View Full Version : Connecting the Dots...Mike's Model
MikeF
04-18-2009, 05:33 PM
CONFLUENCE OF VERSE is the only phrase that I could determine to describe. I have solved the majority of this mathematically, and it had been validated.
In a couple of weeks, I'll brief it formally. Since none of this is original thought (I simply connected the dots), I'm putting it on SWJ for free. Most of my thoughts derived from feedback and criticism on this site anyways. So, it is appropriate.
Take your time, we'll go from science to law to economics to pyschology. If my logic is off, let me know. I'm not concerned at this point. The model works for me.
It helped me regain my sanity. If you are an academic, please feel free to take my thoughts and run with them. In a tactical sense, I was only taking a knee to determine direction and distance to the next waypoint.
We'll start with science.
v/r
Mike
MikeF
04-18-2009, 05:49 PM
Ralph Waldo Emerson struggled with his personal traumas. He coped by writing...His works defined the Great American Dream.
Charles Darwin sought to develop a theory of creation. So, he set forth and ventured across the globe to explore. He learned through direct observation not a unilateral classroom setting. He struggled with his findings because they contrasted and contradicted with his wife's deeply-held religious beliefs. He was more spiritual than religious. Eventually, he published. You know the rest of the story.
Next, John Maynard Smith wanted to understand the world he lived in. He summarized it in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.
Each man simply took time to really watch what was going on around them. They transcended.
We'll now discuss Smith's findings...
MikeF
04-18-2009, 06:05 PM
Doves, Hawks, and Retaliators...In a closed system with limited resources, animals react in different ways. Doves fall victim refusing to fight and only taking what is free. Hawks fight to the bitter end. Retaliators posture. They combine the best of doves and hawks reacting towards whatever best suits the game.
In the end, and somewhere in between, the strongest survives.
Smith hoped to find the perfect point that intersects and evolves. Smith only missed one point as it pertains and applies to humans. One of his assumptions was wrong.
He assumed perfect communication.
MikeF
04-18-2009, 06:18 PM
The human brain is complex and wicked beyond belief. We can never hope to truly understand it.
Just think of how many times you have mispoke or something you said was misunderstood in your day to day lives. That is the key to understanding Smith's flaw in assumptions.
This miscommunication is the key to it all.
MikeF
04-18-2009, 06:49 PM
As I try to explain...sometimes as the world is crashing down upon us, sometimes as nothing makes sense, we have to turn to verse, music, humor, and fiction....
Sometimes I think Homer Simpson has it all figured out.
Ken White
04-18-2009, 07:20 PM
What, precisely is your intent with this thread and series of posts that, for others, may sow more confusion than light?
I can understand the therapeutic effect but I really question whether it is smart or right to ask others to partake without a more direct approach. I'm more than willing to help and /or participate but it seems to me there should be some semblance of orderly thought and if the ol' brain is disorganized, forcing it to organize a bit may be more beneficial than stream of consciousness.
For example:
CONFLUENCE OF VERSE is the only phrase that I could determine to describe. I have solved the majority of this mathematically, and it had been validated.Be helpful to know what 'this' that you solved was or is...
The human brain is complex and wicked beyond belief. We can never hope to truly understand it.I'm not sure wicked is a good term, it can be misconstrued and misused. It is unbelievably complex and we can indeed never hope to understand them -- our own or others brains -- but not wicked, not unless you want to know things you cannot...
As I try to explain...sometimes as the world is crashing down upon us, sometimes as nothing makes sense, we have to turn to verse, music, humor, and fiction...True for some, I suppose but not necessarily for everyone. Should those for whom it does work expose their work for others who may misconstrue -- or would that be miscommunication?
Been my observation that frequently things don't seem to make sense but they get sorted after a bit, patience and sometimes effort are required. As for the world crashing down -- one should not allow that. In the event one is unable to prevent it, then one digs out and tries again.
Not picking, only trying to find some clarity.
MikeF
04-18-2009, 07:34 PM
There are applications. Just allow me to explain.
If I'm wrong, at least I strived...That's better than the current predicament when you consider the financial cost.
