Faith + Reason = Truth

The first few times it happens cause a burst, or rush, of excitement, pride, even a feeling of accomplishment.  The next few times are accompanied by thoughts of "well, now what?" or even "what's the point?", which, if allowed to develop, become philosophical explorations along the lines of "is there even such a thing as an 'original' thought?" and finally, inevitably "do we KNOW ANYTHING? and if so, can it help us predict, or at least adjust for, the future, and if not, then of what use or purpose is that knowledge?"

I'm referring to the phenomenon of having thoughts or insights or ideas, then coming across the same ideas as put forth by others.  Two such instances over just the past several days are cases in point: in this blog back in early February, I put forth an idea for an American Idol-like contest for unknown but possible future presidential candidates, conducted via Youtube clips submitted by them, with the "winner" being funded for an actual candidacy if he/she chooses.  This is a reality as of last week, with the announcement of the creator of Survivor entering a partnership with Youtube for something called the Independent, a concept exactly as I described it a few months back.  I thought to myself, as I usually do with these occurrences, "cool! great! maybe somebody actually reads my stuff and has the means/relationships to realize it and make it happen, unlike myself!"  Then again this morning, when on a blog I frequently comment on I saw a post from late last week recommending something on the basis of its idea of a "bubble" in alternative energy - something I put forth as a Comment on that very blog just a month or so ago, with some support of why I though it could happen.

But this time my reaction was different:  I thought, ok, anyone could have the same idea, just as with the presidential candidate selection format, because we're all acting with the same pool of information/knowledge available to us.  Is there really nothing new under the sun?  Surely there must be - look at all of our advancement in the multitude of fields of knowledge!  But then, do we "know" things, or have we just developed better means to record and make our observations of what happens around us?  We know a lot more of "what" happens in the world and perhaps in the universe, but are we any closer to knowing "why" anything happens?  And is knowing "what" very useful in itself, if we are actually striving to determine "why" in the hopes of being able to act on that knowledge by harnessing it for our own purposes?

After all, our entire history is that of "knowing" things, only to later have that knowledge be disproved and replaced by other "knowledge" of how things really happen - until, once again, that knowledge is replaced by still more advanced and accurate observation of what has transpired.  We can attempt to cause a certain effect by performing an action that we have observed to cause the desired effect in the past, but we don't know why that action causes the effect.  We THINK and BELIEVE we understand why/how, but we do not know.  And perhaps we cannot know.  How many times have we set off to invent or create something based on what we "know" and then had a completely unpredicted/unforeseen effect produced by our action?  We even have names for this activity:  trial and error, experimentation, scientific method.  In their essences, these activities are truly useful, but not because they further our knowledge of "why" or "how"; rather, they are useful because they are concerted, focused efforts that expand our database of "what".  Without this effort, much of our awareness of what specific things appear to be related to specific other things would not exist.  But I submit that as vast as this body of observed phenomena is and will grow to be, it may never reveal to us "why" they occur or cause the effects that they do, no matter how certain we feel about our level of understanding of them. 

