Congress On Syria - What I Hope To See

Parsing words seems to becoming a required skill for politicians.  That Obama is going to seek Congressional approval for military action is good. When his surrogates go to lay out his proposal I hope they hold his feet to the fire. Don't accept parsed rhetoric.

It's a given that chemical weapons  have been used in spite of international agreements banning that use.  It's also true that red line had been crossed several times before Obama felt forced to take action to save face.  I do not accept his rationale that this time is because of the scope of it.  Use of chemical weapons is just that - large or small.  But this President has a penchant for picking and choosing to his own liking.

I've already made clear that I think token action is a waste of time and to the world, laughable.  Some Senators say we need to do more.  We all know what that means.  The US will be involved in escalating an already untenable situation.

That's the big thing to remember.  This isn't about the misuse of the Presidential bully pulpit.  It's about whether or not we should involve ourselves in a fight that isn't ours, with but one reluctant ally, France, who won't act without us.  It's fair to ask our allies why the lack of support.  I've yet to hear that, but I'd guess at least partially they're as war weary, especially since we don't tend to win them these days, as we are. Why isn't the chemical weapon use as egregious to them?

If the administration briefings to Congress as to the complete strategy is better given in private, I can live with it.  But it must be a complete strategy including what exactly our national interest is in all this, how we will extricate ourselves and what we'll do if the action doesn't deter Assad.  They should also ask what we'll do if Israel is attacked in retaliation for our actions and what we'll do if Russia decides to jump in on the side of the Syrians and also why our allies have all but rejected this tack.

I'm sure, given time, I'll think of more, but you get the idea.  It must be detailed and thorough, doable and meaningful.  So far I've seen none of the above.  What I have seem is impassioned rhetoric about the need for some action because of horrors of war that we are no part of and an opinion that no one seems to share, in an attempt to make us feel guilty for not being willing to bail out the President.

Gamesmanship Versus Fair Play - There Is A Big Difference

We have a problem in this country which I don't think the founding fathers anticipated. The President as renegade.  It is what happens when the President is accountable to no one and when he chooses to flout the law there is no recourse.

It seems to be emerging as common practice with Obamacare.  The latest has Congress complicit right along with him.  Just when I thought Congress may finally be getting it, they prove me wrong once again.  You see Obamacare was written so that Congress would have to buy into it just as the rest of us. Lots of us have been calling for that for a very long time - you pass it, it applies to you as well as the rest of us.  No matter what the content.

Some of the worry about Obamacare is the cost.  How it's going to be unaffordable for many or their premiums will increase dramatically rather than decrease.  Congress would have to give up their Cadillac plans and participate side by side with us.

But if you can imagine, they are whining that they can't afford the premiums and need an exemption.  Not only they themselves but also their better paid staffers.  Consider the Congressional salary of $174,000.  And many staffers making $100,000 +/-.  Also bear in mind that this is written into the law the President signed.  But of course we know no one had read it.

So rather than telling them to learn how to budget, he promises to fix it.  And he did. He made arrangements for  the Office of Personnel Management to write regulations allowing for the financial relief for members of Congress and their staffers - all government employees.

This type of shenanigan requires passage by Congress.  Obama didn't fear the Republicans would object but rather that they'd want to add more.  Of course he is right.  Republicans want that sweetener just as much as the Democrats.

Laws are becoming what they are at the pleasure of the President, not because Congress passed them and he signed them. Strange bedfellows they may be but bedfellows never-the-less. This goes way beyond class warfare.  This is a war between those in politics and the people.

I can't help but  think even those politicians I look on with a smidgen of hope aren't doing anything for my benefit.  Even though the reason may not be readily apparent, be sure it's for them.  I'd guess re-election so the game can continue.

Do they even know their approval rating is 14%.  If they know it, do they care?  More importantly how many of us know it and even more, do we care?  I don't care that it is so low, but I really care about why!

Franken(stein)'s Monster - He Of His Own Making

Remember when Senator Al Franken (D - MN) was a comedian of some note?  I never thought him funny then nor do I think he is now, years later.  His humor, to me, was always crude and I don't find such humor laughable.

Now he's a Senator, though I wonder why.  He certainly didn't have the credentials when he ran and won under a cloud of suspicion.

That being said, however, it is interesting to note that the Democrats have someone as clueless as Republicans Akin and King on the campaign trail.  It's fitting, isn't it, that Al Franken is campaigning with another famous for quips of questionable taste, Joe Biden?

So what has my dander up about Mr. Franken?  The fact that back in his days as a writer on Saturday Night Live he made quips about raping Lesley Stahl, a reporter for CBS. Humor?  Funny?  You tell me.

"... and I give these pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when she passes out I take her to the closet and rape her."

and

"When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her."

How crude, insensitive and offensive can you get? 

Yes, it happened a long time ago.  So?  It's an issue now and improprieties have a way of never going away. Why make yourself vulnerable to it now that it is a huge issue?

What is it with these men? Are they really that insensitive as to what rape is all about? Do they not understand it? After all, they are the ones who commit it. Are we still living in an age when women are merely tolerated, being here solely for their pleasure or sport?  

Of course not. The men I know are not like this, but the last several days shows that still too many are.  The idea that they sit in seats of power is disgusting and certainly demeaning. To women and to men who don't and never have wallowed at such depths.

The issue of abortion is an issue about the 'when' of life.  It has it's legitimacy even though I don't believe the political arena is where the debate should be played out. Rape is an entirely different matter.  It's a crime.  For politicians to be so  uninformed as to exactly what rape entails is pathetic.  To joke about it is worse.

It makes me wonder if it's a battle women are winning or if we're just being paid lip service by those holding the most vile of attitudes that they try to veil with smiles and platitudes. Until the veil is accidently dropped and we see the truth of what's hidden.

I Give Up!