We'll see...just trust that I did a cost-benefit analysis or MDMP on this prior to executing understanding risk verse reward.
I realize this is a different approach, but so what?
It all makes sense. Sometimes we simply have to take a knee, LISTEN to our surroundings, pull out the map and compass, and WHISPER amoungst each other to determine direction and azimuth...
Give me a chance. If I am outlandish, SWJED will let me know.
In the end, it's just a model, and it works for me.
If you're confused or disgruntled by the thoughts I propose, then I challenge you to walk.
Go grab the homeless person on the street; Go talk to the the gangster in your neighborhoo- then come back and suggest your counter-argument.
v/r
Mike
Ken White
04-18-2009, 08:12 PM
You may have done the cost-benefit for yourself but did you do one for the board?
SWJED or one of the monitors can indeed let you know -- but if you mention that, you have considered it and that should mean that you also considered many other who post here. I mention that not to deter posting but to cite the fact that we all have to make an extra effort to communicate clearly; this is, after all, a very imperfect medium for communications. That leads to the question -- do you just want to post or do you truly want discussion? That's an important question.
In the end, it's just a model, and it works for me.Good. I mean that. However, I have to ask: what does it do on an open forum for or to others?
MikeF
04-18-2009, 08:13 PM
I'll publish it as quickly as everyone can comprehend....
Sometimes it is as simple as a game of poker. I'm trying to explain so that you may comprehend not to be removed to some academic dribble.
People are people and hearts and minds left to free will.
That is the mistake that Smith made in his assumptions.
People posture, and sometimes we misread intentions. If you read through the agreed theory, then you can understand.
Instead, I'll try different ways to describe so that all may understand. I refuse to show you the graphs yet that connect- in the same way that you hold your cards until the final call.
Because in the end, poker is simply the competition of minds as is the rest of the world....Just allow me to explain...If I'm wrong, so be it- I'll go teach high school students. If I'm right, so be it...
We'll see...Regardless, an endstate must be reached....That's how we think....Right or Wrong?
The immediacy of this is determined by the number of our chips...Since we discarded the gold standard that number is vague.
jmm99
04-18-2009, 08:50 PM
Don't know where Mike (F) is heading, but so far it's starting with game theory and John Maynard Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Smith) - Anatol Rapoport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport) (at U of Mich, when I was there) on this side of the lake.
Basic Hawk-Dove is related to Chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Dove_game). It is also related to Snowdrift (http://www.physorg.com/news111145481.html), where two cars are separated by a snowdrift and each driver is limited to two forced choices: sit in car or shovel through drift.
These games assume that people will play by the rules - and that they will play the game. Since snowdrifts are near and dear to this Northern Michigander, I would also be thinking of other choices:
1. Don't go out in the blizzard - basic UP survival skill.
2. Put on the snowshoes (from the trunk) and walk over the drift to the other vehicle. Only an idiot would start digging without knowing how much snow has to be dug.
3. Dig into the nice high side bank and create an igloo - better than sitting in a cold car and a candle will keep you very warm.
So, what happens when a person refuses to play the game according to its forced rules ?
The ultimate game at which Smith and Rapoport were focused was, of course, thermo-nuclear war - where the choices can be reduced to pure starkness.
Viewed in this light, this has much to do with wars of all kinds.
So, Mike, this Mike (M) is following along as best I can.
MikeF
04-18-2009, 09:01 PM
for the links...
I'm trying to place it where people can understand....Sometimes I forget that most have not read....In Minzberg's organizational behavior theory, what I'm doing is simply immersion...diving below the water...
joining everyone's thoughts towards truth.
thanks again for the references for others....
Mike
MikeF
04-18-2009, 09:23 PM
Is where I have been. I do not expect you to understand. Just listen.
And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse.
There's a man goin' 'round takin' names. An' he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won't be treated all the same. There'll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.
The hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. For you partake of that last offered cup, Or disappear into the potter's ground. When the man comes around.
Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.
And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they'll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.
Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singin'. Multitudes are marchin' to the big kettle drum. Voices callin', voices cryin'. Some are born an' some are dyin'. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.