Bush hasn't figured out the Middle East yet.  Neither did Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or any U.S. President in history, or any civilization in the history of man's existence in the Fertile Crescent and surrounding areas.  Nor has Africa been "solved."  I for one, however, do not necessarily believe that democratically-elected representative government should be the immediate or even primary objective for these areas, and asking differing religious traditions to peacefully co-exist in the same place doesn't have what could reasonably be enthusiastically embraced as an encouraging track record, either.  Where do we start then?
Simple:  free speech/free press.  However governments are elected or appointed or determined, and whatever the religious belief or economic system is, if I could have one rule, it would be that anyone could say whatever they wanted and write whatever they wanted without fear of reprisal or punishment or oppression, as long as it did not untruthfully harm anyone else.  What this would accomplish is a situation where everyone would be aware of what was going on, and common human moral decency would be the unstoppable force that would do away with the "bad" and keep the "good" elements of the society in question.  When attempting to analyze track records in human relations/worker treatment by Chinese mining companies or Indonesian shoe manufacturers, I believe one would quickly find that 1) it's not easy to do, and 2) it wouldn't be an enjoyable, feel-good process when faced with the realities of the situations.  The only reason American companies are any better at all is because of the efforts of muckrakers who stirred up what really transpired behind the scenes in the unsafe sweatshops staffed by women and children, or the dangerous mines and oilfields and steel mills, or any of the myriad other transgressions of corporations pursuing profit at any cost and sacrifice, human included.
The only weapon the journalists/investigators had was freedom of speech and of the press; they could not force any company or politician to do anything.  They had no weapons or militia or resources of any kind.  But once the public was made aware of what really happened, they were the ones who demanded and caused change.  Don't get me wrong:  I'm fairly certain that many of these "newly enlightened citizens" were probably already well-informed about how things worked at some of these operations, but once it was out in the open and EVERYONE knew, and even more importantly, everyone KNEW that everyone knew, the influential ones had to take action to change things, lest they have taken action upon themselves by the outraged citizenry.
Boris Yeltsin supposedly opened up the Russian press to enjoy some short-lived freedom, but it wasn't in place for a long enough period of time to institutionalize any lasting reform.  It's now been closed again by Vladimir Putin, and it may be quite a while before it once more sees the light of day.  Governments can be democracies, monarchies, a combination of the two, or even "benevolent dictatorships", but what distinguishes the different societies and the quality of life that its citizens are able to experience are their freedoms, or lack thereof, to say what they wish, to expose what is going on, and to thereby allow their fellow man to take the appropriate enlightened action necessary to bring the state of affairs in line with what would universally be recognized as right and good.  Conversely, without this lone, crucial freedom, even a democratic and representative government elected in the most fair method ever devised by man cannot result in a society that represents the best man has to offer, since people would be ignorant of the evils going on around them and powerless to do anything about it to mobilize correcting actions even if they WERE somehow aware of some atrocity somewhere.
Where does this leave us?  I have to be encouraged by the existence of the internet, if nothing else.  That alone gives people hope of exposing what is happening at any given time, any given place, even if no press or speech freedom is in place, in hopes that someone, anyone, will step up, do what's right, and fight (or simply negotiate) on behalf the oppressed little guy.  It's how the Iraq conflict began, and it's how reform in China is slowly (albeit painfully slowly) reforming, and it's how America itself was born over 200 years ago:  the cry of a free press, the call to arms to its citizenry, the plea for help from a stronger champion (France) in our hopeless struggle against an undefeatable oppressor (or at least bully, if "oppressor" is too strong a term for our British friends).  It DOES work, it DOES take time, and it IS what we really need to be fighting for, even ahead of the objective of democratically-elected representative government.

Another headline, another headache.  Pelosi did this, Bush shouldn't do that, he promised he would stop doing something, they swore they would start looking into ways to...who does all of this bring joy to?  I mean, if you really, actually believe that all of these whiny, nagging, complaining, immature Leaders of the Last Great Hope for Earth and Mankind (that's the U.S., if you didn't know) and their constant, incessant rants about each other, what they are or are not or should or should not be doing, and how THEY would do the world such a better service if only they were given the chance.  Well, they WERE elected to the U.S. Senate or Congress, weren't they?  How much more of a platform and jumping-off point for your Grand Plans can you honestly expect than that?  It would seem that all it would take would be the ability to get along enough to agree on a goal, then a plan, then a course of action, then the execution of that action.
It would seem so, because it IS so.  Why doesn't it happen that way though?  Here's my theory:  it's the WWF (or WWE, or whatever the current incarnation of pro wrestling is these days).  The tried and true formula of being so overwhelmingly over the top with each side's diametric opposition to the other, so vehemently vocal, so ridiculously juvenile in their accusations and criticisms and defensiveness and counter-ridiculousness, all in the name of publicity.  There is no more effective method of gaining entry into these high elected offices than through the attainment of personal brand recognition (ask Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger), and no more effective method of attaining brand recognition than through publicity.  Call someone's judgement into question in a civilized, constructive manner in hopes of resolving an issue or coming up with a better way through cooperation, and how many newspaper or online headlines does that garner for you?  However, call the President a Poopy Pants Stupid Head Who Is Trying to Kill All Americans Too Dumb to Go To College and Avoid Military Service (even though they volunteered for said military service), and you've just given yourself a worldwide platform to convey whatever message it is that you're trying to convey.
My revelation is this:  that they don't really mean it, that they're not really that unsophisticated, that there really must be at least a modicum of intelligence and common decency along with the basic ability to communicate and disagree and have civilized discourse within every one of our elected leaders.  They only make themselves APPEAR to lack all of these things because they are SO BRILLIANT that they realize the only way they will be able to remain in the public eye and mind is to get themselves out in front of our faces with their outlandish statements against one another.  At least that's what I choose to believe, for fear of getting yet another headache trying to figure out what the hell they hope to accomplish with their big fat dumb stinky lying liar lies.

