The Wisdom Of Solomon

A Christmas Conundrum

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:49:35 -0500

This is the holiday season of the year. My family generally celebrates the season by having some type of party. Most of the family consists of Middle Aged Adults (my wife’s children) some who are Old, and one who is Very Old. There are two young boys (sixteen and twelve) who look forward to presents, which is understandable. What I didn’t really understand is that all of the Middle Aged and Old people (myself excluded) think that exchanging presents is a grand idea.

Now, before you think that I am really the reincarnation of Ebenezer Scrooge I want to tell you that I am not opposed to giving of presents; but I need some guidance. This year I received guidance which is absolutely incomprehensible. Thus the conundrum.

It all started off innocently. I received an email which was the beginning of the planning for our family party. Our choices were the following: (remember this email was sent primarily to Middle Aged Adults and Seniors)

1. Do nothing; just get gifts for the grandchildren. They are 16 and 12. They like receiving meaningful gifts, such as Kindles.)
2. Pick names like we have done in the past. Everyone buys a gift for one person who is selected by drawing names from a hat. This invariably throws me into an agony of trying to figure out what to do since I never pick me, by circumstance and by the rules.
3. Do a White Elephant swap where you bring a wrapped gift and give it to someone. You don’t know if the person is Middle Aged or Old, nor whether they are male or female.
4. Pick your own theme and buy everyone something little within that theme. Some ideas could be books, socks, chocolate, candles, picture frames, pens, gift cards, tea/coffee, etc. This way everyone has a number of little presents to open.

My opinion was not solicited (they know me for many years, but due to a mistake in the transmission of the email they requested my vote). Now you can test how well you understand me: what did I chose? Number One (1), of course. What was the actual outcome of vote? It was to exchange white elephants: Number Three (3).

OK, I am a reasonably good sport. Yesterday I told my beloved, understanding, and long suffering wife that I was going to buy the White Elephant present. She looked at me, furrowed her brow, pursed her lips, and then said, “Remember—the present is to be a MEANINGFUL White Elephant.” Then she turned on her heel and left. I was completely perplexed. What the hell is a Meaningful White Elephant? I decided to act on my own and throw caution to the winds. (This is just an expression. I actually began to worry about what I was going to do, since my wife has powers which are unknown to humanity as a whole. Discretion is the better part of valor….or something like that.

Now you understand my conundrum. What in the hell is a White Elephant gift? I don’t know where to find a white elephant, and if I did, what would I feed it, and, why would someone want to have it?

OK, you say. I can envision you sitting and reading column and shaking your head. Fair enough. Now let me put this with a little more precision. All the possible receivers of this unknown and unspecified White Elephant gift are ADULTS. Do you understand me? ADULTS! So I am requested to go buy a White Elephant and spend money (roughly $30) on some unknown and unspecified object from some unknown and unspecified place and give it to some unspecified ADULT who is either Male or Female.

Using my natural inclination toward analysis, I went to Google and looked for stores that offer WHITE ELEPHANTS. Here is the Wikipedia answer: A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam (now Thailand) were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals (White Elephants) to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered to be without use or value. The answer from Google was intellectually of interest, but hardly of operational value.

I sat for a while and thought. This is a serious issue. My conundrum gets worse: If I buy something truly idiotic (all possible presents for these ADULTS strike me as truly idiotic, but this is a story for another day), my beloved wife will have some clear and focused comments to make. Hmmm. So, I will try to buy something sensible. But what WHITE ELEPHANT gift is sensible, for ADULTS all in Middle or Old Age?

Now, if possible, things got worse. My family members are just THRILLED about exchanging unknown, non-gag gifts, for unspecified people (men or women) and can hardly wait for the event to occur.

The tension was overwhelming. I went to a store which was crowded with shoppers, but which had a variety of options, maybe. My choice was influenced because I had received a 20% discount label. I entered the store, and was approached by an employee who nicely asked what I wanted.

“The General Manager, please,” I politely answered.

“Can’t I help you,” asked the employee?”

“Are you the General Manager,” I responded.

“Well, no. (A pause). I will get her.”

I waited for a few moments, and up comes a rather striking looking, middle aged woman, who is the General Manager. It says so on her ID Tag.

