HUMINT

HUMINT: Seven Years

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:30:00 +0000

Since 9-11-2001, millions of Americans, and millions of people from other nations, have faced up to the threats and destabilizing acts of a few suicidal cowards. Before I begin to cover what this essay is about, I want to clarify what this essay is not about:

1. It is not about the pain of September 11, 2001,
2. It is not about the murders that occurred that day
3. It is not about the fear of death caused by terrorists in the past
4. It is not about the anxiety of anticipating new terrorist acts in the future.

IT IS ABOUT LIFE: This essay is about defining critical terms important to the process of remembering tragedies. Without a clear understanding of the terms; life, death and fear… there can be no peace or justice in the aftermath of such tragedy. The focus of this remembrance essay is also on terrorists’ fear of life. In addition to that, it’s also an admission that there will be a cultural projection of what I believe about life, death and fear on to what I cannot understand about the people who could commit such an evil crime.

TERRORISTS FEAR LIFE: I believe the perpetrators of 9-11-2001, were driven by fear of living in our imperfect world. In other words, reality could not meet their expectations so they quit the life they had, taking other individuals’ lives in the process.

NEVER FORGET: To remember 9-11-2001, it is important to revisit the concepts of fear, life and death. These ideas must be redefined in order to observe their meaning in the context of 9-11-2001… Why? The notion of existence, in terms of political terrorism, does not subscribe to traditional definitions of life and death. While I do not know what the concepts of fear, life and death mean to terrorists, nor do I care, for their sake. I do however know what the concepts of fear, life and death mean to me.

LIFE IS: Life is the pursuit of happiness without unduly infringing on the lives of others. Life is a struggle for independence from servitude while simultaneously transcending all dependence on servants. Life is liberty, freedom of choice and the self control to restrain ones self from over indulgence in the presence of plenty.

DEATH IS: Death is anxiety over probable events that have not yet occurred. Death is a prayer for misfortune of others, when those “others” wish he who is praying no ill will. Death is the absence of choice. Death is the absence of all temptation or similarly, death is the protection from all temptation. Death is perceived powerlessness while the real power from within is ignored.

FEAR IS: Since a person can be, by these definitions, physically alive, but exist in a dead state, fear is what death feels like. Fear is the observable phenomenon that grips the living dead. It is not fear of death that renders a living person dead. Rather, it is a haunting fear of life that renders a terrorist capable of committing acts contrary to the pursuit of happiness.

TERMS REDEFINED: By these definitions, one must be mortally alive to experience the joys of life. However, one could be physically alive – with a heart beat – but be dead to the joys of life. In other words, one need not die to be dead. A coward, like those who attacked on 9-11-2001, is already dead and they die in their minds many times before the natural life in their body expires.

LOGIC

1. If a person is physically alive, they may, by these definitions, be alive or dead.
2. If a person is physically dead, they are dead without any possibility of life.
3. Fear is what a person who is physically alive feels as they prepare for death.
4. Fear of death is death.
5. Fear of life is death.
6. Therefore, fear is death
7. Do not fear

NO CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusion to an enduring definition of life that leads to your happiness, your liberty and the liberty of your family, friends and neighbors. A life worthy of enduring should not fear either life or death. The power to live a great life is within each of us. The experience of the last seven years after such a tragedy is proof that our nation can endure difficulty. We may yet prove that our nation can eliminate all of those who committed the terrorist act on 9-11-2001 and target every nation, group or person who indirectly encouraged 9-11-2001.

DO NOT FEAR: To live in a state of fear, or to fear life itself, is the only physical experience of death we will ever have. Do not waste your life approaching death in fear. Instead, spend your life proving that liberty and happiness are why we want to be alive.

WHAT AMERICANS KNOW: Before the tragedy of 9-11-2001, there was the enlightened day of 7-4-1776, the great day the United States was born. Since that day all Americans were given a license to exercise liberty. Since that day, many have sought to deny Americans (including other Americans during the civil war among other times…) our just pursuits. Many more have suggested Americans do deserve our liberties at all…

ALLIED TO LIBERTY: That there are men who would deny natural rights to others is not new. Americans knew in the 18th century, as we knew on 9-11-2001, as we still know and will forever know, an American’s liberty is worth more than their life lived without it. If anyone or anything is determined to prevent your liberty and happiness, they deserve your overt and conscious resistance. If anyone or anything is determined to prevent your liberty and happiness, consider Americans your ally in the struggle against oppression.

HUMINT: Free Body

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:25:00 +0000

In science and engineering related industries, there is an essential tool called a FREE BODY DIAGRAM. It’s commonly used by scientists and engineers to predict the future. Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion is probably the most important narrative of the FREE BODY DIAGRAM. Newton’s third law states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. To express that concept geometrically, [engineers | mathematicians | physicists] use vectors. A vector is used in FREE BODY DIAGRAMS to express a magnitude and a direction for a force.

Newton lived between the years 1643 to 1727 and has had an indelible impact on anyone willing to admit that mankind has the capacity to formulate accurate explanations of events. These days, it would be absurd to dismiss his 17th century thinking as obsolete. The fact is; Newtonian Physics effectively explains most of the observable phenomenon happening around us in our world today.

Newton was a Brit. However, his national origin has little relevance on the propagation and use of Newtonian Physics. A FREE BODY DIAGRAM is not a subject for nationalistic debate. Rather, it is arguably the best way to accurately predict the future.

It’s unfortunate that the future location of a projectile is not considered a more viable resource for predicting the future of society or the future of conflict than a strip mall psychic. Indeed, it would be interesting if social scientists were able to use a measure of Newton’s genius to test the legitimacy of their craft.

Instead, casual supposition still pervades the social sciences. Politics and war are as they always have been, but occur now in a modern context. Conquest is out of fashion these days but the underlying neural mechanics that made imperialism and colonialism fashionable a half century ago have not changed one iota. We are of the same mind as our ancestors, as far back as 50,000 years.

What that means is that our modern society holds the biological capacity to do anything our ancestors did over the last 50,000 years. While it would be nice to forget the past and assert that history is obsolete, we cannot and should not. Ask yourself about the origins of our contemporary stability… if you are honest, you’ll find that peaceful coexistence in contemporary America originated with the Declaration of Independence and continued all the way through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. Martin Luther King quoted Jefferson and Lincoln in his socially transformative speeches… but social scientists tend to shy away from assigning sociological vectors to Jefferson, Lincoln, King and forecasting who will rise up to their ideas and ideals in this decade or the next.

HUMINT: In terms of propagating civility today, the plasticity of the human brain affords each of us the ability to adopt new and more complementary behavior. That’s why Americans take peaceful coexistence for granted today and so many other societies cannot tolerate themselves, much less outsiders…

Indeed, it is the raw power of each of our individual intellects that represents the most encouraging asset society has. Ideally, we should be organizing, agitating and educating young Americans. Instead, most Americans accept the ritual pacification they receive daily – as if it were a good thing…

Unfortunately, the more pacified we each become, the more susceptible each of us are to the influences of historical oppressors such as Mao Tse Dong, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Ruhola Khomeini. These men of the past represent a negative force in society. These names engender fear precisely because they became mass murderers to further their political ambitions.

As a social scientist, create a politically derived FREE BODY DIAGRAM for the ideas of Jefferson, Lincoln and King confronting the ideas of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Khomeini… Does the diagram abide by Newton’s third law of motion? Do the positive forces of the liberators cancel the negative forces of the despots?

HUMINT: Why Democracy?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:00:00 +0000

HUMINT: Advocating democratization may sound provocative, even interventionist, but it isn’t. Instead it is the exact opposite of provocation. Democratization policies presuppose that less intervention is preferred to more intervention. The objective of democratization policy should be to tip a volatile situation in favor of freedom and stability without offensive or defensive violence.

WHO can democratize best? Everyone! Democratization as a foreign policy represents a commitment from all strata of society. Unfortunately, these diverse elements remain uncoordinated today. Fortunately, intra-national and inter-national incompetence is not a permanent condition. To perform effectively, democratization requires a synchronized philosophy of civil society or at least a cross-cultural commitment to find and respect such a philosophy. Once articulated, that philosophy must cross traditional cultural as well as interagency boundaries.

WHAT isn’t democratization? Synching a healthy philosophy of governance among national leaders isn’t neo-colonialism. Democratization is about explaining what a healthy society actually is. Between you and me, I don’t have all of those answers. To be sure, the best answers are a moving target. Unlike colonialism, democratization is always a two-way conversation.

DOES local dysfunction hurt central government? We do know and can empirically prove that dysfunction at a local level adversely influences central governments. That fact is as true for the United States as it is anywhere else in the world. Therefore the principal mission of democratization is to empirically demonstrate how central governments, retarded by local dysfunction, adversely impact international stability. Democratization is about honestly assessing and reporting the results of policies around the world and offering thoughtful alternatives to policies that perpetuate dysfunction at a local level.

ARE Americans nation builders? To that end, Americans needn’t open their wallets for massive nation-building projects. People around the world intend to develop and pacify their own communities themselves. When they are failing however, it should not be assumed that they are failing on purpose. Every community in the world is burdened with common obstacles. Many of the obstacles nations are facing today, American institutions overcame centuries ago. Here is where American mentorship and management has an essential win-win role to play.

IS the USA positive? Democratization is also about American officials demonstrating that the USA is playing a positive role wherever Americans are involved. Indeed, democratization efforts are occurring already. The US government should highlight its success stories but does not. A major problem is that positive American democratization policies are poorly explained, allowed to be mischaracterized for nefarious ends, and almost never justified by Americans with the zeal they deserve. It’s time to start explaining that democracy is a positive pursuit.

WILL it be hard? Yes, but less hard than dealing with governments that hide their intent and do not respond to internal or external dissent. Let’s be honest about the costs of democratization. Curbing misconceptions is not the same thing as curbing offensive or defensive violence. Violence may occur when a clarification is made. That’s fine! Fighting isn’t failure. Democracy is no guarantor of peace and stability. Instead, democracy is a proven procedural approach to achieve sustainable peace and sustainable stability.

WHY democracy? Democratization is about fostering transparency and responsiveness of government institutions. Not only does democratization curb threats, it creates new opportunity. For the sake of increasing opportunity, as well as saving lives and resources, it’s time to start explaining that the pursuit of democracy is a positive pursuit and in so doing, encourage democrats around the world!

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Image assigned to this post is of George Washington crossing the Delaware. During the night of December 25, 1776 Washington led his troops across the ice-swollen Delaware about 9 miles north of Trenton. The weather was horrendous and the river treacherous. Raging winds combined with snow, sleet and rain to produce almost impossible conditions. To add to the difficulties, a significant number of Washington's force marched through the snow without shoes. Washington's leadership is an historical benchmark for democratization efforts.

HUMINT: Thank You

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:54:00 +0000

This essay was composed to thank everybody who does what they do when they are motivated by a sense of justice, righteousness and civility.

Thanks go to the owners and employees of businesses; you keep lines short so citizens can do whatever it is they do when they’re not wasting their time in lines. Thanks to bankers for keeping our money safe and currency legitimate. Special thanks go to judges and lawyers; your knowledge of case law establishes the rules by which we all live and thrive. Thanks go to police officers, fire fighters and hospital staff. Without you, society would be corrupt, on fire and sick, which would be Hell. Your effort to keep chaos at bay is nothing less than an undeclared war… Thank you.

Thank you, Rabbis, Priests and Clerics. Your various interpretations of scripture guide many of the world’s inhabitants toward tolerance and justice. There are too many spiritual heroes to name here but there is one example worth mentioning; Islam’s Imam Hussein sought to inspire life by risking his own. His journey to Valhalla was not suicide, but a risk taken in faith against long odds. Those are the facts of Imam Hussein’s narrative as I understand them. Indeed, Imam Hussein was a public servant.

Thank you, public servants! No other role contradicts the core American identity more than that of a career public servant. It must be difficult. A servant’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is secondary, conciliatory and supportive to that of all other American citizens’ pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

Thank you, soldiers, sailors and airmen. The United States is an island of peaceful coexistence surrounded on all sides by divisive forces. The world beyond our borders taxes you most of all. Corruption, poverty and violence are three sides of the same coin. Where diplomacy is ineffectual, you will be called to protect Americans from the ever present threat of chaos.

Entrepreneurs and inventors, thank you! You have liberated so many hours of laborious tedium, our children have little, or no concept of manual labor. Before household appliances, keeping our homes clean and our families fed required every ounce of energy. Suffice to say that those are only the most vivid examples of your intellectual generosity. Thank you for all of your inventions that we do not see but enjoy every minute of every day. The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness could not march forward without your eternal vigilance.

Thank you parents! No one is more responsible for the condition of society than you. Thank you for teaching your children to stand up for what they believe in. Thatnk you for teaching your children to respect the oppinions of others. What you do is taken for granted, misunderstood and misrepresented. There is no manual that comes with a child; only a flood of informed opinion; sometimes wrong, but always well meaning.

And last but not least, thanks go to our own intelligence. Thank you for making smart, intelligent decisions untied to dogma, cognizant of history, aligned with the American national identity. Nothing deserves higher regard. Thanks!

HUMINT: Hypocritical Labels

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:20:00 +0000

Reasons for believing in and supporting any American policy are subject to change. Indeed, change is a natural part of the human condition. There should be no shame in changing one’s mind, if the reasons for doing so are empirically defensible.

Obviously, flippant opinions on subjects as serious as American-War policy are dangerous. At the same time, American policy can be over-analyzed and mischaracterized. Such hypocritical labeling leads the public and their representatives toward erroneous conclusions and bad policy decisions.

Where consistency should not waiver though are the broad strokes. Missing the BIG picture is a serious error with serious consequences. Unfortunately, many people do miss the BIG picture. How? The BIG picture changes very slowly, almost imperceptibly.

Its slowness breeds misinterpretation. To see the BIG picture as it truly is, consider taking the long-view. Dig into history. Find the important trends. Look for successful parallels in the past. Bear witness to past failures in order to learn what NOT to believe.

The BIG picture is most discernable when juxtaposing facts sampled over long periods of time. In terms of American policy, the big picture appears to be:

1. The United States is a positive moral force in the world today and has been since 1776

2. The American Message begins with Americans, but is broadly articulated by their representatives

3. American Wars are catastrophic and wasteful events, to be avoided whenever possible

4. When the United States is at war, be it civil or otherwise, the only objective should be victory

5. Victory is defined by the elected President of the United States

These five points are empirically defensible. Labels contradicting them are taxing but welcome. A contradictory mischaracterization is ultimately a hypocritical label. Here’s why; labeling a positive force negative sustains bad policy. That’s an embodiment of hypocrisy.

Hypocritical labels deserve to be challenged. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who mischaracterizes the United States. Irrespective of where the distortion comes from; a foreign official or an American activist, every single mischaracterization deserves a rhetorical confrontation.

What will that confrontation look like? Inevitably, challenges to the BIG picture, will be conceptually deconstructed. Political discourse on the subject tends to lean toward specific policy failures or questionable military practices. That’s fine!

