Automation and People and Land

I have been seeing a lot of prognostication lately about how automation is coming and robotics and AI is going to replace a lot of jobs. I even read one article saying that the haves will become a different species. I think a lot of these such articles are missing something important. Economics.

If we automate everyone out of a job, who will buy the products? How do we take advantage of economies of scale, if the scale is a handful of super rich. If owners of companies are so rich, and everyone else is so poor, what becomes of the people? What do you do with massive populations of people who don't or can't work, due to the economic and technological realities around them? Do we get to the point that we start wholesale elimination of large populations? Undoubtedly, some will see this and the answer. Genocide of such magnitude is unprecedented, but that is where the thinking of such articles lead.

I don't think it will come to that. People will not be replaced by machines in total. Sure, many jobs and functions will be. It will be painful, but people are creative. AI is not. It is not self aware. It does what it's programmers set it up to do. Again, most programs do things differently from what the programmers intended, but they do exactly what they are told. But what if our technology does get to that level where almost all jobs are replaced?

I am not sure how this whole thing works itself out, but it will have to. To feed such masses of poor will require a significant portion of the Earth's land for their maintenance. Who will pay for it? To resolve such questions will probably get ugly in some way, and the poor will probably have the bulk of the losers. I see a variety of solutions to such a dilemma , none of which are very palatable. Most of them will be some form or another of expansion of the current welfare state. Another disgusting alternative is the re-institutionalization of slavery, based solely on economic standing. I certainly hope that no governments will reach the point of deciding genocide is a good way to go.

One of the welfare state expansions that we are beginning too see is called basic income. Many nations are beginning to experiment with this concept. This money has to come from taxes and fees. If only the rich are making money, they will be who has to pay for everyone else. Still a no-win situation. The poor get an income, but become dependent on the government. They will lose incentive to work and create and make the world a better place. It sets up continued and increased tension between the rich and the poor which will eventually come to a head. The more the poor are displace by technology, the more the rich will be taxed. At some point, the rich will resist or rebel. That would lead to one of those other nasty scenarios mentioned above.

It doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps, there may be other solutions which might be worthwhile to look into. I remember reading about laws that existed in some small island countries many years ago that each family was required to grow and preserve a certain amount of food for each family member. They were required to spend a specified amount of time working their gardens. Those that could afford it could pay others to work in their garden's for them. If we step forward a couple of centuries and add technology into the mix, perhaps we find that there may be wisdom in some of the underlying principles of self reliance. This is a variation off of the theme of distributist thinking.

The key is making sure each person has access to the means to take care of themselves. This probably means some kind of guaranteed access to some required per person amount of land and water resources. It will require people to learn to work. The government would have to create some kind of equitable way of distributing, and redistributing, and redistributing again, the land and resources. It would have to be fair, and yet still make sure everyone had their required minimum. I suppose having rules for land inheritance which are different from other inheritance might be required. At any rate, there are some uncomfortable changes which would have to be made to our policies.

The interesting thing is, if we did establish such a program to support the poor, it won't prevent those who are so inclined from setting their sights higher, and seeking more than the bare minimum. If they fail, well, what better safety net than self reliance. Those who succeed can have that benefit of having other people or machines to their work to meet the requirements of such a system. It also would still provides enough of an economic structure to ensure trade will exist and therefore the capital required to create our modern wonders will continue.

Yes, it is true, there will still be rich and poor. Many will inherit their wealth. They will still have to be taxed to pay for government. The difference is, the poor will be better taken care of, have a better safety net, and still have opportunity. The taxes would not be as onerous as in the basic income scenario mentioned previously. A land distributism program would certainly not address all the problems that exist and getting people to understand and agree on the specifics will be extremely difficult. But it will be better than either hordes of unworking being paid for by massive taxes on a few rich, or the alternatives of mass slavery or wholesale genocide of those viewed as having no economic value.

The Startup: Best option for retirement.

So, I am 42. I have no retirement. I had some at one point, but had some brilliant idea that if I fixed my house up (cause otherwise it would have either fallen down or been condemned) then, it would be a pretty good place for my family to live and we would have a decent amount of equity built up. So I cashed out my retirement and by the time I got the place fixed up, most of our equity evaporated in the housing meltdown, and my company which serviced the real estate and mortgage industries kind of went with it. Fortunately, we were able to sell before we lost the place, but we got a lot less out then we had put in, even though we bought a major fixer-upper and it was a pretty decent place with a little bit of key work needing to be finished on it when we sold it.

I know, long sob story. I am not the only one who lost just about everything in this downturn. We moved to Texas looking for work, which never panned out, and ate through what little we had left. We finally ended up in my parents basement and I picked up an online consulting gig. We managed to pay off all of our debt with the consulting before I got a regular job. It doesn't pay that bad, all things considered. But it doesn't have any retirement benefits, no options, no future. I should probably have opened up a IRA or something by now, but I haven't cause we have been catching up on years without insurance other things where anything that could be put off was. So, back to where I started. I am 42, and have no retirement.

Funny thing. My father was exactly at this same point when he was my age. He went and got a job with a big mega corporation, that put a decent amount into a 401k. That lasted about 10 years, and then he got laid off in his early 50s. He was able to land a similar position with a much smaller company, but it was big enough to have 401k support as well. He put in his time there and retired at 62 1/2. Turns out, what he saved wasn't enough. They have social security, and a little bit from his retirement savings, but big things keep eating into their principal. He needed at least double what he put aside, if not triple.

So, here I am in a similar situation, only no 401k. I make enough, and have no debt, but I don't have much extra. I also have no equity in a home or real estate anywhere. So, I have been figuring what I am going to need for retirement. Trying to figure out what my best options are. Where I live is very close to work, but doesn't have the lowest cost of living. The schools are good, but still have the typical problems public schools have. In any other direction from my work at the same distance, the cost of living stays about the same, but the schools are not as good and some of the neighborhoods can be quite creepy. I have 6 daughters, so, I get a little paranoid about safety sometimes. I can lower my cost of living if I go far enough away, but then the commute becomes very long, and I don't really save much.