“Can I help you?” she asked, nicely.

“I certainly hope so,” I said. “I am completely out of my league.”

She smiled.

I then explained to her what was going on. She smiled more broadly, and then began to laugh. She continued to giggle, nodded her head and told me to wait for her to come back in a few moments.

A few moments later she returned with half a dozen items that had been cut by roughly 80% of their original price.

The first one was a white sheepskin cover for an iPad. It was available for $2.99. But, I thought, not all the people I have to give a present to have iPads. In fact, only my wife has an iPad. I mused. What a nice surprise gift. (Taking care and looking for safety is always a good idea. Here was the ideal choice, and for $2.99 I look like a thoughtful, caring, thinking husband.)

The second one was a little stereo speaker device that plugs into your computer using the USB connection. That was actually nice, and $5. OK, it isn’t really a White Elephant, although with built in speakers in all current computers, it is sort of a White Elephant. I could argue that it was a Meaningful White Elephant.

Finally, she produced the ultimate: an M&M Fan. Not only was it $3; it had a small supply of M&Ms in the handle, and, was a small fan which actually worked to cool you off when you need moving air. The PERFECT White Elephant.

The General Manager thought these were wonderful; actually, she thought they were hilarious. Privately she admitted that the buyers of this stuff should have been fired, but she then shrugged her shoulders. Win some; lose some.

I asked her for some something to wrap this stuff in and she gave me three individual size boxes and wrapping paper.

I thanked her profusely and offered to write a very clear and focused email to her bosses, praising her to the skies, and helping her with her career. She thanked me and said that wasn’t necessary. She then added that I was one of the more unusual customers they had this season, and she hopes to see me again. I told her that I was a regular, if infrequent customer. In essence, they sell nothing that I need. She laughed and said to please come back.

I am ready for the great family event. I am certain that I have failed the test completely.

When the presents are exchanged, everyone will roll their eyes, sadly shake their heads, and talk about something else.

What is bizarre about this entire discussion is that while I attempted to write it in a jocular fashion, I do not find this entire affair even remotely amusing. In fact, if you wish me to be precise about it, I find that dealing with the adults in this group of people is mind-boggling.

Normally I would ask if there is something wrong with me. But I know the answer. Yes, Virginia, there is something wrong with me. It is not the rest of my family; they are sane, reasonably educated, intelligent people. By definition, they represent the norm of the population, out to at least two sigma points (98% of the US population). They think this event and White Elephant gift exchange is just a peachy idea.

I think that I have nothing more to say on this subject.

I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season. Think kindly of me.

Invitation to Hackers: Help the Country and Amuse yourself

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:22:27 -0500

I have finally gotten angry. All the previous news about Congress, their behavior, and the attendant support by only nine percent of the voting public made me shake my head in sorrow, and with some frustration. But I just shrugged my shoulders and sighed. No longer.

The news item, aired on the CBS Show 60 Minutes on Sunday evening 13 November 2011 explained that Congressmen, several of which were named, had used private information to purchase stocks for their own advantage. This process, called Insider Trading, if done by someone who is not a Congressman, is illegal. Recently many people have gone to jail for their actions, but not Congressmen. So, what can be done about their disgraceful behavior?

We could request they pass laws forbidding such behavior. However, that would mean they would pass laws restricting their own behavior. Not highly probable. I have another suggestion.

I think that all the hackers in the United States should hack into the financial records of all pertinent companies and examine the financial transactions of all Congressmen. Then, that data should be posted on a web site, which would be equivalent to the famous WikiLeaks case.

I personally would like to see any one who is caught attempting hacking to be excused, but that is too difficult to implement. Furthermore, hackers know that hacking into electronic data bases is illegal. They don’t care. I would like to point out that such data bases are not owned by the United States government and therefore, do not constitute a threat to national security.

Further, I suggest that when (not if) a hacker and their friends are successful, they should post all the pertinent data on the Internet, and in addition, even send electronic files to all the large news organizations throughout the Congressional District of the Congressman. Such an action might have an effect on the potential reelection of the Congressman.

I think it is a neat, and operationally feasible idea. Make the bastards live in fear.