Those debates are an exercise in free speech [1] and precisely why the United States is a positive moral force in the world today. The freedom to accumulate and present empirical evidence virtually guarantees improvement in policy and tactics.

Broadening the scope of this essay beyond American policy; success in anything, including victory at war, is not possible without incremental improvements derived through informed debate.

Where should the debate occur? Unfortunately, that’s not a rational choice to make. The debate must occur wherever and whenever a mischaracterization is made.

Why should the debate occur? Obviously, not every confused soul is going to listen to an intellectual argument rooted in empirical evidence, but mischaracterizations shouldn’t be ignored.

However, there are priorities among the broad ecosystem of mischaracterizations. To be sure, the debate must happen when the results of an American policy or military tactic do not satisfy the BIG picture.

Engaging in debate over policy and tactics is the least an American patriot can do. Failure is not the intent of any American policy or tactic. American policy failures under public scrutiny right now cannot substitute as the BIG picture for American domestic or foreign policy. That’s substituting a distorted short-view for a more accurate long-view. Unfortunately, the substitution is made too often, causing a public opinion vortex.

When public opinion is distorted by mischaracterizations of American foreign or domestic policy, the world is burdened with a hypocritical label.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The painting on this post is entitled "Freedom of Speech": In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech about the "Four Freedoms" everyone should have: freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. Norman Rockwell painted these Four Freedoms. These paintings succeeded in raising almost $133 million in war-bond purchases. Norman Rockwell said the Four Freedoms were "serious paintings which sucked the energy right out of me, leaving me dazed and thoroughly weary." Rockwell uses various techniques to draw your attention to the main character in Freedom of Speech. The speaker is in the center of the scene and he is the only one standing. Other people in the picture are looking up at him. Rockwell creates a strong sense that the speaker is really speaking and that the listeners are really listening. To illustrate listening, he slightly exaggerated the size of their ears.

HUMINT: Musical Chairs

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:49:00 +0000

The game “Musical Chairs” is played by a group of N people. The rules are so simple, they’re almost stupid. When the music stops, each player must find a seat. While the music is playing, the players walk, dance, trot or meander around a row of N-1 chairs. The chairs are configured in a circle or are arranged to face front and back at repeating intervals of two. This is to ensure players standing on either side of the row of seats can find one quickly when the music stops. If the letters p and b represent the chairs facing opposite directions, the configuration would look something like [pbpbpbpb] if N=9. But there aren’t enough chairs… Count them. There are 8. That’s the point of the game. The player left standing when the music stops is that round’s loser.

The type of music playing isn’t supposed to matter to the players. The only thing that should influence the behavior of the players is whether or not the music is on or off. The game represents a Boolean condition. If the music is on, everyone is standing. If the music is off, everyone must be sitting. Anyone standing when the music isn't playing exists in a false condition.

The game however could become complicated if the music were to directly contradict the rules of the game. Imagine playing musical chairs to the song “Get Up! Stand Up!” by Bob Marley (I am a fan) and the Wailers. If the players listen to the lyrics, believe in the lyrics, put faith in the lyrics… Well, then it wouldn’t be musical chairs anymore… It would be a different game entirely.

HUMINT: Iranian Tyranny

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:34:00 +0000

The Islamic Republic of Iran is directly and indirectly perpetuating violence across the Middle East. Iran backs violence because it is a sectarian and dogmatic regime. Iranian foreign policy is an ever-present danger. Iran’s ambitions are overt and extend well beyond the scope of illegally pursuing a dual use nuclear program. The Old Persian Empire is wearing a new shroud and it’s an oppressively theocratic breed of governance.

Wherever Iran operates, organizations supported by Tehran represent political forces that pursue the fracture of sovereign nations. Iran backs militias around the world that seek to become states within states. Hezbollah represents a near autonomous State within Lebanon. Hamas represents an autonomous state within Palestine. The lesson here is that Iranian foreign policy follows a clear pattern of reckless destabilization.

Iran destabilizes a host nation by encouraging strife at the local level, splitting local municipalities from their central government along sectarian lines. Overtime, this policy makes the central government fracture and look for external sources of cohesion. Ususally that cohesion is found through a shared enemy, IE the United States and or Israel. Regardless of which nation Iranian interference occurs in, the policy always threatens the sovereignty regional neighbors.

Make no mistake; the Islamic Republic of Iran remains a serious regional threat. That’s no secret. That’s not hype. That’s a fact. But Wait! If the situation in the Middle East were to improve, could the U.S. partner with Iran? Could the political situation conceivably improve if a “grand bargain” were struck between Iran and the United States? No! Iranian imperialism will continue destabilizing the Middle East because that’s the reality of that government’s world view. Iranian officials feed on crisis.

Some experts argue that the imperialist tendencies of the Iranian government are shared by the Iranian people themselves. Evidence suggests the opposite. In polls conducted in Iran, Iranians want to join the international community and are overwhelmingly pro-American. There’s no question about it. The Iranian people are not represented by their Government. Therefore, they are not likely to share the Iranian Government’s anti-American foreign policy either.

Yet many Western intellectuals argue that supporting the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations is too problematic and too confrontational to become official American policy. As for the Iranian people and Americans who support their aspirations for democracy, it’s definitely worth the risk to challenge the status-quo in Iran. [1]

Pundits who claim the Iranian people will side with Iranian clerics before siding with Americans who support their inalienable rights are missing the big picture. So what if Iranians do turn to their masters before embracing liberty? Those that side with tyranny over their own freedom are politically and diplomatically irrelevant. Therefore, international relations with Iran remain tenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

Iran’s intransigent birth cannot be downplayed. The Islamic Republic was born a hostage taking nation and continues to use hostage taking as leverage in foreign policy negotiations. Violence is embedded in the current Iranian government’s national identity. Nothing short of a regime change will end Tehran’s imperialist ambitions. Call this essay a quest for behavioral change among Iranian officials, if you like; nevertheless, regime change is this essay's ultimate demand. [2]

If recent newspaper headlines are an accurate indication of a shift in American foreign policy toward Iran, the United States has once again rejected a policy of regime change in that country. Recent headlines across Europe and the Middle East are lavishing praise on Iranian nuclear resistance to international requests for the Iranians to halt their nuclear enrichment program.

It's not in anybody’s interest that Iran receive a pass for its bad behavior. Western pressure to stop Iranian uranium enrichment has been met time and time again with deception and denials. Ultimately, U.S. consensus on the Iran issue has been capitulation. Rational requests from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to halt uranium enrichment are repeatedly denied by the Revolutionary Government of Iran with a consistency the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) and UNSC couldn’t match.

It’s been the Iranian government’s lying, sarcasm and stubbornness that effectively broke the back of the UNSC and the IAEA. The IAEA is tasked with inspecting declared nuclear sites in Iran. Instead, the IAEA has been complicit in Iranian lying, sarcasm and stubbornness through mismanagement and lethargy. Arguably the United Nations and its sister organizations have been a broken bureaucracy from their inception. So what do world leaders do? Do they find a way to make it work? Do they engender the will to face sarcastic liars? No! They dither!

None has dropped the atomic ball more than the world’s recognized democratic leader, the United States of America. U.S. efforts to curb Iranian domination are not easy, but they shouldn’t be undercut by agencies within the United States. Of course, Russia, China, Venezuela and Syria support Iran’s nuclear progress. Dictatorships actively sabotage the efficacy of democratic international relations. That’s because they aren’t democracies. Their obstructions are expected. Capitulating to these nations’ support for Iran’s defiance is capitulating to global dictatorships. That’s a far cry from the UN operating as a healthy global democracy. Global policy toward Iran at this time is no longer about consensus building, it’s about dithering. Arguably, that’s what the United Nations does all the time. Dither!

No matter how one looks at it, Iran’s inflexibility has been met with flexibility from the Untied States and the International community. That’s not pragmatism. That’s capitulation. The United States, a world leader for freedom and democracy looks as though it recently surrendered to an international oligarchy, hell bent on protecting Iran as it continues to develop the means to make a nuclear weapon!

The international community can continue equivocating over such things as Iran’s intent. In terms of the Iran threat, it represents more than a nuclear threat. The threat is the regime itself. Nothing’s changed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The pursuit of freedom is not just one option among many; it is an obligation. If there are no Iranians who harbor an ambition to be free, that would only make the effort to encourage democracy in Iran more urgent. Fortunately, there are many Iranians who do pursue their own freedom and they deserve Americans’ support.

2. Regime change in Iran is an appropriate foreign policy position. Regardless of Iran’s nuclear intentions, which remain dangerous, Iran represents a threat to freedom of [religion, expression, assembly and of the press]. The threat occurs inside Iran and extends beyond its borders.

HUMINT: Unconditional Love

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000

HUMINT: Unconditional love can be expressed in many ways. I think of unconditional love as the emotional expression of a part for the whole. A mother and her newborn are emotionally inseparable. That’s an expression of unconditional love. Brothers may share it, if they’re close confidants. Soldiers may feel a version of unconditional love for those they risk everything for. A priest may feel unconditional love for his parishioners and vice-versa. Unconditional love is usually detached from materialism but it can indeed exist over purely material relations. A zealous store owner may feel a version of unconditional love for their most loyal customers.

The interconnectedness between part and whole is a transcendent bond that engenders unconditional love. Only through exercising those bonds can love be replenished. Without a sensation of unity; a part yearning to be whole, unconditional love is impossible. To understand unconditional love we need to consider what is conceivably whole and all the parts that contribute to its wholeness. Alternatively, we might assert, when parts are missing from the whole, there is an observable incompleteness.

At first glance, it’s apparent that none of the relationships that tie a part to its whole is ambivalent. In other words, the cohesion that binds a part to its whole is biased. It makes sense in the context of righteousness. There’s no such thing as righteous ambivalence. Pragmatism is often masqueraded as righteous ambivalence but instead, it’s self delusion; a form of escape; a part abandoning the whole.

Examples abound. Tribalism is often an elaborate expression of the bond between a member and their extended family. Nationalism is an elaborate expression of the bond between a citizen and their state. Consumerism is a bond between a consumer and their market choices. Environmentalism is a bond between a person and the earth. Spiritualism is an elaborate bond between the individual and their universe. None of these bonds is mutually exclusive. Each tug and push on the other, vying for equilibrium.

When these cohesive forces contradict each other too quickly or for too long, the inevitable result is a crash. In terms of tribes and nations, these crashes are called revolutions. They’re called recessions in terms of markets. When discussing the environment, they’re called extinctions. Only religion asserts its permanence yet we know that religions are as equally capable of extinction as are all of a faith’s adherents.

That said; how do we know these things? Inversely, how could we thrive if we did not know these things? Even if you’ve never heard of the scientific method, or never conducted a single laboratory experiment; we’re all aware of the past. Our unique interpretations of the past may deviate wildly; nevertheless we all know our present condition is a product of events that occurred in the past.

Humanity, in the here and now, represents all people --- a seemingly comprehensive whole to consider. Unconditional love exists between individuals and humanity, although it is very rare. It’s rare because it’s impractical. It only works for individuals loosely bound to their own past, and the history of all the wholes they belong. It might work for revolutionary idealists, but not their children or their children’s children. That’s because unconditional love for humanity is not the same as the whole represented by all of human history.

Human history is a truly comprehensive whole. Like religion, history, so long as there is a person capable of learning and remembering it, is impervious to crashing. Unlike religion though, humanity’s history includes all of the religions any one of us or our ancestors have ever believed in. Indeed, unlike these other sub-wholes [Tribe Nation Market] are each included in human history. Unfortunately, unconditional love does not exist between historical events (the parts) and history (the whole). History’s many parts are incapable of emotion; therefore past events have no cohesion to the whole of human history. It’s only through iterative interpretation of historical events that cohesive parts begin gravitating toward a unified whole.

That’s what all of us do with the history we think we know. The truth is, only historians operate with the legitimate qualifications, AKA, academic license, to organize historical events into a cohesive unified whole. Every other interpretation of history is just a convoluted opinion cobbled together by the emotional mix that guides each of us through our lives.

Maybe, one day, when historians are allowed to abandon their own [Tribes Nations Markets Environments Religions] and begin articulating human history as the whole that it truly is, the rest of us highly emotional laymen will understand the deeper meaning of our life, love and work in the context of all the life, love and work that was accomplished before us. From that awakening, we will see ourselves anew; we will find a new respect for history and an unconditional love for the future.

Among the competing forces that define who we are now, there is a force generated by the image of who we intend to be in the future. Constantly baptized by the fires of history making events, for better or worse, we are all changing. The questions we should be asking ourselves and each other are “how?” and “why?” Arguably, the force compelling us to succeed in harmony with each other is the most potent of all forces. Its power is an enduring theme throughout human history because it is a complementary force. Given freedom, and an accurate history, there is no reason to believe we couldn’t all be born again, in sustainable peace. That’s my definition of victory.

In short, our history deserves unconditional respect and our future deserves unconditional love.

HUMINT: Satire as Philosophy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:22:00 +0000

Satire: a manner of writing that mixes a critical attitude with wit and humor in an effort to improve mankind and human institutions.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics.

Cynicism: originally the philosophy of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics; believing the worst of human nature and motives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

HUMINT: Political theater in the form of satire makes introducing taboo subjects relatively easy. Good satire has real power. Introducing a subject in the form of a joke is like adding a giggly escape hatch for all of a conversation’s participants. But comedic reprieves from responsibility only work for those willing or able to retreat from tough subjects. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are perfect examples of America’s finest satirists. These men herd public opinion with satire as if they were cowboys driving livestock across the mid-western prairie. These two brilliant comedians make Americans laugh about subjects that we would otherwise prefer to avoid. Even if we don’t need a humorous back door to the tough subjects in America, we still want a comedic escape hatch. Indeed, we’re willing to pay for it as though it were as important as our prescription drugs...

Unlike American society, some societies need a scocio-political escape hatch just to think straight. Anonymity (using an alias and IP Address masking software) combined with satirical ambiguity is particularly useful in societies where spreading controversy can get you executed. An Iranian dissident for example, might be able to speak his or her mind -- pseudo freely -- encrypted by satire -- to avoid a few years in jail, avoid a public beating, or avoid execution. Unfortunately, the fascist authoritarians ruling Iran with an iron fist today are not known for their sense of humor. But that’s them… not us… que sera sera.

Living in a society like America or Europe, where controversy is embraced, satire is an indelible art. Comedians are masters of controversy and Americans love comedians. But how does it work? Who protects a comedian’s right to joke and the audience’s right to laugh? We all do… To be sure, citizens afforded the requisite security to be controversial by their government and their society is a rare phenomenon. When juxtaposed against the violent and mostly authoritarian history of humankind, living with a little uncomfortable controversy every once in a while has become very comfortable indeed.

What changed? Who is responsible for our modern freedoms? We all are! Our role in society is a function of what we collectively believe or have the capacity to believe… Our social identity evolved through iterations of victory in our wars, curing our diseases, feeding our hungry children and learning from our dissenters --- be they satirists, philosophers or cynics.