I give up. I really do.  The folly of Representative Todd Akin's views on rape and abortion is one reason.  He made the mistake of opening his mouth.  But was that the end of it? No.  Representative Steve King, in defending Akin,  extended the issue to include statutory rape and incest.  In his vast well of knowledge he said he didn't know anyone who had become pregnant from statutory rape or incest but he'd be open to learning more.  I  don't know anyone either but I have no doubt what-so-ever that it happens!

How can these people legislate on issues where they have such scant knowledge?  Aren't these the very people who are so sure exactly when life begins? How can they be so precise on one while being so ignorant of the other.

I understand this is where their stand on abortion comes from.  If life begins the moment sperm meets egg and killing said life is criminal than abortion for any reason would be criminal.  But it's not criminal.  It's still legal in all 50 states.

There's one big problem with this thinking.  Not everyone agrees.  While many hold this belief, it is not a scientific fact.  It is opinion.  Conception versus birth.

I do believe some things should not be legislated and this is one of them.  I've ranted about government intrusion in my life for a very long time.  I will also rant about religious intrusion in my life.  I may choose to surround myself by like minded people on social issues.  There is some comfort in that, confirmation that others believe as I do.  I will not try to force those who do not agree to do so. Nor condemn other opinions and beliefs as being wrong or criminal.  There are too many variables and complexities.

I find it disturbingly ironic that those who bemoan the government taking over more and more of our freedoms don't recognize the parallels among themselves when they try to do the same with their social/religious beliefs.

For me it boils down to very simple truths.  If I choose not to pass on the gene pool of a rapist it should be my right.  If I don't care to breast feed my baby it should be my right.  Should I want to drink a large sugar laden soda it should be my right.

It should not be the right of some ill informed politician to be making those decisions for me.

I cannot see in either party a platform I can come close to supporting.  Don't tell me the Republican platform doesn't reflect Romney's views, just the party's.  What's the point of having it if it isn't going to be adhered to by those elected?

In the same vein,  what's the point of having laws if the President is able to bypass them by executive order without the country having recourse?

I don't know what to think any more.  Nothing seems to make any sense.  Listening to the falsehoods and nastiness and ignorance is exhausting. There was a time I thought we could do better and I was heartened.  But I no longer do.  How many more out there are like me?  Ready to turn away in disappointment and disgust? Ready to just give up?

Tag Team Mudslinging!

The Republicans now have their team.  As has been said by some,  this presidential election is really about one thing.  Not jobs, not the economy though each has an important role.  It's about the type of country we want going forward.

Do we want one where government intrudes in everything?  Obama has made it clear this is his thinking.  The problem with it is we, who will be paying for his 'investments', don't get to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on them.  So far government's track record has been dismal.

The Republicans say they are for less government and fiscal responsibility.  We'll see.  Paul Ryan is a plus if it's true but he, as well as his potential boss, has to do a better job of explaining how his ideas will work so as not to scare us to death like the Democrats are doing.

This election poses contrast like never before.  Don't forget the peripherals either.  Little things like foreign policy.  Our soldiers are still being killed in Afghanistan.  Syria is a disaster as the Secretary of State boogies in Africa. Iran and Israel get closer to war.

It's a disgrace and an embarrassment to me that this country allows it's politicians and their surrogates (super PACs) to stoop to such demeaning levels in their campaigns for the highest office in the land.  Some would say in the world.

Both sides are guilty.  Look what Romney did to his opponents in the primaries.  He didn't think it foul then, he has no right to now.  But when Lanny Davis, one of the most dyed in the wool Democrats around, says it's time to discuss policy issues rather than trying to destroy the opposition's reputations as human beings, you know it has gotten more than dirty. Try unscrupulous and unprincipled.

Can the bar be raised?  I doubt it.  So one more time we'll be stuck with the team left standing after all the mud is slung.  Lucky us.  Lucky world.

The Picket Project - Online Collaboration: Creating a Stream of Solutions for Politicial Issues

I understand where the Picket Project is trying to go with this.  I have some doubts as to whether it is achievable because of the necessity of finding enough people who will actually collaborate to be of any value.  Of course I'm looking for timely successes; what I consider to be timely is age driven.  Ambitions such as this takes time.

Never-the-less, I continue to think the effort a worthy one and since people far more savvy than myself are the movers behind it, I will continue to offer to you their insights.  One of these days there will be a breakthrough in this area and it will be internet driven.  Politicians who scoff at the thought will be the losers.  Beware though, they're getting there.  I haven't heard one laugh about not being computer literate since the last presidential election. For that matter they are using the web far more effetively than the electorate - thus projects such as this.  Happy reading.

We need to turn our government into something that works for everyone. The political leaders in this country, however, are too focused on their own agendas to recognize the solutions needed to solve real challenges. Despite their expertise, they are not the only stream of information for us to draw upon. Fortunately, there are many more intelligent Americans than intelligent insider politicians; and it is our insights which will direct the future.

But how can we properly reflect on these insights? How can we fully analyze the solutions we propose for complex problems? We need a tool which can provide a platform for recording, analyzing, and combining our collective insights in a meaningful way.

In a 2005 TED Talk, information technologist Clay Shirky explores a path to accomplish this. He points out that coordinating individuals through designed, online systems provides benefits far beyond what standard institutional models can. When you use a system which bypasses the control that institutions demand, you are given greater freedom and flexibility. By doing this, the system fosters more – and often better – contributions due to the lack of prerequisites to participate.



Shirky’s explanation on the benefits of coordination demonstrates that we can work together to find relationships in data that are not easily found in other ways. With the right tool, we each can make small contributions that compound to form a greater collaborative system. This has proven itself through the tagging system in Flickr, the friendship mappings in Facebook, and many other social media features. Using this principle for policy decisions seems quite natural.

A collaboration tool which leverages the benefits of decentralized cooperation can provide us with a place to record the vast number of ideas we should be exploring for our country. However, emotionally charged topics, like politics, need to be approached quite differently compared to other cooperation schemes.