A possible change to the American Electoral Process

Sun, 22 May 2011 19:42:00 -0400

I have been thinking about our system of government in the United States. Winston Churchill stated: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I agree.

I think one of the problems is that we have evolved from a concept of part time politicians (think of the Founding Fathers in the 1770s) to full time politicians who consider serving an entire career in politics at the local, state, and national levels. There are families which have passed their positions on to their sons and grandsons. I think that this is not a good idea, and even worse in practice.

Does this mean that there are political families in the United States who do not merit their positions? No, that is not what I said. They have to stand for office, and must persuade their constituents to vote for them at each election. But the continuation of a family tradition is conducive to establishing in the electorate a habit of automatically voting for a family name. I do not think this is a good thing in a representative democracy.

Is there a small modification to how we elect our public officials to remove this possible problem? I think so. I would like to suggest that some changes be instituted in how our representative government works. As much as I am uneasy about the idea, I think that we, as an electorate, should consider the establishment of term limits. These term limits should be worked out and applied at every level. We do so for the President of the United States (only two terms allowed). Why not consider an extension of the concept for all elected political offices? This would be at the national, state, and local levels. People would run for office because they wish to support their fellow citizens, and obtain experience which will allow them to be capable of playing more prominent and higher roles with greater responsibilities. In addition, there arises the potential reduction of graft and corruption at every level. Graft and corruption in government is as old as the concept of government itself. If a politician stays in office as a lifetime job he (or she) is potentially vulnerable to the inducements of feathering their own nests. And, given their political power, they make potential prey for special interests. One way to stop this, or at least hinder it, is to have term limits for all offices.

I am suggesting that all publicly elected offices from the Presidency of the United States down to the election of the local dog catcher, should have term limits. I am not proposing how long these should be, but I think they should exist. For example, there should be only five terms for a member of the House of Representatives. I don’t suggest that this necessarily be the number; but I do suggest that there should be a number. Now, for a little additional changes. Once a member of the house has run the gamut of the number of terms, they cannot be elected again for that generic position (being a member of the House) until the same number of terms has passed while they are out of office. So, continuing the example, if a member is elected to the House of Representatives for five terms, then they cannot run for that office again until five terms (ten years) has passed. They can immediately run for other office (Governor of the State, Senator from the State, etc.) But they can’t run for a House Seat for ten years.

One major objection concern will be the lack of experience in our elected officials. I suggest that this might be overcome by continuing to have professional employees of the local, state, and national governments. But, now I would like to suggest that if they are professional employees, then cannot run for political office: ever. They can participate in the representative process either as elected members of the government, with associated term limits, or, they can be professionals with appropriate skills, but can’t run for public office. A nice balance of forces. The elected politicians, in essence, steer the ship of state; the professional employees make it work.

What else do I suggest? There is no question that external forces will make an effort to influence the political process through bribery and coercion. But now the organizations with chicanery in their heart will have to work in reduced time. And the pressure of making things rapidly happen generally means that mistakes will be made. Good. We will catch more of them on both the political side and the business, unions, and others who wish to coerce our public servants. In addition, I suggest that there be an increase in the severity of the penalties if they are caught. Not substantial increases, but enough for those to understand that getting caught will have very serious, permanent consequences. For example, no political office can ever be held again, nor can they ever again work for the public in a professional capacity. And the firms will suffer severe, but not necessarily fatal, economic consequences.

I want ambitious, active citizens to run for lots of political offices in our representative democracy. I want the applicants and entrants in the race for public office to be successful, and I want them to take postures which will help their fellow citizens. I do not want to establish family legacies who will serve and eat at the public trough for generations.

Will this mean smooth sailing for the future? It does not. But it will make things come to a steady boil which is good for all concerned: the public, the government, and the government employees.

American Politics

Sat, 07 May 2011 20:26:38 -0400

We are a unique country. There is no other nation in the world that has the turmoil, freedom of action, and devotion to the principles on which the country was founded with the same intensity that we have. We are truly a nation of immigrants. And, it has worked very well for over two hundred years.