Let’s not give to much credit to the suffering of our ancestors. Humanity is not made better through suffering. Humanity is made better by outwitting the causes of suffering. There is no humility in defeat. There is only humility in a willingness to change in order to succeed, eventually. Case in point: Americans respect each other’s inalienable rights because our intellectual DNA constantly informs us of the inherent danger of NOT respecting each others inalienable rights. To that end, satire has played a major role in helping Americans understand who we are.

For context, consider the satirical approach to feminism taken by the renowned philosopher Plato [1]. In ancient Greece, Plato introduced the idea of women’s participation in democratic government as if it were a satirical joke. His thoughts about women leading men were comedic, but prophetic. To what extent Plato thought women could or should lead society is debatable, but that’s not the issue. Given the status of women in ancient Greece, could Plato have introduced the idea of women’s rights without a satirical façade? Could any Athenian have protected Plato from an angry mob if he didn’t add a humorous escape hatch to the notion of Athenian women as equals or as leaders?

Nowadays, it’s taken for granted that the political ideas of American women deserve the attention afforded to all American citizens in every public forum. Ask any American and they’ll tell you about America’s implicit and explicit gender rules. What does Plato’s story teach us? The lesson is; Plato introduced the idea of feminism imperfectly and the subject has morphed into something else; a new feminist philosophy about gender and leadership. We know Plato’s philosophy did not spread without controversy or consequence. Consciously intended or not, Plato’s concepts on the subject were encrypted by satire. Satirical encryption may have saved his life… His satirical expression may have help create and thus save our American lives. It was Athenian society and Plato’s willingness to express his philosophy that contributed to the creation of our American democracy. America’s Founding Fathers knew Greek history.

As they did, we know too, ancient Athens was a bloody place in Plato’s day. Freedom and her companion, Justice [2], were talked about at great length in ancient Athens by men like Plato. But what ancient Athenians practiced wouldn’t look much like freedom or justice to modern Americans. That fact cannot diminish the socio-political trajectory ancient democracy established. It was their ancient mental model that helped develop the mental models of America’s Founding Fathers. If and when Americans are inclined to look for their philosophical ancestry, they’re bound to discover something about themselves. Regardless of what our emotion may tell us about the ancients and their ways, basic human freedoms are both subjectively and objectively defined in American law.

That said; is there a logical limit to freedom or justice? Are Americans a free people? Yes, we certainly are! Can Americans challenge their authority figures in public? Yes, we do! What about controversial opinions and American national security? Is it safe to disagree satirically, philosophically, or cynically on issues related to the security of the United States? Of course it is safe to do so! Whether or not it is healthy to be cynical about American leadership is another subject. The fact remains, U.S. National Security is represented by a highly educated cadre of career professionals who embody personal responsibility and sustain the American Republic with military strength, rational analysis and perpetual readiness.

My respect and admiration for this generation of American men and women leading the United States today cannot be overstated. Likewise, my ambition for them to succeed cannot be overstated. My success is inextricably linked to theirs, as is all Americans’ success. Their failure would be my failure… Failure is an unnecessary and unacceptable outcome and could only occur in the realm of ideas. History has shown that our freedom is our strength. History has shown what Americans can do. History suggests what Americans will do.

Are American officials perfect? No! Do they make mistakes? Yes! Are American officials approachable in the context of correcting the mistakes they’ve made? Yes, they are! These truisms exist whether or not American citizens agree or disagree with U.S. policy. Even the most obtuse critics of American foreign policy argue that American officials are doing what they believe is necessary to protect the United States and our allies abroad. That’s a good thing! American officials should be trying to protect American interests. In many instances, American interests coincide with the world’s interests, but that’s not the crux of most American disagreement, argument and debate. The core disagreements between Americans are over methods to achieve those interests, whatever those interests may be.

Are American citizens (or anyone else for that mater) obliged to treat their disagreements with American foreign or domestic policy issues as a joke, presented in satirical form, providing themselves and the United States Government a comedic escape hatch? No they are not! Are American citizens obliged to sue the United States government for every mistake one of its representatives makes? No, what a waste of time and tax! Are problems in society too big to fix without a utopian myth and a charismatic leader to chase? No, not at all!

In practical terms, however you decide to express yourself, look to others for advice, look for solutions and look for happiness. Keep your expectations realistic and optimistic. Realize, not all rules benefit society. Realize some members of society will refuse to follow the rules. Challenge the rules you think hurt more people than they help. Think about what rules people break and why. Challenge authority. Challenge cynics. Cynicism is as much an illusion as utopia and the charismatic leaders who claim utopia exists if only we were all perfect... None of us are perfect. Use historical analogy. Use your imagination. Use satire when it suits the subject matter, but know that satire stylistically distorts the material it conveys. Satire is the art of bending our familiar rules of implicit and explicit communication. Realize that success embraces communities that exercise their freedom to learn, speak and assemble. And finally --- Be proud of your ideology. Describe it accurately no matter how seductive it appears to be. Whatever you believe, if you only represent your philosophy as satire, it will forever remain the joke you’ve made it to be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]

Plato as a Proto-Feminist --- EXCERPT: Of course, we cannot be absolutely certain of Plato’s views… such knowledge would be impossible without interviewing the philosopher himself. But, through careful analyses of his writings, we can certainly glean out ideas which paint him as a proto-feminist.

[2] The image is of blind justice with its pixel color inverted, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert in the upper right corner and the Parthenon sits in the lower right corner. Inverting the image of justice is my satire. The meaning remains but the overall seriousness of the statue is limited by manipulating the image’s color. Stewart and Colbert are brilliant satirists. While they are funny, the direction they are going with their satire deserves to be challenged. The Parthenon in the lower right corner represents the Athenian Empire, Athenian Democracy and Plato’s world. That era deeply influences Americans today even if most of us don’t realize it.

HUMINT: Mental Models

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:41:00 +0000

Seductive: tending to entice into a desired action or state.

Successful: having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome.

HUMINT: Survival depends on a clear conception of how the world works. You can be wrong but it always has consequences. Your personal understanding of the world and its mechanics is a model of reality. Your model transcends your personality. It transcends your nationalism. It transcends your religion. It’s true no matter what threatens the survival of your model or what threatens your reality. Understanding our history in the context of world history helps us form our models, but history alone cannot serve as sufficient mental model. At best, history is a user’s manual for society. That’s why historians tend to be extremely competent model makers. Historians can see patterns most of us can’t. But don’t embrace a historian’s version of reality casually. Just because historians can see patterns and articulate them doesn’t guarantee those patterns are real or relevant to the rest of us today. History is an interpretive enterprise. Historians aren’t priests. They don’t demand your faith so don’t give it to them. History is comprised of disconnected windows into the past; like pieces of a model that someone is going to glue together. Too often history is ignored when we’re building our mental models. What I’d like American professionals, professors, and politicians to realize is that history’s pieces will be fashioned into a model, by someone, whether we like the results or not.

If you’re expecting me to force my model on you, that’s not what this essay is about. That’s not what my writings here at human intelligence are about either. It’s a fool’s errand to force a model on anyone. By virtue of their existence, all models are seductive. Put a brick on a podium in an art gallery and you’ll see what I mean. As the pontificators gather around it, they’ll invest their own meaning in the brick. I’d like to believe the most accurate mental models are the most socially seductive, but they’re not. The most accurate models are usually the most successful, but success is not universal, therefore successful mental models tend to be unseductive when other illusory choices are offered. Ultimately, it’s not what a mental model looks like that matters. It’s what a mental model does for its subscriber. Successful Washingtonian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, to name a few mental architects, have a high melting point in our American melting pot, but the mental models they created for Americans are not indestructible. The work done by the Founding Fathers is being undone by a number of disingenuous members of American Authority who claim American foreign policy is an arbitrary adventure in aggression.

Any implication of arbitrary acts of aggression committed for the sake of a nation or government is enough to degrade any mental model that sustains that nation or government. In terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, empirical evidence does not support accusations that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War were not necessary. Despite the lowest record of error and casualties in any American war ever, the daily news in America and around the world is replete with implications of misconduct. The fact is, the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are being conducted with a high degree of professionalism. Those are the facts… So, why are there implications to the contrary? Where are the implications of misconduct coming? If consensual government is a just cause, where’s the disconnect between success on the battlefield and support for our wars abroad?

I don’t know the answer. I do however know that long term peace (a highly desirable outcome of any violent conflict) fosters the idea that all aggression is arbitrary. This is a very self destructive misunderstanding of violence in the midst of a struggle for consensual government in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans are ideologically and institutionally geared to fight for inalienable rights, liberty and an enduring pursuit of happiness. That’s a good thing. To be coy about that reality is a tacit acceptance of contrary mental models. Nothing could be more debilitating to the American Mental Model here at home than the belief that “conflict” and “failure” are equivalent concepts. For those that see the world through this distorted lens, are as likely to avoid decisive victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably they’re skittish of escalating conflict in the Middle East when they are doing exactly that. War without victory is a stalemate. It is a recipe for sustained conflict.

To clarify this point, let’s dissociate America’s Wars from American Sport. Non-violent competition may feel like war but each is an entirely different experience. Unlike victory, spiking a football after a touchdown may be bray. On the other hand, declaring victory after a war or the pursuit of victory during war is the only guarantor of finality. Violent engagement will only cease when one mental model supplants another in society that accepts attacks against the United States and our forces serving overseas. The mental model that remains after victory needn’t be American. It shouldn’t be. It must however peacefully accept the United States as a legitimate component of the world we live in today. If it does not, and as long as it does not, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will smolder indefinitely. Mental models do not peacefully coexist in the minds of militants. Either the United States is a legitimate nation pursuing legitimate goals around the globe or it is not. It is not bray to actively seek the elimination of dangerous ambiguities swirling around in the minds of Americans and our enemies abroad. At this important moment in history, when more and more identities are expressing their mental models in public and online (with the technology the American Market empowered them with) it is dangerous to modest.

The best of my ability, I built my model and will risk everything for it. I’m not a cognitive architect but I love my model like a mother loves her newborn. I’m still working on it but enjoy displaying it; unfinished, unpolished, with pride. My confidence comes from acknowledging my model’s limitations and my enduring attempts to articulate it. But set that aside. No matter what you may think of me or my model, think about the model you consciously or unconsciously push on the world. Is it inclusive, exclusive or divisive? How did you derive your model? Was your model a gift to you or did you earn it with blood, sweat and tears? Did you find it in your teens or are in adulthood? Was an introspective experience or some kind of group love-in? Is it sustainable? Be honest with yourself. Do you talk about or even think about your mental models? If you’re modest with your model at home or abroad, it doesn’t count. Look at the alternatives. There will always be plenty of alternatives. The most seductive models are shown often and copy themselves in the public arena. Think about it. Missionaries take their models on the road. Door to door, they sell their ideas best face to face --- with a smile!

Whether we’re conscious of it or not, our world model changes as it asymptotically approaches reality. It’s very difficult to notice these changes as they overtake us. The mental model of the world we have now is our point of reference for the past, present and future. It’s not Orwellian. When your mental model of the world changes your conception of the past present and future emigrates as well. Nevertheless, we hope our model is increasingly accurate. At least the ecosystem of mental models appears to be evolving toward better precision and accuracy. It’s a trend that occurs without bias, because biased models, no matter how seductive they are, biased models always fail their subscribers. Unfortunately, I’m describing a feeling. I have no proof. I’m extrapolating because I know; no matter what models individuals subscribe to today, reality and all of our mental models of it are dynamic, no matter how wrong or right they are. Some mental models will be adopted; others will be edited to accommodate reality or abandoned in their entirety. I don’t care if you adopt my mental model or call my articulation of it bray. If you do adopt it, do it without me. I’m not trying to start a cult. If you think I’m bray, it’s a tangent worth spending a few words on --- kiss my ass! [2] I’m here to define and defend my ideas at all costs --- that applies to dinner parties and fist fights. I prefer the former to the later, but know both intimately. Defending a mental model with pleasantries does not contradict a healthy readiness to engage in violence. If anything I’ve just written is intimidating check your mental model. It’s probably biased.

That said --- During the American Revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; King George III or Thomas Jefferson? Obviously Jefferson! Right… well, that’s how it all played out didn’t it. Thank God that’s history and thank God for our British allies! --- NEXT! During the French Revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; Marie Antoinette or her pitch fork wielding, revolutionary people? With hindsight, perched high on my own mental model, I’d say both were wrong! Thank God that’s history. Thank God for our allies in France!

Let’s keep going --- During the Iranian revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi or Ayatollah Khomeini? Both were wrong, but this revolutionary example is different than the American or French Revolutions. Empirical evidence suggests the Iranian Revolution isn’t over. Nothing has been settled since it occurred. It never fulfilled its purpose. We could pretend it’s over… but that would be biased. It wouldn’t explain why the Iranian Government continues to burn American flags in their streets. It wouldn’t explain why a sovereign nation like Iran is pushing the International community to the edge of smacking it with debilitating sanctions. Tehran is running a reckless nuclear program making the region more nervous than anything else occurring there. Pretending the Iranian Revolution were over wouldn’t explain the mass graves scattered across Iran. It wouldn’t explain what’s going on when student leaders and democracy advocates are tortured for their opinions, or gays hanged for being gay or feminists beaten for demanding women’s rights… The fact is, the slogans from 1979 were never realized. Victory in that revolution was suppressed and that’s precisely why turbulence continues in that country today.

Revolutions are turning points in many minds. They have influence that ripples through generations of mankind. Revolutions may be the most significant events in human history, for better or worse. Events larger than individuals like Revolution and War usually shape our mental models, even if we don’t realize they do. From my reading of history, only a few brave souls have been intelligent and brave enough to bring the world’s collective mental models closer to reality. Many of those individuals paid for their altruistic curiosity with their life. I don’t know all their names and cannot sufficiently praise them. They are the real architects of our existence today. Some names I do know and cannot be coy about. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman --- these men were architects. Their bold acts transformed into modern day gifts Americans take for granted today. Now, we look back and consider their miracles mundane. They could not have made any other choices, could they? How could we not look at them that way? It is through their design that we see the world. Their omnipresence renders Americans blind to them. No matter what we can see or what we believe exists… our current mode of survival is just one model among many that came before it. How the world really works is too complex for our minds to fully comprehend. Our beauty comes from the struggle to understand what we know we can’t fully know…

Ideally, one day, the most successful mental models will also be the most seductive… That’s not going to be easy to manifest. Get out there. Test your model. Learn something new about us and spread the word as though it were gospel!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Earth’s atmosphere is protected in part by our planet’s magnetic field. The Earth’s auroras are incredibly beautiful. This image shows a solar flare to be deflected by our magnet field. We perceive such events when we see the aurora.

[2] If I come across as aggressive, you don’t know what aggressive is. There are diverse peoples in the world with bad ideas and guns to back those ideas up. They want to kill Americans. If you can’t look them in the eye and express your mental model, you definitely won’t be able to deescalate the situation. In the heat of a fight, you won’t be able to kill them before they kill you. You won’t even know when violence is about to happen. In fact, if you never express your mental model as an sign of modesty, you’ll make violence inevitable.

