Book Review: Coyote Waits

"Coyote Waits." Tony Hillerman. Publisher: Harper Torch Fiction. 1990. Paperback. $8

In Navajo mythology the Milky Way was created by the trickster god, Coyote. Coyote also created the world and the Holy People. The Holy People were assigned the task of helping populate the universe with stars. The Holy People were too slow for Coyote's liking and he took their bag of stars and threw them into space, creating our nighttime sky.

Coyote is a trickster god. He would often masquerade as a well-known man after having transmuted the man into a coyote. Coyote would use the man's reputation to his advantage, often trying to sleep with the man's wife. Coyote would also use deception, lies, and trickery to obtain objects of his desire, for despite his supernatural existence, he enjoys the carnal and superficial pleasures of humans. Sometimes, Coyote is benevolent. In "Coyote Kills A Giant," the god finds a way to kill a giant and save his people from death.

"Coyote Waits," by Tony Hillerman

In "Coyote Waits," a car fire puts two committed law officers on the prowl for a killer. The car belonged to Navajo Tribal Policeman Delbert Nez, but the fire didn't kill Officer Nez. A bullet ended his life, as Officer Jim Chee would realize after dragging Nez's body from the burning car. When a drunk healer is found wandering down the middle of a state highway not far from the crime scene with a bottle of too-good scotch in one hand and a pistol tucked into his waistband, the simple evidence is immediately suspicious.

The death of the officer elevates the crime beyond Officer Chee and his supervisor, Lieutenant Joe Leaphorn, and into the hands of the FBI. Neither Chee nor Leaphorn are comfortable with Federal law enforcement acting on tribal lands and both initiate their own investigations.

The nuance of the faith healer's involvement bothers both Navajo officers. The officers aren't too fond of the FBI immediate guilt placed on Pinto. Ashie Pinto was not currently known to be a drunk. The crime scene was also hundreds of miles away from Pinto's home, and Ashie doesn't drive. So, what was a medicine man doing hundreds of miles away from home, drunk, with the murder weapon?

Chee's and Leaphorn's investigations lead them along intersecting paths through Navajo culture and lands. Chee is a traditionalist, himself practicing to be a healer, a Navajo medicine man. Leaphorn, while older, is less attuned to his Navajo heritage, familiar with but distant from the spiritual beliefs, family lineage and tribal membership characteristics of his fellow Navajos.

The dichotomy between Chee and Leaphorn provides wonderful insight into Navajo culture and spiritualism. Chee's interest in Ashie Pinto's jish, a small bag containing a shaman medicinal items, provides insight into the importance of traditional medicine and spiritualism within Navajo culture. Chee's developing friendship with Assistant District Attorney Janet Pete illustrates the complex relationships between Navajo tribal society and the non-Navajo society. In Navajo tribal culture knowing a person's tribal affiliation, such as the Bitter Way tribe or the Slow Talking Dinee can determine who a person can marry and whom a person can't.

The search for evidence leads Chee and Leaphorn across the landscapes of Arizona and New Mexico. From the University of Northern Arizona, the Chuskas Mountains, to the Four Corners, the officers cover the geography of northeast Arizona and northwest New Mexico.

Through Chee and Leaphorn we learn about studies of Navajo history and language at UNA and programs to preserve Navajo language and stories at the University of New Mexico. Chee and Leaphorn both run across a Vietnamese immigrant, a school teacher, whose presence illuminates a diversity in culture beyond Navajo and White, illustrating again the dynamics of today's society.

Chee and Leaphorn also discover the lengths people will design in order to track down the ellusive tales associated with notorious American train robber, Butch Cassidy.

Hillerman's stories are immediately engaging and likeable. Chee and Leaphorn provide an interesting contrast in characters. The younger Chee is more traditional and schooled in Navajo culture. The older Leaphorn, well-respected among folks of all backgrounds, is pragmatic and less bound in Navajo tradition despite being Navajo. Hillerman blends Navajo tradition, Navajo culture and history, Navajo language, and academic efforts into an enjoyable tale of how the Coyote Waits patiently in order to gain his prize.