One possible technique which could be used, argument mapping, is the process of breaking down and mapping arguments into a fixed structure that may include ideas, questions, pros and cons. Many have studied this structure, which has shown its effectiveness in a number of different scenarios: business, law and politics to name a few.

There are considerable benefits to using argument mapping. The one that seems most interesting is its ability to civilize polarizing discussions, such as political rhetoric. This increase in civility is a consequence of the structured approach to the idea’s analysis. When mapped, the important ideas which justify an opinion may diverge at any point in the argument when others disagree. This allows everyone, particularly those with conflicting opinions, to make their cases effectively without being drowned out.

This approach brings about other benefits as well. The promotion of an in-depth analysis of the issues and an increased comprehension of these issues will be discussed later. Furthermore, the downsides of argument mapping will be addressed by using a new but related technique that will provide even further benefits on top of those previously mentioned. However, for now, it is important to note that the studies done on argument mapping have shown that it is possible to allow a large group of people to cooperate on important, controversial issues. This is key.

If we want to be able to come up with the most beneficial solutions to America’s challenges, we have to explore a much larger set of possibilities than any group as small as our government can come up with and properly work through. Even out of sheer trial and error, Americans could explore more possible answers to their natural conclusions and consequences than just the politicians themselves could.

To accomplish this, however, we will need a proper group collaboration tool which allows us to fully explore an issue as well as the potential solutions to it and the inevitable consequences of them. The Picket Project is about creating a collaboration tool that could allow us to break free from our dependence on Washington and come up with meaningful solutions like never before possible.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• James Stavridis: A Navy Admiral's thoughts on global security

The Picket Project - Surrendering Intellect by Over Trusting Experts

Here we are, Saturday again and time for another post from the Picket Project.  It's testimony to a point I often try to make - we need to think for ourselves.  As usual it takes my point and digs much deeper.  Enjoy.

When someone claims to have the right answers for solving a problem, the origin of their solutions is rarely obvious.  Every agenda may bring with it any number of unanswered questions:

• Is their reasoning for pushing this agenda valid?
• What do they know that I do not?
• Are they attempting to manipulate me for personal gain?

Since even well meaning, intelligent people make mistakes – it is important to challenge any agenda before accepting it as true.

Trusting Experts

While it is reasonable to assume that a person experienced in national and statewide decision making would be an invaluable resource for finding the right answers at the right time, the real question should not be about how much experience a person has had, but what have they learned from their experiences.  This is, however, much harder to gauge because experience does not always lead to expertise.  And even expertise is not a guarantee of infallibility.

Noreena Hertz talks about experts in a similar light. She discusses how we, as a people, rely too much on experts as a whole; that we surrender our uncertainty for the illusion of certainty. Experts in any particular field are prone to negative group thinking, close mindedness, over confidence, and a dismissal of outside opinions.



Even in the sciences, experts do not entirely base their understandings on strict, unchangeable natural laws – but also on ever-changing models that best represent what has been observed.  But these models are not perfect, and without proper analysis and criticism, they can contribute to a ‘tunnel vision’ mentality where obvious factors and beautiful solutions sometimes go unrecognized.  Over reliance on these imperfect models can solidify a certain way of looking at the world, creating a misguided interpretation of the facts.

While we cannot dismiss expertise entirely, we each need to do our own research to verify and validate the claims we are given.  To challenge what you are told, as well as what you already know, is a healthy decision to make.  This is a very reasonable and intuitive idea.

It is by challenging experts and asking the big questions, that we dig behind their expertise and recognize that their methodologies can easily be flawed.  By creating a space for actively managed dissent, new and diverse ideas can be brought into the discussion and analyzed in their own light.  It is by embracing the notion that non-experts can have a unique perspective on the problems at hand, that critical factors can be discovered which may normally be missed.

We at the Picket Project embrace the idea that whether a claim is made by a PhD or an accomplished government official, an expert’s opinion is only as good as the support he can provide for that opinion.  We each hold the right and the duty to challenge those claims. As we do, we foster knowledge in ourselves and promote better solutions for everyone. There is no place this idea is more important than in political theory and policy making where, more so now than ever, the best solutions are needed. 

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• How to use experts - and when not to: Noreena Hertz on TED.com (ted.com)
• Rethinking the Concept of "Outliers": Why Non-Experts are Better at Disruptive Innovation (forbes.com)
• The shifting critics of experts and expert agencies (inpropriapersona.com)

The Picket Project - The Picket Project Searches for Honest Solutions

Please take note.

We are living in a time that will be remembered as the great transition of the 21^st century. We are watching history unfold.  The economic and social earthquakes we have recently endured have shaken our beliefs, our ideologies, and our authority on a global scale – and nothing can easily undo the damage that has been done.  The consequences of these transitions are still untold; but our world, our country, and our lives will never be the same again.

As the international dynamics shift, America, which was once the brightest shining light in the darkness of a planet draped in tyranny and wreckage, has been at risk of losing its place on the global stage.  Perhaps our country will not meet the same fate as the failed empires of the past, but we can’t rule it out – too many trend lines are pointing the wrong direction.  Satisfaction with government has been justifiably at an all time low, while ideological tension seems to be destroying our chances of recovering from this crisis.

Politically divided, we are in desperate need of leaders who will show us the way forward, to transition into the 21st century America we were destined to be, and to lead the world again in tackling the challenges we all share together. Unfortunately, in our time of need, our current politicians have failed us.

The time has come to decide.

However, election season has arrived, and everything will be different this time:

• All of the House of Representatives’ seats are ripe for the taking.
• 33/100 Senate seats are open for election
• And 1 presidential seat is in jeopardy.

This year, we will elect politicians who can win the hearts and minds of all sides of the debate, and form meaningful compromises that cut budgets, lower taxes, protect our safety nets, invest in the future, and protect our freedom…

…right?

Unless, of course, we elect a singled-focused government which takes a no-compromise approach to solving our political problems.