If I were to try to get a comparable job with another company in the area, I could probably get better pay and a 401k, but when I started to do the math, I found myself looking at the same situation my father has found himself in. He worked himself nearly to the bone and when he finally retired, he doesn't have enough. So, this led me to think about what my options are, and how each of those options might affect my eventual retirement. I looked at doing contract work and freelance work. I looked at setting up my own consultancy. One option was to find a better job I could do with a much lower cost of living. There were only 2 options I came up with that had an expected outcome that exceeded my expected needs. All of the other options would use up the next 20 years of my life and leave me short of what I need.

Both of the positive options had to do with startups. First, if I were to come on as a very early founding team member or early key-hire, and the company had a successful liquidity event after 3 to 5 years, I would probably have more than enough cashable equity to cover my needs and then some. This is even more the case with the second option, where I am the founder of the startup, and it also eventually gets to a liquidity event. If it were successful, it wouldn't have to take the next 20 years either. In both cases, it is not a sure thing, but it is a big risk.

I have done startups before, but there were lots of things wrong with how the business was set up. One of which, they were primarily service oriented where I was exchanging my time for money. There is only so much you can get when you exchange your time for money. Sure, there are a few (patent lawyers?, brain surgeons?, industrial spies?, former presidents?) that can charge very high rates, but I am not one of those. While I can make a decent living doing doing service oriented work, it will never create wealth like a successful startup that has a product can.

So, since startups are not a guaranteed route to success, and the other roads are dead ends, what is to be done? Well, make sure you pay attentions to the mistakes you make, and learn from them. The thing that makes startups the best option is that, you are not limited to one. Even successful startups have a tendency to be on a short time table. A solid liquidity event often is within the first 4- 7 years. Even when it isn't, startups are very quick to adapt compared to established companies. And, then there is the whole lean iterate and pivot approach. One startup, many shots on goal. If it isn't working, take what parts do work, and try something different with them. Sounds easy right. Well, if it was, there would be tons of successful startups out there. Oh, wait, there are. Still is easier said than done. Just don't quit. Kind of a bit harder with a large young family and a day job to support them. I guess my iterations just have to move slower. But, fortunately for me, I have never been short on great ideas. I just need to get one to the point that its greatness is readily apparent.

If I can do that, I am sure I can create enough wealth and get to an adequate liquidity event. That will take care of my retirement needs. Even if my retirement looks a lot the same as what got me there. The difference, I won't be financially dependent on it's outcome, and I might just get there a lot sooner.

Let it simmer.

I am a politics junky. No this isn't about politics (mostly), it is about me and thinking and keeping myself from doing stupid things I end up regretting later. I have seen a variety of comments that are quite similar in many ways, but the basic gist is, when something happens, and you have a reaction that is closely coupled with emotion, it is often good personal policy to sleep on it. Give it a night, or better yet, a full 24 hours or more. Let it simmer and see if you still feel the same way about it. Make sure what you are going to do is the best course of action and not just the passion of the moment.

So, how does this apply to politics? Well, being the political junky that I am, I really wanted Obama to not be re-elected. Yeah, much more that than Mitt Romney being elected. I think Obama is the worst president we have had since Woodrow Wilson. Yeah, Wilson was effective, but he was also un-American and wanted to throw out the constitution. Interestingly enough, The next worst president in my lifetime in my opinion, was not Jimmy Carter, but George W Bush. Between Obama and Bush, they have shredded our freedoms, the constitution, and our economy. So, all of this fitting in with me being a political junky, I tend to react quite strongly with happenings related to elections. I could see early on that the night was not going the republicans' way. Quite the opposite.

My reaction of course was to start thinking of rash and extreme courses of action that of course I would regret as soon as I did, but this year, I purposely tried to gear myself up for the possibility that the night would go that way. I purposely made myself go to bed once the outcome was pretty much decided, or, at least, I tried to. I am afraid my anxiety over the whole affair infected my children, but at least getting them to go to bed took me away from the over-programmed news feeds.

The next day, I made myself stay as neutral as possible, which for me is still hyperbolic, but I tried to keep my most extreme thoughts and reactions bottled up, and try to express rational, moderate thinking. I still read the news feeds, which for the most part were either democrats being poor sports, or republicans being poor sports, but occasionally were something that tried to be reconciling in nature. I have noticed a very small undercurrent in those more moderate voices. While it is true that the divide in america is very stark, and that there is a gap between the sides, what they are really fighting over, for the most part anyway, is not that hugely inseparable between the sides. (There are a few issues that I think really do provide a true irreconcilable difference between the sides, but that is another post.)

So, since this seemed to be such a big deal election, I made myself wait a couple of weeks before posting much about it. And hey, you know, all those topsy-tervy emotional knee jerk reactions and radical thoughts boiled down into some really interesting food for thought. I still don't like many of Obama's policies, but I am much more clear on what I feel and why, and what I can and can't do about it.

So, the next time you get your dander up, sleep on it. Don't do anything until you have given yourself enough time to really boil it down into some more rational course of action.

Taking the long view

As I think about the various factors the influence the way individuals live their lives, one of the most influential seems to be the longevity of their perspectives. What I mean is the time frame of their outlook on life, their goals and ability to be both patient and persistent. When people look at the long term, they act different then when they only look at the short term. I have tried to look at the long  term. When I do, I make much better decisions. When I don't, well, you can probably guess that it doesn't work so well. It is true that sometimes there are short term payouts, but most of the time looking to the short term doesn't really help me reach my long term goals.
Those who take the long view tend to be happier, more successful, have more stable lives. I suspect that in general, they are also more conservative, more religious, and more compassionate.

Interpersonal paradox

Lesson learned from conversation in the middle of the night: If you want to change others, you have to change yourself. If you want to change yourself, you have to focus on how you treat others. It is when you focus on yourself that you are more likely to have problems with how other people's actions affect you.

I think most of us can identify examples of this at work in our own lives. If we are being mostly selfish, we tend to get bugged more easily by others. If we want to change them, we have to change how we interact with them, which changes us. Thus, I suppose it could even be reasoned that when we change someone else, we really are mostly making changes in ourselves and how we interact with those others. If they are to change, they are the one that has to do the changing. All we can do is inspire them by changing ourselves.

I suppose the statement above should really read something like "If you want to change yourself for the better, you best succeed when you focus on how you interact with and treat others." Yeah, I know, a bit nit-picky, but for accuracy's sake, I figured I would clarify a bit.