HUMINT: Chemically Neutral

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:07:00 +0000

Entropy: A measure of the disorder or randomness in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy of a closed system always increases over time. This means that energy is being transformed by the mechanics of the universe into uniformly-distributed heat energy. What this means is that even a chemically neutral process will increase entropy. There is no way around entropy… no matter how green or chemically neutral mankind intends to become.

Quote 1: Is it better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both? --- Niccolo Machiavelli

Quote 2: War is an extension of politics by other means. --- Karl Von Clausewitz

When it comes to our society’s environmental wars, I want to be neutral. Not with regard to my opinion, but with regard to my chemistry. I don’t want to be Green! I don’t want to conserve! I want to be neutral! Unfortunately, a chasm of leadership for the cause of chemical neutrality exists in our endless war with the environment. Shouldn’t we be asking: "Where is the Enviro-equivalent of Master Strategist and Tactician, General David Petraeus in this fight? Where’s our Patton? Where’s our Sherman?" Admittedly, the void is partly my fault. For years I’ve been ambivalent, and for it, I am ashamed. I’ve never asked for representation or leadership on environmental issues, until now. In place of good leaders, thorny weeds with bad ideas are blooming. Sadly, now, these bad ideas are difficult if not impossible to remove by Enviro-reform or Enviro-revolution. The real question is, “who leads today?” and “what kind of leadership does the environmental movement need?” Current leader’s ineffectiveness aside, the generals leading our global environmental wars are ruthless. They are as Machiavellian as any leader that preceded them. No, these generals do not wear uniforms, but their divisions are gearing up for battle. Make no mistake; they will fight for their bad ideas. Arguably, Enviro-generals are more political than military; nevertheless, my analogy deserves enough latitude to develop. Today’s environmental generals recruit and lead with an intoxicating mixture of fear and love; Fear of impending global doom, and love of the planet as it exists today. All that’s required of our Enviro-generals to keep their status and rank is that they regularly imply environmental doom is imminent. The more emotional their arguments, the better. Like many of those who have already joined the multitudes marching behind these generals, I tend to fear their environmental scenarios. My fear is manifest without looking at any of the data. Why? The predisposition in every society is to believe the sky is falling. It’s human nature. Human nature is not something to be ashamed of. Indeed, fear of the worst case scenario is what kept our ancestors alive long enough for us to inherit this beautiful earth.

Born into this conflicted world; born into this environmental war raging beside many other wars, I harbor no love for Enviro-generals. I do however fear them. Enviro-generals imply global climate change is an occurrence human beings are fully capable of controlling. But that’s like saying humans are fully capable of controlling national markets, or controlling each other, AKA, communism or slavery. Pardon my skepticism, but history suggests authoritarian egotism usually precipitates disaster! Asserting authority over a system too complex for the human mind to comprehend tends to cannibalize and destroy the system. The only systems human beings have shown any competence controlling are programmable systems. The efficacy of programmable systems is another matter entirely; an interesting tangent for another day. In the context of this essay however, it should suffice to say, the environment is a non-programmable system. In other words, there are climatic variables outside of human control. Therefore, a rational environmental debate cannot be centered on the magnitude of human influence or the certitude of a solution if and only if competent individuals assert control over the earth’s climate. Both of these environmental angles are indefensible. Both are being used by today’s Enviro-generals! The fact remains, no matter how elegant the argument, it is a leap of faith to believe climate is significantly influenced by the activities of mankind. It is an even larger leap of faith to believe human beings are capable of controlling the climatic environment.

The only way to prove mankind’s influence on the global environment is to extricate mankind from the globe and observe the results. That’s impossible! The protest slogan for the “Chemically Neutral” movement should be: WE’RE HERE, WITHOUT FEAR, GET USED TO IT! But Enviro-generals feed on fear and anti-human fantasies. Undeterred by the embedded contradictions in their ideology, Enviro-generals use their public speaking skills to acquiring venture capital. They transform love and fear into weapon-like words and attack public emotions with unmitigated vigor. But why fight the environment? Why attack the public for trends they may have no control over at all? I believe these leaders would choose to be generals in any other war if environmental issues didn’t resonate so well in the public domain. Am I questioning their sincerity? Absolutely! A way to spot a disingenuous Enviro-general might be to look at the other wars they’re fighting or the level with which their own environmental hypocrisies neutralize their environmental positions. Some of the most outspoken Enviro-generals these days are fighting against America’s Long War, the Global War on Terrorism. They are anti-anti-terrorism. To poach soldiers and advocates from other wars, Enviro-generals are not constrained by the environmental issue alone. Therefore the environment may jest be a means to maintain their status and rank in the public eye.

Empirical arguments and reasoned solutions are an anathema to the Enviro-general’s goal. A thorough environmental solution might end their war and eliminate the platform on which they lead their troops. Right? No, not really. Not in this war. While comprehensive solutions lead to sustainable peace for conventional wars, the Global War Against The Environment (GWATE) cannot be won. Our war against the environment can only be fought or lost. Humanity’s existence puts us at odds with the green utopia environmentalists are fighting for today. Under their utopian paradigm, we are guaranteed to lose! But that doesn’t curb the illusion that peace between mankind and the environment is possible. The environment represents a perfect war for Enviro-generals. There is no environmental utopia! All of our choices have consequences. What’s at stake is the magnitude of those consequences. The fact is, the Garden of Eden is lost to mankind. We’re all exiles from Eden. Unlike the analogous illusion in the aftermath of World War I, the Global War Against The Environment (GWATE) is not the war to end all wars. The Global War Against The Environment is the only legitimate war to fight without forever. It may be hard to fathom but, imagine an American War without an Anti-War movement… oh the bliss. In this war, no matter what side you are on, we are all soldiers. But what are we fighting for? Conservation! Recycling! New Technology! --- No. Chemical Neutrality! The environmental debates are wholly sustainable if and only if mankind can reconcile the embedded conflicts within the current environmental movement. That’s not going to be easy. Whether these conflicts are resolved or not, our environmental wars will not end as long as human beings depend on a natural environment for survival. Like the Global War On Terrorism, (GWOT) the Global War Against The Environment (GWATE) all humanity can ally against a common enemy. While humanity need not live with terrorists indefinitely, we are obliged to fight with our environment forever. That’s why most societies set aside their differences to find common ground against a common enemy.

HUMINT: We cannot win this war but we can lose. What can this generation do to guarantee humanity does not lose this war? I believe the answer is to endure as allies through the pursuit of chemical neutrality! But that’s not what environmentalists are doing today. What’s missing today in the almost spiritual search for environmental salvation is a valid philosophy that marries economic progress to environmental sustainability. Let’s take a step back to enhance the clarity of this point. Without an appropriate philosophy, no appropriate identity will emerge. Without identity and the resultant behaviors born of it, their can be no population where best (environmental) practices will be adopted. Without a philosophically cohesive populace there can be no constituency and no legitimate popular sovereignty derived from it. In short, only limited progress can be made without identifying an environmental philosophy that reconciles economic progress with environmental sustainability. Buying green isn’t enough! Now is the moment for truth, not illusions. Buying green has a placebo effect on the masses because it is new spin on the old idea of conservation. It too will fail.

The many points of failure of prevailing environmental philosophy are irresolvable. Environmentalists and their movement’s generals that I talked to, listened to or read, tend to see the end-goal of human behavior as the reduced impact on, and the segregation of, people from pre-human environmental states. Admit it. Environmentalists are seeking to create Eden without Adam and Eve. Seriously, it’s as though they see the natural world without mankind as the Garden of Eden [1], a paradise without the possibility of human induced degradation. The ideal environment, as they imply, exists without the interference of mankind. No one can know for sure, but maybe this environmental philosophy is a derivative of the Christian conception of man’s relationship with the animal kingdom. If it is, it’s a common misinterpretation of the familiar biblical narrative. Why? It is a misconception because environmental philosophy contradicts itself. God created the animal kingdom and mankind. God then endowed mankind with authority over the animal kingdom. Adam’s and Eve’s expulsion from Eden was not a revocation of that authority. If the philosophical undertones of environmentalism are Judeo-Christian in origin, nothing suggests the philosophy hasn’t also been corrupted by a malignant hybrid of other failed or failing ideologies. Beyond Judeo-Christian misinterpretation, I also sense a blend of zoological elitism, socialist and theist philosophies that, when combined, invite repeated failures. In any case, where the flawed philosophy comes from is less important than understanding the need to supplant it.

To liberate mankind from the Enviro-generals and their misguided philosophies, the most obvious and straight forward approach would be to find a philosophy that marries economic progress to environmental sustainability. How? As we’ve covered before, total liberation, as proselytized by Enviro-generals, suggests mankind should abandon the earth to go on without us. That’s absurd. Local liberation implies that sections of the earth can be maintained pristine without interference from people who live elsewhere. That too is absurd. The only viable environmental liberation movement is to declare the pursuit of chemical neutrality and accept that it will take generations to achieve. The struggle will be long and arduous, but their can be no compromise with today’s philosophical contradictions. Pursuing chemical neutrality will change the way we think about the future of our economy and environment. Pursuing chemical neutrality will bring humanity into direct confrontation with itself. It is a task bigger than you or me. In the context of chemical neutrality, start abandoning the old environmentalist ideas of conservation now. Chasing efficiency is like chasing a rainbow. Efficiency through conservation should not be the pursuit of environmental foot soldiers as it is today. Saving a kilowatt-hour here or a ton of carbon dioxide there is only going to slow the inevitable --- whatever that inevitable scenario may be. This is true whether or not Global Warming is fact or “the sky is falling” fiction. The pursuit of mankind’s environmental liberation through chemical neutrality on the other hand offers a philosophy that embeds only one irresolvable conflict. Entropy! But we live with entropy today, as did our ancestors before us. It’s an unavoidable product of any action or reaction, even those that cancel each other chemically.

Operating in an economy that rewards action, while simultaneously rewarding the opposite/equal reaction – from a chemical perspective, humanity would stay environmentally happy, healthy, and prosperous. There would be no need to limit population density nor would it matter where businesses or individuals operate. Now, you might be wondering if “chemical neutrality” is philosophically different than the existing notion of recycling or buying green. Recycling today isn’t really recycling. It’s a fancy form of conservation. For the most part recycling is down-cycling. Plastics, paper, glass and metals are routinely degraded and reprocessed into commodities that will eventually end up in a landfill. Chemical neutrality is recycling at the molecular level and would demand more environmental awareness from individuals, business and governments than anything we do today. To move toward chemical neutrality civil, political and industrial leaders will have to find markets for products that can chemically balance their own or each others products. With the level of marketing genius and business acumen in corporate America today, I have no doubt it can be done.

IN CONCLUSION: This essay is a humble request for a tactical change and a thorough review of leadership in our environmental wars. And finally, I believe the first Enviro-general who leads the call to demand chemical neutrality will have fired the second “shot heard round the world” [2]. Someone is going to do it. Will it be you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. www.crystalinks.com: The image is of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden which alludes to how Judeo-Christian values may position contemporary environmental philosophy as well as the issues fostering this generation’s environmental debates. The Garden of Eden represents paradise lost because of human fallibility. It is my assertion that the majority of environmentalists operating today are working for the extrication of mankind to preserve what they see as paradise.

2. wikipedia: The "shot heard round the world" is a well known phrase that has come to represent several historical incidents throughout world history. The shot was heard in Lexington. It was known to kill eight Americans and injure ten. The line is originally from the opening stanza of Ralph Waldo Emerson's Concord Hymn (1837), and referred to the beginning of the American Revolutionary War. Later, in Europe and the Commonwealth of Nations, the phrase became synonymous with the shot that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand and plunged Europe into World War I.

HUMINT: Unconscious Design

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:52:00 +0000

Conscious Design: The product of an individual or engineer who formulates mechanisms based on tangible environmental constraints.

Unconscious Design: An individual’s consumer choice made to satisfy real or arbitrary requirements they imagine exist.

In the film, Who Killed the Electric Car there is a conclusive scene near the film’s end, where the vehicular hero of the film, the Impact, is side by side with the vehicular villain, the Hummer. The scene is as dramatic as it possibly can be. The two automobiles are shiny and clean; the size differential overwhelmingly evident. The behemoth Hummer dominates the camera with its sharp edges and bulk, while the Impact’s polite curves announce a superior sophistication. Both are poised to go forth into the future, seemingly born equivalent if not equal at the starting line of consumer choice… When they start to roll toward the camera, in a pseudo race, the Impact pulls ahead, as though it’s the better choice, subtly implying consumers would be fools to continue to favor the Hummer over the Impact or its future electric equivalent. Recall, the major premise of the film is that the Impact was murdered by a vast conspiracy.

Like the Roman Coup that took the life of Gaius Julius Caesar, the Impact was conspired against and eventually murdered. The film’s actors even stage a funeral for the automobile. Who Killed the Electric Car is product anthropomorphism at its best. Without regard to the tears and angst of the committed drivers, the Impact’s business model bled to death from hundreds of tiny cuts inflicted by a multitude of enemies. The guilty provocateurs include Big Government, Big Oil, Ignorant Consumers, Auto Manufacturers and Corrupt Environmental Regulators. No cut was deeper however than the Impact’s father, played by General Motors. GM’s betrayal was epic, even biblical. GM is portrayed in the film as the corporate combination of Caesar’s Brutus and in a biblical context Isaac’s Abraham1. GM was determined to sacrifice its more successful offspring to a viscous, capitalist God. What else could GM be thinking? Nothing good of course… Big business is always bad (right?) therefore GM must be guided by an evil paternalistic impulse to keep its dirty children alive at the expense of its only clean one. Not so fast! While that narrative is possible, it’s not necessarily probable.

In my opinion, the relevance of the Impact/Hummer scene cannot be understated. Setting aside the fact that both vehicles are made by GM, serving as an incestuous corporate competition that GM can’t lose; it says more about transportation and environmental problems than the film’s dominant narrative. The film is an emotional rollercoaster that intends to leave an average viewer in love with the martyred Impact and at odds with everybody else. Unfortunately the dominant narrative basically ignores the unconscious engineering problem as it relates to consumer choice. What the actors and director apparently failed to understand is how most normal people make their decisions. While this essay may not answer that question in its entirety, hopefully it will provide some insight on big commitment decision making as those decisions relate to a family vehicle.

People unconsciously design their lives with the most tangible, best/worst case scenario in their unconscious mind. You might be wondering how I can claim to understand the unconscious mind of average consumers. Am I a mind reader? No, I’m not. I actually don’t understand the unconscious mind of others. What I do have instead is a related insight into energy, efficiency and conscious decision making. To demonstrate the difference between conscious design and unconscious design, let’s consider a problem similar to the one introduced by the film Who Killed the Electric Car. To get a feel for solving big problems, I always start small and work my way up.