Early last week, I spent lunch one day having a conversation.  With myself (click here for my transcript of that dialogue, which I simply wrote with pen and notepad at a table in a courtyard one sunny day a little more than a week ago and then typed in as a blog post this morning; it is not intended to influence or persuade or imply that I have some insight or revelation that I consider important; it is only published here as an example of an attempt at self dialogue).  The process seemed somewhat Socratic to me in spite of the fact that I am not a formal student of philosophic methods or specifics.  What IS going for me, however, is the fact that I am seeking, and have been doing so for many years.  So lots of surfaces have been scratched in this search, some deeper than others, and Socrates is one of those surfaces that has been scratched broadly but not deeply.  He is just too influential to those who came after him to be ignored, so one gets frequent exposure to his thoughts, works, and methods without even really trying.

I recommend starting with an open-ended question, with yourself as the questioner.  Then, put yourself in the role of the answerer, interpreting the question however you wish.  Try to take a "philosophic" tone or stance in your questions and answers in order to make yourself think more effortfully, but don't let yourself slip into "fake deep" queries and replies that you think sound intelligent but aren't really representative of your true thoughts or feelings and really aren't helpful at all in this process of discovery.  Remember, this is for you to stumble across thoughts or feelings or knowledge or insight that you aren't even aware that you possess, so be as honest and all-encompassing with your dialogue as you can.  Finally, and most importantly, don't view your personal revelations as some kind of "real, true, authentic, unalterable essence of you."  Just be more aware of your current state, and try to be mindful of things you come across that challenge or conflict with what your dialogues reveal about you.  Scarcely a week after dialogue 1 with myself, which is what I've linked to in this post, I'm already re-evaluating my impressions of the relevance and validity of creativity in man based on recent study of the Buddha (thumbs up on his teachings!) and my first exposure to Gnosticism (still very early days for me here and in regards to Buddhist teachings, but already have mixed impressions of the Gnostics coming up with some great stuff and some wackiness, with definite undertones/overlap of what the Buddha brought to the understanding of the self) and also of free will (not covered in dialogue 1, but maybe I'll publish that one at some point as well).  Have fun with yourself, and remember, you don't have to worry about boring your partner or talking about yourself too much in that conversation.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was born almost 260 years ago in what would eventually become Germany  and became a brilliant philosopher.  OK, enough about him, and on with 3 quotes attributed to him as translated into English:

"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean."

"Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing."

"Mountains cannot be surmounted except by winding paths."

I just hit the delete key on a long-winded, convoluted, difficult-to-follow post about our responsibilities as people, based on the quotes above.  Instead of trying to emotionally argue in either direction, I will rely on your intellect to apply these quotes as you will to your present understanding of the facts as you know them surrounding the global warming debate.