Anyway, this lead me to wonder how many other areas of life do we change by changing ourselves and our perceptions and interactions with the world around us rather making actual changes in that world.

The Logic of Religion

I have been thinking about what people believe religiously and how logic fits or doesn't fit. Now, I know, there are some of you folks out there who swear there is no connection between logic and religion, but atheists and fanatics aside, how does logic fit with our religious beliefs?

First, I guess you have to decide if you believe there is a God. There isn't a lot of hard evidence one way or another (Well, actually, there is, but you have to dig and spend a lot of time working to understand the meanings and possibilities and ramifications. You have to be open to any possibility before you can effectively use Occam's razor anyway, otherwise, you bias the outcome.). Atheists will say a lack of evidence indicates lack of existence, and a lot of other people will say faith doesn't need evidence. Whatever you believe, still, I think the application of logic can only be helpful.

Second, assuming you decide you believe in a God, you need to decide what are the characteristics of that God. What would that God's motives be, and are they consistent with the commandments and teachings he has sent forth (Again, assuming you believe he has sent some forth. If you think there is a God who doesn't get involved or doesn't care, well, then you have a lot less to go on, but, if you remember the evidences I mentioned above... lets just say He has send forth both commandments and teachings.)

One thing to consider is the consistency of teachings and doctrines professed by a variety of religions. I am going to mainly focus on Christianity today. Lets say you are part of the Catholic Church. They say God is loving, just, and all powerful, but if you are not baptized in the Catholic Church, you get to spend eternity in Hell. What about those who have never heard of Christ, or that never heard the Catholic version. Well, too bad, you lost the genetic lottery and you get to go to Hell without being able to do anything else about it. A God that arbitrarily sends a major portion of his Children to hell just because of where they were born doesn't sound loving or just. OK, so, sorry Catholics, you fail the logic test. Unfortunately, many Christian churches have the exactly the same problem.

Here is another one. Lets say you belong to a christian church that doesn't have this problem because you say that everyone gets saved. There are no requirements. Ok, so what the heck is the point of your church in the first place if I don't have to do anything to get to heaven. Another Fail.

OK, lets look at the whole concept of heaven. Many Christian churches, and Jewish, and Muslim for that matter, have this outlook that if we do what is required here, we get to go to heaven and be happy forever with nothing to do, except sing in a heavenly choir (the Muslims get their 72 virgins, but I am not sure how they reconcile the lust involved with their other teachings, not to mention the denigration of females that is required). Now I like to sing. I even met my wife in a choir. But I don't think I want to spend eternity just singing. But, I have heard some say that is all there is. God just wants this one big choir singing his praises forever more. Man, that sounds vain. Now, don't get me wrong. God is beyond great, and should be praised, but not because he can send me to hell forever, but because he is perfect and loving and not selfish. The personal choir praising just himself forever sounds pretty selfish. There has to be more to it. Otherwise, this one doesn't do all that well on the logic test either.

So, now you see what the logic test is in religion. Go ahead. Try it. See if your church or religion measures up. Just keep in mind, everything must be included. The personality of God, his teachings, his commandments, who we are, who we can become, what the outcomes for us are, why we are here, etc. I personally think the church I belong to passes this test on all counts. It does say that it is the only true church. If that is the case, well, then everyone else has to be wrong. But, that doesn't make it fail the logic test. Go ahead. take the test, write it down, and see if what you find is what you expected.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Assumptions

I often find myself completely amazed at how very intelligent individuals make the most bone headed comments relating to their political perspectives. The more they espouse themselves to an extreme agenda, either liberal or conservative, the more bone headed they get. I am not talking about just an everyman on the street, but some extremely intelligent and highly successful people, who, for the sake of fairness (cause a list of them would be way too long, not to mention rude) will remain nameless. (If you think I am talking about you, either you are way too vain or right, or both.)

I guess I should explain what I mean when I say they make bone headed comments. Often the come in the form of complaints or criticism. Something like: "[some politically connected individual] said that [some other politically connected individual] was [some derogatory label], but they really are the [another derogatory label]." Another form might be "[Liberals or conservatives or some other political group label] are all [some completely generalized derogatory characterization]." Well, statements of this type indicate that the individual making such comments are guilty of several major flaws in their thinking.

1. Assumptions. We assume that we are experts. We assume we understand what others are talking about. We assume that we are right and don't make ourselves think things through. We assume that what we are saying will automatically make sense to others. We assume that everyone else will think like us. We don't do ourselves any favors when we make assumptions. In politics, we don't have to make assumptions, but often we do for various reasons, most of which aren't very good reasons.
   
2. Shallow thinking. When we really think through an issue politically, and we evaluate all the potential inputs and outputs, the reasons, and the influences, it takes a long time, and a lot of effort. Anything less is shallow and lazy, but, really, how many of have the time in our lives for a real solid analysis of issues. I suppose we all could, but something else would have to give. Still, wouldn't it be nice if every time someone really didn't think things all the way through, they either held their tongue or prefaced their comments with "I haven't really thought this all the way through..."?
3. Inconsideration for individual differences. Politics and political opinion are very complex and based upon even more complex personal experience. I have my experiences, and you have yours, and even if you are my twin brother (I don't really have a twin) you still are going to have differences in your experiences and consequently, in how you view the world.
4. Generalizations. This is probably the biggest source of lazy and bone headed comments form intelligent people. The only statements that make good and accurate generalizations are very simple where there is an either or choice, such as male or female, alive or dead, or so forth. Statements judging sanity, intelligence, morality, etc don't make good generalizations due to the complexity of the issues. Political statements mostly fall into this category. To say all republicans are greedy, or that all democrats are immoral, is like saying all birds are black. Obviously, it is wrong. Some birds are black. Most birds have some black on them. But even then, many do not. Even saying all birds fly is wrong. To make an accurate political generalization, you have to put in so many qualifiers as to completely sterilize and invalidate the point you are trying to make. Still, people do it, but it isn't helpful, and doesn't make for effective discussion.
5. Emotional responses. Far too often in life, we make emotional responses. We shut off the logical side of our brains, and vomit emotional bile in the form of words. Few subjects in life elicit as strong of emotional responses as politics. Maybe religion might, but only for some. Perhaps the Vulcans (you know, the fictional race from Star Trek that eliminated their emotions and viewed everything logically) were really onto something. If we could be less emotional about politics, I can't help but think we would have a more civil discourse, and probably more effective government.
6. Zero sum game. Why do we see politics as a zero sum game. Winners and losers. Spoils to the victor, to the loser nothing, or worse. We don't have to think that way. In fact, politics is almost never a zero sum game. In fact, why does there have to be winners and losers in politics at all. Ok, well, someone has to win the elections, but as far as what it means for non-candidates. Just because I voted for somebody, does not mean I win. What if I vote for someone, and then they pass laws that are to my detriment. How is that winning? Surely, almost nobody agrees 100% with the people they vote for. So, why all the venom in politics. How about this. We have a perfect laboratory situation. We have independent states that can be testing grounds for programs. We can try out half a dozen or so solutions to a given problem, review them for a while, come back with tweaks, and eventually, we will know what works best. Thinking one political philosophy is the answer to all things is really bone headed