And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
In measured hundredweight and penny pound. When the man comes around.
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him.
-Man In Black
Ken White
04-18-2009, 09:23 PM
Life is not -- should not be -- stark.
War is not stark; not to me at any rate. It had its bad moments of course but I had fun many more days than not. It created some gaps and problematic things but all I had to was put the sweaty Ruck on my back and keep moving. Like they used to say in La Legion -- March or die. Or as Joe used to like to say, Keep on keepin' on, it don' mean nuthin.' It rarely does. Mean as much as we like to think. Initially, I mean...
I guess part of my lack of understanding was that back in the day the thought of thermonuclear war was not nearly as disconcerting as many today like to presume or insist it was. I also have long been highly skeptical of the civilian strategist as beacon. Thus I ignored Smith (after I hit all the recall buttons -- I'm old--and the late 70s were a day or two ago). Your Snowdrift suggestions BTW are spot on...
Thus, while I finally go to and understood the Smith and the Doves / Hawks references, I saw and see no applicability to the current situation re: Afghanistan or Iraq (or the economy or much else...) so I was wandering, and unlike Homer had nothing figured out... :wry:
Every post, I learned more and more about less and less...
Penalty of being my lackadaisical, irreverent, insubordinate, antisocial, areligious, amoral, mildly sociopathic and excessively blunt, realistic -- but lovable for all that -- self I presume... :eek:
However, I have been train-ed to be patient and let the Sand Fleas bite without movement (inside joke) so I can wait for Clarity -- whoever she is -- to appear. :cool:
Wilco. Out.
jmm99
04-18-2009, 10:22 PM
since the choices are usually not black and white.
Thermonuclear war (full scale) was simply too much to dwell on - so, we (our generation) ignored it for the most part. And, neither side chose to play that game.
A choice is to sit in bleak, reinforcing concentration - stewing in one's own juices (and perhaps in the juice as well) - which makes for a very dark, bleak day. Another is to look out the window, see that it's a bright, sunny day - ask: self, why I am sitting here - then, open the door and walk outside.
Maybe something like that.
Ken White
04-18-2009, 10:47 PM
Thermonuclear war (full scale) was simply too much to dwell on - so, we (our generation) ignored it for the most part. And, neither side chose to play that game.For others there was practice to play in the nuclear dust -- an enduring question was; "Uh, if that fireball will melt Nylon, why am I supposed to lay down and cover myself with my nylon poncho?" :D
Always seemed a fair question to me. Still, nuclear war was not and is not nearly the dread phenomenon that many wished to make it. Unpleasant, yes. Survivable, yes. Far more ado than necessary; no big thing. Ask this guy LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7963581.stm). Not making light of it or advocating employment, merely stating that there are a lot of more deadly things (many in nature, no less). :eek:
But I digress. Yes, indeed, you're correct -- something like that...
MikeF
04-18-2009, 11:01 PM
Nature is stark...Life is stark if we only take a moment to listen.
Let's get back to science lest we get sidetracked again. I apologize. I started it with my aside to Homer.
Christopher Coyne discusses this in-depth in After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy in Somalia long before anyone thought to worry about captain crunch and other pirates...
Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...
Ken White
04-18-2009, 11:55 PM
Philosophy is grand but rarely resolves much in the field of human endeavors or behavior.
We could also discuss for days whether any of the Social Scientists you continue to introduce are in fact really discussing any "Science" to get back to.
Nor am I certain we observers were or are "sidetracked." Quite difficult to get sidetracked when the self appointed point man has not identified the track other than by vague inferences. There must be a track here somewhere...:wry:
This is a really interesting statement that bears lengthy consideration:
Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...I suggested several times you get on track, you opted not to do so. Cool. Now you say you will do so but as you offer not a track, apparently you will get there eventually. "Slow is good" is, I suspect true only in the eye of the beholder. "Just right" obviously is the same only more so, the implication being that you are the Ringmaster -- or Professor...
Judgment calls yours to make, certainly. Equally, they are calls that can be rejected by others.