Maybe the election will result in a new president and a majority who are focused on smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. One which begins to roll back the socialist experiment which has caused overspending on our long overdue credit and propped our entire country up against a house of cards; a house which will inevitably share the Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Spanish, and Italian fate.

Or maybe still, we will elect those who recognize that the US government can borrow at record low interest rates.  At a time where our infrastructure is failing, our schools are broken, and so many people are out of work, every dollar invested in our future can give back $2 in return.  We will protect our environment, our vulnerable, and have an advanced economy which provides opportunities for all; repaying our debt through decreasing wasteful spending and raising taxes.

Whichever we choose, when this election finishes, the American people will have finally spoken – and the new leaders we elect will know what we have elected them to do.  They will come in focused, and ready to serve their country in a meaningful, productive way…

… unless they don’t.

Instead, we just may elect an ideologically focused, divided congress.  A congress that trades beneficial compromises for trench warfare political maneuverings.  One which forces another gridlocked government while we postpone our economic and social recovery until next election.

Which do you believe will happen?

We need to pull our country out of this economic slump.  We need to turn our government into something that works for everyone: efficient and just.  But if we do not clearly state for ourselves how this should be done, we force our politicians to decide for us.  We should not allow the politicians to dictate America’s future alone.

If our political system cannot find a path forward, we at the Picket Project will be working towards finding methods in which mutually beneficial compromises can be had.  We believe that the polarity our nation faces contains underlying truths which cannot be ignored and that the best solutions are found through understanding these truths and leveraging them.  We will be searching for new and creative ideas that can bring our country back together.  Searching for compromises which can bridge the divide between us.  We at the Picket Project will be searching for honest solutions, because they are needed now more than ever.

Over the next few weeks we will be publishing weekly posts contributing to the blog series: “Debate Politics and Social Issues- Picket Project”.  A new post will be online every Thursday morning with a follow up post which will further the content of the previous publication.  This follow up post will be published on the following Monday and will include:

• Further detail of the topics discussed in Thursday’s post
• Responses to Thursday’s post based on reader’s comments and collaborations
• Brief insight into the new post coming later in the week

We need your support.  Leave your Comments, Follow this blog, share us on Facebook and Twitter, and follow the Picket Project on Linkedin!

THANK YOU

Links:

• Will the GOP Take Control of the Senate? The Top 8 Races to Watch
• Is polarization making Congress dumber?
• Gutmann: Hope for compromise in Washington

The Picket Project - Fully Analyzing Political Issues and Social Problems

Partial solutions aren’t enough to solve a crisis. The United States is suffering from a maelstrom of problems – a recession, rising debt, and a declining education system, just to name a few. We need real solutions that provide a path of prosperity for ourselves and the coming generations. Forming these solutions will require understanding the full complexity of the problems we face.

Without this understanding, an oversimplified version of an issue can cause important factors to be dismissed in order to reach a course of action prematurely.  This can create faulty solutions which do not address the underlying cause, creating unintended consequences far worse than the original problem.

Unfortunately, our government is well experienced in this principle.

Take, for example, an attempt to minimize corruption and the influence of lobbyists in the 1970s.  In the wake of the Watergate scandal and amidst rising concerns that back room deals played too large of a roll in our government, new laws took form that required government meetings to be public information.

The basic premise of the sunshine legislation is that, in the words of federalist No. 49, 'the people are the only legitimate foundation of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter ... is derived.' Government is and should be the servant of the people, and it should be fully accountable to them for the actions which it supposedly takes on their behalf.

The belief was that, by showing the public exactly which bills our representatives are lobbying for and against, it would shine more light onto governmental affairs and naturally disinfect the public disease of corruption and corporate interest.  However, when looking at the political scene today, it seems that corporate influence is at an all-time high and a belief that our politicians are doing what is best for its people is at an all-time low.

With the benefit of hindsight, Fareed Zakaria paints a picture of the inadvertent consequences of these actions.

Most Americans have neither the time, the interest, nor the inclination to monitor Congress on a day-to-day basis.  But lobbyists and activists do, and they can use the information and access to ensure that the groups they represent are well taken care of in the federal budget and the legal code.

Before this bill, well-meaning politicians would allow themselves to take corporate contributions for political campaigns with the same underhanded promises they make today.  The promise that they will try and pass favorable legislation for companies who donate to their campaigns.

Of course, in a typical political manner, what they said and what they did were not always the same. A simple “I tried to sway them, but there was nothing I could do,” would often be enough to keep the money coming in for reelection while still being able to vote based on their personal beliefs.

With the new law in effect, this has become virtually impossible.  Since lobbyists can now review every vote taken, they can cut off funds for politicians who do not vote the way they were asked.  It seems that the factors that contribute to an empowered voter are more than simply availability of information.

Without accounting for economic interests taking advantage of this information, the problem of corruption and accountability was underestimated and oversimplified. This partial solution brought with it consequences – forcing their fellow politicians to focus less on our needs than ever before.

This example is far from unique.  Our history is littered with failed policies and half measures which cause more harm than good, with no sign of an end to the madness.

How can we create truly beneficial solutions in a complex world?

While no one can predict the future, we can avoid some of the worst mistakes by taking the time needed to properly analyze the factors surrounding the issues.  These factors, when fully understood, can help us understand the most likely result of any course of action, and minimize the negative consequences associated with an inaccurate understanding of reality.

The real question is:

Do you believe our politicians today are fully analyzing the problems they are addressing, or are they inviting negative consequences by oversimplifying these issues?

Our goal at the Picket Project is to understand the difference between positive solutions and those which will cause more harm than good; to fully analyze proposed solutions in an effort to understand the costs associated with poorly understood legislation.  Sometimes the challenges we face can only be solved through government action.  On the other hand, there are situations in which the government can make the problem worse.  We are not only working towards determining when a problem does or does not need government action, but also towards understanding what that action should be.  Solutions that everyone can agree to – fully explored and understood.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions and we will be regularly updating our content.  Start the conversations here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag!