In case you're interested though, my interpretation of the quotes is that I agree with the 1st one, and I believe that industrial society would have developed different solutions for energy provision if they were told beforehand that they had to clean up any messes that they created.  Most of the oil from the earth's crust would probably still be sitting there now if that had been the case, and we'd have a whole different set of problems in the world today (maybe less intractable, maybe more, but definitely different).

I also agree with the 2nd one:  where's the challenge in overcoming obstacles with no constraints put upon oneself?  Were the Pyramids on the Giza Plateau really that impressive when it is taken into consideration that they had unlimited man/slave power at their disposal to brute work the problem into submission?  Not to me.  Now, get those suckers built with some brilliant technology AND the requisite respect for your fellow man, and I'll be the first to stand and applaud your accomplishment!  Same sentiment applies to burning fossil fuels for power:  anyone can find something and burn it up and make heat or explosions, which creates all KINDS of pollution of every form and toxicity.  Oil and coal just happen to represent the best trade off of abundance, manageability, and power output bang for the effort.  Now, get those suckers to develop an energy supply that doesn't pollute the world and is safe, scalable, abundant, and transportable, and I will admiringly acknowledge your accomplishment.

Finally, and not surprisingly, I also agree with quote #3.  These innovations/technologies don't happen overnight, and they are not without extraordinary effort, ingenuity, and perseverance.  People need to expect to wind around slowly, up and down, switchback/backtrack every now and then, build some retaining walls and guard rails along the way, look ahead and plan for what you see as well as what you don't see but still suspect might be lurking, check with others who have built or are attempting to build similarly-purposed projects, and eventually you'll have yourself a nice, winding pass that will indeed allow anyone to get to the other side of the mountain.

Today's Blog Maverick post is a speculation on the futures of TVs and PCs as entertainment centers for homes.  Read it for the details and his thought process, but his theory is that TVs will start being upgraded every few years instead of PCs, since that's where the noticeable technology leaps will be occurring.  We will all go from 42 inch HD to 70 inch to 100 inch in our living or bedrooms.

I say perhaps, but via a different path.  What do you do with a 100 inch when some LCD pixels burn out, or the DLP mirrors break/misalign, or the plasma burns in, or other technical things that I don't understand happen?  Do you set it out by the curb for the trash pick up and go get another one (requiring store delivery, since it's not going in your backseat or trunk)?  And what becomes of these discarded 8+ foot wide behemoths that are not very environmentally friendly when disposed of?

One solution I can see is modular TV displays, interlocking/interconnecting "building block" displays of a manageable and super cheap production size (a 100 inch display costs FAR more to produce than 4x the cost of screen of 1/4 the size).  Take 17 inch displays and connect them by physically interlocking them together and plugging them into each other so that the size would be variable and customizable.  Link 3 across and 2 tall and you've got roughly a 60 inch display.  If 1 display has some issues down the road, you just replace that segment rather than the entire display.  There would also be the option of toggling to mutli-channel display mode so that you can view (in this example) 5 different video selections, 1 per module/display, if you don't feel like watching them all act together as 1 massive display.  Obviously the modules could be made available in different sizes as well, with smaller displays/modules giving you more flexibility/choices of total display size and lower replacement/disposal cost when something stops working.  It's also vastly easier to transport five 17 inch flat panels than it is to move one 60 inch flat panel, which involves a delivery truck, friends for moving it around the house, impossibility of negotiating tight turns in hallways or on staircases, etc. and is not practical to order online and have delivered to your door by brown truck.  And that's just with a 60 inch.  A 100 inch or larger?  Forget it.

The technology is already in common use to have multiple displays work together to produce 1 larger display; all that's required is the industrial design of making multiple smaller displays lock together in a near-seamless, simple, attractive manner.  "Upgrades" to larger sets would be a matter of starting with a few smaller displays and adding on as you see fit.  This would solve the dilemma of people like me, who want HD but can't justify the expense of a 70 inch right now, while at the same time being unable to settle for a 42 inch with the knowledge that a couple of years from now the 70+ inch will be the same price, but again not justifiable, because the 42 inch would be working just fine.   Apple or Sony (and I suppose Samsung needs to be added to this list) can work out the details of the appropriate module sizes and interlock designs and we'll be on our way.