Our political system is one of the principles of democracy, or at least representative government, free speech, etc. The Bill of Rights has put it very well, and it has stood the test of time. Court decisions have reinforced this with each decision. The concept of “one man, one vote,” has become and remains the watchword of how we think of our selves and our representatives. There are many difficulties with our system of government, but it is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s comment, way ahead of whatever is in second place. The path to political power in the United States is based upon ambition, capability, and other spurs to human endeavor. Birth is not the path to political power; in fact, it is frequently a drawback. But if you are ambitious, educate yourself, work hard, and to some extent, lucky, you can rise to the top of the political ladder. President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner are wonderful but not unusual examples of the opportunity to be masters of their own destiny. There have been many who climb to power, and that is exactly how it should be.

But the current situation is dangerous, and shows itself to be potentially of great harm to our nation. Let me step back for a moment and point out a little history. We have not been a ideal place in which to live for all of our citizens all of the time. Slavery was a major issue, and only in the past half century or so has the concept of Civil Rights truly risen to provide almost equality among all races and all religions. Things are not perfect, but much better than before, and, they seem to be getting better. Perfection is always a goal, but never achieved. We can always do better.

The history of labor and business has been checkered. Child Labor, no support for working immigrants, family sickness, work place injuries and death, were a way of life for a long time. But in the 1920s the Labor Movement caused major changes in the law and in the operation of American Business. Unions grew to great power, and sat as equals in the Boardrooms of American Business. That is not the case at the moment, but changes occur and there is always an ebb and flow in American society that seems to settle things reasonably well over time.

Is the process perfect? Absolutely not. But it works reasonably well. Now, however, we come to the current political scene. It is not pretty, and it is not beneficial to us as a Nation.

We are moving forward to another national election. Occurring every two years, it keeps the policy makers and eager political players chomping at the bit. So, what is wrong? First and foremost, I think that the politicians, of both parties, more so than usual, are spouting their solutions, which are primarily attempting to draw voters for them. There are simplistic solutions presented by all sides from the ultra-liberal wings of the Democratic Party to the arch-conservative Republican Tea Party members. The use of modern technology to attempt to communicate with the American voting public is continuing to be in evidence, and it needs to be used. In the 1790s the knowledge of what was espoused by the local politicians was limited to a single newspaper, and that had a reading public radius of perhaps twenty miles. The family across the mountains, but still in the state, had no idea what was proposed by eager senatorial or congressional candidates. But in today’s world, we do.

What is being proposed? Simplistic, easy solutions with potentially grave consequences. I am obliged to quote H. L. Mencken at this point: “There is always an easy solution to every problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

The economy of the United States must come under control. Any logical analysis of the problem will note that we must restrain our spending, and increase our income. The spending restraints must be in areas which will not unduly affect the quality of life in this country; the increase in income must come from those large areas which have sufficient funds to help the country. For example, it is clear that entitlements must be considered, reviewed, and controlled, because they are a major expense. So are the programs of the Department of Defense. Can major cuts be made in each of these two example areas? Of course. The amount we spend on Foreign Aid is minuscule compared to other expenses. Looking for substantial savings in Foreign Aid is simply not going to work. Where could we increase our income? Increase taxation among the population. Who should be taxed the most? The most wealthy, of course. Will this solve the problem? No, it will not. But it is a step in that direction. Giant corporations (think oil companies) should be taxed to pay their fair share for living and operating in the United States.

There is a process in mathematics which requires that first order effects be balanced by first order effects. No matter how you try, second order effects can not balance first order effects.

Do I have detailed suggestions? I do not. I am not an economist, nor a politician. I do know that I, as a voter in all elections, local and national, will support politicians of any stripe who will take logically defensible positions to help the United States economy and the job situation in this country—now! All who suggest nonsense solutions can, as far as I am concerned, go down to defeat and good riddance. In fact, I am even willing to support the campaigns of courageous politicians with good ideas who actually, regardless of the risks to their political careers, work to implement actions which actually address our real, not imaginary, problems. There are probably many other citizens like me.

I will have more to say about how small changes in our political structure might help us bring things under control. But that is for another day.

American Foreign Policy and Asymmetric Warfare

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:56:00 -0500

What am I talking about? Isn’t this a little, well, far-fetched? Too specialized? Too erudite? I don’t think so. Read a little further and then decide whether this makes sense, or not.