How Memes Explain GOP Dysfunction

I'm amending my post based on results from the 2012 Presidential Election. Comments by GOP pundits speak directly to my comments below. Both Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer exemplify the anti-rational memes I identify and discuss below. Krauthammer, in fact, argues the GOP platform needs no changes; the GOP simply couldn't motivate the proper personalities to communicate the Republican message. If the message is so complicated 9 candidates cannot communicate the "message," the problem might be the message.
My previous post, a book review of D. Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity, left a cliffhanger, of sort. D. Deutsch spoke of static versus dynamic societies, specifically, static societies fail; dynamic societies endure, unless compromised or infected with non-rational memes. Then, demise of a society is a guaranteed surety. I dropped a parenthetical comment within my review indicating I would speak more on this topic later. This is later.
David Deutsch introduces a stunning array of ideas in a few short pages. He essentially breaks down culture and the transmission of cultural ideas and describes the bifurcation of a society’s choices into two paths. One path takes society down a static path, and essentially the end of that society. The other path takes society down a dynamic path, and persistence. Sounds a lot like Robert Frost, “the path not taken.”
My chosen theme for my writing is geography, the entire milieu of geography. When a quantum physicist wanders into the realm of culture and nation-building, my “geography-sense” begins to tingle. I have nigh-incomplete knowledge of quantum physics but I have a lesser amount of incomplete knowledge about geography. However, tying a few ideas from The Beginning of Infinity (TBOI) to geography should not be too difficult. What comes thereafter, might be.
The notion static societies and dynamic societies are part of the milieu of geography should not be too indulgent; this notion should be self-evident, actually. TBOI introduces a term which is not generally used in geography. The term is expressed more in sociology, or psychology, perhaps. However, TBOI introduces the term as a fundamental components of culture. The analysis of the term is used to examine the general success or failure of societies within a historical context. For instance, the failure of the Roman Empire, the failure of Nazism, the failure of the Soviet Union are all potentially explained by the function of a single term, and the terms components.

What is a meme?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene (1976), posited the idea of a “meme.” A meme is a self-replicating idea (369). But not this simple, as a meme is a self-replicating idea within a culture much like a gene is a self-replicating set of biological instructions which communicates to cell how to develop. Memes carry cultural instructions which communicate and define individual’s behavior within a culture.

A meme is a self-replicating idea which carries the cultural instructions which communicate and define an individual’s behavior within a culture. Memes can mutate due to societal pressures, therefore memes evolve over time.

Thousands of memes can exist. Memes can arise and disappear within a person’s lifetime, or they can persist over generations. Memes can self-replicate with varying degrees of success. Some memes persist over time with considerable fidelity; they do not lose their message. Some memes adapt over time and evolve. The information content will change; did a new meme arise and replace the old meme? Or, is the meme simply a mutation?
Memes can be categorized as one of two types. “Rational” memes are based upon rational and critical thought (388). Being based upon rational and critical thought, rational memes are able to be accurately replicated. Rational memes evolve in the direction of real understanding and knowledge (389).
“Anti-rational” memes are founded upon non-rational thought or non-critical thought (388). Non-rational thought or non-critical thought is a means of saying the idea is not likely to be replicated with any degree of accuracy. An example of non-critical thought is the response to a question, “because I said so.” Another example includes memes which are based on religious ideologies, faith-based ideologies, or political-based ideologies. An example of such anti-rational memes would include the belief women are inferior or too delicate to vote or to become involved in politics, or the notion Blacks or people of color are inferior, or the notion the only true faith is Judaism. Anti-rational memes mutate away from developing better understanding and increased knowledge, and in doing so hinder or eliminate adaptations which encourage greater critical thinking.

Rational memes arise from critical thinking and encourage greater understanding through promoting more rational thought.
Anti-rational memes arise to hinder or prevent critical thinking and impair understanding and restrain knowledge.

