Faith + Reason = Truth

Paul Krugman in today's New York Times:  "If Rupert Murdoch does acquire The Wall Street Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media — and American democracy."

Really?  Isn't that giving just a TAD too much credit to a newspaper and not enough to a 230-year old democracy that has withstood all trials and tribulations thus far thrust upon it?  Come now; I realize the man has money, influence, business acumen, ruthless flare, media reach, and most damning of all, a conservative outlook on politics, but the reality is that it's just a newspaper that covers American business.  And if it turns into something as one-sided and unfair and unbalanced as Fox News (not that there's anything wrong with that), it will lose its influence entirely, so not to worry.  The Journal has fought hard to win and hold its well-deserved reputation, but the moment it stops representing itself and all it stands for, it will lose its power.  Plain and simple.  And I prefer the Financial Times anyway, with family and co-worker continually asking me about "that pink newspaper" [always quickly corrected by me as salmon, not pink], its shorter stories and fewer pages, and the exposure it gives me to things in places other than the U.S., places like Denmark, Dubai, and India.  Great stuff, and it makes you SO much more interesting in conversation!

Now, isn't there a real crisis to be dealt with out there somewhere today, like how the very God-given free will of man will rue the day the iPhone was launched, or something to that effect?

Historical spiritual leaders/guides have some things in common.  Most of them project an aura of self-assuredness (confident), come across as somehow not of this world (detached), and have some type of attraction to them that cannot be pinned down exactly, but is definitely present.  That attraction is likely due to the first two qualities mentioned:  who isn't curious, or somewhat attracted to, the person who's not from around here and seems to know something we don't?  We want to know, too!  So we hang out with them, cut them some slack for their unorthodox methods, give them credit for things that may or may not be of their doing, all the while attributing it to the guru's superior being-ness.

Here's something else you may not know:  this is directly applicable to business, interpersonal, or other non-spiritual types of interaction.  Stand apprised, however, that people have an internal b.s. detector that is acutely sensitive, which means that there does need to be a basis for your confidence and detachment.  So here it is:  don't give a damn about your job.  DO your job to the best of your ability, but don't care about it.  Care about the subject of your effort, but not about your "job", i.e., your present employment status/details.  If you remain unconcerned with whether or not your employer keeps you, terminates you, promotes you, or recognizes you, and instead focus on the task or subject at hand, then you will literally be in control of your destiny.  You will be recognized, or promoted, or left alone, or fired, but in any case, you will be equipped to move on to the next challenge and embrace it and be a better human being for it.  If, on the other hand, you find yourself continually consumed by worries about what the future holds for you and your present job, you will be fighting with one hand perpetually tied behind your back, and you will not be someone that others will enjoy being associated with.  If you're not doing your best work and no one wants to be associated with you, what is very likely to occur?  That's right.

Do yourself a favor:  don't give a damn for a few weeks (that's really all it takes to see a difference) and take note of what happens to your own state of mind, happiness, and those around you.  You'll be in for a very beneficial and long overdue awakening!

Word is that Kim Jong Il is shutting down his nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.  Officially, the reason being given is that $25M is being unfrozen and made available to him; I suspect he got his own demo version of an iPhone, engraved with a personalized message from Steve J., to cement the deal.  Also heard on a radio talk show a few months back that Kim Jong Il is just his rap name, but you'll need to contact Gordon Keith at KTCK in Dallas to confirm that development.

Also, as I just got around to watching the 2 hour finale of Lost last night, it should be pointed out that I correctly predicted the Russian one-eyed guy who took a harpoon to the heart at nearly point blank range would not stay dead until the end of the episode.

Finally, the deadly nano swarm predicted by a co-founder Sun Micro a few years ago still hasn't arrived, nor have the killer bees or ants that will end civilization as we know it gotten their respective acts together yet.  Looks like homo sapiens will continue their dominant run for the foreseeable future, or until we decide to retire and try minor league baseball.

Two web buzz words, toe to toe.  One represents the spreading out to a thin tail of ever-overwhelming choice (such as movie title choices found at and, more impressively, actually rented from Netflix), and the other scientifically demonstrates the self-reinforcing power of concentration in the hands of fewer and more influential players (i.e. GOOGLE, Youtube, iPod).  Which is the better objective for a developing business plan?

That depends on how ambitious, realistic, risk-averse or embracing, etc. the founder is.  Almost by definition, an aspiring internet startup founder (or any entrepreneur for that matter) is the embodiment of a cup that floweth over with abundant ambition and appetite for risk, accompanied by a self-opinion, business outlook, and world view that is entirely unrealistic and skewed to the extreme.  This combination will naturally tend toward the predictions of Network Effects theory, which hold that if one can simply hook into (or, better yet, become) one of a handful of inordinately powerful influential nodes, the benefits of this happy occurrence will quickly cascade and accrue to the fledgling business, resulting in the absolute certainty of it being bought out for 10 figures less than a year after the plan is printed on the inkjet.  One slight problem with this strategy:  almost everyone has it.  Isn't there a better alternative?