I know, my rant is not going to change things. Even those who know better will probably continue making bone headed political comments. I probably will too, but I will try not to. If you catch me making one of the errors I mentioned here, call me out on it.

Shake the Google out of my head

My wife and I have a variety of isms that we refer to. She has a particular set of isms that are all her own, mostly consisting of very memorable yet completely nonsensical phrases and words which sound like other things, and that somehow, most people can make sense of, even though they have certainly never heard them before. She doesn't think these things up intentionally, she just speaks and these things just come out. One of the first ones she uttered after we were married was bravewength. It was kind of a combination of brainwave, and wavelength, but didn't come out quite right, and at the same time, expresses a little bit more than either of those terms.

The other night, my wife was fairly tired and meant to say "I need to shake the gobbletygook out of my head." We were sitting down at the computer, and what came out was "I need to shake the Google out of my head." I laughed and laughed, and the more I thought of how applicable and meaningful that erroneous sentence was, I laughed even more.

We can find just about anything in Google. It has tons of info, and makes it easy to search for stuff. But really, how often do we enter a search and get nothing but garbage. And not just a little garbage, but incomprehensible amounts of garbage. Who can really wrap their head around several million (or more) virtually irrelevant search results. So, when she said she needed to shake the Google out of her head, I thought of all that sentence could mean.

Out with the massive volumes of worthless, meaningless, incomprehensible yet potentially distracting and deceptive garbage. How often does the content of our brains resemble a Google search results page. So much there, and yet so little. Perhaps we all occasionally need to "Shake the Google out of our heads."

Who's In Control

I am a control freak. I hate control freaks. Ok, maybe that isn't quite accurate. I hate being a control freak. The problem here is that just about everyone is a control freak some of the time. What I mean by control freak is that we want to control what is going on, and freak out when it isn't going our way. This might only apply to ourselves, which, if that is the only way you are a control freak, you are doing way better than most of humanity.

Often, control freakishness manifests itself way stronger in parent/child relationships. I look at my own relationships with my children and can see a lot of instances where I get bent out of shape over issues of control. Of course, that isn't what I am thinking at the time. It might be that they aren't "listening" to me, or that they haven't done what I have told them to do. When boiled down to it's essence, it is me freaking out over not being in control. I know from experience that things work much better when I calmly and maturely sit down and discuss an issue with my children, help them see their choices and the attached natural consequences, and then empower them to make their own choice. I feel better about it, they feel better about it, and more often then not, choose to do what I would otherwise have been telling them to do, with the significant difference that they typically do it better and faster if they are the one who made the decision.

I also see control freakishness happening on larger scales, in institutions, and in communities and societies. Most of the laws in the world are about some individual or group telling some other individual or group what to do. Our institutions, specifically our government, rarely, if ever, has that mature conversation where it helps us see the options and natural consequences and lets us make the choice. Instead, it is all about pressure and force. "You have to do it this way or" ... insert some form of either social condemnation or physical force.

My religion teaches that before we were ever born, we once had a choice between two ways.

The first way is that we would be given agency to decide for ourselves and be free to make choices, being responsible for our own actions. Because of the nature of mortal existence, we would all sin, but would be able to repair the damage of our sins and bad choices (repent) through an atonement for our sins. If we chose to repent, we would be able to continue to progress and become more like God. The primary advocate of this plan is Jesus Christ, who held the responsibility of performing that atonement for our sins.

The second way is that we would be forced to do what is right, and that we would not have the ability to choose otherwise. The consequence of that would be that no-one would ever sin, but that our progress would be damned. The leader and major proponent of this way was Lucifer, who we now call Satan.

We are taught that those who chose the first way got the opportunity of receiving physical bodies and continuing our progress in this mortal life. Those who rejected the first way and chose the second became damned in their progress and got kicked out of heaven. They are left to tempt us to make bad choices, which includes trying to get us to follow their plan in practice instead of following the one we originally chose to follow.

We all can fall to temptation and try to control others. In fact, we often do, in part because we fail to recognize the long term consequences really fall short of what we typically really want. Agency, or the freedom to choose for ourselves, is the most important thing each of us has. Efforts to limit or take away our agency are contrary to the nature of the plan of Jesus Christ. I guess that means that those who try purposely try to limit the agency of others are Antichrists. I surely don't want to be an Antichrist. Do you?

Lasting Happiness

Just about everyone I know or have ever heard of wants to be happy. Unfortunately, there is little agreement on how to be happy. Everybody has their angle they play. While most people don't list happiness as their top motivation, it does generally underlie their ultimate motivations. We as people try lots of different things to try to get happiness, and most of us achieve it, but only temporarily. What I think most people don't consider is that far too little of what we do brings lasting happiness, and instead only brings temporary happiness.

Consider many of the things people do to be happy. They go to parties, hang out, date, play games, watch sports, drink alcohol, take drugs, seek adrenalin rushes, seek fame, seek social approval, spend money, try to get money, etc. etc, etc. I could go on for a long while and still not exhaust the list. If we consider much of our economy and culture, what would be a fair estimate of what percentage is based around finding or achieving happiness? Probably very close to 100%, if not actually 100%.