Links:

• A way out of our dysfunctional politics
• The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad
• Government in the Sunshine Act

The Picket Project - False Truths: I'm Right, You're Wrong, Compromise is Impossible

American diversity provides us with hundreds of viable answers for solving the challenges we face. While both sides of the aisle could agree with many of these solutions, our political leaders are not hearing or discussing any of them. Instead, these politicians fall prey to believing that their solutions are the best, and everyone else is misguided. If we want to have true solutions discussed in Washington, we first need to understand why even well-meaning politicians can be unwilling to recognize the faults in their own agendas.

Tim Harford discusses a human complex, termed the God Complex, which states that no matter how complicated the problem, we will often have an overwhelming belief that our solution is infallibly right. Harford argues the downfalls of the God Complex and his belief that we need to abandon it in light of a problem solving technique that actually works.

I see the God complex around me all the time in my fellow economists. I see it in our business leaders. I see it in the politicians we vote for — people who, in the face of an incredibly complicated world, are nevertheless absolutely convinced that they understand the way that the world works.

The God Complex offers an explanation for why politicians, like all people, can become adamantly adverse to a compromise in their position. They believe that whatever solution they have come to is the only correct course of action. It also explains why bad solutions can seem good, and seemingly good solutions can often have very bad consequences.



This complex has roots in the mental models we create for ourselves based on the experiences we have had and the limited knowledge we have learned over the course of our lives. These models aid in answering complex questions quickly, which often serves us well. However, the creation of these mental models can sometimes constrain us and lead us to believe in false truths. Like a magician doing a trick on the street, our experiences can sometimes keep us from seeing what is right in front of our eyes.

When a particular solution seems to fit perfectly into the models we have created for ourselves – its justification sometimes seems insurmountable. However, since we each live a very different life, it is no surprise that sometimes we turn up with very different mental models of how the world works. Each of our different experiences can lead us to different insights on a problem, not all of which are compatible.

These insights form the basis of the democratic philosophy, where the combined experiences of a population are used to vote on the representative that best fits the narrative they hold about how the government should work. When conflicting narratives create contradictory solutions – recognition on why this has happened is critical to creating beneficial compromises. But our implementation of this cornerstone of a Republic has shown itself to be less than perfect.

Too many of our politicians have fallen prey to the God Complex and a deeply polarized government has arisen. Conservative and liberal mindsets compete for popular opinion. While this competition could create middle ground solutions, the God Complex has gotten so out of hand, compromise has become impossible. An environment has developed where each side of the isle believes that their solutions are the only real solutions, and anyone who opposes them is doing so with selfish intentions.

The time has come to bridge the divide in our country. The only way to do this is to break through the delusions of omniscience which have gripped our politicians and many of our fellow citizens. We at the Picket Project will work towards challenging oversimplified interpretations in order to show the full complexity of the world we live in. It is in this complexity that we will see where ideological models conflict, and where they can be modified to better fit reality.

As always, we look forward to hearing your opinions; we will be regularly updating our content based on the conversations started here through the comment system on the blog, our Facebook page, and Twitter using the #PicketProject hashtag.

Links:

• Tim Harford on TED
• Revisiting why incompetents think they're awesome

Money May Talk But We Don't Want To Listen

I'm reading that we've put a bounty on 7  Somali terrorists.  I didn't realize we even had a State Department 'Rewards for Justice' program.  I suppose it makes sense though considering we buy allegiance and everything else in our war on terror.  Goes to show the dollar doesn't go very far doesn't it?

This program is offering $7 million for information on the location of one man.  Five million for information on four others.  Another $3 million for additional leaders.  Some awards go as high as $25 million.  Wow. You'd think there would be a lot of squeal in that pig!  To date more than $100 million has been paid out to some 70 informants. I wonder who decides the $ value of a terrorist or if they merely shuffle a deck of cards.  A seven comes up.  Okay, $7 mil.

I can't help but wonder if the Pakistani doctor who helped us pin down bin Laden before we killed him and is now rotting in a Pakistani prison for his efforts had his eye on retiring in luxury.  Oops.

I also can't help but wonder if we'd need a system such as this if we hadn't gutted our intelligence community.  $100 million would pay a heck of a lot of salaries.

I also wonder why, when we get this information, we go after the terrorists with drones rather than making the effort to capture them. Oh, I know, it's easier.   Somehow it makes sense to me that capturing one might lead to the capture of others and an accumulation of vital intelligence along with it.

It seems at odds to say enhanced interrogation is un-American while killing people in cold blood isn't.  Somehow I see our entire war strategy as skewed. We pay who for this information?  What do we know about them?  Are they allies to our ends or traitors to their own?  Both or neither or either/or?

On the flip side of the coin we turn a deaf ear to pleas from the Syrians to help level their field in the war against their resident monster because their identity isn't clear.  That's really lame.  Think how far  $100 million would go there too.  Especially since we already know where the enemy is!

More Than A Card Game

I'm beginning to wonder just exactly who is the real Barack Obama.  The empty suit on which we imagined all sorts of wondrous things,  the protocol impaired apologist who traveled the world, the aloof naive loner or a cold blooded politician lusting after the means to hold onto power.

None of the choices thrill me but most bothersome are the means being taken to achieve the latter.

An area in which Obama has always been weak is foreign policy.  You've no doubt read about how he's trying to enhance his credentials.  His taking credit for the SEAL attack on bin Laden, the security leaks happening now that have even his own party in an uproar and the drone attacks.  He is accused of doing these things for political advantage.

Let's look at the leak about the cyber attacks in Iran where he has also linked the Israelis and one of our own national labs.  It happens to be here in Idaho.  You know Idaho, often confused with Iowa or Indiana.  We've had our share of notoriety thanks to the once plentiful neo-Nazi movement that took up residence in a town neighboring mine.  They're gone now, at least underground, yet it is the one thing most people remember when you say you live in Idaho.  I wonder if the extremists have taken note and wonder if they can recruit some kindred spirits here.  I really do wonder.  I much preferred being Iowa.  Anyway, there is the prospect of unintended consequences.