Rational memes persist and are enjoyed throughout society and across time. Rational memes succeed in spite of debates and criticism because the memes themselves inspire debate and criticism, becoming better and accepted throughout society. The example set forth in TBOI are the Laws of Motion described by Isaac Newton. Newtonian physics not only is useful for construction, such as cathedrals and bridges, and useful for artillery (388). In other words, rational memes are useful across a broad spectrum of people and disciplines, are well-suited for being re-purposed, and foster more criticism and debate.

Anti-rational memes can persist and spread among people in the very same as rational memes. However, their effect is different. Anti-rational memes harm society (378). Anti-rational memes discourage criticism, debate, the pursuit of knowledge and deeper meaning. These effects may see mundane, yet the effects of those effects tend not to be mundane. Discouraging criticism and debate leads to the rise of police states, censorship of the media, detainment, loss of freedoms, imprisonment, or death. Russia has created a set of Internet censorship laws which greatly restricts access to the media, makes libel a criminal offense, and forces foreign news reporters to register as foreign agents (Atlantic, 3 Nov 2012). Fascism is another example of an anti-rational meme. Fascism is the unquestioning devotion to an ideology, typically a political ideology. Fascism is not limited to politics; the adherence to religious indoctrination in the face of contrary evidence is also a form of fascism. The United States is not immune to anti-rational memes. The Salem Witch trials springs to mind, the Red Scare & McCarthyism of the 1950s, and the "You Are Either With Us Or Against Us" domestic and foreign policy during the 2001-2008 Bush Administration are all forms of fascism, and anti-rational memes. The persecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is an interesting circumstance. Yet, despite the controversy, I would argue this persecution is also an anti-rational meme because deeper truths are being hidden or concealed. This is precisely the nature of anti-rational memes.

The precise nature of anti-rational memes is to work against the revelation of knowledge, to blur or conceal the truth.

At this point I'm departing from my synopsis of memes, and discuss of rational and anti-rational memes. Rational memes are consistent with dynamic societies. Dynamic societies are not immune to the dangers of anti-rational memes. Within dynamic societies, both types of memes exist and are both exposed to the same sets of criticism. Anti-rational memes do not stand up to criticism, however, falter, fade away, and are replaced by rational memes. Even rational memes are under constant scrutiny and may be replaced by new memes or evolve into a new meme. Because of the continual improvement of rational memes in dynamic societies, the memes themselves become increasingly easier to replicate without loss of fidelity (388).

All meme forms and variants can exist within a dynamic society. Dynamic societies allow scrutiny and criticism of memes. Anti-rational memes will be identified as false, shallow, or useless. Rational memes will persist under critical observation and will be replicated accurately.

Static societies may have rational memes. However, due to the persistence of anti-rational memes, rational memes are disposed. Anti-rational memes can be as faithfully replicated as rational memes. For example, slavery in the United States was a persistent anti-rational meme based on several specious arguments. Generation after generation of people in the U.S. South were indoctrinated into the Slavery System. Most any attempt to argue against slavery, i.e. to criticize the meme, was immediately squelched. Static societies encourage the Status Quo, suppress criticism, and enforce invariant compliance of anti-rational memes (381). Laws are passed which encode the meme into the social fabric, such as the "Sundown Laws" which persisted in the United States well after Black Emancipation. Society may even foster and encourage the use of taboos to control behavior. Even within the allegedly "free and open" United States, some mixed race couples continue to find bias and discrimination.

Static societies are doomed to fail. Static societies impose rules, regulations, and restrictions which have the effect of ultimately shutting down human creativity. Human creativity is essential for meme evolution and transmission.

The society of the United States is generally associated with being a "dynamic" society. Many societies today are dynamic societies. All of Europe, India, the United States, Chile, Argentina, Canada, are all examples of "dynamic" societies. If you don't see your country mentioned, its probably still dynamic, I merely did not want to develop a comprehensive list. As long as a society is able to evolve to more rational ideas, i.e. rational memes, the society has a good chance of being a "dynamic" society.