Perhaps we might be better off if we were to consider what would bring us lasting happiness instead of temporary happiness. One thing is certain, lasting happiness can not be based on specific situations, as by their very nature, situations are temporary. Of course, there is the argument that everything is temporary. I suppose it depends on your belief system. Ultimately, belief systems and religion are a structure for defining how to find lasting happiness. Interestingly enough, even amongst active members of any given church or religion, the beliefs about how to find lasting happiness are often dissimilar.

What are your beliefs about how to find lasting happiness?

Vision and Direction

Today, my family and I went to one of the many patriotic functions around in recognition of constitution day. Yes, I know, it was a day after constitution day, but they had this stuff going on with people dressed up as major figures from American history, and booths and storytelling, and speeches, and so on and so forth. I had expected to find a bunch of Tea-Party activists or something like that. Really, despite all the flags, there weren't that many people there.

They had several "Winners" from some local speech contest give their speeches, and a little video presentation punctuated with re-enactments of famous speeches and quotes. While listening to this, it brought back an epiphany I had last night in relation to revolutions and movements. During a labor and delivery false alarm, my wife and I spent several hours at the hospital, and the only thing on the hospital TV that was not completely stupid was Glenn Beck's show, where he was discussing revolutionary figures from history. Specifically, they discussed Moses, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Most of his panelists had some kind of personal connection to one or another of the historical figures, and mostly said nothing in a lot of big fancy words. One point they did make, however, was that for each of these figures, they placed the their purpose and mission as higher than themselves.

However, in the political context of the day, I realized that there is something distinct about real revolutions and movements that transcend the individuals who might be tied to them. That something is clear vision and direction. Now, most of you who have ever read a book on goals, or planning, or achievement, or project management, or leadership, etc, etc - have heard this sort of thing, but I wonder how many of us who think we know it really do. When I say vision and direction, vision means more than just a pretty picture or conceptualization. It defines what needs to be done. It requires the foundations that lead to direction, and direction means actual steps and things for the followers and proponents of that revolution or movement to do.

While listening to tonight's speeches, many of which would probably be best described as tea partyish, I realized what problem I have with the whole thing. There are not clearly defined problems with clearly defined visions of what things should be with clearly defined direction for what each of us should do about it. There were a few things listed here or there, but all vague, or ethereal, unclear in some form or other. Ok, maybe I could support the Tea Party movement, if only I knew where it was going.

Better news service.

I just got a CNN Breaking News email. The subject of the breaking news really doesn't matter, but it brought to mind some ideas. Some years ago, during some political something or other, I signed up with CNN to get their Breaking News email updates. They come in this nice little string of text with just enough information to let you know what is going on. I have learned that a Breaking News email update usually means that they now have a great article on their site for me to read if I want to know more. Most of the time, if it interests me, I want to know more.

If you are not familiar with their Breaking News emails, you might guess that it would include a nice little link to the related article or maybe a stub or topic page that links to all the related articles if it is an ongoing story.

Nope. Nada.

They have an unsubscribe link. They have links from the ads that they stick in them. But nothing to get me to their site so they can do their job of getting me to read more of their content. Come on people, my kid could program that. The whole concept of hyperlinks in emails is almost as old as the web. This should have happened 15 years ago. Think of the change to readership and the bottom line in terms of ad revenue.

I should probably thank them, though. If I clicked off to CNN every time I got an interesting Breaking News update, I would probably spend a lot more time on their site, and consequently, less time actually trying to be productive. That brings me to another point. More than half of the Breaking News updates I get, I don't care about. For some, yeah, I am sure they are interested, but different people have different interests.

Let me pick my interests. Please. I don't care about sports, or entertainment, and there are only a few sub topics that interest me in travel, health, and living. Come to think of it, I really don't care about most of criminal proceedings under the justice section either. Constitutional law, business law, and patent law, yes, but the rest of the stuff, just let me opt out of it.

Make a general list of subject tags, arranged categorically, and let me pick whole sections, sub-sections, or even individual subject tags, and only send me the links on those. If you did, I can promise I will click the link much more often. Yeah, that link that doesn't exist yet. I figure, if you can tailor my content to me, you certainly can make it easier for me to get to.

Fundamental Flaws in American Education

Public education is one of the things that made America great. It surely wasn't the only thing, but it was a huge factor in America becoming the "Land of Opportunity". Unfortunately, any time something becomes institutionalized, it also becomes a target of political, social, and economic forces who view it as a short cut to achieving their goals. Education is even more so a target due to the effective of having nearly all of the very malleable minds in the country captive and required to participate in the activities. Education in America has become a battle ground between opposing sides in far too many wars. Conservatives and Liberals, religious and anti-religious, business versus... well, business fights well enough by itself, call that the civil war of business philosophies, and many other sides fighting to influence the collective minds of American youth. The casualties in this war too often end up being the students who are supposed to be served by education, and instead they become cynical, bitter, and/or hateful. Doesn't matter which of the various sides they end up on, they are given disservice by this situation. At the same time, there are a few who make it through this maelstrom who are highly enabled to thrive in life.

There are a few things that could be changed about our educational institutions which would greatly expand the number of students who are able to greatly thrive as a result of their education. The first thing has to do with those sides. The ability to lobby and influence education is strongly related to it's centralized nature. The solution then would appear to be the decentralization of it. However, there still need to be standards, and those standards are where the various sides will try to attack or influence our youth. Our youth are not stupid, and we should stop treating them like they are. They are inexperienced, and we should try to help them understand the challenges they will face because of that inexperience, but we should do so in a respectful and supportive manner. If there is a side of something presented, then any other side of that issue should also be presented, regardless of how unpopular it might seem. If you don't want certain sides of things presented, then just define that there is an issue, and inform the kids they will have to ask their parents or research it on their own. Also, when an issue with it's various sides is presented, the alignments and history of those sides should be presented, but no side should be favored over another.

Sounds pretty lofty, doesn't it. I know it is possible, cause I had a professor in a philosophy class that did it with such exactness that none of us could guess or even come close to what his personal philosophy was. He ended up being pretty normal.

The next thing that needs to change about education is that we need to stop limiting the growth and progress of some students in order to keep them at the same place as their slower peers. In fact, we need to change our whole approach to education from a group based progress, to individual progress in a structured, yet self paced, environment. There are several forms of this. Some of the older forms often are used in independent study programs, but there are much better scaffolding programs that can incorporate both the independence of the individual as well as social learning and support structures. In this way, each student could progress at a rate where they felt comfortable and could best succeed at.