Warfare has been used for millennia to impose one nations’ wishes on its neighbors. I contend that warfare had not changed substantially for the past several thousand years until the last quarter of the 20^th century. The concept of warfare (read Sun Tzu, The Art of War for a clear understanding of the underlying principals of warfare. It was written in roughly 500 BC and remains in use today. Its principals are unchanging; its tools for implementation are radically different than even 30 years ago).

During the time from when we came down from the trees and stood on two legs until roughly the end of the 20^th century, war was fought between roughly equal forces. Big armies were faced by other big armies. In effect, sides were of roughly equal strength. They fought with each other using similar tactics. These were decided by the strategy as set down by their rulers and military leaders; then geography, trade, manpower, and a myriad of other issues and special circumstances dictated how the warring factions would tactically deal with one another. Both sides basically used the same weapons and the same general approach in the struggle. This could be called Symmetric Warfare. (Roughly equal opponents using roughly equal equipment, in the same way, to achieve similar goals).

The most recent struggle where roughly equal forces faced one another was World War II. Giant armies, and all which that implied, faced and fought each other on roughly equal terms. But during this world wide struggle science and technology was used to an unprecedented degree. Post WWII saw a dramatic change.

Nuclear weapons were developed. The Soviet Union, led by Russia, followed in the steps of the United States. While there was a tremendous amount of saber-rattling, it was clear to the leaders of both sides that mankind had finally developed a series of weapons which could destroy the human species. This was something that had never occurred in the history of warfare. Sure, you could kill many people (for example the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese forces in China in 1937), was truly a terrible event. But in the city of Shanghai, only 200 miles away there was no effect. But in nuclear war everybody was in danger. This evolved the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In simple terms, the two power blocks said “If you destroy me I will destroy you,” And thoughtful leaders on both sides knew they could posture and threaten, but they all knew and understood that there was a line which could not be crossed. Seeing your country lose a war was one thing; wiping out humanity and all living things on the planet was a different kettle of fish.

Then science and technology went farther. Weapons became more precise. Much more precise. In WWII there was a concept of “carpet bombing” to attack cities. Why? Because we couldn’t be sure that any one bomb would destroy a particular target. So, we dropped lots of them. Some times that worked, and sometimes it didn’t. Today, we can send ONE controllable missile from over 1000 miles away to hit a precise spot. I mean it can hit the second floor of a building, third window from the left. And, these weapons are cheap! Less than a million dollars. And, they can have nuclear warheads, among others.

The implications are that no group of leaders can ever gather simultaneously at one spot. If the opposing sides’ intelligence is good (and it generally is) the leadership of the other side can be destroyed with one attack. The entire concept of warfare has changed.

So, what does this asymmetric warfare have to do with anything? No country can possibly challenge the United States with equivalent, similar military force. But they can attack us with little bombs to blow up trucks. They kill a few soldiers at a time. They have no major armies, and no integrated leadership. They just kill a few people using suicide bombers. And to what end? They want to run things their own way, with no interference from the US. One side, the US, has a mind-boggling arsenal which faces tiny forces with a few homemade bombs. And we, the US, can’t stop them. This is the concept of asymmetric warfare. (Drastically unequal opponents using completely different equipment, in wildly different ways, trying to achieve dramatically dissimilar goals).

So what? The implications are substantial. We are supporting a giant military force which has no similar opponent. We can reduce our military by substantial amounts of men and material, which currently costs an enormous amount to support. And worse, some of our current force uses tactics based upon technology which is many generations out of date. This is not a good idea.

We have to have a force which can be expanded if and when large countries decide to oppose us, militarily. But the development of highly precise and specific weapons make that scenario highly unlikely. The United States should reduce its military force by tremendous amounts (say 50%) and train highly mobile, small specialized forces which would operate against terrorists in a manner similar to the way the terrorists operate.

In addition, American Foreign Policy should be altered. We should “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick,” giving encouragement and modest support to the people of oppressed nations whose populations want to achieve a more democratic way of life. Recent events in Egypt spring to mind, where the revolution came about heavily supported and aided by the use of modern technology communications. There seems to be a message here.