Now, too, allies are thinking we can no longer be trusted in joint covert activity.  Good thought if they're going to be outed whenever a politician needs some creds!

He also seems quite high on drone attacks.  Forget our cattle.  This is really serious business. Obama has 'evolved' from thinking the terrorists should be tried in our courts with all our rights to picking a victim from a deck of cards and taking him  out along with all who may be in the path.

There is a certain detachment that comes with using drones.  Those who operate them are thousands of miles away as is the face in a deck of cards.  But the power.  The invincibility must be like an opiate.   Why else would he order deaths rather than capture for information?  We know where they are either way.

It's chilling.  There are no stories reaching me telling of how he agonizes over the decision of who and when.  Just do it. That's cold.  Detached.  Void of emotion and I wonder, reason?

This man who hadn't even warmed up to the White House before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  What were they thinking?  What are we thinking?  Does he even think?

It's The Pits

I've gone and done it.  I've totally lost my sense of humor.  I define more and more of what I hear as tasteless.  Jokes included.  Take for instance Obama's crack at the White House Correspondents Dinner regarding Sarah Palin. Was it about Sarah? Or something else?

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?  A pit bull  is delicious."

I guess there are some things of which I find hard to let go.  One is the horror story of football's Michael Vick and his dog fighting ring of pit bulls. I'm still reading progress reports on those rescued by Best Friend's Animal Society.  I've crossed paths with a lot of pit bulls during my years and have yet to meet one that deserves the reputation they have as a breed.  Oh sure.  They can turn and do but it's not a trait exclusive to them.  Even my beloved Saints can be nasty and believe me a nasty Saint is no Saint!  I guess that's why the President's joke left me cold.

I usually weigh how men treat their wives in public when forming an opinion.  Maybe I should pay more attention as to how they joke, or even just talk, about their dogs!  Neither Mitt Romney nor Obama rate very high on the Arf Scale!

Sure, Obama was referring to his previous comment about having eaten dog as a youth.  I know it's considered a perfectly legitimate food in some societies.  But not ours.  It's the connotation in the form of a joke.  Animal lovers in this country fight so hard to give our voiceless companions the best lives possible.  They fight the idea that an animal is no more then a possession and can be treated anyway you please.  They aren't inanimate objects.  They are living, breathing, feeling creatures. Does how you treat your possessions carry over to how you treat your animals?  Does it carry over to family too?  Some would say yes.  I'm not sure.  I've never experienced the circumstance.  Our dogs have always been treated  like the most revered of people.

It just hit my hot button.  I've been saturated with mean spirited and truth challenged commentary over the months since political season began in earnest.  It's going to get worse before it gets better, I know.  Go ahead,  tear one another apart.  Lie about one another.  Leave it to the bewildered brain power of the voters to sort it out.  But leave our dogs out of it.  Don't joke about eating them while legalizing the trapping of wolves.  Keep your attacks aimed at those on equal footing who are equipped to fight back - other politicians.

As words and phrases are being banned on what seems nearly a daily basis, maybe we should do away with "It's a dog eat dog world."  More appropriately it should be " It's a politician eats politician world." After all they are the ones cannibalizing our way of life.

Holier Than Thou

There is a good reason for the separation of church and state.  Ironically, the  Value Voters Summit is a prime example of why.

I have no objection to believing in a Deity,  and  embracing the tome that justifies it in ones mind.  I do have an objection to one such group denigrating those who don't believe the same dictums, especially when it comes to the ability to capably lead our country.

We're not looking at radical Islam here.  We are looking at freedom of religion.  Freedom to worship as you believe without penalty from those who disagree.

The Value Voters crowd is not looking at what solutions the candidates have to solve the problems that are plaguing our country.  Economic meltdown, joblessness, crumbling infrastructure, instability world wide.  No.  They're looking for the candidates to bow to their dictates on social values.  The media eggs them on.  The candidates pander.  That pandering makes me take a much closer look at those who chose not to do so.  Jon Huntsman.  And yes, Newt Gingrich.

You see, I'm not a Christian Conservative.  I do not agree with much that they demand.  I do not believe it makes me an evil person, nor does it diminish in any way my abilities in the areas in which I am capable.

Preachers from their Mega churches seem to have the ability to mesmerize their followers into believing extreme views.  Like insisting Mormonism is a cult.  I could say all organized religions are cults because they do not believe as I do.  I can hear the hue and cry now!

I listen to how many of these people have actual conversations with God.  I should run.  I shouldn't run.  He told my husband and my husband told me.  Please. I have never, ever heard such voices and don't tell me it's because I don't believe.  I can't accept that as fact.  If God were having conversations with the candidates, why isn't He telling the rest of the world to quit having wars or beating our wives or killing our kids?

I also can't take a movement seriously when their pastors say, as truths, "Homosexuality caused the Holocaust."  Boy, is that an over used theme.  Or, "The government 'incentivizes' African-Americans to 'rut like rabbits'." Talk about racist.  It seems to me neither statement has a thing to do with the worship of God nor an indication that the pastor who made the statements is in any way capable of defining who would make a good presidential candidate.  Why are such people even elevated to the prestige of being a pastor?

There are so many religions in the world, and even a brief study of their symbolism indicates a penchant for peace and tranquility. Not divisiveness and hate. There are good and bad among all of them.   When the bad tends to be radical, though most haven't devolved to the extent of the radical Islams where heads are cut off and societies targeted for annihilation, they are getting precariously close.  Our society is just as threatened by 'Christian' radicals who would deny good people from serving because of their religious backgrounds as we are from the Islamic terrorist cells we're told are within our country.  They both aim to conquer.

With the country teetering on the edge of anarchy with the growing protests spreading from city to city, we had better band together in looking for qualities of leadership and sound policy rather than divisive self interest.  I'm not sure the country is any longer capable of it.