Thirdly, and there will be many who will think I have political motives here (I really don't. Read carefully and you will see what I am getting at.), we need to change how education is funded. I recognize that if we removed government involvement that we would just be favoring the upper classes over the lower classes. This is not intended, nor desirable. The government has a very important role in the funding of education, as well as in the standards that are set for it and in making sure that it is not abused. However, creating a big bureaucracy and turning over a major portion of each state's budget over to that bureaucracy is worse than most other ways you could go about it. I recognize that any effort to standardize or support or govern education will require government funding, but those funds should be completely separate from the funding of the actual education. The parents should determine which qualified school or teacher should receive the funds paying for their child's education. I am not saying just open up the funding spigots and dump it on private schools. On the contrary, if a private school wants to be eligible to receive public education funds, they should have to meet the standards attached to receiving those funds. In this way, there becomes more of an economy around education, which will help maintain the quality of education.

One last thing, and perhaps this would never fly, but a parent should be required in every class that is conducted. Just to sit in and listen, and they could help if they and the teacher agreed on it. Just one parent. Assuming that each class has 20 students, and half the students have both parents at home, each parent would only have to go to every 30th class. The point here is that the parent is the consumer. They are the customer. They need to know what is going on, and far too many parents are complacent to just ship the kids off and not look into the quality of the education again until report card time, and sometimes, not even then. Would this create an additional burden on parents? Sure it would. And for those who have a lot of kids, even more so. If you have that many kids, you need to be involved. I suppose you could designate someone else such as a grandparent, or some other responsible adult relative, and meeting the requirements should be somewhat flexible, but a parent needs to be there. The result this would have would be better performance by the teachers, the students, and most especially, the parents.

Scary, isn't it. But, it would work. I am sure of it.

K.I.S.S. the governement

I love our founding fathers. Not so much as individuals, but collectively. Sure, there are individual standouts, but this isn't about them, instead, it is that they looked at what they had for government, and said, we can do better than this. They acknowledged that people are people and while basically good, people are also basically flawed. They said, hey, we can create a system where each part of the whole works together to both strengthen the whole, and prevent any one part from becoming too strong and therefore out of balance with the other parts. The great compromise during the constitutional convention in 1787 had to do with small states and large states, but what it resulted in was dual sovereignty. Both the federal government and the state governments were sovereign, strong, and effective. The 17th amendment went a long way in subverting the interests and power of the states in our federal government, but considering the problems of the day, I can see why it was passed. What it in effect did was change the squabbling in the legislatures for power brokered senators. Instead of having special interests directly bribing the legislators, they now indirectly bribe and manipulate the populace.

I am a big fan of representative government. We live in a republic, not a democracy, and I am glad that we do. At the same time, republics have a tendency to experience corruption and bribery. There are a few things, however that seem to help that. One is the recall. Now, the most famous example of the recall is when California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, this is a bad example of how recall should be done and used. Sure, Gray Davis was stupid for the errors he made, but it really isn't about him. Perhaps he should have been recalled, but the method should have been different and shouldn't have been such kangaroo court.

Ideally, recall should happen on a much more intimate level. Recalling a governor in California hardly qualifies as intimate. Secondly, recall should be automatically pick a slate of eligible candidates. More like a regular election where if the sitting politician is ousted, it is in favor of a specific other. As much as I don't like the system, the first second third preference ballot actually makes a lot of sense here. One of the major problems with initiating a recall, is that you have to direct it at the general populace. The legislature should have the option, but there need to be others who can also initiate it, such as a majority of city councils or county commissions, or something like that. The problem with that is that our governments are not set up hierarchically. They overlap and are a hodgepodge of authorities, who most people really don't care about, since they don't seem to matter anyway. Perhaps the key is making those positions matter more.

Another major problem with politics today is also related to the separation of the governed from the governing. Specifically, bureaucracy. When you have some kind of interaction with a government authority, how often do you know that person from elsewhere? Almost never. It is impersonal, it is obscure, it is inefficient, and often, it is downright mean. Even with police today, too often, we don't know who is serving us. They are complete strangers. Some time ago, there was a notion of a beat. An officer had a specific area he served and where he knew the people and what went on. If there was someone strange in his beat, he made it is business to find out what was going on. Now a days, there are very few beat cops, and the beats are so large that there is no way that they could get to know the people and what is going on. A stranger looks just like everyone else, cause everyone is a stranger to them. Instead, we have tons of traffic cops. They are focused on catching everyone so they can give them a ticket. Then, the department can get more money. Their performance is based on how many tickets they write. What an awful and ridiculous notion. Any other government departments are just as bad if not worse, and magnified exponentially at the federal level.

We need to apply the K.I.S.S. principle here. The solution is to get the services, and the service providers, back close to the people, and to make them accountable to the people. And not just the people, but at a level where there are personal relationships. With personal relationships involved, you know people better, you know how they think and how they live. If all government service providers and representatives served a small enough group of individuals that they knew them personally, and could be replaced by them if they screwed up too badly, I think things would change quickly. I have designed a solution, that until now, really hasn't had name. I think I will call it the Good Government Initiative. I will begin detailing it in the weeks and months to come. Most of my posts will still be on other things like technology and innovation. Still, since this is something that affects all of us, perhaps this is innovation that needs the most attention.

Where politics and technology intersect.

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to a video regarding a supreme court case relating to business process patents and by extension, software patents. I have a pretty slow connection right now, so when I watch a long video, I usually get it started, and then pause it to let the rest download. While I was waiting for it to download, I read the comments on the video to get a feel what others had to say about it. That left me with almost a feeling of dread before I even viewed the email. The problem is that too many of these process patents are locking up common sense approaches to doing business or of programming.

As both a business entrepreneur and a software programmer, this issue affects me. I also have the background of having been an assistant patent librarian for a patent repository library (a while before everything went web based) and helped patent attorneys and inventors search for patents and make sure they had all the information for protecting their own intellectual property. I believe that patents were a major factor in helping the United States of America become the leader of technology world wide and really were one of the keys of the industrial and post - industrial revolutions. However, I can also see how the system must be very diligent so that it isn't abused so as to stifle innovation instead of encourage it.