So let’s get to work. Design a solar powered street light with me and you’ll see what my analogy means. We’ll keep the design at the conceptual level so you won’t need a calculator. You’re familiar with the inherent variability in our environment, right? Some days are cold. Some days are hot. Some days are sunny. Some days are cloudy. Some days are long and some days are short. Alternatively, some nights are really cold and really long. In every case, we can tame these variables with historical data and competent estimations. At night our solar powered streetlight batteries will have to keep our street light ON for the longest and coldest night of the year. We can’t afford a lawsuit if the light goes out at three AM. Guaranteeing the light stays on during the night is one engineering constraint. During the day, our solar panel will have to charge the battery for that scenario plus some safety factor. A safety factor of two suggests a battery charge that would last twice the duration of the longest, coldest night. The size of the solar panel will be derived from that most tangible, worst case scenario engineering requirement.

Now let’s use what we’ve learned about conscious design to understand unconscious design. An automobile is a big commitment. To make that commitment, the vehicle should perform under the worst case scenarios. In the mind of a consumer, however, the worst case from an engineering perspective translates into the best case scenario for the consumer. This I know from personal experience. I want to drive where I want when I want, with my whole family and everything I own. Any vehicle that cannot accommodate my best case scenario, by default, is a luxury item. Let’s go back to the analogy for a minute. A long sunny day for a solar powered street light represents an incredible amount of wasted energy, as does a luxury car to a family on a budget. Every day that isn’t the worst day for a solar powered street light is a luxury. The actual usage of the vehicle may never approach the unrealistic expectations a consumer takes with them to the dealership, but that doesn’t matter.

The electric car must be reinvented if it is going to compete with consumers who aren’t actors. To baptize an electric vehicle anew in the competitive fires of the free market, an electric car will have to be able to go wherever drivers want it to go, whenever drivers want to go there. There can be no mistakes, like forgetting to plug in the car at night. Let’s be honest. Forgetting to charge the battery would be more costly in terms of time than running out of gas on the highway in a Hummer.

To the other issues raised by the film… The reduced impact (not the car name) on the environment is of intangible value, if there is any at all. An individual vehicle has negligible influence over smoggy days, unless the power plants that generate the power to charge the batteries have scrubbers installed on the exhaust stacks. The Impact’s business model does not eliminate tons of carbon dioxide that will still enter the atmosphere, regardless of a vehicle’s fossil fuel power source. A shift in fuel source from oil to coal has geopolitical benefits, but again, those are of intangible value to a consumer, that is unless you’ve ever seen a strip mine. Strip coal mines are extreme environmental hazards. What about the H2 economy? Hydrogen embrittlement is a serious problem left unmentioned. Standard pipes don’t work for H2. The molecules are too small for effective containment. They slip through the gaps in pipe walls making them brittle and dangerous. Alternative pipes capable of safely moving H2 around the globe are very expensive. I am not optimistic about the future of H2 as a fuel. Plug-in hybrid vehicles sound very interesting in terms of diversifying America’s energy portfolio. Half coal, half gasoline --- sounds like an emotionally stable balance even if it doesn’t help the atmosphere very much. In terms of the historical accuracy of the film was stretching the truth if not intentionally disingenuous, steam powered cars nearly beat out the internal combustion engine. In 1906, Fred Marriott drove a steam powered vehicle built by the Stanley Brothers to a speed of 127 MPH.

In conclusion, there are no easy answers to the energy problem as it relates to automobile fuel. Right now, electric cars are a luxury item that lack comprehensive usability. As for alternatives, Cellulosic Ethanol looks very promising. It was a source of fuel conspicuously absent from the film. Maybe Cellulosic Ethanol will kill the need for an electric car. We’ll see. I’ll be exploring the manufacturing process for Cellulosic Ethanol in a follow up post to free fuel. If we are going to indulge luxurious fantasies, the best case scenario would be to have access to equipment capable of making fuel in an average consumer’s garage. Think about why consumers want to stop at a gas station anyway. They don’t! Consumers want an easy to use gas pump in their garage. Developing do-it-yourself fuel making equipment would reduce the need for an expensive Ethanol upgrade to gas stations around the country. Actually the opposite could happen to investing in gas station upgrades. So called “Big Oil” would probably be forced to close most of the existing gas stations as well as their existing oil refineries. To stay afloat they would probably need to raise the price of fossil gas; $20 per gallon of gasoline, anyone?

No thanks… More to come on the future of fuel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: The image is of Abraham about to sacrifice his son Isaac. It is related to the piece Unconscious Design by analogy. The film Who Killed the Electric Car portrays GM as a parental corporation sacrificing its good vehicular invention the Impact in favor of its black sheep son, the Hummer.

HUMINT: American Empiricist

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:26:00 +0000

Imperialism: any instance of aggressive extension of authority.

Empiricism: an iterative approach that argues for study of events through observation and the formulation of new policy based on lessons learned.

How long should the American People wait before they start taking foreign policy matters into their own hands? Indeed they already have! There is a domestic backlash against an absurd narrative that claims “the United States is an empire”. The United States is definitely not an empire, but few Americans are willing to state the obvious. Even fewer are willing to aggressively tell the truth. American wars are anti-empire. American wars are for liberation, not occupation. That’s why Americans are pro-victory. American wars have always been about liberation and I believe American wars always will be about liberation. Because of a leadership vacuum on this issue, Americans are once again solving their political problems themselves. Now, we are witnessing the rise of ideological entrepreneurs inside and outside America who aren’t willing to wait for their elected officials to wake up. Like Paul Revere, they are raising the Alarm, here, here and here ... Indeed, there is a natural awakening happening across America that can be felt --- in our libraries and in our classrooms --- temples, synagogues, churches and mosques --- inside coffee shops, book stores and restaurants --- wherever people meet. Indeed, elected American officials have been unwilling or unable to acknowledge the awakening for what it represents. I have a feeling that that’s about to change. It doesn’t take a genius to realize democratic change always lags behind the spirit of the electorate. In a way, that’s the beauty of democracy --- slow, steady, and stable! Democracy in practice, like survival in the wild, is a constant exercise in expression and representation. But how did we get here?

A free mind in the wild reacts appropriately to dangerous changes in its environment. That’s how early humans survived the trials and tribulations of the wild. It wasn’t through cooperative collectivism --- it was through the mass adoption of best practices discovered by free thought! Hunters and gatherers first… then farmers… After farmers came engineers. Now lawyers and businessmen serve the community as leaders. Each phase overlaps, but the trend is undeniable. We are talking about positive momentum. All good leaders operate by reviewing recent history and adopting best practices. Each societal transition occurred because observant empiricists crossed cultural boundaries to express solutions to problems they felt. Each transition was sparked by carefully recognizing the genius of the system that came before it, without the shackles of embellished nostalgia or arbitrary demonization. Interestingly, each phase still exists in America in one form or another today. Americans still hunt, gather, farm, engineer, litigate and trade. American democracy facilitates communication across each phase to stabilize and prepare for whatever is coming next… If you have sensed it too, ask yourself, what’s the common denominator? The voices of each phase can be heard (in one form or another) calling for American leadership to represent empiricism, and reject baseless accusations of American imperialism.

To prove the point, let’s go back to the beginning… Free thought was thrust upon mankind as a primary defense against premature death. Not strength. Strength is a symptom of adopting ideas that work. Human beings are fragile and physically impudent creatures in the wild. We still are at birth. This is where the phrase, “created equal” comes from. At birth we are all equally impudent and dependant upon others for our survival. Equality does not extend into adulthood. This is the natural difference between “equality” and “equal opportunity” in society. Only those who leverage opportunity will succeed. This is not an imperialist concept; it is an empirically derived concept.

Make no mistake, extreme freedom of thought is the arena mankind dominated all of our natural competitors. Freedom of thought remains as the source of all human power. The size of bombs, the speed of jets, and the agility of tanks are all symptoms of free thought harnessed against violent and aggressive competitors. Much has changed since the beginning of history. I can understand why many people are confused about the nature of American Empiricism, but I cannot condone it. Too many people in the world live in the “here and now” mindset. They are blind to history’s lessons. It is difficult to tell if they are malicious in their rhetoric or are simply blinded to reality by illusions. By abstracting reality with language, many human beings are stupefied by their own lack of (near) threats. Many of us have never faced death eye to eye. In the abstract world of our own making, we are the only threat that remains capable of destroying ourselves. Why would we do that? Presumably, we would consider destroying ourselves because we don’t know who we are, or who our enemy is. The warning signs of impending confrontation must feel surreal to someone without historical context. Those who believe the U.S. is an empire write as if all human beings were not engineered to kill, capable of killing or capable of dieing for their abstract beliefs. They defend the war rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad by admonishing American President George Bush for rhetorically answering it.

HUMINT: What is the difference between imperialism and empiricism? What is the difference between wild society and civil society? What is the difference between freedom of expression and oppression of expression? I believe free citizens are afforded their illusions in a free society with an expectation that free thought, exercised in the free-market of ideas, will conjure a more accurate representation of threats. In doing so, free minds will simultaneously conjure apt solutions to existing problems. Virtually the same logic applies to free market economics. Civilized elected officials in a democracy are expected to pursue best practices derived from empirical evidence, just as the markets respond naturally to supply and demand. What then should we say about the electorate’s demand for empiricist leadership? Elected officials may only feel their electorate’s presence during elections, but empiricists live among the electorate. They have always been there; observing, planning and making suggestions. In all honesty, elected officials may or may not have the intellect or audacity to represent American Empiricists, unless they are already empiricists themselves. Under the circumstances, American leadership is about to experience a wave of American Empiricism if they aren’t already.

I confess to being an Empiricist; however, I am not just an American Empiricist, I'm an aggressive American Empiricist! As an aggressive empiricist, I despise imperialists. I love confrontation and seek it. The best confrontations I have had are with people who assert the United States is an empire. Little effort is required to dispel the lie. The fact is, authority in America is earned by applying successful policy. It is taken away when an advocate’s policies fail. All policy in America is subject to criticism and review by anyone and everyone, even foreign nationals. Criticism alone however does not prove a policy is failure. Only empiricism can derive legitimate answers to constructive criticism. American progress around the world is not the product of American Imperialism; it is the product of American Empiricism! Know the difference! Spread the word!

HUMINT: Internet Savant

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:18:00 +0000

HUMINT: What would ancient philosophers think if they had access to the internet? Imagine Aristotle surfing the web… what would he Google? Thinking about philosophers and the Internet creates an opportunity to explore the philosophical origins of the Internet. Interestingly, the imagery of ancient philosophers surfing the WWW is particularly helpful. It will help us forecast the emergence of a group of hyper-aware individual internet users we should expect to enter adulthood in the next decade or so. Internet Savants, if I may coin a phrase, will eventually emerge as the intellectual progeny of Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, Locke and Hume among others... But how do we know Internet Savants are on the way? We’ll have to travel through time and space to develop a plausible forecast…

The storm of Internet Savants I’m forecasting began forming in the 17th Century. It has been developing for centuries, if not longer. The British empiricists John Locke and later David Hume articulated the role of mankind on earth as that of a witness. In their philosophy, we (humankind) are observers of nature, which we are ourselves a part. The Internet is a product of humankind, a kind of child that could not have been conceived without prudent observation… It is their ideas that suggested we embrace our sensorial experiences in concert with our spiritual senses. Not surprisingly, David Hume was an historian before he turned to philosophy. Both men boldly allowed themselves to deconstruct the world they observed. They did so with the intent of formulating the most accurate and honest philosophy they could imagine. Hume was inspired by Locke, and I am humbly inspired by both.

Thomas Jefferson, in cooperation with Benjamin Franklin composed the Declaration of Independence, which was ratified by the Continental Congress Jully 4th 1776. The Declaration of Independence was inspired in large part by the philosophy of John Locke. The Second Treatise of Government, written by John Locke but submitted for public consideration anonymously in 1690, remains an extremely influential essay. It influenced the political philosophy of Americans to such a degree that its meaning is embedded in the American psyche. Locke’s pivotal piece provided a basis for more American doctrines, such as those set forth in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is from this initial observation that we might assert a theory about the mechanics of humankind.

Applied philosophy is identity.

In other words, every society applies some form of philosophy to function, and through its operation, the identity of a populace is revealed. To validate the theory by observation; the most accurate philosophy, if applied judiciously, would reveal a successful identity – probably the most successful identity. Would it not? Now, let’s flip the timeline of history and work backward. Consider successful societies in existence today and consider the philosophical origins upon which they are built. While there are many examples, the most familiar to Americans, is their own nation state. The technological and spiritual success of American society is unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Freedom of thought is a prerequisite to deriving solutions to complex problems, be they of mortal origin or natural origin. In the United States, honesty and fidelity are rewarded with technological progress, economic stability and sustainable growth. This is what Americans believe. Iterations of 1] innovation and 2] reward established a static identity and a dynamic national trajectory. This is how “We the People” (A quote from the U.S. Constitution) in many cases invented, manufactured, developed and adopted such technology as the transcontinental railroad, the automobile, the light bulb, the airplane and the personal computer. Americans are witness (recall “witness” as a reference to Locke’s and Hume’s empiricism) to the world in the most unfettered circumstance enjoyed by any group of people in the world today.

What trajectory does rewarding innovation establish? Think about the common denominator of almost every successful innovation in the United States! Each invention has made Americans a more capable witness of the world around us. The American identity is prepared to adopt new technology that makes us more aware precisely because Americans apply the philosophy of John Locke. The internet is simply the culmination of these successive adoptions. Indeed it is the adoption of an invention that makes it valuable. If an invention is never adopted, its value remains trapped in the mind of the inventor. Which brings us back to the forecast for which this essay is entitled; Internet Savants, having developed the skills to “witness” the world in a way that no human being could have witnessed the world before will begin revealing new truths about the world we live in.

Internet Savants – having been born after the invention and adoption of the Internet will seldom disconnect from their source data. Internet Savants will be able to absorb information from the internet as if their interface were a sense organ, not unlike their eyes or ears. The Internet Savant will relate to other Internet Savants in the context of their shared hyper-awareness. These individuals will not be deterred by government censorship because they will be able to understand what is being censored by observing and comprehending all of the other data at their disposal. By virtue of the propagation of the technology, these individuals needn’t be American at all but hail from every corner of the globe. The mosaic the Internet Savant builds in his or her mind will fill in the perceptual gaps of censorship just as the occipital lobe fills in the visual gap created by the optic nerve. Once they’ve achieved hyper-awareness, they will use their ability to continue what Locke started. Why? Because Internet Savants will be the most empowered witnesses the world has ever seen. They will know their identity. They will know their philosophical origins…

HUMINT: Mendeleev Sleep

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:50:00 +0000

MENDELEEV SLEEP: The development of the periodic table of the elements was a leap forward in the chemical sciences. Although not responsible for discovering the elements he knew existed, Mendeleev organized the information available to him like no one else before him. It was his organizational skills that revealed something critically important to the advancement of mankind. What he discovered was new! Mendeleev noticed patterns in the properties and atomic weights of halogens, alkali metals and alkaline metals. According to the legend, Mendeleev had written what he knew about existing elements on the equivalent of flash cards and organized, reorganized and reorganized them on his bedroom floor. Mendeleev had an unknown number of iterative organizing sessions interspersed with sleep cycles. Mendeleev let his brain do what brains do naturally by living with it. By absorbing the information and allowing his hardware to “crunch” the data, he could see the world in a new way. In order to complete the pattern he observed, Mendeleev predicted several new elements. Interestingly, months after Mendeleev published his periodic table of all known elements another one, virtually identical to Mendeleev’s was published. Mendeleev was born 1834. He was not a stellar student and was rejected by major universities. He died in 1907 in St. Petersburg, Russia from influenza.