Has a major political party in America ever boycotted a specific major U.S news network and specifically endorsed a single preferred news network?!  This has happened today!  Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have joined John Edwards in withdrawing from a political debate sponsored, in part (along with the Congressional Black Caucus I believe), by Fox News.  This extraordinary gesture was then followed by an even more shocking one when an Obama spokesman stated that CNN would be a more appropriate venue for the debate, referring to a later one in January.
In light of this shocking turn of events, is Fox News still obliged to provide equal airtime for the Democrats?  Would this lead to their not being able to sponsor and televise a similar Republican debate in the future, since they would not be airing one for the Democrat candidates?  I'm sorry, but this has gotten me WAY fired up for some reason; even though we all realize the political leanings of the various major American television news outlets (all are liberal/Democrat biased with the lone exception of Fox News, which leans heavily to the right in spite of their tagline), it's still quite stunning to have things so brazenly laid out for all to witness.
Now, regarding the wisdom of this solidarity, it absolutely must be called into question.  If you are any one of the Big 3 Dems, wouldn't you salivate at the chance for a stage of your own, to shine as the solitary beacon of compromise and reasonableness across this polarized, partisan landscape?  Just an extraordinary development in the politicization of the U.S. news media, and an equally extraordinary opportunity to seize the higher ground missed by each of the Big 3, in my estimation.

Controversial title, huh?  I don't know Don Imus, and I've never listened to his radio show, ever.  I have seen him on tv as I walked by a store or something, so I do know what he looks like.  I would assume that, based on his appearance, he is not a follower of the Prophet Muhammad.  Anyone who saw me would in all likelihood assume that I am not, either.  Therefore, I (and these other imagined observers) are racists, as they are harboring a preconceived feeling or opinion, either favorable or unfavorable, based on my race, or what they assume to be my race based on my physical appearance.  So we can all agree that we are virtually all racists on some level.
Now Mr. Imus, by his own admission, took his biases and stereotyping too far in his attempt to make his audience laugh, which is the sole stated purpose of his talk show.  His remarks were offensive by any measure.  Yet even if he truly believes what he said and stereotypes African-American female basketball players, based on their hairstyles, as sexually promiscuous, does that impair his ability to do his job, which is making people laugh as they listen to the radio?  It does not.  Nor does it promote prejudicial hatred at any level.  Should he refrain from making these types of remarks on his radio show in the future, even if he truly believes them?  Yes, he should refrain, because it will offend and alienate many of his listeners.
But holding certain personal beliefs should not exclude one from their right to doing a job.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson often call for people to lose the source of their economic livelihood as a result of comments expressed publicly by the offending individuals, even when these comments in no way impair the individuals from effectively performing their jobs, and even in the face of these individuals' expressions of regret and profuse public apologies, far more public and far-reaching than the offending remarks were in the first place.  Mistakes are made by people in every walk of life every day of their lives, including Mrs. Sharpton and Jackson; this does not mean that punishment should always and only be in the form of depriving them of their right to their chosen vocations.  If these remarks had been made by someone whose job was somehow, even remotely, related to their ability to perform their jobs effectively if and only if their decisions and resulting actions were completely unbiased by their views of different races, then they should no longer be able to hold that position.  But a talk show host?  I hesitate to admit this, but in my experience/exposure to these frequent and public imbroglios, the ones who consistently come out looking and acting more racially-motivated than any other party are the aforementioned Sharpton and Jackson.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7)

Good day.