For my current situation, I have a fair number of innovations (that I am not sharing on here) that I am working on, that since they do things that have never been done before, are, in my opinion, very patentable. At least, they are under the current software patent regulations and tests. At the same time, I don't want patent trolls keeping me from creating new innovations by locking up basic functions of programming. So, in all my huff and puff prior to watching the video, I was concerned that what the comments were saying is that the court had given even more blank slate to the patent trolls, which I would view as bad for the industry, and for the economy.

Well, then I watched the video. And I was like... "and so..... what was decided?" Well, after some searching, I found that while the arguments for the case were last year, the decision is not expected until sometime this June. From some of the transcripts of the arguments, I have to conclude that the Justices are not as clueless as many people like to pretend they are. Then again, I have heard comments from Justices before than seem to go completely against the decisions they write, so, take that conclusion with a pound or two of salt, and maybe some indigestion medicine. Anyway, my thoughts are, why is everybody in such a huff, if the decision hasn't even been released yet. 

Then, something else happened. I read that Obama hates technology, and went, huh, I thought he was "Mr. Technology" during the election. Then, I read from InfoWorld that the whole thing was a joke. Ok, I have to admit that I am not an Obama fan. I think he has way too many control freak fascist tendencies, even worse than Bush, but perhaps about as bad as Cheney. The hubbub on this one is that people took snippets of an address he gave and missed that they were part of a joke. Not only did they not get the punchline, they never even knew there was a punchline.

Now, it is just too bad that there is sooo much venom out there that people jump to attack without know why they are jumping. Like most jokes, a good part of the humor worked because of the true parts of the joke, like the parts about media and how "some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter" and "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction". Ok, they Obama hates technology headline should have made people go, "wait a minute" this doesn't sound like it is fully founded in reality. Need to get the whole story.

I suppose getting the whole story is too time consuming, especially when seconds count in being the first to break a story. I know we aren't going to get all cyber-journalists and bloggers to be more responsible, but perhaps there is a way that we can leverage the strengths of the internet to fix the problem and create better news sources at the same time. If there was a blog/cybernews integrator, it would still give credit for breaking stories, but if it allowed add-ons by other journalists who provide "the rest of the story" or additional details, then the truth would eventually come out in a single source for each story that is out there. At the same time, those who have an axe to grind could post as additional details, but the rants and slants could quickly be voted as such and relegated to comments and rants, and leave the real additional details in the body of the page, each with their respective authors getting their due. We could call it associated bloggers or something like that.

Smart Phone Dream Machine

Imagine that down the road, an older Steve Jobs walks on stage in his classic black turtleneck and says something like "Everybody loves the iPhone, and they love the iPad too. Many wish that the iPad would fit in your pocket, or the iPhone had a bigger screen. Wouldn't it be great if you could just do this?" He holds out an iPhone, pulls at two opposite corners, and ssssttttrrrrreeeeettttccchhh, its an iPad. The audience explodes with excitement and wonder.

I first thought of that scenario a couple of years ago, way before the iPad was even a rumor. I could see what the iPhone represented and could lead to, but I could also see it's limitations. I was interested, but reluctant to actually spend money on one. The iPod Touch seemed like a much better offering, but it's additional limitations were too much. I hate the abuse heaped on me by AT&T since they bought Cingular, so I wasn't about to subject myself to more. I had already suffered abuse by Verizon and swore in my wrath that I would never use Verizon. Period. So, that leaves me being abused by AT&T or underserved by T-Mobile, Sprint, or Virgin. Perhaps I could use one of Walmart's phones and make Slim a little richer. Anyway, so, I opted for the status quo and have just watched the Market since then.

I was very excited when I first heard about the Palm Pre and their Web OS. I have been cautiously optimistic about Google's Android. I was surprised, but skeptical when Windows Phone OS was announced. I was unmoved about most of the other news on the smart phone front, apart from being more and more impressed with the iPhone and more and more disgusted with the draconian policies and behavior from Apple and Mr. Jobs. They have so many things nearly perfected, but then go and make things awful by their ridiculous developer agreements, their totalitarian control of applications and content, and the unbelievably bad mobile service from their only provider.

There are a few things that could be done much better than the iPhone. Of course, you have to have a multi-touch screen, and lots of wonderful apps, and incredible base functionality, but that is only to equal out what Apple has already done. Then, you have to beat them. First on the list, you have to do better on enterprise functionality. I will have to see the enterprise friendly features in iPhone OS 4 before I really believe they have got them right. Apple has never got enterprise even close since they have focused so much on the consumer, and never the twain shall meet (maybe).

Next, address one of the next biggest complaints. Make it so you can open it up, change your own battery, and even swap sim cards and radio units. Imagine, you get tired of being abused by AT&T (yeah, I know, pretty far fetched) and so you decide to order or buy a T-Mobile radio modulator. It wouldn't matter that they use different protocols on different bandwidth spectrum, you just open the case, remove the old one, put in the new one, and activate your account. Yeah, maybe someday the American Telecoms will get a clue and start using open standards, but until then, swappable radio units are the way to go. Then you don't loose all your stuff. Better yet, make all the major components like wi-fi, gps, battery, and memory swappable and upgradable.

Next, and here is where Apple has really missed the boat. They needed some kind of central access location where all applications and a lot of content would be available and they also needed the ability to reach in and clean things up (used very judiciously of course), but they don't have to have draconian developer policies, and they don't have to act like they own their customers because the customers bought a device. The centralized site ('store' for lack of a better word) should only provide services to the app vendors. All apps should be submittable to the store to be verified as quality, but if 500 developers want to build a music playing, managing, or purchasing app, the store shouldn't care as long as they pass quality control requirements. Let the natural market decide what things are available. They should also require all service providers to provide on-bill selling of apps and content. They would of course set up a robust API to make sure it all works perfectly, and then the sellers would have simplified selling, if they wanted. If they thought they didn't need it, they should be allowed to go it alone. If they can get enough people wanting their apps, they shouldn't even need to have them verified through quality control. I know, this puts people at risk if they are stupid enough to download or buy bad apps, but it is time for a little personal responsibility, don't you think?