ARTIFICIAL INTUITION: What is the Mendeleev story telling us about intuition? Do we know how a genius’ mind works? I think researchers do, but society doesn’t spend much time talking about how genius works. To be sure, we are always more interested in the discovered than the discoverer. What if we only considered how geniuses discover without considering what they discover? What if we (the observers of genius) were to dedicate every bit of our energy to how geniuses discover and nothing to their discovery? We would be talking about the mental mechanics of genius and how we might apply them to solve new problems. If average mortals could successfully emulate innovators, computer programmers probably wouldn’t be far behind them in terms of simulating the intuition process. In other words, computers could be programmed to innovate if and when a computer programmer (or someone a computer programmer knows) has a comprehensive familiarity with the process of intuition. Indeed we don’t spend much time talking about how our minds work, much less how the minds’ of geniuses work. We do know intuition is statistically predictable and therefore cannot be random phenomena. The problem with our current understanding of intuition is that as an individual experience it is not repeatable phenomena.

MOORE-HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY: Once an individual discovers something new, it can’t be undiscovered. Intuition is not directly repeatable and therefore is not directly observable. In a population of people, intuition is occurring at a measurable rate for any given technology. For things like silicon semiconductor computer chip technology, intuition is accurately describable by Moore’s Law. “Almost every measure of the capabilities of digital electronic devices is linked to Moore's Law: processing speed, memory capacity, even the resolution of LCD screens and digital cameras.” Moore Law cannot select which individuals or companies in any industrial ecosystem will innovate. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal in “quantum physics states that the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic, but instead is characterized by a probability distribution, and the larger the associated standard deviation is, the more "uncertain" we might say that that characteristic is for the system.”

BOILING DATA SOUP: Within an individual mind, a fundamental mixture of data must be present for a discovery to occur. Prescient awareness is about seeing patterns in the information as it’s processed. But how does information simmer in the mind? The living brain experiences waves of electro chemical activity named Beta, Theta, Alfa and Delta (Sleeping) waves. Theta waves are associated to expressions of intuition. Epiphanies might come during theta cycles but theta waves are not necessarily the creative phase of cognition. In any case, we are talking about output during particular brain waves. What if we were to look at how geniuses solve problems, in terms of seeing the data they have to see to solve the problem they are working on while experiencing all of their neurological phases? I bet we would see that they are fully invested in solving a problem. In other words, geniuses may work on problems they are obsessed with during their Beta, Theta, Alfa and Delta phases.

HUMINT: Inspiring an intuitive response requires emersion in the variables necessary to reveal previously undiscovered patterns. Before a discovery, it is impossible to tell how many variables are needed to illicit an intuitive response. Someone trained to detect patterns may need less information than individuals with no training at all. Inversely, a pattern that someone who is trained to recognize patterns expects to see in their data may not exist at all. Indeed, the human mind is notorious for chasing dangerous illusions. What is important to note is that the process of discovery occurs naturally, most likely across all neurological states, including Beta, Theta, Alfa and Delta phases. Find the passion for your problem that Mendeleev had for chemical elements and go to sleep with them! One day, you’ll know the answer, or at least the pattern pointing to it.

HUMINT: Interpretive Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:11:00 +0000

For a society to guard against malicious ideological threats, it must at least recognize and respect the fact that some citizens will invariably believe in the power of God as a cohesive force separate from the power of the state. This is particularly true for any government run by militant atheists or militant theocrats. But why would any society believe they need to protect themselves from malicious ideas? To be sure, I’m not talking about recruiting a division of thought police to guard against threats to social morality. Free societies recognize freedom of religion as sacrosanct --- either consciously or by accident. Militant atheists or militant theocrats put themselves in a position to defend the state with “brown shirts” or “morality police” respectively.

The point of this essay is to demonstrate how some societies ensure they are never attacked or abused by thought police. Almighty God has a power influence in the lives of many healthy and happy people. Only arrogant thought police would seek to strip them of their beliefs. For example; early Jews under the Egyptian Pharos and Christians under early Roman Emperors were members of world changing movements. Both were accelerated by brutal oppression. Indeed, it appears to matter greatly if an earthly authority suppresses spiritual expression. Indeed, suppressing an individual’s relationship with their God strengthens spiritual relationships. It does so most likely because earthly oppression of the divine only validates the perception of illegitimacy of the earthly authority.

The Buddhists of Myanmar, the Yazidi of Northern Iraq, the Bahai’ of Iran and the Falun Gong of China are modern examples of cohesive spiritual interpretations persecuted for their political beliefs derived in part for their spiritual explorations. Although not the case with the Falun Gong or the Bahai, in some cases, state sponsored oppressions of religious expression has empowered the sense of righteousness and militarization of the oppressed.

The U.S. Declaration of independence handles the argument with unparalleled spiritual and political precision. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Within the first two sentences of the American definition, Americans’ political decisions are legitimized by the Laws of Nature and the inalienable rights endowed by their “creator”. But these two indisputable authorities are not given an anthropomorphic consciousness to govern. The United States is not a theocracy or governed by the laws of nature. Instead, government is the responsibility of fallible human beings. The responsibility to govern belongs to the intellect of the people, yet the authority for people to govern themselves is endowed by God.

This is an important point that all militant atheists and militant theocrats should learn: Americans are not successful because we are an arrogant society. Americans are successful because we modestly accept our fallibility and compensate for it with tolerance for ourselves and others. Our admission of fallibility is manifest in the separation of powers, checks and balances, regular elections and basic human freedoms such as freedom of [speech, religion, press, assembly]. The accusations heaped upon the United States by despotic regimes are almost always an unwitting self referential statement about the accuser, not the policies of the United States. Militant atheists and militant theocrats are irredeemably arrogant. They both formulate governments that legislate as if their great leaders hold a monopoly on genius. It is their arrogance that guarantees their failures (or limited success) will repeat ad infinitum.

While there are many official government interpretations of almighty God; from pure disbelief in the existence of God, to God as the source of legitimacy for the authority of consensual government, to unadulterated submission to God’s will; only one interpretation affords sustainable peace. The official American interpretation of God is the most durable interpretation applied to a society. The fact that it is the most durable implies that it is also the most accurate and honest, either with respect to humankind’s perception of God or God. Either way, the American interpretation is subtle. It is so subtle in fact that it often goes unnoticed. Its low profile belies its importance. Without it Americans would not sustain domestic tranquility as we do. The Founding Fathers of the United States took strides to make room for spiritual interpretations other than Christianity in American society. They also took strides to ensure the definition of American governance closed the door to interpretations of God that coerces Americans spiritual submission or attacked their benign spiritual beliefs or traditions.

The spread of the American interpretation of God is not any more hegemonic than the spread of successful behavior. The official American interpretation of God is not being adopted around the world because Americans are hegemonic or because the United States is a new kind of global empire. The opposite is true. The act of spreading the American interpretation of God in government is a somber request for humility. It is no accident that such a request primarily targets arrogant groups of militant atheists and militant theocrats.

HUMINT: Americans’ War on Terror is not a crusade! It’s an appeal to justice and reason. If forsaken, arrogant liars will be devastated. Do you suppose that reality follows one of: A) Nature’s Laws, B) one of God’s Laws, C) both or D) neither?

HUMINT: Free Fuel

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:38:00 +0000

ENERGY IS INHERENTLY VALUABLE: There will never be such a thing as free fuel, however, energy is now and will forever be the most important commodity in human society. Energy is valuable because it can be converted into virtually every other commodity. With enough cheap energy, civil engineers could create land – so there would be no need for feudal systems of land owning lords or renting serfs as was witnessed in history when people and energy were synonymous. Automation and mechanization has liberated mankind from most of the backbreaking labor of our ancestors, yet machines and automation still require energy to operate.

COSTS OF COMMODITIES: What about other commodities such as gold, platinum or silver? Recycling for example, is cost prohibitive because of the amount of energy recycling requires. If fuel were free, or nearly free, the price of recycling would presumably drop below the price of mining for more gold, platinum or silver. For a while at least, the price of all consumables would drop, and or the amount of profit made by businesses would skyrocket.

PENNIES PER GALLON: An economic and environmental analysis probably should be used to show the direct impact on the planet if a gallon of gasoline were to cost consumer’s pennies instead of dollars. Thinking about free fuel is fun. Free fuel is a feel good idea, even if it isn’t going to happen tomorrow, even if it’s not going to happen in the next century

REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE: Free fuel implies more than just “no financial costs”; free fuel also implies “no environmental costs”. If energy were free, it might become feasible to deploy machines/filters capable of reversing most if not all environmental damage created by using the fuel in the first place. If fuel were free, it would be feasible to purify salt water and pump the resultant fresh water wherever it’s needed. These are just a few obvious opportunities that would be revealed if fuel were free.

CASTRATE RESOURCE OPPRESSORS: An immediate benefit of cheap synthetic fuel would be stripping the Islamic Republic of Iran of billions of dollars in revenue it receives for its oil exports. Iran’s President, Mahmood Ahmadinejad is a radical religious fanatic who enjoys threatening the United States and our allies around the world. He uses the money his nation makes from exporting unrefined oil to denigrate and attack the United States. Fossil fuels are extremely valuable but it is not an earned value. The fact that Iran doesn’t earn its wealth is probably why it feels justified in hating the people and nations that pay them for their oil.

WORSHIP THE SUN: In terms of the fuel we use today, it is extremely inefficient. It took millions of years to produce, it takes millions of dollars to extract, it costs U.S. consumers billions of dollars use, and it costs the environment an undetermined amount in atmospheric damage. It is important to realize that most of the energy consumed in the world today is a manifestation of solar energy. Coal, natural gas, oil are all fossil fuels that stores energy chemically. The source energy of the fuel you use in your car and probably your home as well originated as nuclear energy inside the sun. As you are aware every day, that energy travelled to the earth in the form of radiation (sunlight). Geothermal and nuclear energy are the only exceptions. Nuclear energy, as we all know, has serious drawbacks in terms of safety and weapons proliferation. Therefore we should collectively look to the sun for energy salvation, if there is such a thing.

MIRRORS AND MICROBES: One approach to efficiently harvest energy directly from the sun could be some configuration of mirrors concentrating solar energy to force feed genetically engineered microbes capable of converting the energy into usable fuel. Theoretically, genetically engineered microbes could produce usable fuel at a pace consistent with our current lifestyles and growing energy demands. Where would we do it? Vast areas of international waters could be used as oceanic fields to produce the fuel. All of this brain storming is wildly speculative but there are reasons to be optimistic about genetically engineered microbes. Genetically engineered microbes are already producing valuable commodities such as insulin for diabetics.

FOR EXAMPLE: Dr Stephen Curry, a structural biologist from Imperial College London's Division of Cell and Molecular Biology who participated in the research explains: "This work has shown that it is possible to manipulate molecules and proteins that occur naturally in the human body by changing one small detail of their make-up, such as the type of metal at the heart of a porphyrin molecule, as we did in this study. --- "It's very exciting to prove that we can use these biological structures as a conduit to harness solar energy to separate water out into hydrogen and oxygen. In the long term, these synthetic molecules may provide a more environmentally friendly way of producing hydrogen, which can be used as a 'green' fuel."

HUMINT: While fuel will never be free, the future sources of fuel will not remain what they are. Woe to energy exporting nations who are leveraging their natural resources against free people who represent their customers. What seems clear is that resource rich oppressors are extremely ambitions despite the fact that they didn’t earn their petro-wealth. Their day of reckoning is near…

HUMINT: Ambassador McDonald

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:35:00 +0000

Many years ago on a long back country hike I was following a winding trail that loosely traced the path of an old creek. Every mile or so, the path would cross the creek and I’d get another chance to wade through the cool mountain water. I’d been hiking that trail since sunrise and had crossed the creek at least thirty times. It was getting late in the day and some angry looking clouds were rolling toward me overhead. I could hear cracks of thunder in the distance. It wasn’t easy to see the sky through the thick canopy of trees but I could tell rain was coming. The woods seemed quite. Only a few hundred yards ahead I knew the trees were going to open up to a little field about an acre or so big. The small field was gorgeous. It hugged the banks of a large lake.

My plan was to beat the rain to the field and set up my tent, open my book and read while listening to rain falling 10,000 ft onto my ripstop roof. I planned to build a campfire after the rain stopped and cook my dinner. All that hiking had made me very hungry before I arrived. I clearly remember hoping for a short squall. I may have even prayed for it, but if I did, I don’t remember what I said to God. Anyway, in situations like those, God always seems to have more important things to worry about than selfish requests driven by a hiker’s empty stomach.

When I got to the small field, the tent went up smoothly. I gathered up some wood for my dinner fire and tossed the logs under a small tarp I was carrying with me. If I couldn’t keep the logs dry during the storm I knew it would be hard to get my dinner fire started later that evening. As I was collecting wood, big rain drops started hitting the landscape like artillery fired at my LZ by some distant army. Where ever they hit, the surface turned from dry to dark wet. Fortunately, I finished in time. When I crawled into my tent the drops were hitting about a foot apart. My cloths and gear hadn’t been hit hard enough to be wet. About fifteen minutes later, after getting situated inside the tent, the rain outside started coming down hard. The sound of it hitting the roof of my tent was deafening. It was time to kick off my boots, read and wait out the squal. I pulled Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance out of my pack… Pulp seventies philosophy had captured my attention in the book store earlier in the week because I thought it actually had something to do with motorcycle maintenance…

It really didn’t but I found the book interesting enough to keep reading without the technical motorcycle jargon I was looking for. The big ZEN idea of the page I was reading was about a “country church building with an electric beer sign hanging right over the front entrance. The building had been sold and was being used as a bar.” … “a number of people had complained to the church officials about it. It had been a Catholic Church, and the priest who had been delegated to respond to the criticism had sounded quite irritated about the whole thing. To him it had revealed an incredible ignorance of what a church really was. Did they think that bricks and boards and glass constituted a church? Or the shape of the roof? Here, posing as piety was an example of the very materialism the church opposed. The building in question was not holy ground. It had been desanctified. That was the end of it. The beer sign resided over a bar, not a church, and those who couldn’t tell the difference were simply revealing something about themselves.”

The book continued pontificating about academia and its purpose as an institution of learning as opposed to its material manifestation. It was interesting but I remember drifting away from the authors narrative and creating my own of a similar vein. Listening to the rain outside I started to disagree with the author and contemplate the deeper meaning behind tangible buildings that serve customers like restaurants and bars. The Catholic Church may be spiritually superior to the bar, and maybe that’s what the Catholic parishioners were missing when it officially transformed into a bar. However, their needs are independent of their neighbors’ needs that prefer a bar to be where the church once was. At that moment a common denominator was revealed to me. The relationship between the bartender and the priest in this context is customer service.