Some societies I tend to think of as being dangerously close to becoming static societies. Russia comes to mind. The more restrictive the government becomes, the more speech and political expression is curtailed, the more likely Russia will become static. China falls into the same category for essentially the same reason. North Korea is a static society. Venezuela under the rule of Hugo Chavez, becomes more of a static society under his strict leadership. Any of the Middle Eastern countries, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Maghreb countries, and many countries of sub-Saharan Africa have the potential of becoming static societies. Rules, laws, or taboos which restrictive the free movement of ideas, or limit certain populations are anti-rational memes. Limiting the role of women in business, industry, sports, or government are anti-rational memes. Discriminating against a population based on skin color or other physical traits is an anti-rational meme. The killing of albinos in Tanzania because they are seen as "ghost" people is an anti-rational meme. The notion in Malawi of having sex with a virgin girl as a cure for AIDS/HIV is an anti-rational meme.
In the United States, our political parties are susceptible to becoming victimized by the spread of anti-rational memes. The Democratic Party support of unions is an anti-rational meme which hinders business, disallows the movement of ineffective workers and their inherent inefficiencies, and prevents the replacement of outmoded business models with modern adaptations.
The Tea Party movement itself is based almost exclusively on a host of anti-rational memes, racism, Creationism, pro-Christian, pro-faith, and a return to the Gold Standard are simply a few anti-rational memes prevalent among the Tea Party.

Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, have become significantly enamored by anti-rational memes. The "Patriot Act" provided unparalleled access to law enforcement for domestic surveillance. During the Bush Administration, citizens throughout the country found their "patriotism" challenged by simply criticizing White House policies. Members of the Senate Science and Technology Committee side with Creationists and other anti-science advocates against current research extending from the study of Cosmology, evolution, stem cell research, to climate change. Conservative Republicans, such as Donald Trump persist in perpetuating the Birther meme concerning President Obama's place of birth and his academic record. Other Conservative Republicans persist in associating environmental catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sally with God's wrath against the moral turpitude of homosexuality and abortion. The current political clarion among Republicans, "Take Back America" exemplifies yet another anti-rational meme. The United States has not been lost, has not been over-run or taken over. The government is not besieged. A coup d'etat has not supplanted any of our three government divisions.
Dynamic societies succeed by critical investigation of memes, by moot, and by using human creativity to expose, evaluate, and adapt memes. As memes are replicated, and evolve, individual memes may become static (383). Static memes are not necessarily bad. The idea of one-person, one-vote is a static meme which is important for governance which cannot really get more any more simple. Remember, the previous memes prevented women from voting, black males could cast a vote which counted as 1/2 the vote of a white male, and only white landowners could vote. Individual memes may become static. Danger arises when static memes become encoded with the law, or imposed by taboo, and society in its entirety is restricted from exercising creativity in advancing knowledge and gaining deeper understanding.

The two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are catalysts for memes. Democrats, often referred to as "Liberals," are criticized for simply being that, liberal. Liberal carries many connotation; open, explorative, educated, flexible, wavering, and progressive are a few terms which come to mind. Republicans are often characterized as "Conservative," meaning resistant to change, parochial, narrow-minded, and traditional are a few terms which come to mind.

Both political parties are far from perfect. However, Republicans are dangerously close to becoming the bastion of anti-rational memes. Advocating increased levels of religious expression in schools disaffect members of a society which purports to be accepting is an anti-rational meme. Anti-science faith-based messages which articulate evolution and cosmological sciences as being straight from Hell is an anti-rational meme. Deprecating education at levels beyond high school is an anti-rational meme. Denouncing climate and atmospheric sciences is an anti-rational meme. Advocating the status quo upon reliance on fossil fuels and against alternative energies is an anti-rational meme. Denouncing the rights of gay and lesbian citizens based on religious intolerance is an anti-rational meme. Stripping rights away from individuals to exercise control over her own reproductive rights in an anti-rational meme. Restricting the use of embryonic stem cells on religious grounds is an anti-rational meme.