In essence, modern technology has transformed the way all present and future warfare must be waged. The concepts of huge static armies, requiring enormous logistic support, that are not capable of being protected, are faulty. Therefore, they must be disbanded, and entirely different forces must be developed using the tools of modern technology, today. This use of modern technology is in keeping with emotional, public, physical support to the oppressed populations, world wide, whose day is coming, and in fact is here, today. It would be a good idea for the United States to align itself with the future, which is here now, rather than the past which can no longer be supported or maintained.

American Foreign Policy

Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:02:00 -0500

American Foreign Policy has been a little unsure of itself recently. And by recently I mean for the past several decades. We seem to have taken a posture that is focused on short term results rather than long term goals. The recent revolutions which started in Tunisia, and then spread to Egypt is a wonderful opportunity for us to review our posture with respect to the rest of the world.

This comment is really precipitated by my listening to the discussions of the talking heads which are become more and more irritating (all TV channels, all the time). There are a few thoughtful commentators (David Gergen, Mark Shields, and David Brooks). In general, the commentators have been saying that the Arab leaders, and other heads of government throughout the world, are seriously disturbed about our willingness to abandon Hosni Mubarak, former President of Egypt, who was our ally for the past thirty years. Then they raise the specter of whether the State Department knows what it is doing, etc. Our policy was too slow in Egypt….no, perhaps they said it was too fast. The United States acted with too much strength…no, perhaps its actions were too weak. Hmmm. I don’t remember any more. Their comments are simply Nonsense. Balderdash.

This is the time for the United States to use its knowledge of history and formulate a policy which recognizes and understands that we have a unique position in this world. We are strong, and should use that strength in a way that causes hesitation in the postures of world leaders toward their own populations. I am not advocating that we make any attempt to insert ourselves into the internal affairs of any country. I am suggesting that all we have to do is to point out that their internal policies may have consequences for them in dealing with the United States. What is that you say? I am threatening? No, I am not. I think that a more appropriate historical phrase (attributed to African or Native American sources) might be “Speak softly but carry a Big Stick.” This phrase was used in slightly different form by Teddy Roosevelt.

The bedrock of the United States internal affairs is the concept of democracy and representative government. Each American has the opportunity to attempt to make a life for themselves using their skills, forbearance, and efforts. This is a good thing, and it seems, desired by young people all over the world. Is there a hint of a message here?

Unfortunately the day-to-day needs for interactions with the world’s governments sometimes requires doing business with harsh repressive regimes. Egypt, Iran and North Korea spring immediately to mind. There are others. The United States cannot take a posture that refuses to deal with these countries. We must deal with them for a myriad of reasons: military, economic, health, environment, etc. So we should deal with them, just as we should have and did deal with Egypt for the past thirty years.

In focusing on our relationship with Mubarak and Egypt we should have supported him to keep peace, it at all possible, in the Middle East. But it should have been clear to him and the rest of the Egyptian leaders that our relationship with them was a marriage of convenience. Fundamentally, we would always support the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the Egyptian people in creating a democratic, representative government and society. If the leaders did not like or appreciate our stance, or our candor (presented privately and perhaps publicly) for that matter, we could shrug our shoulders (metaphorically, and perhaps literally) and say, “Ok. Then no more aid. No more support. Nothing. No favored nation status. You are on your own.” Every single despot throughout the world who rules their populations with an iron hand would pause and reflect upon the possible implications of such a posture by the United States.

In my view of the present and the possible future I again turn to my base: technology. Why were the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the soon coming future revolutions in all dictatorial regimes, political and religious) successful? Communications. The Internet. The Cell Phone. Young Egyptians (70% are under thirty years of age) saw no future for themselves. And they found out that peoples in other parts of the world could have different lives. Why not Egyptian citizens?

The Egyptian government made an attempt to suppress communications. They failed. Of course for those who use servers and wire connections, those could be stopped. But satellites? Nope. Wireless communications allowed a continuing flow of information to the Egyptian people (the young people who understand and use communications in daily operations of all kinds) so they knew that they had the world supporting them. Fifty years ago all communications could have been stifled. Not today.