Do you have kids?  A "significant other"?  Co-workers (subordinates, superiors, whatever) that you're not afraid to speak your mind to?  Close friends or opinionated parents?  All of the above?  Why do you speak to them differently than you do to strangers, store clerks, people in the elevator, or co-workers or acquaintances that you aren't very close to?  And when I say "differently", it usually translates to nicer, more respectful, more thoughtful, or any number of adjectives that amount to just "better".  And don't claim that you don't:  when your 5 year old accidentally sloshes some chocolate milk out of her cup and onto the floor (or even the table), and if you thought about it you'd realize that she was trying harder and concentrating more on NOT spilling than you ever do, would you respond as you would if stranger or someone you barely knew accidentally did the same thing?  That is to say, would you be exceedingly polite and understanding and forgiving, as with the stranger, or would you take an angry tone (probably unconsciously) and say "what were you thinking?" or "I TOLD you to be careful!" or, one of my all-time favorite ridiculous grown-up questions to someone who's just accidentally messed something up, "WHY did you do that?"  As though it were a conscious decision to have the accident!
This is a vexing problem for me as I struggle domestically with my wife and how we interact (never respectfully enough towards each other, though we love each other very much and consider ourselves "good people"), how I see myself and other parents react to their children's learning experiences, how people deal with their "meddling" parents/friends, etc., as well as professionally, as I constantly observe in all walks of life and professions how people scheme, connive, backstab, make things up, sabotage, "build cases" against co-workers (are they going on trial someday?), etc.  It physically puts me in a negative state of mind just typing these words and scenarios, as they result in mental imagery of the real situations and actions that are so disturbing.
As the Buddha, or Jesus, or God Himself would advise us, do unto others as you would have done unto you; or better yet (and more simply), respect all and act accordingly.  I believe it does ultimately come down to respect; for some, the road ends with "I don't respect him, so I can't act like I do because that would be disingenuous of me".  But for those willing to try, it can transform into "what is she trying to accomplish?  Can I help?  What are the intentions here?  Did he dump the milk/make the mistake on the report on purpose?"  And what if they did, or what of the unintended yet repeated mistakes/accidents?  How many is too many?  What if they're just too dumb, or just don't care, or are just mean or vindictive?  The answer is that there is no answer.  Or is it that there is no question?  For if the only objective when dealing with others is to do unto others, or perhaps the restated "do no harm", then the question of intent or mental aptitude or good/evil never enters into the internal conversation.  Continue to do unto them as you would have done unto you; continue to respect all; continue to do all that you can in bringing out the good in everyone you interact with, for there is good in every one of us, no matter how buried or hidden it may appear.

I have added Amazon links to 2 books by Nassim Nicholas Taleb at the bottom of the left column.  Fooled By Randomness was published several years back, while The Black Swan is due out on April 17.  I cannot recommend them strenuously enough!  Each addresses the role of uncertainty and, more importantly, unpredictability in all facets of life including but not limited to investing, no matter how intelligent or advanced we believe our intellect and computational/analytical creations to be.  Though I cannot do him or his material justice, I do attempt to espouse his observations to those who are interested, for the express purpose of enlightening people's perspectives while making them aware of their station in life; that is to say, although luck may favor the prepared mind, no mind can be prepared for that which has never occurred nor been foreseen, and much of the causality at the root of our daily walk through life is rooted in just such unforeseen events.
Knowledge makes for a boundless, infinite area of study, reflection, introspection, and seeking out understanding or answers.  Perhaps it is such a limitless, fertile field for the precise reason that there are no answers, there is no knowledge; only awareness and observation and pattern recognition, which enable us to actively avoid pitfalls or attempt to replicate previous agreeable outcomes.  Taleb eloquently and entertainingly spins tales from history, philosophy, financial and other markets, and his own neighbors and acquaintances for your reading pleasure, and I echo many reviewers of his works when I say that your very outlook and perspective on life, your part in it, and what is and (most frequently) is not within your control or even your predictive ability will be altered for having opened your mind to them.