For Democracy to succeed, at least two parties of equal rational and critical thinking acumen are necessary. My criticism of the Republican party is levied mostly to vent frustration over the entire political process. In reading TBOI, particularly the portion regarding memes and culture, I was struck by the relevance of Deutsch's comments and their applicability to current societal and governmental concerns. Much of the vitriol of our current political climate arises from anti-rational memes, examples of which I have already mentioned. These anti-rational memes are associated with members of one political party, are encoded within that party's platform, in fact. That the GOP cannot mount a substantive and unified front to the Democrat Party can be tied directly to the anti-rational memes harbored by many Republicans. To provide a better leadership at local, state, and national level, GOP leaders need to scrutinized their platform, their ideals, eliminate those notions which are parochial, limiting, predicated on ignorance and non-critical thinking, and purge their party of members who support anti-rational, non-critical memes. Otherwise, the Republicans are dooming themselves to irrelevance, being diluted by more non-critical thinkers, and radicalists, eventually being replaced by a number of factions.

Source: Deutsch, David; The Beginning of Infinity; Penguin; 2011.

The Dilution of Higher Education

This has been a week from Stupidville.

Let’s see if I can describe the situation. I’ll need to describe events and motivations leading up to the recent controversy, and the immediate results and subsequent modifications I have had to make in order to make one of the institutions I am employed by happy. As always, I will try to place my interaction into a larger educational context. To hint at my summary, administrators at institutions of so-called higher learning are themselves responsible for the dilution and failure of the U.S. educational system.

I am very active in online education. Since 2004, I’ve taught approximately 32 sections of a world geography course for community colleges and a university. Examinations are always a sensitive component of any online course, i.e. how does one maintain integrity in an online exam when the student is miles away and unsupervised?

Faculty have adopted several positions to address maintaining assessment integrity. Exams are offered for a limited time, usually 24-48 hours. Exams are limited in duration, typically 90 minutes to two hours. A rule-of-thumb is used to determine test length. A student is provided 1-1/2 to 3 minutes per question; multiply by the number of questions and you arrive at the time duration for any exam. Additionally, a student gets one attempt. A single attempt is offered to avoid a student progressing through an exam, reading and answering questions, then closing their browser to shutdown the exam. The student then emails the instructor saying such as, “My browser just went away while I was taking the exam. Will you please reset my exam.”

Students have devised many ways around online assessments. Students will work in groups. Students will gather to watch one student take an exam, then the remaining students will take their exam. The group will take turns taking exams so none will suffer but one poor attempt.

“My browser just went away while I was taking the exam. Will you please reset my exam.”

Students will take screenshots or cut and paste exam text into a text document; then, the exam will be closed, the answers investigated, the instructor emailed, and the exam reset.

Students will never read or perhaps even buy the textbook. Students will immediately engage an exam or writing assignment in one browser window while using another browser window to Google answers. Often, they will use Firefox and Chrome, or some combination of two browsers in order to avoid a potential interruption by using Tabbed Browsing.

Students will rally themselves into groups to take exams. In the event an instructor has implemented a limited reset policy students will work as a team to circumvent the reset policy. For instance, a professor may have a “one reset policy,” i.e. the student receives one free reset for any exam for the semester. The professor may have, say, four exams for the course. The first student takes the exam until the end while making notes for the remaining team members. At the end, the student will kill the attempt and request his/her reset. Student Two will use the notes from Student One and take the assessment. Student Two will then take the second assessment. At the end Student Two will kill the attempt and request his/her free reset. Student Two will then distribute notes to the remaining team members.

Students will take an exam all the through to the second-to-last question and note the feedback answers. The browser is then closed, which ends the exam. The instructor is then contacted and a request for a reset is made.

“Students will rally themselves into groups to take exams.”

If these scenarios I outline seem far-fetched, all have already been documented “in the wild,” meaning students are working as teams at colleges and universities across the country to circumvent online testing.