My reluctant conclusion is that I left my last college class and the lengthy philosophical arguments in the wee hours designed to demonstrate phenomenal erudition and a grasp of weighty concepts 53 years ago because they were tedious. I guess I'm too old and crotchety for this. Sorry. Hope it all works out for you. So no, fear not, I for one won't go too fast -- I won't go at all until such time as you make a point of some sort. I'm looking forward to it. See you then...
And another no, Life is stark only if one chooses to make it so.
Ron Humphrey
04-19-2009, 01:50 AM
Nature is stark...Life is stark if we only take a moment to listen.
Let's get back to science lest we get sidetracked again. I apologize. I started it with my aside to Homer.
Christopher Coyne discusses this in-depth in After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy in Somalia long before anyone thought to worry about captain crunch and other pirates...
Allow me to get back on track. This is slow...Slow is good...You won't go too fast, and I will go just right...
I think I get where your coming from
Just right for you not necessarily in a (the correct way) but in a way that is productive for you.
Just a few random thoughts to consider.
1- Science requires proof to confirm, proof is in the pudding
(sometimes others are eating jello:D)
It all starts with ideas thus philosophical assertions which you may later be able to confirm or deny through testing. That said
Remember crucibles come in many forms and not all of them are equal yet all probably have close to the same effect on those enduring them. For someone who's never gone without in their life to suddenly be on the street without a job or family it may be just as painful and seemingly endless suffering to them as to you or I in completely different settings and/or experiences. Same goes for looking at other cultures through our own lenses.
Thus the many many cautions from so many about being sure not to assign our own understandings on others. It goes for not only inter-cultural relations but for any interactions we have with anyone. Greatness is not something that anyone truly achieves but rather something that is used by others to recognize them for actions, thoughts, or deeds they have taken. Same thing goes for sameness(hehe) we are not one exactly like another and as such each must strive to find their path to "enlightenment" or as many might simply say Acceptance of their circumstances.
In seeking yours and sharing with others just try to remember how although some may be simply unwilling to listen for a variety of reasons most will try to walk the journey with you as long as it doesn't look like it's going to rival Gulliver's travels;)
MikeF
04-19-2009, 03:03 PM
Thanks all for the constructive criticism. It is valid. All I'm trying to do is introduce an idea that I stumbled on to. I have had parts of it validated by experts in each field. If I'm right, then that is great- there are real world macro and micro applications. If not, it will add to the body of work that others are conducting. That's all; however, I'm challenging the assumptions of two Nobel Laurettes so I want to get as many eyes on my product to determine any flaws in the logic. With that said, back to the argument.
In trying to model the behavior of animals in nature, Smith assumed perfect communication. Perfect communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_theory) is an oxymoron- we transmit information, and it is interpreted by the receiver. Sometimes, what we meant to say is not what is translated. Instead, sometimes we act like hawks, sometimes as doves, and sometimes as retaliators. Modeled, it leads to two Nash Equilibriums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium). For example, if the hostile parties are competing over 50 units, then you'll find that one will win all of them, they will fight until they destroy themselves, or they will eventually tire from fighting and settle for a undetermined number of units.
When you play this game out in a game theory model, the results are catatrophic because they lead to both parties destroying each other and all 50 units of utility being destroyed. In circumstances of hostile non-cooperative parties, intervention is required.
John Nash determined how to intervene. Now, I'll transition to economics. I will use divorce and lawyers as the example to follow.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 03:38 PM
Nash spent his life trying to connect the dots. He wanted to create an original idea. He did. What he determined was how to neutrally intervene to solve a competion between non-cooperative, hostile parties. He solved it mathematically. His Arbitration has many applicable factors in business, foreign policy, and marraige.
Basically, he determined a mathematical model to divide up goods and services (utility) fairly.
In a contested divorce, the role of arbitrator is played by judges and lawyers. They determine (depending on the state) a fair settlement of goods and assets.
The failed assumption in Nash's thinking is that of utility. It only speaks to the value of goods and services. It does not address the emotions that the hostile parties suffer through as a social contract is broken.