Do you have any idea of exactly HOW much money (and time) you can save by purchasing new vehicles over the internet?  A friend had been in the market for a large, gas-guzzling American SUV for several weeks, but couldn't bring himself to go to the dealer and hammer out the purchase price.  He had visited several to look and test drive, but wouldn't subject himself to the hostage situation that most dealers put you through for the negotiating process.  Finally though, the time had come to do something.  So he went to www.edmonds.com to check the MSRP and dealer invoice costs (www.kbb.com will give you this, too) for his fully-loaded, all-everything 2007 Tahoe.  The sticker came to something in the low $50's (that alone floored me when he told me).  BUT, there was a link to have dealers email you quotes, so he went ahead and requested quotes from dealers just out of curiosity.  I was all ready for his triumphant "I saved 5% without even haggling!" or "they knocked $5k off without even talking to me!".  But no, his story was even better:  lots of dealers emailed back, but the best was a single email from a dealer less than 50 miles away with no back-and-forth, with a bottom-line price of $40,400.  Over $10k off sticker.  He went and signed the paperwork and drove home in it the next night after work.
Now I'm certain that skeptics will point out "that's an American make", or "nobody's buying those big beasts anymore so there's a glut" or "they're about to release '08 models (no they're not, it's only a few days into April)", but STILL, you're talking 20% off, folks.  If you've been wanting a new vehicle but assume you can't afford one, you might go to www.edmonds.com or www.kbb.com and request quotes from dealers (do it at one of those places rather than through the manufacturer, because the manufacturer request will not route it to every dealer and the situation won't be as competitive as through a third-party site - and the dealers are keenly aware of the various competitive situations and what kind of pricing each situation calls for).  You might be surprised.

As a fairly well-educated business person, I eagerly anticipated how America would be run by its first MBA President.  Bush had a solid background of running successful business ventures, and he brought in even MORE impressive and successful former CEOs as some of his most trusted and depended-upon cabinet members.  He also turned to the military and academia (though not scientific academia) to round out his cabinet.  Women, minorities - it looked too good to be true!  And very little croneyism, to boot.  As it turned out, however, I'm not so sure that the CEO mentality is an effective one for the leadership of a democracy.  CEOs call the shots and answer to no one (except the Board of Directors, who are frequently in awe of or at least stay out of the way of the CEO, as long as he/she delivers bottom-line growth and profitability - by any means necessary, I hasten to add).  It was very apparent from the outset of Bush's team's diplomatic dealings that former CEOs Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were used to dealing with situations as they and they alone saw fit, considering themselves above the diplomatic (and democratic) fray, and striving to deliver results by using any bullying, threatening, secretive, less-than-truthful means necessary.  The most striking parallel I see to the big company CEO mentality and that of both Cheney and Rumsfeld is the reliance on secrecy and bullying (of other nations, of subordinates, of the press) - no one needs to know anything and you will do as I tell you, no discussion or debate required, as long as the job gets done.  But that's not the best policy in democratic leadership, because people DO care how goals are accomplished and how objectives are achieved (or not).  And beyond simply caring, they prefer - no, demand - to have a say in the means employed.  I stand corrected on my longing for a CEO President, because many of the core Machiavellian qualities that are often so important to success as a CEO are completely at odds with what is required of leadership in a democracy.  What's the best preparation for maximizing the possibility of successful White House leadership?  Perhaps Obama has stated it most accurately when he said that there IS no such thing as being ready to be President, or words to that effect.  One must use all of their life's experiences and training and mental faculties and social strengths, play by the rules as written by our forefathers, try to make some friends and influence some people, and make the best of either bad or worse situations.  Sounds simple enough, doesn't it?

