great state of California. The problem focused on illegal immigration. Meg Whitman, a Republican candidate for Governor of California was criticized because her posture agreed with the President of the United States. Their approach offered a form of amnesty. This appears not to be to the liking of the people in the Steve Poizner campaign, another Republican candidate for the  Governor of California who ran the advertisement.

Let’s talk a little about Illegal Immigration. First it might be nice to have some facts. There are roughly 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. No one knows for sure because the haven’t registered at some official place (police station, city hall, post office, etc) as an illegal alien. So our data is guesswork. The guess comes from people who have studied illegal immigration for years, even decades. While their numbers may not be exact, they are probably about the right order of magnitude.

Some, perhaps many, of these illegal aliens use our health system. They use our schools. They may or may not pay taxes. They don’t pay Social Security taxes, and they don’t pay income taxes. They don’t have a Social Security number. They probably do not have their deductions withdrawn from their paychecks. They are paid in cash, and only pay taxes that are imbedded in the cost of things they buy: groceries, clothes, etc.

The jobs that these illegal immigrants perform within the United States probably do not include serving as professors at our prestigious universities, nor as CEOs of our larger and more successful firms. No, they do the jobs that are the bottom of the employment ladder: menial labor. They clean our houses, they reap our crops, they fix our plumbing, they collect our garbage, and they perform other hard, menial labor. Their children, actually American citizens if born in the United States by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, use our educational facilities.

Now comes the question: what should be done about it? The president has suggested a feasible plan. It meets my criteria for a solution: it could work. He suggests that illegal aliens register, go through the a modified immigration process (modified for these millions of special cases), and become citizens. And, bear their fair share of the burden of keeping this country financially operating. Sounds like a good idea. Oh, there are some conditions. If they are found to be felons, either before entering the United States illegally, or after arriving here, they will be thrown out of the country. No chance to try again. All of the illegal immigrants will, upon registration and found to be allowed to stay, be issued biometric identity cards (can’t be counterfeited) and play a role in the society.

Is this amnesty? Well, in some sense, it is. Those who crossed the border illegally and have stayed in this country, illegally, for perhaps many years, will be rewarded for their tenacity and vision.

OK, you say. But what about not allowing this to happen? What other solutions are suggested? Tell all the illegals to report to the Border Patrol and be thrown out of the country? Hardly a likely scenario. And, if this could be done, which is highly doubtful, then who will do the work which these millions of people have done and continue to do for the past several decades? No more people to perform manual labor. The cost for manual labor will sky rocket, even if you can find some one to till our fields, clean our houses, and perform the other manual labors required which support the operation of our entire society.

For those who cry Amnesty! I pose the following question: What do you propose to do about the problem? How are you going to deal with the problem? What steps do you propose? I personally am very interested to hear about a possible operational methodology. If it is workable then I think it should be considered. But pointing a finger at someone, including the President of the United States, and saying that their solution is Amnesty begs the entire question. We need workable potential solutions. One solution can then be selected by the electorate or the political leaders and implemented.

Does this sound familiar? Have we ever done something like this before? We did. It was called the Volstead Act, implemented in 1919. It helped in the definition of some terms in the Eighteenth Amendment and created what we call Prohibition. The only thing that really resulted from this moral position (not supported by the entire population of the United States at that time) was to convince the criminal community to get organized. And, did it stop drinking? It did not. Not even close. So, it was NOT a solution to drunkenness among the population. I suggest that this might serve as an example on how not to do something.

I believe that there is no possible solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens in this country except to recognize their existence, the role they play in the United States, and solve the problem as it currently exists. It is not possible to turn the clock back.

I am sorry that we have the problem. But the key point is: we do. And we need a methodology that will solve the problem as it actually exists.

A friend of mine sent me a document the other day. It was a report by the Maldon Institute entitled Proliferation and the Nuclear Industry with the sub-title: “We will all go together when we go…” The report, which is written in a laconic, straight forward fashion is perhaps one of the most sobering documents that I have ever read.

The sub-title of the report is very unusual. It is based upon the song written and performed by Tom Lehrer from the 1950s. His lyrics were perhaps prophetic: “And we will all go together when we go. What a comforting fact that is to know. Universal bereavement, An inspiring achievement, Yes, we all will go together when we go.”