Yes!  Thanks to Chris Anderson's observed and named Long Tail theory/phenomenon/syndrome, one has only to choose some obscure target to focus their passion on, then sit back while the other 8 people in the world who share that passion gobble it up!  If it's a book or musical output, then the budding Long Tailer can realistically count on 10's of $ flowing into the account, if not hundreds!  The downside (with this kind of upside, you KNEW there had to be a dark alternative possibility, didn't you?) is that the founder will never become rich, will never master the universe, will never have their face plastered on the cover of Wired (unless they, like I, submitted a digital pic a few months ago for my very own personalized cover of Wired, which should arrive in my mailbox any week now!).

As always, the choice is yours:  possible millions, or guaranteed tens.  Either way, you will be changing the world by the very act of your attempt to do so, and at least you'll get that "I gotta start a BUSINESS" bug out of your system once and for all.  My skepticism might be misguided, but the numbers for both theories are squarely with me, and who am I to argue with a good buzz word (or two)?

"REALLY?  WOW, that's cool!"  This is frequently my reaction to someone telling me something I didn't know and that I find interesting.  However, tell me something that's going to happen, or what scientists predict will happen, or even what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow, and you will likely receive a response from me along the lines of "whatever," or "they only occasionally get it right out of dumb luck," or "that's what they predicted for last year too, and look what ACTUALLY happened."  Yes, I am both a skeptic and true believer, going way overboard with each folly.  Much too quick to accept what someone has presented as factual information on something that's transpired or been discovered, and much too dismissive of any predictive effort on the part of humanity.  But even though I wish I could tone it down a bit in each case, it is actually a dual state of mind that has served me well, for it represents an open mind as related to the seemingly boundless achievement of man, yet it casts a suspicious eye toward our self-perceived abilities to discern what the future holds.  In my opinion, we can achieve virtually anything our minds can conceive, yet we cannot know what will or will not happen transpire at a given time or on a given day or even over a given length of duration:  for instance, a North Atlantic Hurricane Season.  This is the second summer in a row that a prediction of a particularly destructive and disastrous hurricane season would befall the U.S., and after last summer's hurricane-free status survived intact for the entire season, we are now almost a quarter of the way into this one and have yet to catch so much as a whiff of swirling tropical breezes between Africa and the Caribbean.

Weather galls me in particular, as we have so much data and applicable scientific advancement at our fingertips, but stock market and housing predictions are other perpetual offenders.  As for political predictions, those are literally useless, as they are solely based on people, their actions, their states of mind, their opinions, and all of the everyday events and affairs that shape them from minute to minute.  It is quite literally impossible to make any reliable predictions or to believe any polls taken in advance of elections, as the entire outcome could be turned upside down a month, week, or even day before the vote takes place.

When it comes to predictions, why bother?  Far better to choose a desirable outcome and proceed to cause it (which we have demonstrated ourselves quite capable of doing throughout history) than to guess what might happen and then try to plan and act according to what that outcome is supposedly going to be, though it will likely never actually transpire.  What a colossal and utter waste of our talents and efforts.