This gap is why many choose to disregard game theory because it is incomplete. I searched for a long time and found some answers in psychology that bring it all together. At a minimum, understanding Nash Arbitration will assist others in conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'll now move to psychology to explain the rest.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 04:21 PM
Current academic research is focused on trying to determine the natural homeostatic point for individuals, communities, states, etc...What is this point or intersection? Christians call it walking with the Holy Spirit, Muslims call it submitting to Allah, Budhist call it Zen. Basically, it is living well, centered, and grounded- joyful even. Throughout life, we deviate to some small standard deviation, but most retain the homeostatic point.
On the other hand, some are born off-center (schizophrenia, ADHD, etc...) Breakthrough research and study is finding the right combination of drug and psychotherapy to help those reach a homeostatic point.
Sometimes, we take ourselves way outside the homeostatic point through substance abuse, or we experience a traumatic experience that unnerves us. Either way, the brain chemistry is severely altered.
If we consider that most political theory and foreign policy theory stems from the assumption that everything in life is a contract, then we can merge psychology and social sciences to determine policy. It goes back to unresolved emotions after a divorce. It is what Nash missed in his assumptions.
First, we have to discard the notion that we can win or control hearts and minds. It is as contrary as assuming we can "fix" a friend or family member that has a substance abuse issue. With that realization, we can act as an arbitrator or enabler.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 05:39 PM
Before we can go further, you must understand how this has helped me. Now, after venting on SWJ, I'm regaining certain cognitive skills that I lost. I'm starting to do math in my head again and remember things once lost. The mental health specialist are astounded by it. I asked the neuro-psychologist about the answer for mTBI. She stated plainly that they don't know. All they know is that right now, the only solution is knowledge.
I'm getting back to my homeostatic norm.
So, I broke through on my own. It works. So many others have helped me, now, I'm simply giving back a bit.
I think there are implications for everyone else....
In the end, I'm only a soldier. Soldiers are generalist. Steven Pressfield best describes it in Tides of War
Spear and sword, the manuals tell us, are the weapons of the infantryman. This is erroneous. Pick and shovel are his province, hoe and mattock, lever and crowbar; these and the mortarman's hod, the forester's axe and, beyond all, the quarryman's basket, that ubiquitous artifact the rookie learns to cobble on site of reeds or faggots. And get her to set aright, my fellow, tumpline upon the brow, bowl across the shoulders with no knot to gouge the flesh, for when she is laden with rubble and stone to the measure of half your weight, you must hump her. Up that ladder, see? To where the forms of timber await to receive the fill that will become the wall that will encircle the city, whose battlements we will scale and tear down and set up all over again.
The soldier is a farmer. He knows how to shape the earth. He is a carpenter; he erects ramparts and palisades. A miner, he digs trenches and tunnels; a mason, he chisels a road from a sheer face of stone. The soldier is a physician who performs surgery without anesthetic, a priest who inters the dead without psalm. He is a philosopher who plumbs the mysteries of existence, a linguist who pronounces "pussy" in a dozen tongues. He is an architect and a demolition man, a fire brigadier and an incendiary. He is a beast who dwells in the dirt, a worm, owning a mouth and an anus and aught but appetite in between.
The soldier looks upon horrors and affects to stand indifferent to them. He steps, oblivious, over corpses in the road and flops to wolf his gruel upon stones painted black with blood. He imbibes tales that would bleach the mane of Hades and tops them with his own, laughing, then turns about and donates his last obol to a displaced dame or urchin he will never see again except cursing him from a wall or rooftop, hurling down tiles and stones to cleave his skull.
To most, that understanding is too much. This is but one reason that I submit that life is stark at least in the eye of the soldier.
v/r
Mike
jmm99
04-19-2009, 06:51 PM
This is a true story, involving a friend who was a very good lawyer and later one of the best judges before whom I've practiced.
The story is simple. A couple spent quite a few years building a successful construction business. Besides the business, they built up a decent enough collection of other assets - and a number of kids. My friend represented one of the spouses.
Prior to the merits hearing, the lawyers and clients went through all of the required diversionary processes of conflict resolution (Michigan is big on that). That effort was rewarded with initial success; so that when the parties met for the final settlement conference (a day before the hearing), the division of the business and assets was agreed, as was custody and other provisions for the children - all very reasonable and rational.