Speaking of divisive self interest - the media isn't helping.

Pelosi To The Rescue!

The current debt ceiling/deficit debate going on is important to be sure.  I've been doing a lot of ranting and raving about it for days now.  I must thank the former speaker, however, for adding some much needed levity with the comment,

"What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget . . . We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

Oh, don't I wish!  I wonder if she has a clue how idiotic that sounds.  It's right up there with her comment when health care passed; she said we could then all read it and find out what was in it!  To think this woman is one of the most powerful in the country.

Oh well, a good belly laugh now and then is good for the soul.  Forget the flaws in the Republican plan - and the Democratic plan.  Or that neither side trusts the other to keep their word. The problem is where both parties have taken us with their unlimited spending spree.

Somehow I just don't see Nancy saving us from what she herself and others like her have done to the country.  Life as it is today isn't so great when you consider the unemployment rate, the housing crunch,  the cost of gas and food and the humility thrust upon us by the TSA to mention a few.

Do us a favor Ms. Pelosi.  Don't bother.  As for the rest of the world?  Do it a favor and leave it alone.  They've managed to muck things up for themselves just as well, if not better, than we have, but the last thing they need is our help.  It would be like someone with a face full of Botox being asked to furrow their brow!

Politics As A Double Negative

As the debate over deficit reduction and debt ceiling drags on, I've drawn a couple of conclusions from recent reading.  Let me try them out on you.

 Let me address the members of congress who got there on the strength of tea party support first.  The more I see of them and listen to them the more I am convinced none of them could have gotten elected left to their own devices. Without tea party support they had nothing to offer against their opponents, especially other Republicans, except they were smart enough to know capitalizing on tea party issues could do the job.

For some it didn't work.  Thank heavens.  For too many others it did.  I sense they haven't a clue about how government works.  I also think they are deluded if they really believe they were elected to do the very thing they were to be against,  diminishing this country to the level of Europe. That's what their refusal to compromise on these debates is doing.  And, it's what Obama wants - for us to be on an equal level with Europe and no longer the leader that had been our destiny.  They were not elected to be obstructionists, but to find solutions.  The country was to come first, not ideology!

The more moderate Republicans are afraid of being 'primaried' by the likes of Grover Norquist who runs around with his 'pledges', threatening to run candidates against them if they don't sign.  Any politician who does is foolish.   Norquist is a self-appointed arbiter of what's good for all of us. Why anyone pays him any attention is beyond me but enough do and they fear him.

Hand in glove with all this, and my second theory, is the idea that public office should not be any one's career goal.  It wasn't intended that way, yet when I look at how office holders prostitute themselves to rise in the leadership ranks turns my stomach.

When George Nethercutt wrote recently about the climb to leadership, he had this to say.

When a member chooses a career path to congressional leadership, a member's independence is often compromised in favor of the leadership team, and the member's constituents are sometimes left behind.

Could anything be more damning?  I think not.  It gives you a pretty good idea what congressional leadership is all about.  Themselves.  What about the country?  What country.  Nothing exists outside of Washington.  Except the rest of the world.

Maybe, as has been suggested in times of frustration about the middle east,  we should build a fence around them so they can't get out and leave them to their own devices.

We, the people would have to do it though.  Those folks in Washington can't even get a secure one build along our border!

Pass the debt ceiling!  The next congress isn't beholden to anything the current one does anyway.  The deficit can't be fixed without a budget.  There is no budget.  Continuing resolutions do nothing more than extend spending at current levels and solves nothing.

Do I sound angry?  I am.  Thoroughly fed up with all the posturing and politicking on all sides including the President.

They all need to grow up and start thinking about the country as a whole.  And so do we, the voters, because we're the ones who put them in office and keep them there.

Whatever happened to "duty, honor, country"?  Especially country.  It starts with a 'C'.  Not an 'R' or a 'D'.

Debt Versus Deficit

Politics.  That's what we've been witnessing.  The politics of re-election, not what's good for the country regardless  of what either the Republicans or Democrats would have you believe. In all it's self serving ugliness.

Blame is owned by both.  The Democrats for not having passed a budget for two years.  To use their term, continuing resolutions are no more than 'kicking the can down the road.'

The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to tie two different problems together.  Let's look at debt first. We all carry debt.  Credit cards, car payments, mortgages, etc.  Anything you owe on is debt.  The same holds true for government.  It isn't just social security and medicare and military salaries.  It's everything from Boeing to the companies who make bullets for the troops.  The debt ceiling is how much we can afford to charge.

Deficit then is obviously when we spend more money than we've budgeted.  Of course actually having a budget helps.  But how many of us do and what happens when the bank sends you an insufficient funds notice?  Pay up.  What if you can't?  Default?  Bankruptcy?

So as I see the issues, Congress ought to raise the debt limit the absolute minimum amount needed to run the government for a year.  Then write a budget cutting what is feasible from the morass of programs out there and/or the programs themselves.  But in an orderly manner.

They keep talking about a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget.  That isn't likely to happen.  They should, however, make passing an annual budget mandatory.  Before spending dime one!

Both sides have muddied the water so much it's hard to sort it all out.  There have been cries for there to be adults in the room.  Don't be fooled by exasperated sighs and head shaking.  They are all acting like spoiled children.  My way or the highway.  The President has not put forward concrete ideas.  The Republicans, lead by the tea party caucus, are being bull headed over the tax part of the issues.  Closing loopholes should not be considered tax hikes. It's an exploitation of poorly written laws and should be eliminated.  Laws, by the way, written by Congress.

Congress can point fingers at the President all they want, but it shouldn't be forgotten they are the ones who voted to spend beyond our limits in the first place.  Both parties.  Over years.

What goes around comes around.  Now they've been hoisted on their own petard - of greed.

Is there anyone out there who will really put country first?  Oh, yes.  The young men and women who are still being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They understand the concept.  They have no lobbyists nor unions to bloat their salaries or benefits.  They just love their country - enough to  be willing to sacrifice their lives for it.