The students who suffer are the honest ones who actually perform the required assignments. Some students in remote area, such as rural counties, also lack the physical social network to be a part of one of these testing teams.

Historically, I always allowed my students multiple attempts at quizzes and exams as I figured there was no way to really police the exam environment. Also, and based on previous experience, the network technology did not really exist to provide a stable connection over 90 minutes for a student to take an exam without some glitch shutting down the exam.

During the spring and summer of 2012, after considerable internal debate, I opted to implement a “no reset policy” for my exams. Many factors were considered in my decision. I personally took several Blackboard assessments, both my own testing and online assessments provided by the community colleges. I experienced flawless performance throughout. People I am familiar with taking classes also have experience success in taking online exams which last longer than 1 hour; some lasting longer than 2 hours. I have also heard students inform their peers how they were able to re-take an exam by closing their browser and claiming a “glitch kicked me off.” Based on the factors I described I decided to implement my own “no reset policy.”

The “No reset policy” is not unique to me. “One attempt” or sometimes called “One-shot attempts” are extremely common among university faculty. Students around me have complained about faculty who offer only two online exams from which the lion’s share of the grade is determined and have had some “glitch” interrupt the exam. Responses by faculty to queries about re-taking or re-opening the exam vary from silence to a simple “no.” But, a simple google of “online education exam reset policy” should provide enough examples.

Technically, no way exists to filter a student with a legitimate technical issue from a student who is gaming an online course. The technical issues manifest in precisely the same way whether the student is cheating or honestly has a real technical issue. Only an environmental interruption can be corroborated, a regional power outage, a regional disconnection of Internet access such as a fiber cut, a closure of a computer laboratory, or some other disruption at the institution. Those interruptions can be verified. Similarly, an ISP can offer a report in the event of an interruption of service.

A student sitting at home, with limited exception, has no ability to offer corroboration. A letter from a parent who has a vested interest in having their child succeed is not an unbiased instrument.

Many institutions of higher learning leave the policy of exam resets to the discretion of the faculty. Faculty are given ultimate sway in deciding the fate of a student who has become shutout of an exam. Faculty would like to believe students are honest actors in the taking of exams, but the evidence is against the student. All one must do is contemplate your own education to find validity in my statement.

Can you say you never witnessed nor experienced cheating in a college classroom? I know for a fact fraternities and sororities maintain files for all faculty and all courses. I know, because my fraternity did; we maintain several file cabinets worth of returned exams. Fraternity members would hire a brother to write a research paper, or hire a sorority sister to write a paper. Cheating was endemic within the entire Greek system. And, I also know the pattern of behavior persists.

My comments are not meant to simply indict the Greek system; social fraternities are simply a good example. In the Era of Online Social Networks, students across the board are organizing themselves via Facebook, and using Google Docs, SkyDrive, and Dropbox to organize and share coursework.

Thus, faculty are faced with few good options for policing the integrity of their online exams. The “no reset” policy may sound draconian yet few options exist.

The implications for online learning are staggering when considered against protecting the integrity of the tools which are designed to measure a student’s competency. When those tools are compromised, no entity benefits.

Last week was spent in a week-long debate regarding my “no reset” policy for my online exams. Controversy was ignited by a lone student who protested not being able to re-take his exam after being kicked off Blackboard. I said,

No, I’m sorry; I have no way to know if you had a legitimate technology issue, if you were googling-for-answers, of simply decided if the exam was too difficult and closed your browser. Furthermore, you read my syllabus and recognized my policy. You took my syllabus quiz, therefore implicitly accepting my conditions. I also provided specific directions, suggestions, and cautions in my course video (posted on YouTube) and also in my Blackboard tutorial (also posted on YouTube).

The student appealed to both the dean and the Vice-President of Online Learning. While the dean did not feel like my policy was “fair” she admitted my syllabus made a clear statement.

The Vice-President of Online Learning offered a different viewpoint. I paraphrase:

Since there is no way to tell whether or not the student suffered a legitimate technological glitch, the student should be granted another attempt. Any student which appeals your “no reset” policy is going to win the appeal.