The leaders of countries all over the world (repressive and not) are old. They think of technology as a marvel. They don’t understand that technology and technology communications have made the techniques of controlling their populations, as it was done for the past three millennia, unstable and collapsing. Censorship at all levels is, today and even more tomorrow, impossible to implement. Censorship implies control, and that is fast disappearing. Leaders will have to have general support from their populations. A new world is not just approaching; it is here.

While my comments are focused on political regimes, I think this logic is also applicable to all religious-based regimes as well. Iran revolted a few years ago, and it failed. But does that mean that it won’t happen, again? Hmmm.

The United States Foreign Policy should be to deal with repressive regimes as required. But, they should never support them for short term political advantage. The unstoppable, overwhelming sea change is underway, and the people of the world, Northern and Southern hemispheres, will look to us, the United States, for support in having a better life, more opportunity to prosper, and support in achieving that goal.

Tucson Tragedy

Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:12:00 -0500

A young man took his legally obtained pistol, appropriate ammunition, and walked to a meeting arranged by the local Congressman to discuss issues with her constituents at a local supermarket. He calmly walked up to the local Congressman and shot her in the head. He then proceeded to shoot and kill six additional people and would wound an additional fourteen. He was tackled and wrestled to the ground by several local citizens. The entire event was over in a matter of moments. But the effects on the entire country will be felt for a long time; the effects on the families of the people who were killed and wounded will be for a lifetime.

The outpouring of national grief was enormous. Solemn events were held, with a meeting at the University of Arizona, Tucson Campus, presided over by the President of the University, and with invited speakers: The President of the United States, The Attorney General of the United States, The Secretary of Homeland Security, with two Supreme Court Justices (one active and one retired) attending, along with 26,000 other people.

The general tone of the meeting was unusual. While this was to be in support of the healing process, and appropriately somber, that was not quite the case. There were quiet, reflective, and somber moments. There were also cheers and yells from the many University students. And, all this was perfectly appropriate. The meeting was held in a Field House, and not a cathedral or chapel. In one sense it was a celebration of life and determination that the United States would live, and it honored those people, heroes all, who apprehended the assassin and helped all the fallen to the extent that they could. In another sense it was a solemn ceremony that was appropriately respectful to the wounded and in memory of the dead.

The word “heroes” was used frequently. What are heroes? I think that heroes are people who act out of conviction that they should be doing something to help others regardless of potential consequences to their own safety. In fact, it is my guess that none of the people who were truly heroes at that killing ground in front of the local Tucson Safeway even thought about their own safety. They acted instinctively to do what was part of their moral approach to life.

The speakers were all good. The President gave a magnificent speech, with just the right tone for praising the community for its actions, and trying to help a grieving nation, as well as calling for us to be more civil to one another. This is an important point. He did not suggest that we should all think alike and agree with him on politics, government, or any other subject. No, what he said was that we, as Americans, can and must be civil to each other in our disagreements, even passionate support of our beliefs, but it is necessary for us as a nation collectively and individually to allow free speech without rancor or belief that because the person next to you doesn’t agree with you, does not mean that he is your enemy.

There have been lots of words from many sources in the recent past since these events occurred. Some are wise, and some are not. But only one person made an observation that, for me, summed up the entire process.

The people who were involved in the event: the dead, the wounded, the living, the heroes, et al, were all different with different backgrounds. The Federal Court Judge was a Roman Catholic, and his fellow citizens who tried to help each other and overwhelm the assassin were Protestants, and Jews. The young man man who saved the life of the Congressman was of Latino origins. The triage surgeon is a former military medic of Korean stock. The person who gave the benediction at the meeting was a fifth generation Latino and also has roots from an Indian heritage. And, they were all led by the first Black President of the United States. Perhaps there should be some inferences drawn from this rather amazing and varied fabric that all of them were there to try to help heal the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens. Something to ponder.

Further LGM Members

Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:27:29 -0500

About a month ago I submitted a comment that simply bubbled up from the depths of my soul. I prefaced my remarks with the observation that I made every effort to write about reasonable subjects but this was something which I simply could not ignore. This comment is in the same vein.

My previous comment introduced the term Low Grade Morons (LGMs). The term describes people who are substantially, measurably dumber than just Morons. This group of LGMs surfaced and came to my attention through being concerned about Full Body Scans at airports. I noted that their posture was a clear certification that those people were morons. Because of their stance on that particular subject they were entitled to being within the top 10% of all members on the Low Grade Morons list.