The focus of the report is the continuing spread of the nuclear industry throughout the world. Human beings are encountering unpleasant facts about our planet: there are limits which are non-political. For example, the world population is growing with amazing speed. The population of the world wants, demands and expects more energy. There is a finite amount of oil on the planet, and the use of oil allows us to produce energy with by products. This is not a discussion of whether Global Warming, which is unquestionably happening, is due to the growth of carbon dioxide in out upper atmosphere or not. The reasons why Global Warming is occurring are under some considerable discussion. We are not sure why the atmosphere seems to be getting warmer (over long periods of time), but it certainly is.

As a species we have a demand for energy that can only be met by nuclear energy. The current method is to use fission reactors, which use Uranium for fuel. This process has some unpleasant drawbacks. It is possible to imagine fusion reactors. They haven’t been built yet, but they are conceptually feasible. The fuel is sea water, and the by product is fresh water. This seems like a good idea, and we are, as a species, short of fresh water.

But I was commenting on the Future of Mankind. The growth of the nuclear industry has resulted (from the Maldon Institute report) in nuclear reactors existing in many countries throughout the world. And, the security of these plants is not perfect. Countries like China and North Korea are building nuclear plants and selling their expertise and the output of their plants to other countries. The spread of nuclear fissionable material is not coming in the future: it is here, now.

What does this mean? I think that man’s political hatreds and insistence on the truth of one belief over another means that we shall have nuclear events. In less elegant language, it means that the political extremists will have their hands on bombs and will happily detonate them at a time and place of their choosing for political reasons.

What will the United States do when (say) Butte Montana disappears in a mushroom cloud? There will be some furious reaction and soon there will be many places in the world (and their inhabitants) which will cease to exist. You can pick your country and its response.

I consider this not probable, but certain. The world, as we know it, will be coming to an end shortly. It is just a matter of time.

I will have more to observe and comment on in future observations and musings.

I have suggested a method of dealing with problems in an earlier post. In a short reprise there are three steps: define the problem, develop possible solutions to the defined problem, and then select your favorite possible operational solution.

The crux of the approach is really based upon the problem definition. In doing so there are several types of information and data that will have to be considered.

The concept of axioms was probably first encountered in Plane Geometry. An axiom is a

claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof. A postulate is an axiom, and so is an assumption. A theorem is something that can be proven by using previous theorems (which have been proven) and axioms. Much of this is mathematical jargon but it still is highly useful in considering problems of all types.

In defining a problem you must first consider what you know about the issue. What is fact? What do you know, absolutely know without any possible error about the problem? If you encounter a probable fact, but open to possible question, then that is equivalent to a theorem. It must be proven (in the mathematical sense) and rigidly defined in the world of humans. Is a fact true all the time? Then it is an axiom, or a postulate, or even an assumption. If a fact is true some of the time then what are the constraints which must be specified? Under what conditions is it true? You must know when something is true in order to build a problem definition. For a given set of circumstances a problem will have one set of facts; for a slightly different set of circumstances a problem will have another set of facts which may, or may not, be closely related to the first set of facts.

A simple example will illustrate. You build a system that allows you to see your enemy coming over a hill. Your system can see for 10 miles with clarity and precision. The hill is only 4 miles away. Will your system always work? The answer is no. If you are using your eyes, that will be true if it is a bright sunny day. But what if you are in a deep, opaque fog? The system will not let you see your enemy. So, the system works perfectly except for fog.

The problem is figuring out a system that will allow you to see your enemy when they come over the hill. It is not well defined. You have to also say under what weather conditions, day or night, etc. Once you have defined the problem (which I glossed over deliberately for the sake of the example) then your postulates (axioms and assumptions) will be understood.

This is not easy. It is not done in a blink of an eye. Yet grappling with the problem definition is critical for success in all fields of human endeavor. And failure to define the problem you are addressing with clarity and precision will almost certainly have unforeseen and potentially very unpleasant consequences.

I am just starting to be involved in Blogging, so I had thought I would address certain issues which were not highly emotional or perhaps even controversial. But the events of the past few days have forced me to reconsider this posture.

A tipping point is the point beyond which you can no longer recover. From the Internet, “The tipping point is the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development. The term is said to have originated in the field of epidemiology when an infectious disease reaches a point beyond any local ability to control it from spreading more widely. A tipping point is often considered to be a turning point.”