Now, a doctrine for trial lawyers is don't ask that one question too many; but if you do, don't make it open-ended. Since everything seemed resolved, one of the lawyers asked: "Are there any questions you want to ask ?" - which really meant "We've wrapped this up and John and I are going across the street for a beer."
No beers that day because one of the spouses piped up with "What about the hammer ?" Turns out the wife had bought the husband an Eastwing framing hammer for a present. She wanted it back; the husband wanted to keep it. But, no one knew where it was.
The net result was that the case went to hearing (since neither spouse would sign the settlement as to everything else); and the decision there was not surprising. The judge's decision was the same as the un-signed settlement agreement - which was after all quite reasonable.
What about the hammer ? De minimus non curat lex - the law does not provide a remedy for minimal things (in that case, a non-locatable thing).
That was my friend's last divorce case as a lawyer. Now, for his last divorce case as a judge. That was a knock-out, drag-out fight about everything. After a few days of trial, the parties got down to the last contested issue - the household dog. As you may or may not be aware, custody of the pet has become something to argue about.
My friend said: "I don't do dogs." To which, the lawyers looked puzzled and asked for clarification. My friend simply explained that he would not hear evidence about the dog, nor address the dog's custody in his decision. Both lawyers objected violently - our clients have a legal right requiring you to decide. Maybe so, said my friend, but I don't do dogs; so, you can both appeal to the Court of Appeals or resolve it amongst yourselves - your choice.
My friend retired a few days later (for reasons other than the dog) - so, I don't know how that story ended.
I leave with these thoughts. There are certain cases that should not be brought. There are certain issues that cannot be resolved by formal processes.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 07:03 PM
Because the pig likes to get dirty.
This was taught to me by a very wise Section Sergeant when I was a platoon leader.
jmm99
04-19-2009, 07:21 PM
the pig has to wallow in the muck because of body cooling needs, etc. We humans don't have that particular need - and there are a number of little bad things in the muck that are unhealthy for humans - who have different resistence levels to different bad things.
But, pigs were fun to ride for us (the other us being a gal who now is a PhD prof at one of our local univs - who for some reason gets defensive when I bring up our pre-KG pig riding exploits in the river hollow below Shea's house). :D
MikeF
04-19-2009, 07:42 PM
Need versus Want that we continually strive. In Ken's words, evangelistic zeal. When I'm ready and composed, I'll explain it...
It is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad...
It just is.
Just as Wilf is right in putting the pig out of his misery.
In some sense, it all comes down to money and cost.
The last administration tried their best to do it. Maybe they overeacted. So what?
Obama is trying to react now. All we can do is hope.
It is all going to cycle ebb and flow....
Regardless, the sky is not falling down...All we have to do is consider the next direction and azimuth....
Simply put, we have to determine how to communicate in ways universal that everyone can understand.
Bob's World
04-19-2009, 08:29 PM
Mike, you're going to give Ken an aneurysm with your little Zen journey here... :-)
Personally, the sooner we stop waging the Cold War, the sooner we'll be able to not have to worry about the blow back from populaces who are weary of us still exerting that degree of control over them without there being a purpose any longer for exerting it. We've just done it for so long we have come to think of it as "normal." It isn't.
Somewhere we drifted from "Making the world safe for Democracy" to making every nation a democracy. HUGE difference. When we get back to standing for our principles instead of slapping people with our values we will reslove much of the violence directed at us. These popluaces will then be able to focus their energy on their own governments. Once we become the enabler of good governance instead of the obstacle to good governance we will be square with our principles once again.
I think we don't even hear ourselves any more. If some Muslim leader said he wanted to "make the world safe for Wahabism" I would say "Cool, that is right in line with our principle of Freedom of Religion." If the same leader said he "wants everyone to be Wahabist because Wahabist don't fight each other" I would say "Totally different, and now you are not only counter to our principle of freedom of religion but also our principle of self-determination."