Be aware of my "non" status - non-Democrat, non-Republican, non-Socialist/Conservative/Liberal/Environmentalist/you name it, even a non-Independent (lest I be aligned with currently popular Joe Lieberman or Mike Bloomberg, both of whom I agree and/or disagree with on various matters).  Call me a Tom Worthist after my name (yet not a Thomist, though I do greatly admire the works of St. Thomas Aquinas), if you must label me, but I prefer that you don't.
Now back to the subject.  There is a man named Noam Chomsky who is well-known throughout the world for speaking his mind, in particular when it pertains to governments engaging in activities harmful to human beings:  killing them, blowing their stuff up, imprisoning them, impoverishing them, blocking their abilities to advance and sustain themselves, that sort of thing.  He provides a great deal of examples and specifics, and the information would appear to be very damning of said governments - especially, although not limited to, the most powerful ones.
Among those in the "most powerful" category is the United States of America.  When I watch a Netflix dvd of him, or read an interview in Islamica magazine with him (yes, good Catholic that I am, I need to constantly get as many relevant perspectives as I can, as do all of us), or see his efforts in any number of outlets and causes, I catch myself wondering, "how come he hasn't been killed himself?"  I mean, he is famous, influential, bows to no one, attacks the most powerful entities (governments and corporations) known to man, but he's just this old guy without a "coalition" or infrastructure to insulate or protect him who keeps chugging along, doing and saying what he wants to about whom he wants to, and he gets away with it.  Kinda like Ghandi, but without millions of citizens hanging out with him all the time.  That's bravery.
The CIA report that's about to be released supposedly details all sorts of transgressions against individuals of various countries for various reasons.  I would fear for something unpleasant befalling me if I were to come out and espouse the kinds of things that Mr. Chomsky publicizes.  But he's not the only one; there are countless brave world citizens who do that, with him being among the best known.  Which is exactly why he would seem to be the most at risk.  But perhaps the CIA, and other governmental entities, are actually listening and understanding what he's saying and are therefore not alarmed:  if that's the case, they wouldn't touch him in a million years.
Here's why.  Yes, he's saying that governments abuse and oppress not only the subjects of other countries, but their own citizens as well.  And they are unduly influenced by large, powerful corporations to engage in activities and policies that benefit the corporations at the expense of the citizenry.  But he's not saying the U.S. is the worst offender, and he's not saying the U.S. is doing anything that any other powerful government in history hasn't done.  He's just saying it's wrong.  I believe that, if asked, he would say that although it is brutal, dishonest, deceitful, untrustworthy, far too self-interested, and obstructive, the U.S. government and social structure is the best the world has to offer at present.  Sure, it's a far cry from ideal, or even acceptable, but it still represents the best of all of the alternatives for applied government.  Would he have suggestions for other methods that might work better?  Probably.  But he understands that it's too deep and complicated to just try something new and see if it's better.  The best method for making something better is not to employ force or radical change, but to continually and loudly point out what's not right by innate, universal morals and standards (don't kill people, don't take things from others, don't tell people things that aren't true, etc.) and see if it can be corrected within the existing framework.
I'd say we're looking at a hundred years or more until we get a lot of this bad stuff hammered out.  But if you look back to where we came from, just before July 4, 1776, or look back to where we were when Lincoln got elected but before slaves were emancipated, or around WWI or II, or in the 50's/early 60's before the Civil Rights movement got cranking, you can see that even things that appear perpetual in nature and impossible to change can, in reality, be corrected almost literally overnight, once enough Americans decide it's time to get up and see what all the yelling is about from those "weirdos" marching through the streets.  I will now correct my earlier statement about the most powerful entities known to man being the government and large corporations, for there is one entity that both of these grudgingly answer to (though only when forcibly coerced against their will, but they answer to nonetheless), and that is the rank and file citizenry of the most powerful nation on earth, a title currently enjoyed by the United States of America.

Filed under Politics, as wars are politically-driven, this entry is inspired by a chart over at swivel.com from June 6, the anniversary of Battle of Normandy in 1944.  Who won that battle?  Well, the Allies did, of course.  But the chart shows the number of casualties of that invasion by country, and quite a different story is told there.  The U.S. had 29k casualties, Germany had 23k, the U.K. had 11k, and Canada had 5k.  The allies had twice as many as Germany.  Hooray!  We won?  Russia has a similar history of "victorious" outcomes when invaded by foreigners, but these Russian triumphs come at the expense of many millions of their own citizens' lives.

What I'm trying to convey is the fact that victory is determined by achievement of a desired outcome.  The Allies gained a beachhead, which was their objective, and were victorious by that standard.  If their objective had been to sustain fewer casualties than their opponent, they would have suffered a loss; but that was not the standard measured against.  In Iraq, what is the objective, the standard to measure victory or loss against?  It's looking like this will end in victory for both sides - the vaunted "win-win" outcome whose virtues are universally extolled by success and motivation gurus throughout the land.  The U.S.-led forces will be victorious by their standard, which is probably something along the lines of "achieving democracy in Iraq and securing oil interests for the West."  The insurgents will be victorious by their standards on the day the U.S. declares victory and withdraws; the insurgents have a much simpler measure, and that is simply "the cessation of U.S. military offensives in Iraq."  Yet the U.S. could also have been victorious 6 weeks after the war began, when the statue of Saddam was joyously and spontaneously (?) toppled by a joint effort of Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers.  At that time, the measurable objective was far simpler, i.e. remove Saddam from any semblance of power or ability to develop, access, and use weapons of mass destruction, than it is today.

We will not know the true outcome of this war until the U.S.-led forces withdraw and leave Iraq to sink or swim on its own, and even then, the success can only be measured on a long-term stability basis.  By this measure, Britain's method of withdrawal from Palestine in the earlier part of the last century must be deemed a policy failure, though it may have appeared successful at the time it transpired; similarly, the success or failure of President Bush's Iraq policy will only be known in retrospect, decades from now.  And so it is with most wars.