Politicians - take note.

Why Politics Make Me Crazy

Take the debt ceiling argument.  Both sides need to get real.  I had to agree with the President when he admonished Congress for being away on recess too much of the time.  Of course he's out and about campaigning much of the time too.

Then there is the Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling without concessions from the Democrats, like no tax increases.  They say it's what the people want.  Well, I'm a people and it isn't what I want.

They're listening too much to the Tea Party activists rather than the principles of the Tea Party movement.  And they're listening to their inner need to remain in Congress because they've never had it so good.

The Dems are putting out too much inaccurate information.  The world is not going to end as we know it on August 21 as the Secretary of the Treasury would have us believe.  And people making over $250,000 a year are not necessarily the corporate jet set.

If I were the one in charge, I'd throw it back on the Congress.  One, they hold the purse strings and they passed everything they are now belly aching about being too costly.  Okay guys and gals.  They're your programs.  Agree among yourselves which ones to cut! Bet you can't agree on even one, but try.  How about starting with farm subsidies.  No more paying farmers not to grow certain crops!  No more to grow corn for ethanol which is the ruination of many an engine!  How about eliminating entitlements, formerly known as pork.  No more bike paths in Nancy Pelosi's district.  No more bridges to no where.

Remember too, no matter what this Congress does, the next one will not be held to it.  With that in mind, anything and everything is ripe for reversal.

My guess?  The debt ceiling will be raised.  Somewhere along the line taxes will be increased.  It's how government is funded.  Cuts in spending will be token.  And the Congress will go right on creating and funding programs we can well do without.  It's the nature of the beast.

I had high hopes when the Republicans won the House.  Hope that they would bring some balance to the debate. I forgot 'hope' was an Obamaism.  I forgot there is no debate.  There is no balance and never will be as long as the people we elect become slaves to special interests to keep their jobs. This is an indictment of both parties.  They share in it equally.

Did Lincoln abolish slavery?  Only one kind, my friends. Only one kind.

Lame Stream Media, For Sure

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but when she refers to the media as "lame stream" she just may have a point.  She also showed a hint of wisdom for not appearing in what was laughingly called a "debate".

When Michelle Bachmann comes away the winner, one has to wonder.  And be thankful it's early in the campaign process and hope the candidates wise up and refuse to fall prey to the silliness of CNN again.

Little is left to the imagination as to where CNN's politics are, just like NBC's.  Left.  Liberal.  None the less you'd think they'd take a Republican debate with at least a modicum of seriousness.

John King set the tone with his 'assume the position' remark. He should be fired for that and what followed. And/or whoever vetted the questions to be asked.

Maybe I take politics too seriously, but when I take the time to tune in to a debate I'm not really interested  whether Bachmann prefers Elvis or Johnny Cash or whether Pawlenty is a Coke or Pepsie man. Save the levity for the White House Correspondents Dinner.  It's a slippery slope to the Clinton campaign where the iconic question was 'boxers or briefs'.  It's a good thing Anthony Weiner wasn't on stage - or for that matter, asking the questions! Must politics be demeaned any further?

I'm really glad Bachmann has fostered 23 kids and is a mother of an additional five.  I'm glad Santorum fathered seven kids.  And the happy the other candidates also have their progeny to brag about, but I could care less when I've tuned in to listen to ideas, policies, possible soilutions.

Somehow when a reporter crows that the evening produced a cadidate that truly belonged there, Michelle Bachmann, and that she will drive the debate, I would at least like to hear a debate.

Like what would she do about the situation in Pakistan where the men who helped our CIA in the pursuit of bin Laden have been arrested.  Or what would any of them do differently than Obama and more importantly how they expect to succeed.

Maybe one network should host one night of chit chat with the candidates, answer all the nonsense, then get on with real debate.  Or has that already happened?

The Wild West Lives ~ If We Don't Kill Each Other Off!

Do you know that Utah's governor is about to sign legislation making the Browning semi-automatic pistol the state gun?  Why in the name of reason, does a state need a state gun?  Arizona is looking to do the same with Colt revolver!

Guns.  I don't know whether to hate them or embrace them.  I'm no stranger to them.  Hub grew up in Montana where owning guns was akin to owning jeans.  His dad gave me his .38 police special as a gift.  His grandmother gave me her .22 rifle and his mom made him stay at the alter waiting for me under threat of her .25.  I've never fired any of them.

Other than that we own several, I usually don't give them much thought even though the news always seems to be full of stories about gun violence.  I've written a few times about contemplating taking a course in order to get a carry permit.  I've never acted on it.  My curiosity about the culture just isn't that strong.

I've written often about my objections to being allowed to carry weapons in our National Parks.  Now states are beginning to look at legislation to not require permits to carry concealed weapons.  Even more worrisome, to me, is the idea of allowing firearms on college campuses.  The argument that it could prevent tragedies such as the one at Virginia Tech is problematic.

Imagine one deranged student beginning to shoot and all those around him doing the same thing.  I see a mass slaughter far worse than anything a lone gunman could do.  Oh, I know, there are hundreds of scenarios for either side of the argument, but it makes me queasy thinking about it!

So here we are.  In the west, Alaska and Arizona do not require permits for concealed firearms.  Wyoming, Colorado and Montana are nearly there.  Idaho and Texas want them allowed on campus.

Representative Allen Jaggi, R-WY, says guns in the right hands make a safer society.  Guns in the right hands.  Like maybe law enforcement?

I'm not against the second amendment, but let's bring some good sense to the issue.  Bad guys will always be able to get guns.  We know that.  But having every Tom, Dick and Mary who wants to carry a concealed firearm is asking for unintended consequences.

There's enough of that going around as is and around here it's aggravated by gun happy law enforcement.  You'd think with all the violence in the world,  be it people fighting for their freedom in far away lands or nut cases taking pot shots at our legislators, I'd think the public, even in the west, would be sick of guns.