I yearn for an America once more dedicated to our founding principles. Good news is, while I don't think the new boss is getting this advice yet from his team, and is still holding onto a lot of bad post-Cold War Clinton and Bush perspectives, I believe he would understand and be open to the concept if presented.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 08:55 PM
"I think you ought to know, dear brothers, about the time we went through in (SW) Asia. We were really crushed and overwhelmed and feared we would never live through it. We felt doomed to die and saw how powerless we were to help ourselves; but that was good, for then we put everything into the hands of the creator...and saved us from a terrible death." -Letter to Corinth
I haven't lost my western Judeo-Christian beliefs...I just decided to question them. That's the mistake we made after the USSR fell and refused to stop fighting the Cold War....
I simply have the ability to challenge the so called intellectuals. So, I challenge....Lest we fall in foolishness over neocon thought again.
I'm still the same as I once was maybe more still.
And yes, this will drive Ken insane :)
Even though he's usually right..Such a paradox...
If you disagree with me, just read Craig Mullaney's opinions. I know him as he is a classmate of mine. He has a good heart. He is a good man, but he is wrong. He spent too much time in school and not enough time on the line. Soon, he will probably be a civilian in DoD. Next, a senator. Right now, he talks about saving Afghanistan. I simply question what are we saving Afghanistan from? Itself?
He is doing the same stupid stuff that Paul Wolfowitz once did, but people are listening to him because he is smart.
Personally, I'm content to work on the village level to implement policy whether that be home or abroad. Rene Descartes spent a life forlorn trying to mathematically prove the existence of God.
Thomas Paine wrote a book about all of this entitled Common Sense.
Celebrate we will...Life is short but sweet for certain. -Dave Matthews
v/r
Mike
jmm99
04-19-2009, 09:38 PM
was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes) a lawyer by education and license (1616); and a soldier (1618-1622; and prob. 1623-1627), before his work in math (for which I know him best) and philosophy (for which I know least).
A thought - focusing on a single object (or facet of a person's life) blurs the rest of the picture.
MikeF
04-19-2009, 09:42 PM
For interdicting facts into my aside...
I'll stick with my initial argument. :cool:
Only knowing that I know nothing...
More questions than answers...
In the same regard, there is an intersection of the rivers even though it continually flows...
You drive me to distraction. - Dave Matthews
Ken White
04-19-2009, 10:03 PM
Mike, you're going to give Ken an aneurysm with your little Zen journey here... :-) Just been my observation that trying to herd cats is not a good plan; almost unbelievably people have this weird tendency to not interpret things the same way I do, so I found out the hard way it's better to lay out the facts or thoughts and let them decide, leading horses to water and all that...
In the meantime, I read and I smile and nod but I'll wait for the main event before commenting on whatever that event turns out to be. Partly because I'm too old to bend over comfortably to pick up the bread crumbs being strewn to mark the trail. Far, far more importantly and to the point, I might pick up one juicy crumb and spend so much time admiring it that I lose track of the trail I was on and thus miss the destination. Even worse, I might decide a crumb was not a crumb -- I could come up with an alternative interpretation, if you will.
This is not a perfect medium... :wry:
This comment is interesting, Bob:
"Somewhere we drifted from "Making the world safe for Democracy" to making every nation a democracy."in that we started trying to make every nation a democracy in the 90s, that's only the last two Administrations worth and this guy is backpedaling. Two out of 44 doesn't sound like anywhere near a total commitment to me...
More importantly, this:
"If some Muslim leader said he wanted to "make the world safe for Wahabism" I would say "Cool, that is right in line with our principle of Freedom of Religion." If the same leader said he "wants everyone to be Wahabist because Wahabist don't fight each other" I would say "Totally different, and now you are not only counter to our principle of freedom of religion but also our principle of self-determination."sounds dangerously close to selective enforcement. Wars have been started over less. I believe I understand what you mean but am unsure that's what you said -- it's sorta like Ol' Tom Ricks -- you may have a good message but be careful how you write it or it might get misconstrued... :D
MikeF
04-19-2009, 10:11 PM
No decisive event in today's world. It is as simple as putting your foot in the stream..Once you do, once you gain some knowledge, the moment is lost forever as the river drifts and flows.
Maybe it was always that way...Maybe we just failed to interpret....