Now, to wrap things up, lets really make it better. I want some more features that no-one seems to offer. One, I want a bigger screen than the iPhone, but it still needs to fit in my pocket. Two, I want extensive external connectivity, even if it is through some kind of special dock. In fact, I want to be able to have the dock support an external monitor and display multiple apps in blowup mode, and even support full screen modes for those apps that can handle multiple screen sizes. Three, I want a dual slide out keyboard. I want it to be a full qwerty keyboard in landscape mode, and a numeric keypad in vertical mode. Then, and I alluded to this before, I want to maximize the hardware. When a new processor comes out, I want to open up the thing, and pop out my old processor, and pop my new one in. I want to do that with everything except the screen, the case, and the motherboard (which should be an integrated unit that could support your old peripherals until you upgrade them. Oh, and I want to run this thing without an cell contract when I want to.

I know that such a device doesn't exist, and probably won't, but if someone did it, the marketing opportunities would be incredible.

Lemmings and Christianity

So, last time, I wrote a post about lemmings. Lemmings, for those of you who don't know it, are those cute little rodents rumored to practice mass suicides periodically when their population grows. Ok, so truth be told, that better describes humans then lemmings, but it makes a great metaphor. Anyway, in discussing human lemming behavior, someone mentioned that people will say that Christians are lemmings. Well, lets think about this. The classical human lemming behavior (as opposed to the actual lemming behavior) is a mindless following with dogged determination to keep going without any thought of the consequences, especially the long term consequences.

Now, lets start with religion in general. Do most people who espouse a religion do so from human lemming behavior? Well, from one perspective they might, but I think in general they are applying forethought to their decision to follow that religion out of concern for the long term consequences. So, according to that definition, they are not being human lemmings. Now, obviously, with all the different religions out there, they can't all be right. However, I think those who vigorously follow a religion and try to live all of their lives according to its precepts can not be accused of being lemmings if they are doing it for real belief and not for social standing or position.

That brings us to the question, "Are there those that are human lemmings when it comes to religion?" and "If so, when?" I can think of the following examples, with exceptions to each. First there are the social lemmings. The society they are primarily concerned with will vary widely, from family society, to neighborhood society, to just the society of specific influential individuals such as religious leaders. They might also be trying to appease a powerful social faction or even government regulation where there is an official religion or regulation enforcing religious practice. Now, one might argue that practicing a religion in order to follow a regulation might be in fact non-human-lemming behavior in that it looks to the long term of preserving one's legal status. While that might be true, it doesn't make a person a believer.

I would like to be able to apply this discussion to all the major religions, but I don't have that much space in one post, as I would be typing forever, so I am only going to briefly compare it to Christianity.

Of course, Christianity is more than a single belief system but a group of belief systems with a single common attribute, which is belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind. Now, "What is meant by 'mankind'?", "What are they being saved from (usually sin, but not always)?" and "What is the long term goal?" varies greatly from sect to sect. I guess it really gets to the real long term, like, the eternal term, when I ask what makes sense. Lets start with the end.

What is the point of living a good christian life and doing all that you are supposed to do? Well, I have heard some say that the point is to be able to always worship God. Ok, and..... and then what? Well, you will just be in a wonderful place where you will live forever and sing in the choirs in heaven. Um, ok, I admit it, while I love to sing and have been more choirs than most people, but singing in choirs all the time sounds pretty boring. So, what is the point? What is the motivation? Not just for the followers, but for God, since he has gone to the trouble of setting this whole thing up? Well, that is where I think most Christians fall short. They can't explain the motivation. So, why would we be here? Some say God was bored, or needs worshipers, or was lonely. Um, sorry, just doesn't add up.

Now, when you add His Son into it, that gives more factors that need to be accounted for. Why did he come? What did he come for? "He paid for our sins." they say. Ok, why did he do that? Why did he need to do that? Well, a little more long term thinking here. There are eternal consequences for things. Everything has its consequence, and then the state it is in due to that consequence persists until it is acted upon from an outside source. This is called Justice or "cause and effect". (Its part of the laws of physics, in case it seems too foreign.) He paid for our sins because the effect of paying for our own leaves us eternally miserable. He could do it and not be miserable because He is perfect. He has unlimited ability to pay.

He did it because He loves us. And not just because we belong to Him or that He created us. I made a really neat desk that I just love, but I think the relationship I have with God should not be that of a piece of furniture or even some kind of pet. He loves us because we are His family. God calls us his children. I think that is literal. I think that just like our children grow up to be like us, we can grow up to be like God. I am not talking mortality here. We all die long before we get it right, but he didn't expect us to get it right here. That is why He sent Jesus Christ. All you other religions... sorry, you have no way to address the demands of Justice, but Christ can. It's the only way. We have to meet His demands, and He pays for our mistakes, and He doesn't expect us to be perfect, just trying our best.

So, if you really believe and your belief system really can satisfy the hard questions, then you may not be a human lemming. Everybody else... would it make any difference if I told you there was a cliff up ahead?

Lemmings

So, last night, my kids were asking kid questions (What is this?, What is that?, How does .....?) and the subject of lemmings came up. They were somewhat incredulous that lemmings would be so stupid as to all kill themselves. Then my wife mentioned that sometimes people are guilty of lemming behavior. At first she indicated political lemming behavior, but then we also noted a lot of other lemming type behavior. Whether it be political lemmingness, or if it's fashion, substance abuse, gang behavior, career paths, or any of a large variety of consumerism behaviors, it is far too reminiscent of a bunch of lemmings hurtling down a path with no sense of awareness or concern that they are about to go over a cliff to their deaths.

Really folks, aren't we more capable than that? Are we so perpetually comatose that we don't even think about our actions ahead of time? How about a little more than that, perhaps we could even contemplate the short term consequences for our actions. Ok, and I know this is a stretch, but how about going a little further to mid term consequences. Ok, yeah, I know, pretty painful there, but we are going to stretch you even more. Now we are going to think about long term consequences. Now that is raw agony, isn't it? But wait, can you see that? Most of the stupid things we do in our culture are really dumb in the long term. Better not to do it at all. Man, if we all thought things through, things might get down right nice. But then, think how boring it would be with out all those lemming problems.