In the back country mountains, in a small field, under the rain, on the shores of a beautiful lake with an empty belly; I couldn’t help but think about the importance of customer service and the role it plays in society. Indeed, democracy is all about customer service. Can you have a democracy without a society that respects good customer service? I doubt it! Out there in the wilderness, I was on my own, serving myself. I had no expectation of help from anyone else. My only concerns were about large animals that might take my food or break my gear or try to make a dinner out of me. Facing nature with what you can carry on your back develops a new perspective, especially after an all day hike. In a community of citizens that make a democracy work however there is an expectation of, if not appreciation for, customer service. In every civilized society there exists an ecosystem of services, the best of which succeeds over eventually eliminates poorer services fulfilling the same need. In an environment where there were no stores for miles I was thinking about free market economics and their influence on democracy.

Restaurants are, in a sense, pews in the church of democracy (I was thinking to myself as the rain continued to fall and my stomach began to growl). Restaurants demonstrate the interdependencies of citizens whereby the best customer service attracts more customers. Employees of a restaurant are campaigning to keep their customers and customers vote with their wallet and presence every time they choose one restaurant over another. Based on the sheer volume of raw “democratic” interaction occurring, a successful restaurant may be more representative of American culture and society than any other American institution.

Is it any wonder that there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are in China? That implies (by this back country social scientist metric) Chinese society is capable of being more “democratic” than the government of China is currently allowing its people to be. Is it any wonder why McDonalds (for example) has served more than one trillion meals? That’s over one trillion (meal) votes for McDonalds! McDonalds is doing an incredible job servicing its customers and is rewarded with returning customer. Why? Set aside the employee uniforms and the Golden Arches. Set aside all of the branding and look at what McDonalds means --- and to how many people it means it to. McDonalds, on the subject of food, may be the most democratically appreciated restaurant in the history of mankind.

The rain outside my tent finally stopped falling. I left the tent to prepare for my primitive dinner. The moon was out and peeking through some clouds. Everything was drenched but the wood for my fire. After making a small ditch down wind and a safe distance from my tent, I surrounded it with large stones I collected from the lake shore. After that, I broke up some of the smaller pieces of wood for kindling. The fire started quickly and before long the rocks around it were warm and dry. I remember kicking one of the larger rocks away from the fire and replacing it with another rock. The warm dry rock I had kicked away from the fire would be my table and chair for the evening.

Remembering that hiking trip I am struck by how much I enjoyed the juxtaposition of primitive experiences of nature and self sufficiency and the civilized interdependencies that develop naturally through free citizens democratically choosing good customer service. I felt like I had proved McDonalds is more than just a successful restaurant. I’d decided it represents what Americans want at home and abroad. McDonalds represents what any restaurant can hypothetically do if the society that it thrives in and the government that it thrives under value customer service. Americans definitely do value customer service and that makes McDonalds a valued American Ambassador at home and abroad. But I don’t think I would’ve realized that without an empty stomach, a back country hike, a storm and pulp philosophy book.

Thank you Ambassador McDonald. Super Size me!

HUMINT: Secret Transcript

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:53:00 +0000

SATIRE: The following are transcripts of recorded conversations between chess pieces conspiring to check mate their opponents. To understand the jargon, let’s review chess pieces and the chess board. The players on each side include 1 King, 1 Queen, 2 Rooks, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights and 8 Pawns. The board, or battle field as it is aptly named by the pieces, is broken down into eight rows labeled 1-8 and eight columns labeled a-h. To designate the location of a piece, the notation is as follows, [ROW,COLUMN] for example, 1a indicates the far left and closest square on the white team’s side of the board. There are 64 squares on the battle field, differentiated by color, usually light and darker shades of wood. Each team is separated by color as well, commonly black and white.

The method by which this conversation was recorded is considered a national (chess) secret, not to be disclosed under any circumstances. The transcript was released to the media by an anonymous source who felt compelled to be an ass, despite the illegality and immorality of their treasonous act. As a non-partisan “journalist/blogger/sympathizer”, I am only propagating these damaging and controversial transcripts for blog ratings. Sure, I might be destroying my own free country. So what?

Be forewarned. This secret transcript continues below with admissions of guilt and a conspiracy to commit a cover up. It reveals a disturbing fictitious truth. This is a story about two Knights abusing an enemy Queen. It’s about a Pawn who inadvertently leaked classified material and will probably end up paying for it for the rest of his short life. It’s about U-Tube and a classified threesome. It’s about a Rook running interference for a King, preparing his team for reelection. It’s about all of the chess pieces in the world… It’s about the billions of pawns playing chess on line right now. It’s more than a story. It’s a reflection of my anthropomorphic representation of chess pieces. Their fictitious hopes. Their fictitious dreams. HUMINT: Does it matter that it’s fake? No, not really… You have the evidence now. Judge for yourself.

2003-04-07 [18:06.12 – 18:32.52] Conversation between WP4 and WR2 concerning their opponents

WP4 to WR1: Damn! Did you see that U-Tube video of BQ with WK1 and WK2? They were tag teaming her in front of BK’s face. WK1 came in from behind and locked her down. She was trapped and WK2 took her out.

WR1 to WP4: That was a classic, but that film shouldn’t have been made. That was a classified move they made and now the whole frikin planet knows it… You know our king! Mother [redacted explicative, substitute “messing”] WK doesn’t want BK1 and BK2 [redacted explicative, substitute “messing”] around with his WQ. Do you know who was holding the camera… filming this thing? I’m going to kill the prick. That’s not to mention what I’m going to do to the guy who posted it on U-Tube…

WP4 to WR1: Oh [redacted explicative, substitute “crap”] WR1, I did it… that was classified?… you’ve got to be kidding me! WK1 and WK2 were doing their jobs and I was thinking…

WR1 to WP4: You weren’t thinking, God [redacted explicative, substitute “Bless You”]! What the hell am I going to tell WK about this? He is going to frikin kill you.

WP4 to WR1: Have you seen how the pawns are acting out there on the front lines WR1? They’ve seen the video and are all fired up. We are cutting the enemy’s lines of communication, chasing them into their little spider holes and tossing grenades in after them. Do you know how important U-Tube is? Do you know how many pawns are playing chess online right now? You and WK must be so out of [redacted explicative, substitute “”] touch that you’ve forgotten how to lead a group of pieces to victory. Did you ever really know? Do you pricks actually believe in anything or are you a bunch of… That’s it isn’t it? You’re afraid of true believers and that’s why you cower when it comes to a fight or a conversation with them. There was no such thing as U-Tube when you guys were earning your spots on the board. You have to understand, if we lose out there, we lose here as well! Damn it!

WR1 to WP4: Bull [redacted explicative, substitute “crap”]! Our team has elections coming up again soon and we aren’t ready for this mess you’ve made…

WP4 to WR1: Who do you think we are WR1? We’re chess pieces. We don’t have elections! It’s our job to go out there and take down the other team. Listen to me WR1! You are going to do exactly what you did after you killed eight BPs in a rage after one of them took out your WR2. You are going to cover this thing up and we are going to forget about it. Alright!

HUMINT: Drunken Style

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:40:00 +0000

HUMINT: As a student of Chinese culture and war, I seldom mention my preference for Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching over Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Why? I’m not sure, but it’s certainly not to hide my love of universal wisdom in order to emphasize my learned theories of war. On the contrary, my favorite moments are spent with enlightened souls who appreciate consuming and producing contemporary versions of ancient wisdom. Ancient Chinese philosophy and superstition is unique in its ability to condense knowledge, history, lust, love and experience into snappy little phrases.

Ancient Chinese texts are fascinating. They tend to organize words and images, as though they might become keys in the right hands… keys to a spiritual dimension where time becomes irrelevant; where the past, present and future join together and are at one with wisdom. I suspect much of the universal wisdom and superstition held by the ancient Chinese came through spilling the blood of their enemies. Wise men do not gain their wisdom without challenging themselves or facing their greatest challengers. In the rich history of China, there have been many great fighting styles that merge observations of nature and society to facilitate the only conceivable resolution of conflict to warlords, victory! One of my personal favorite ancient fighting techniques is Drunken Style…

There are many stories about the origin of Drunken Style but none speaks to its effectiveness or even its enlightened meaning in terms of combat. To my mind, Drunken Style is a philosophical place where the Tao Te Ching and the Art of War meet. Drunken style is deceptive to an opponent, rendering a combatant numb to the attacks of his adversary, fluid in his attacks but the accuracy may be impaired – or so an opponent may think. Drunken Style contains moves that are nearly impossible to achieve when one is impaired by alcohol, so the thinking goes, the style was used primarily by sober fighters. Therefore, it is most probably a style that seeks to hide something --- and or express something --- that could not be hidden or expressed otherwise.

Sober or Drunk, Drunken Style is a frame of mind. Like many ancient Chinese fighting styles, the combatant takes on the role of a character, transcending their own. It’s as if the Chinese understood the concept of traumatic stress and shock so well that they developed ways to preemptively split their personality before entering combat. If true, there are undoubtedly benefits and drawbacks to an individual’s psyche. Instead of getting too carried away with therapeutic repudiations of how the Ancient Chinese prepared for combat may have adversely influenced their relationship with their mother, for the sake of this essay, it is sufficient to say the benefits must have outweighed the risks. If choosing a fighting style kept a combatant winning over rivals, that fighter would be better off suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than being dead. Lest we forget, Ancient China existed in a near constant condition of war and conflict.

Fortunately, average Americans are not burdened with the pain of existential war or the need to study martial arts as a means of survival --- or at least that is what we have come to believe. Because it seems unnecessary to some, my fascination with ancients at war may resemble a tourist taking photos of a fatal car accident to them. Be assured, my intellectual journeys through time, space and culture are a search for broader wisdom, not a Barnum & Bailey search for spectacles. The lesson gleaned from China’s Drunken Style are many but probably the most important is that manipulating ones identity during combat is an effective approach to dealing with inescapable horrors of war.

Here’s an illustrative, albeit fictitious example. In the 2001 series about World War II, Band of Brothers, a short dialog occurs between Private Albert Blithe and Lieutenant Ronald Spiers. It’s a dialog that contains all of the inherent wisdom of the ancient fighting techniques of Drunken Style. Spiers says to Blithe, “We're all scared. You hid in that ditch because you think there's still hope. But Blithe, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without remorse. All war depends upon it.”

To be sure, there is no other way to approach an enemy. To illustrate the point; with regard to all aspects of life but war one should live life in pursuit of liberty and happiness. When it comes to war however, a separate identity should replace the main; an identity able to accept the worst case scenario as if it had already happened, and continue functioning normally, or almost normally. Every student of martial arts should know that there is no combatant more capable of destroying their enemy than one who appears drunk --- has abandoned all hope of survival as if he were already dead --- yet continues to strike his target, blow after blow. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without remorse. Victory depends on it.

HUMINT: New Glory

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:56:00 +0000

HUMINT: The flag of the United States of America is a powerful symbol. It is known by many names. The Stars and Stripes and Old Glory are just a few. The flag as we know it today is the product of our nation’s evolution. The number of white stars on a blue background in the upper left corner represents the number of states in the Union at any given moment in the nation’s history. Originally, there were thirteen states and thus, thirteen stars. There have been 27 permutations of the official American flag. The red and white stripes represent the original thirteen American colonies. The original 13 stripes have not changed. To me, the stars have always represented transcendence from colonial serfdom to independent citizenship.

The flag of the United States of America is rare among national flags. Symbols within the U.S. flag symbolize other sovereign governments. In other words, we are talking about dimensions of symbolism when we talk about the American flag. There is the symbolic surface layer, which represents a united country, held together not by a specific religion, race or personality but by a cohesive idea. That idea, symbolized most accurately by the American flag, is a philosophical amalgam of freedom, liberty and democracy. The idea has taken on a spiritual dimension virtually impervious to academic inspection.

The subjugation of Americans to an empire is symbolically represented in the Star Spangled Banner. The stripes tell Americans who they were. The stars tell Americans who they are. Within the flag, each star is a sovereign state. The depth of nationalistic meaning is incredible. Each sub-symbol is a reference to groups of people who govern themselves by popular sovereignty. The fact that the American flag is a symbol makes it a communicative device. All flags are symbols but the fact that the American flag is comprised of layers of symbolism tells us that its communicative value is higher than other national flags with less meaning. Consider the difference between the U.S. flag and the flag of Iran. The American flag has 50 stars, 13 stripes and 3 colors for a communicative score of 66. The Iranian flag has 1 symbol of Allah, 3 stripes and 22 repetitions of the saying “Allah Akbar”, “God is Great” for a communicative score of 26. These metrics are by no means scientific. Their purpose is to encourage citizens to think about the inherent symbolism of the American flag and the flags of other nations.

Regardless of its symbolic value the American flag should never be raised up as a sacred symbol in American society. Many nationalists around the world make themselves idolaters by worshiping their nation’s flag. If you’ve never seen it, it is a repugnant scene to behold. In the case of the Iranian flag merging spiritualism and nationalism forces Iranians to accept or reject both God and the State, at the same time. The sectarian nature of the Iranian flag is indicative of Iran’s national character. Alternatively, acts of desecration cannot destroy a symbol. Burning the American flag, for example, is a communicative assertion against popular sovereignty. While the flag burner may or may not perceive the symbolic meaning in the same way a patriotic American does, the definition of any flag is endowed by its creator. In other words, the perception that the U.S. flag represents anything other than what its creator intended it to represent is an illusion.

If an individual were to burn the American flag in protest, because they perceive it represents “imperialism” for example, they would be mis-communicating. By analogy, it would be as if that person were to point at a black surface and scream “WHITE!” The word “black” and the word “white” are widely recognized symbols of familiar colors. It would be stupefying to swap the two symbols. The act of assigning opposite meaning to symbols is disconcerting behavior to say the least. While each individual should discourage the practice of flag burning, I do not believe it should be illegal to do so. Legislating symbol usage, particularly when it is profane, tends to create more problems without solving anything. The concept is complex but not inaccessible.

For some reason, however, many enemies of these United States just don’t get it. Iran for example, regularly holds state supported demonstrations where the American flag is burnt to the sounds of crowds chanting “Death to America!” These demonstrations show that the government of Iran is using anti-Americanism as a cohesive social agent. Why are they doing it? They are getting away with swapping the symbolic representation of the American flag for an alternative meaning they control. For the sake of discussion, let’s say the symbolism contained in our Old Glory is too abstract a symbol for the Iranian government to understand. Americans, their allies and their enemies might benefit from a clearer symbol of what the United States represents. Imagine you want to show the people of the world what the United States of America represents – what would your New Glory look like?

HUMINT: The “Why?” Gene

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:44:00 +0000

Do you believe the root cause of human behavior is the result of an individual’s genetics or is behavior a product of an environment? Is there a gene that makes us ask, “why?” or is curiosity about interacting with our environment and having access to good answers? In determining the success or failure of an individual in their environment, we now know the “nature versus nurture” debate is bunk. The question is misleading. It implies the influence of nature can be isolated and subsequently separated from the influences of nurture. The entire purpose of the “nature versus nurture” debate is to optimize our successes while mitigating our failures. Unfortunately, when the foundation of any debate makes false presumption it is irreparably flawed. The results of argumentation will be flawed as well.