The Brits may not be as spineless as they appear at first blush with regards to their own personal "Iran Hostage Crisis", which the U.S. so meekly endured almost 30 years ago.  I initially set out to pen a "why doesn't England and the U.S. take decisive action here - members of the military have been kidnapped by a foreign government, for crying out loud!" post.  Perusal of lots of Guardian, Jerusalem Post, Bloomberg, etc. articles ensued, and as I got fired up about each one, I was continually struck by the odd lack of urgency or saber-rattling on the part of Great Britain.  Now, it all makes sense.
We begin with two mortal enemies, Iran and America.  I would say that Iran currently is, without a doubt, our most vocal and antagonistic enemy while considering their perceived ability to actually stand up to us.  At the same time, seizing our sailors (if it were even possible) would amount to signed authorization on their behalf allowing us to obliterate their country.  Not advisable.  However, take the same action against Ruth ("wherever you go, I will surely follow"), er, Great Britain, and sit back and watch the fireworks (threatened, that is; no ACTUAL conflict would ensue, by Tehran's calculation)!  With somewhere north of 20% of the world's oil flowing the Strait of Hormuz and an Iranian navy whose express purpose is to give the appearance of the ability to completely disrupt that flow, I believe Iran staged this ruse NOT to delay UN sanctions related to their nuclear program, but rather to cause an immediate-term oil shock and demonstrate/send a reminder of their un-attackable status to the world (while adding a few dollars to the oil coffers in the process).  Nothing more.  And it accomplished that very objective, if only for a matter of hours, with the price of oil spiking $5 almost instantaneously on the news of the capturing.  But by the next morning, oil had settled down (no doubt after a few well-placed phone calls from the leaders of Britain and America).
Now, Iran is playing and looking the part of the idiot, with nothing to show for their effort other than some well-documented Geneva Convention violations by using prisoners as propaganda and the realization that they don't have nearly as much control over the price of oil as they believed they did.  The ability to disrupt the flow through the Strait is only half the equation; the other half is having an actual reason to do so, and without that, oil prices don't care how many Iranian ships float on those waters, since to harm the flow of oil without provocation would harm Iran as much or more so than anyone else.  Britain has shown and continues to show (calculated) restraint, and their avoidance of the knee-jerk reaction has harmed Iran's leaders on the international stage moreso than any aerial or naval strike possibly could have.

Mike asked me over the weekend the question about when I find time to blog.   It's a question lots of bloggers get.  My answer is that it doesn't take much time - not answering "when", but implying that really any time the muse strikes and I'm at a pc.  Other frequent questions I get include "why? how many read it? who reads it? why do they read it? why do you do it? what do you hope to gain?", etc.  My answers to these have evolved since I started a couple of months ago, going from "I have something to say that people need to hear and I want as many people as possible to read it", which focused me on trying to drive traffic, to "I have lots of things to say and I'm going to spend my time spewing out as much as possible", to "why don't I put some thought and effort into this, regardless who reads it, because every time I post a thoughtful entry on something that's really fighting its competitors for as much of my brain's time and thought processing as it can get, as opposed to a quick-hit commentary on some of the day's headlines, it comes out as something I can actually go back and feel good writing."  As I have put thoughts of audience size completely on the backburner and focused instead on what I feel is important for me to write about on a given day, my hits have diminished dramatically - while my feed subscribers have risen dramatically.  Neither of which matters to me, of course, as long as I get in my daily regimen of focused, effortful thought on a subject that's demanding to be rigorously examined and laid out through the keyboard.   An audience can tell if you're throwing something out there for volume or shock value vs. an attempt to intelligently offer up some prose for their consumption and, who knows, giving them the opportunity to possibly learn something new or interesting in the process, even if they're only "learning" another perspective that's either opposed to, or simply different than, their own.
What do I hope to gain?  At first, ad dollars from my (future) HUGE readership.  Then?  Having exposure for my great ideas to some member of my (future) HUGE readership that would recognize my ingenious product/idea, or simply my genius.  Now?  The gift of well-examined thoughts and ideas and stances, some of which have actually seen my position switch from one point of view to another after thoroughly examining different sides and underlying evidence, and all of which serve to help me do that which I have always striven to do in some form or another to do:  to know myself.  It's the greatest gift you can receive, and it's one that only you can give.
That's why I blog, and that's why you should, too.  Thanks for making me think, Michael!