Maybe all we can do is negoitiate our own boat....and let others know the weather forecast...
MikeF
04-19-2009, 10:36 PM
What is the social contract that binds our marraiges, cities, and states?
What is the tie that bind?
What is love?
How does it differ from the homeo-static norm that defines mental health in search of understanding of madness?
These are the questions I considered...
Some interesting comments from Jackie Chan regarding free society in China. Jackie Chan suggest that Chinese cannot accept democracy.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=73465489054&h=ZcHDA&u=3QOgk&ref=mf
I wonder why...I observed the same thing in Iraq as Sunnis and some Shia admitted that they needed a Saddam to save them from themselves...
I can only resolve my thoughts with this song as i have not the answers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eejRZaL9-LQ&feature=channel
Is everyone an American in the making?
MikeF
04-19-2009, 11:38 PM
Goesche is right...Expansion must be through expedition...I'll lead the first team...
can anyone contradict that?
I'll choose my team my way, and we'll venture west....
All you have to do is say yes...It will be quite inexpensive....
But, but, but...your risk assesments grow exponential....You can determine 60 ppt slides on why I should not venture, but you will not conduct one to say what we should do.
Direction and distance, and I'll walk...
v/r
Mike
Steve Blair
04-20-2009, 02:19 PM
I yearn for an America once more dedicated to our founding principles. Good news is, while I don't think the new boss is getting this advice yet from his team, and is still holding onto a lot of bad post-Cold War Clinton and Bush perspectives, I believe he would understand and be open to the concept if presented.
I don't know that I'd go that far. He is, after all, a creation of 20th Century politics, which are about as far removed from the founding principles as you can get. People like to quote Ike's warning about the "military-industrial complex" while forgetting that his defense policies made that complex possible and even necessary for its execution. I tend to suspect that like most machine politicians, the new boss would be happy if foreign policy just went away for a time so he could mess with domestic issues. They're more amiable to his style and methods of control.
MikeF
04-21-2009, 01:15 AM
This is all that I will send out for awhile. I fear my carbon footprint has gotten too large, and I don't want to upset the Green Movement. I'm going to finish this product with the help of my thesis advisors. When it's complete, I'll publish it. I just want to make sure it's right. Thus, I have set the appriopriate environment and structures in place. Thanks again for all the support that y'all have given me over the last year.
Towards Better Policy: The social contract and the theory of games
Major Michael Few
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indeed, we live in exciting times. As democracies flourish, capitalism expands, cultures clash, new ideas emerge that may add to the betterment of society. Contrastingly, these times can be overwhelming and unnerving particularly when fear and greed outpace rhyme and reason. In those times, we fall off-center, and we fall prey to the worst of the human condition. Soldiers learn tried and true techniques to counter this fog and friction of life. When traversing through restricted terrain, when facing seemingly impassible obstacles, when the dark of night refuses to shed light, we stop, take a knee, listen to our surroundings, whisper amoungst each other lest the enemy hear us, pull out our map and compass, and determine our position. Then, we determine direction and distance to the next waypoint. We get back up and resume walking again.
It is time to take a knee. I spent the last two years observing my surroundings, gathering information, and seeking certainty. I found my zen. Now, I will share it with you. I will introduce a model that has many applications ranging from seeking solutions to individual struggles to divorce to gangs to terrorism to the crisis of the nation-state if it proves to be correct, but in the end, it is simply a model not a law. That is the way it is with social sciences. Each theorem builds upon the last. In the end, it helped me regain my sanity as the great sadness attempted to overcome. So it works for me. Maybe it will work for you this I pray.
Maybe it will simply allow you to sleep deeper than dreams and live life well. This I am certain. Personally, I believe life is stark if we simply take a moment to listen and comprehend. Life is simply resiliance. Resiliance is the American way. Our founders contended this debate years ago in the taverns of Philadelphia. In the end, they determined that we should strive for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This paper is only another waypoint along that path.
In the end, everything we do is simply a contract from marraige to citizenship to treaties to war. We must keep adjusting the contract in order to strive. I just found a way to model it mathematically.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.