I had thought that that would be my last comment on LGMs. I was wrong. I have found another group, in fact an entire family, who may possibly surpass the first group. I know that there are some readers who will shake their head about this remark; but I politely request that you listen to the story before you denigrate my observation.

There is town in Washington DC Metropolitan area called Potomac Maryland. It is filled with beautiful homes, and very successful people. The education levels of the members of this community is very high; but this family slipped through the cracks in the fence, so to speak.

Several days ago they burnt their entire house to the ground. Luckily enough there was no harm to the family. The four family members escaped without any difficulty. Repairs to the house are estimated to be about $1 million. Even in the days of expensive houses this is a goodly sum. How did this occur?

The family put up their live Christmas Tree (an old and pleasant tradition) and then placed candles on the tree and, in emotion of the season, lit them all. They looked beautiful, it was stated. However, the candles put the tree on fire, which then quickly spread to the rest of the house, burning it to the ground.

I am not opposed to holidays. I am not opposed to family emotional connections. I am not opposed to celebrations which are based upon ancient rituals. But, some thought should be reserved for potential difficulties and harm.

Live Christmas trees must be watered so they do not dry out. Trees burn. (Think forest fires). Parts of trees burn (think fireplaces and logs). Why were electric Christmas lights for trees invented? Was it just for increased use of electricity? No, actually the problem of Christmas Trees bursting into flame from candles attached to the trees in the last several centuries was real, serious, and endemic. People lost their trees, their homes, and frequently their lives. This historical fact apparently never occurred to the family in Potomac.

I suggest that this family, and in particularly the adults of the family, stand with clear evidentiary results as senior superior members of the Low Grade Morons.

Let me know if you have any stories that beat this. I can hardly wait. I can’t imagine them.

Eliza and New York

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:59:00 -0500

New York is an exciting town. You are there at the most exciting time of the year. The people are all rushing around and getting ready for the Christmas Holidays. All the stores are busy and some have very interesting and delightful window displays.

I will look forward to your observations and comments about NY in the future.

Stay warm.

Google Video for Pearl River Publishing

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:59:11 -0500

Google wanted to celebrate its 10th year in advertising. They prepared a video that thanks their subscribers. I am one of those subscribers.

The web site: http://www.youtube.com/adwords10?x=1ace85da20534333a99d7ad9310e4d6d

This is just amazing. The video is not only clever; it is personalized. Since they have MILLIONS of advertisers this is just amazing. Aside from the video itself the fact that each advertiser with Google AdWords has an individual video just boggles the mind.
Enjoy it.

Radiation Scanners at Airports

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:57:44 -0500

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.

Some observations about recent Hubble Telescope Results

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:42:00 -0500

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.”

Some musings about the recent election

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:09:47 -0400

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.

Very interesting posts - just the kind of topics I appreciate reading. Actually,consistently insightful content . But, here is a tough question for you: What's your name? And if you have a moment after answering that question, here is a follow up: What inspired you to write? Also, you'd obviously maintain a larger readership if you added a detail or two to your minimal 'about' section, such as the titles to the books. (Sorry to tell you this but your picture is only going to get you so far ;<).
BTW I found you via a link in a recent post of Fred Wilson who proudly claims you as his father-in-law which makes sense since his posts are equally and consistently impacting, Nathan Schor nathans@netmeals.net

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:26:02 -0400

Thanks for the note. Name is Louis P. Solomon, and I am the father-in-law of Fred Wilson.

I write for several reasons but mainly because I like to tell stories. I like to think that I can make up stories about any odd assortment of facts faster, and perhaps better than the average novelist.

I am taking your advice and providing some additional information. And, I have even upgraded my picture. Photogenicity if not one of my strengths.

Vision, Experience, and Leadership

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:21:45 -0400

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.

The Illegal Alien Problem

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:35:39 -0400

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.

The Future of Mankind

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:29:46 -0400

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.

Postulates, Axioms, Theorems and Assumptions

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:49:25 -0500

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.

A Tipping Point

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:10:36 -0500

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.

Logic and Emotion in Problem Solving

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:37:45 -0500

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.