These days, it is commonly accepted that “nature and nurture” interact symbiotically to determine success or failure. In other words, a successful individual is an elemental expression within their own competitive ecosystem. As a result, mankind constantly experiments with his or her “natural ecosystems” and creates new “nurture ecosystems.” The universally accepted “natural ecosystem” for human beings has become an appropriately sized house or apartment with; potable water, electricity and air conditioning. At this time however, there is no universally accepted “nurture ecosystem”.

HUMINT: Market dynamics, government policy and familial habits (in order of maximum influence to minimum) all influence our unique “nurture ecosystems”. By observation; great market dynamics can artificially sustain bad government policies and bad familial habits, but this process is a vector. In other words, this observation reveals a trajectory. The influence of a system within an ecosystem of nurturing systems appears to a function of its size. Markets are demonstrably bigger systems than governments and governments are demonstrably bigger systems than families.

Looking at it from the other direction; great familial habits cannot sustain bad government policy and bad market dynamics. Under the thumb of bad markets and bad governments, families tend to demonstrate their unwillingness to live. Individuals either emigrate or stop reproducing. Nevertheless, each system within an ecosystem has a stake in the success or failure of the other. Likewise, a dysfunctional “nurturing ecosystem” may attempt to manipulate or crash a neighboring ecosystem.

Why hasn’t humanity adopted a “universally nurturing ecosystem”? Certain individuals have tried. The fact is we don’t know if there is a “universally nurturing ecosystem”. Through false faith, humanity may just believe it exists. The cross cultural pursuit of such a system is so common; it may just be a universal dream. Unfortunately, every conscious attempt to manufacture (“universally nurturing ecosystem”) utopian empires resulted in the opposite. What we do know is that perfection is inherently unattainable. Sociopaths tend to promise utopia, while claiming that they are uniquely capable of delivering it to the masses. It makes little difference if they believe they can deliver utopia or not. The acquisition of power is their primary objective. When they have power but can’t deliver utopia, they invariably blame others; their own followers and outsiders. Sociopaths are never sincere when they ask the question “why?” they are failing because they are incapable of blaming themselves.

It should be a common objective of every free society to prevent sociopaths from attaining power over markets and governments. Through the lens of history, we are all witnesses to the deadly social experiments of sociopaths. Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, and Khomeini are just a few examples. These days, free citizens around the world must guard their freedoms against sociopaths in power more than they ever had to in the past. Globalization represents an unprecedented opening of our planet’s cultural floodgates. I believe Globalization is a predominantly positive trend that will continue to improve the quality of life for billions of people. Globalization is the free market expansion of success and it will strongly influence governments and families around the world.

Presumably the world will achieve social equilibrium one day. Until that day, cultures will confront each other; some will merge and some will die. Among neighboring ecosystems, “nurturing ecosystems” are also merging and dying. Instead of defining “universally nurturing ecosystems”, which may be an unattainable goal anyway, humanity will instead continue its experiments with universal values. It is a fact that a relatively simple set of individual values, if allowed to propagate throughout society, is capable of sustaining a comprehensive “nurturing ecosystem” while maintaining benign cultural identities. Individual liberty, freedom of [religion assembly press speech] are values that demonstratively develop healthy families, governments and markets. The common denominator across all cultures, regardless of the way their markets, governments or families nurture individuals, is the question “why?”

Every “nurturing ecosystem” approaches critical questions differently. Some answer honestly. Some answer “why?” with a lie. Other systems try avoiding the question by not answering “why?” at all. But the question is always there. It’s as if there is an irrepressible “why?” gene embedded in our DNA. The success or failure of societies around the world has everything to do with whether or not they nurture the question “why?” or if they repress it.

The question “why?” cannot be surgically removed from society. “Why?” cannot be ethnically cleansed. “Why?” is an inquisitive force that cannot and will not remain suppressed. The fact that individual members of all cultures universally ask “why?” makes the behavior a natural phenomenon blessed by God. If we’re all genetically predisposed to ask “why?” it is in our spiritual, market, national, family and individual interests to nurture our “why?” gene. Those that don’t will continue to fall behind those that do.

HUMINT: Beautiful Merit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:08:00 +0000

Merit is in style this year, but it's not a fad. Merit will be fashionable for more than a season or two. It’s beautiful and it’s here to stay. Why?!... Because merit is a lifestyle! What’s amazing about merit is how those who own it flaunt it. You can see it in their eyes and their smiles. Their lives are happier with merit than the rest of us without it.

But you won’t see merit paraded on a Parisian cat walk. You won’t see it on the dance floor of a nightclub either. It might be hidden inside the boardroom’s best groomed metro-sexual or hiding inside a gorgeous super-model… or not. Merit is about expressions of one’s inner beauty.

Described by its most mundane definition, merit is an “admirable quality”. Buddhists tend to think of merit as “insight, power or energy bestowed on the mind when one performs virtuous actions”. In other words, it’s not about who you are, merit is about what you do and who you become after you do it. Having merit is like having universal beauty. Those that pursue it, emulate the actions of Mary Curie, Mother Teresa, or Melinda Gates.

Ideally we would all have tons of merit and simultaneously look as appealing as our own cultural archetype. Dolly Parton for instance, enjoys a spectacular career as a musician (I’m a fan) while simultaneously looking like the model for the American cultural archetype, the Barbie Doll. Fortunately for Americans, the Barbie “look” is at least attainable. If you’re not born with it, the “look” may require a series of painful surgeries to get. Modern medicine has made looking like a cheap plastic action figure with blond hair a possibility.

HUMINT: Throughout history, not all cultural archetypes have been attainable. Michelangelo sculptures of exaggerated musculature size and perfectly symmetrical facial features are an important example. As an artistic genius, Michelangelo and artists like him were able to set a new aesthetic standard for mankind that remains entrenched in Western Culture. I doubt however that he or the toy maker that invented Barbie expected to be so culturally influential.

If the West is seemingly mired in aesthetic cultural archetypes, do Easterners, Middle Easterners or Africans have aesthetic targets to strive for? Of course they do. However there is a kind of beauty that transcends culture. I believe it is merit.

Try it. For the sake of experience, consider each individual you know aesthetically naked. Now look at their merit. Designer cloths are transparent from this perspective. So is makeup, a $400 hair cut, a nose job, breast implants, tummy tucks and toe twisting high healed Italian shoes. We all know the storybook narrative of the “Ugly Duckling”. According to it, inside every ugly duckling there must be a beautiful swan desperate to reveal itself. Really?! The pedigree of our feathers has little to do with who we really are. You’ve got to be naive, stupid or four years old to believe the “Ugly Duckling” narrative. The truth is, most of us are just average ugly ducklings. In a modern society, we tend to make ourselves more or less beautiful with our actions. Now we’re talking about merit.

That said; superficial beauty is an insensitive beast that’s always out of our control. It always has been and I suspect it always will be. Besides cultural archetypes, major world events can redefine what a culture might consider beautiful.

Before September 11, 2001 I was in a unique position to observe a man working on a menial task. The memory has become more vivid than it otherwise would have if 9-11 never occurred. He was Afghani living and working in Afghanistan. His job, at that moment, was to move boxes off of a dusty flat bed truck into a mud brick hut. Over his shoulder was a Kalashnikov rifle. As I recall, he wore a traditional outfit, brown cloth draping over his shoulders. He had a long black beard. His hands were dirty and calloused. He was in his twenties but looked fifty. By all accounts he looked exactly like a warlord’s soldier or a member of the Taliban. Aesthetically speaking, he could have been a cold blooded killer. Maybe he had killed before. I didn’t know. Back then the area was crawling with killers. As you might suspect, he was an outlaw in a lawless land. He was definitely breaking the law. I knew what was inside the boxes. I was well aware he was carrying contraband. He was risking his life and I knew he was. I was helping him do it.

He was unloading school supplies for Afghani children, specifically Afghani girls. I haven’t seen or heard from him since that day but I’ll remember him for the rest of my life. He had merit.

HUMINT: 9-11 Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:29:00 +0000

HUMINT: The 9-11 attack plan was a satanic idea perpetrated by demons on earth, supported by those who have taken the idea of Allah hostage to use as a weapon against free people. Tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of 9-11-01. Most of America will be prompted to relive the attack by a free American press. The images of that day are some of the most dramatic scenes ever recorded. Like the Hindenburg Disaster or the assassination of John F. Kennedy, generations beyond our own will get a glimpse of that day. The images of 911 dwarf every shocking image that preceded it. God help those who become emotionally numb to the images of two suicide passenger jets crashing into and leveling two of the tallest buildings that, until 9-11-01, proudly dominated the New York City skyline.

Unfortunately, the experience of 911, like all human experience, becomes attenuated over time. The further Americans are from the event, in terms of time and space, the more surreal it feels. Under the circumstances, our respect for our own opinions and the decisions made by our leaders in the wake of 911 naturally falters. That’s why remembering 911 should be, and in my case is, a community effort. Anniversaries are important in a healthy democratic-republic. This one is no exception. Remembering 911 and acknowledging all that we have learned since is particularly healthy for American democracy.

I believe it isn’t particularly important whether or not Americans agree or disagree about the meaning of 911. Their unwillingness to capitulate to evil is what truly matters. Of course there are a wide variety of opinions about methods, responsibility, efficiency and competence. It was a traumatic experience. As a nation of free minds, we must find patients in ourselves for those we disagree with, so long as our end goal remains the same. Victory in the form of sustainable peace is what we should demand of ourselves. Sustainable peace is our collective responsibility. We must realize it will not come today, or even tomorrow. We are engaged as a nation, in a Long War, an epic struggle against an ideological foe. Indeed, it takes time for society to absorb traumatic events and create conditions that reduce the likelihood of recurrence of 9-11-01, and an enhanced national awareness of the geopolitical warning signs that preceded it.

Where American academia and the United States Military merge (for example); West Point and the Naval Academy are finally graduating classes that volunteered as plebes after 9-11-01. These soldiers and sailors are entering careers with a new global paradigm. As for the threat, the communities in the Middle East that foster the kind of militant hate that precipitated 9-11-01 are under an American microscope. We, as a people, are learning more and more about the insurgent war being waged against us. The idea that our wars in the Middle East are happening in the middle of the world’s largest petroleum reserves complicates the situation but does not render wars against terrorists un-winnable. With history as their guide, Americans will take on post 9-11 challenges with the same American zeal that won the American West.

Our sheriffs in this fight, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have been called to testify about our progress in Iraq. Read and think about every word they give the American people! They are depending on the American people as much as the American people are depending on them. They know Americans are passionate about peace. They know Americans are determined to create a world where men, women and children can feel secure. They also know there can be no peace without justice. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker should expect Americans to believe the war effort is a common cause for all free people, wherever they are, whatever language they speak, whatever God they are free to pray to.

On this 9-11 anniversary, tears for the victims of 9-11 will not be shed in vain. American volunteers are relentless. They will break the remaining few suicidal demons. American volunteers will hunt them down and cast them out of our world, into hell where they belong. Middle Easterners and Americans are experiencing a revival; a mutual awakening. The 911 idea of Allah cannot stand. God will not be made a slave to the ambition of murderous fascists, be they Sunni or Shiite.

On this anniversary, there is only on fitting conclusion to this remembrance commentary: God bless America, God bless the Middle East and God bless all the free souls that live there.

HUMINT: Eye Contact

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:40:00 +0000

HUMINT: People who make eye contact are smarter than those that don’t. It is a fact that eye contact holds the greatest capacity for human understanding. I can prove it. It’s how we’re wired.

Eyes are a sapiens primary sense organ. Binocular, color vision allows more information to flow into a sapiens brain than two ears, a nose, a tongue or a sapiens sensitive skin. According to researchers an average human eye can carry the equivalent of 10 megabytes per second (MBPS). That metric is per retina and we know, with binocular vision, average eyes send 20MBPS to the brain. For the sake of context, an average cable television channel carries approximately 50MBPS. Granted, we are only talking about data input. The human brain processes visual data in concert with our experiential memory, what we hear, smell, taste and touch. All of this data is combined and contrasted for near simultaneous cognitive processing. Nevertheless, each sense organ is genetically wired into a sapiens neural network. Therefore the rate data flow into each sub-sense-network is quantifiable.

If all neurons, AKA, brain cells, are synonymous finite elements, the size of the neural network dedicated to each sense organ should be proportional to the amount of information flowing into its neural network. This assertion might hold as a rule of thumb, but I admit, it excludes a great deal of important information about the development of biological neural networks. Yet the rule of thumb has some value. The interoperability of neurons is a highly observable phenomenon. In clinical studies of individuals born without visual ability, the neurons genetically dedicated to visual processing are engaged to process audio signal input.

Average number of cells in visual cortex = 538,000,000
Average number of neurons in auditory cortex = 100,000,000

We now have enough information to reverse engineer a guess for an audio input data rate. Based on what we know about a sapiens’ visual system, 4MBPS is a valid approximation. In other words, if a sapiens’ brain dedicates a neural network to audio input that is one fifth the size of visual input, we should expect the audio input data rate to be one fifth of a sapiens’ visual data rate.

Sense organ data rates speak to the maximum possible efficiency of unassisted real time perception. Introducing tools to facilitate clarity of the very small and objects very far away has greatly enhanced the scope of what sapiens can see – and as a direct result – understand. Microscopic research has advanced to the size of atoms. Telescopic research has advanced to the furthest galaxies of our known universe. Ultraviolet and infrared optical devices help sapiens see beyond the frequency limits of natural vision. The unassisted human eye can process electromagnetic wavelengths of 400 to 700 nanometers.

While the catalog of human knowledge has dramatically increased with the assistance of visual aids, the application of each visual tool shifts its users’ environmental context further away from the familiar. In other words, the more we know about the environment we live in, the more our perception of the 400 to 700 nanometers world changes. Indeed, a sapiens neural network did not developed genetically to process signals generated by microscopes, telescopes, x-rays, microwaves and radio-scopes. Yet the fact that sapiens are genetically blind to those signals has nothing to do with the ability to process them once converted to our perceptive 400 to 700 nanometer range.

Indeed, anti-tech sapiens who resist realities available to them beyond their natural, unaided visual spectrum, are avoiding eye contact. Likewise, sapiens are prone to assert what they cannot possibly know, given the data they’re processing. The more a sapien knows about the world he or she lives, the closer they are to God, the creator of the universe they embrace. Exploring the world assisted by tools, or without them, is making eye contact with God’s great works. In this context, the age-old conflict between atheists and theocrats is absurd. An atheist could know the universe of God’s great works far more than a learned priest, only to dismiss the priest’s perceptions – for all the wrong reasons. Making eye contact is more than just looking into your friend's and opponent’s eyes. It’s about looking into their neural network as well.

Make eye contact with the world. You’ll learn more than you could ever have imagined.