I am addressing the issue of our political representatives. I am an old man, with substantial experience in many fields. For many years I have watched our political leaders insist that they will solve our problems, or at least address them. I have listened to these speeches for a long time and when I was younger I was enthusiastic and supportive. With time I have judged the efficacy of the leaders by comparing their campaign promises with their actions.

I am not a starry-eyed idealist. I recognize that politics of all kinds require a give-and-take effort on all sides. No one group or individual has the total answer for all people on any subject. In all types of human interactions when decisions have to be made for the good of any group with different constituencies it is necessary for all to recognize that half-a-loaf is better than no loaf. And, the brighter leaders will recognize and even publicly agree that a combination of different approaches, melded into a complex action might be the best solution. It is recognized that sometimes their joint decision leads does not lead to a good solution and therefore they must change what they agreed upon. This is the sort of political process that you recognize at the national level down to the local club decisions on any subject from gardening to street decoration at the holidays.

My observations, made over years, led me to believe that experience and understanding was a good thing to have in our elected representatives. After all, they were working for us, and as such, will at least be mildly responsive to our desires and will work the political give and take, as required, to get us half-a-loaf.

I have gone past my tipping point and now believe that I am wrong. I believe that the group of our elected representatives are worse than useless: they are a danger to the operation of the nation. I have reluctantly decided that the only action that might have an effect is to send a message to ALL the national Congressman (Senators and Representatives) by voting for and electing only non-incumbents.

To this sweeping statement many will object. I am not so happy myself. Perhaps there are Congressmen who are trying to solve the nation’s problems: Jobs, energy, economy, infrastructure, education, healthcare, two wars,etc. But I can’t find them. Here is the measure I use: Has there been ANY success in obtaining a solution in ANY of these areas? I think not. And the number of Congressmen who have actually helped in any solution are few and far between. I think it is time to send a message to all sitting office holders and future office seekers: we, the American voting populace have finally lost our patience. The penalty for their collective failure is for all of them, individually, to lose their seats. The good (hypothetically there are some) and the bad (inept where there are demonstrably many): all go down.

It is true that the new group who comes in will be less experienced than those they replace. But, look at this way: could they possibly be less effective than our current leaders? I am not talking about what they say: I am talking about what is actually done.

I will vote for ALL non-incumbents in the coming elections. I suggest that if we throw out (defeat for reelection) 50% (or so) of the current incumbents the message will be clear: we, the American electorate have had it.

I am frequently criticized as being too unemotional. In general people think that you should feel about things. Contrary to popular opinion, I do feel emotional about many things. But not about solving problems. My methodology in dealing with problems in the world around me is rank ordered and always works.

There are three steps that are required to address any problem which becomes part of your life. First, you have to define the problem. Second you have to consider all possible solutions to your problem. Third you have to pick one solution to implement. These are simple (in concept).

The definition of the problem is the first step. There are more errors made here than in any other part of the process. You put the problem into words, and frequently, not very carefully. All the people who are working with you nod, smile, and you assume that all of your colleagues (buddies, friends, etc) understand the words that you have used in the same way that you meant them to be understood. This assumption is frequently wrong. In order to be successful the problem definition must be understood in the same way by all the participants. They may use the same words, or not, but they must all understand the problem definition in precisely the same way. If not, disaster is just a step away.

Once the problem is defined you can proceed to the second step: possible solutions. These solutions should be based upon physics, administrative constraints, financial requirements, etc. It doesn’t matter what the constraints are, but the solutions must fit within a defined world which is feasible. So far we have not mentioned emotion. There is none. You may, or may not, like the possible solutions to the problem. But that issue comes later. The question you must address and answer is: is this particular proposed set of actions a solution to the well defined problem?

Now the rest is easy. Consider the set of allowable, feasible solutions. Some will be liked by you and not others. Some will be like by others but not you. Note the verb here defines an emotional response. There is really no method of selecting one solution over another except emotion. This is where your emotions come into play.

Now you have a proposed course of action. You have defined the problem. You have considered a set of possible solutions. And, you have selected one of the solutions for implementation. This approach, while considered by some to be a little cold-blooded, always works. It works for all problems: physical, managerial, and even emotional. I commend it to all of you.