There are at least three fundamental concerns with the position of the VP-OL. The most obvious concern is any student who complains about the closure of an exam, for nearly any reason, will potentially be allowed to re-take the exam. A subset concern to the negation of the “no reset” policy means the student can have as many resets as the student requires to complete the exam.

A second concern suggests the syllabus is not worth the paper upon which it is printed, not if an administrator can negate conditions, at will. Also, their ability to do negate syllabi conditions undermines every argument “a syllabus is a contract.” No, a syllabus cannot be a contract if an actor not party to the conditions of the syllabus can negate any or all aspects of the syllabus.

A third concern is the fundamental undermining of academic integrity which occurs when faculty are no longer able to control the integrity of the assessments they are charged to create and score, in many cases for “quality assurance” for accrediting agencies. Faculty are charged with assessing students, measuring student competency, for reports which are generated to satisfy agencies which accredit colleges and universities. Student are able to achieve higher scores; higher scores become integrated into measurements of student competency; measurements are passed along to state, federal, and accrediting agencies. Funding, recognition, and awards are then based on the accumulated data.

Flawed data.

Now, administrators become complicit in the dilution of education.

Faculty are then faced with controversy on two fronts. On one front, administrators negate policies written into syllabi which are deemed unfair and side with student upon appeal. On the other front, students can spend an hour or so circumventing an exam, working alone or with a team, to cheat.

Policies and attitudes described above then run the distinct possibility of achieving normalcy within our U.S. society. Students, the beneficiaries of benign administrators today, then see no harm in falsifying data later when hired into positions of responsibility. Students who were beneficiaries of appeals, or of team-cheating, realize the power of group-think to find loopholes around real business, finance, or political rules and regulations.

Ethics are undermined, and society suffers real problems. We are seeing evidence of unethical behavior which began well before employment. I would wager Wall Street financial cheats did not arrive at Wall Street with rigid ethical backbones. No, they cheated or found loopholes, or leverage social network connections get achieve their positions. Examples do not need to extend to Wall Street. School districts have been found cheating on No Child Left Behind test scores. Colleges and universities have cheated on scores to fraudulently obtain state and federal funding.

I offer my comments simply as an contemporary anecdote of one atomic bit in the fracturing of the U.S. education infrastructure. As our culture adopts and embraces online learning we must be very careful our attempts to share educational opportunities do not become so dilute as to make online learning of questionable value, at best, and worthless, at worst.

PAX

del.icio.us Tags: higher education,education,academic honesty,plagiarism,cheating,Google,Firefox,Chrome

Education is a Matter of National Security

Governments are often criticized for working towards the goal of keeping their citizens ignorant. “We will tell you all you need to know.” Or, “It’s a matter of national security. We cannot tell you why. Its on a need-to-know basis.”

In Russia, the Putin regime essentially controls the media. Russia is one of the least safe places in the world for journalists to operate. North Korea has one TV station controlled by the government, and one newspaper controlled by the government.

Governments which do not support education only damage their populations, promoting and actively supporting ignorance.

Furthermore, people who support politicians who support the promulgation of ignorance deserve the government they get. However, as I am also a part of society occupied by people who support ignorance and those who support ignorance, I have something to say about that.

Take for example the words of Paul Broun (R-Georgia).

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try and keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Paul Broun is a member of the Senate’s Science and Technology Committee. He goes on to say,

“You see, there’s a lot of scientific data that I’ve found as a scientist that this really is a young earth,' Broun told the crow. 'I don’t believe that the earth is but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was made in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible tells us.”

Here is a perfect example of someone who does not need to be on a science committee and someone who advocates ignorance. By the same token, he should also support slavery, as God also tells slaves to obey their master.

Todd Akin (R-Missouri) has gained notoriety based on his belief woman who get pregnant from a rape must have actually wanted to be raped.

Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) says he will "..will do anything short of shooting them” with regards to illegal or undocumented people living in the United States. He also condemns military cuts. Obviously, protecting our ignorance is of prime importance to him.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has this to say about climate change:

“I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.”

Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) even has an entire page on his House web site devoted to denial of climate science.

“Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducible, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results.”

To which I say, stop cutting Education. See, one of the downstream effects of cutting Education, is that you make a limited resource even more scarce. When scarcity is increased you run the risk of actually encouraging people to cheat, cut corners, or be disingenuous in order for them to get things they need, like funding.

I ran across legislation on Rep. Ralph Hall’s (R-Texas) web site which he appeared very prideful of, yet it was completely stupid. On the one hand, he doubts climate change because of the lack of good science and argues his doubt of climate change was supported by what has become known as “Climategate.” So, how does one go about getting “good science?” Well, one way is to make sure you have different parties working on the same or similar problems. Doing so builds a knowledge base, a resume of work and expertise. However, on his own site, he argues for offering “amendments to minimize duplicative research.” [link]

How he thinks science works is beyond me. Besides, all his proposed amendments to current or proposed legislation regarding science and the funding of science initiatives is completely bonkers. Republicans are notorious for harping on how Democrats are so fond of bureaucracy they seem to be ignorant of their own desire for their own flavor of bureaucracy.

The fallacy behind the comments of these individuals and those like them is that they use one data point to either prove their case, or disprove someone else’s. Dana Rohrabacher, on his own web site, states

“I do not believe that CO2 is a cause of global warming.” [link]

This should come as no surprise as Rep. Rohrabacher was a former speechwriter in the Reagan White House, and has been tied to one of President Reagan’s gafs, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

Rohrabacher told POLITICO in an interview [link]:

“needs to be used as a bully pulpit because many of the issues brought up by the Democrats is based on phony science,” Rohrabacher told POLITICO. This especially is true of global warming, “which is a total fraud,” he said. “We need to make sure that the Science Committee has a debate which both sides can equally present their sides.”

Rohrabacher once joked that dinosaur gas might be the cause behind global warming.

“We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past,” he said at a February 2007 hearing. “Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”

To my point; people elected into positions of authority need to have more of an open-mind and need to be more technically literate than these examples of poor leadership.

You can read my post on Why Conservatism Is Doomed To Fail for my thoughts on why. Furthermore, I would argue If Conservatism Wins, We All Lose, whereas if Liberalism Wins, Only Conservatives Lose, But Actually Win, Too.

Which brings me to this article from Technology Spectator [link]. Now, its not the article per se which has my hackles up. No, it’s the backstage of the article which is the problem. Like the problem of climate change, doing something now because later its too late, this article represents why our educational system and our business and intellectual climate need to change.

See, for the last 30 years or so, the United States has been happily moving its manufacturing capacity overseas. People bitch and moan about this without really understanding how they have benefitted from the lower prices. I would guess U.S. citizens have saved over $1 trillion dollars since 1980 simple as a result of the movement of manufacturing abroad.

The problem, though is manifold. How can we technologically secure ourselves with technology made outside our country? Yes, it was designed here. The router, switch, server, desktop and tablet were designed here (maybe) and the company has its international headquarters in the United States, but the actual physical product is made in Vietnam, or Singapore, or Malaysia, or China. How can a company maintain physical security of a physical device not within its own borders. Actually, its hard enough even then.

The governments of many countries invest in private enterprise. One reason is to compensate for the the inequity in labor costs, particularly if the technology is needed in-country. In the United States, if someone mentions government investment in private enterprise, they are labeled as a “Socialist,” a “European Democrat,” or a “Communist.”

China is already the world leader in solar cell technology and wind turbine technology. Why? Because the government in Beijing invested $1 billion dollars to make themselves the world leader. Now, they sell the technology around the world. When governments invest that kind of money into a nascent capitalist market, considerable headway is made.

China is also now a world’s leader in Green Technology because of their heavy investment in solar energy, wind turbines, and high-speed rail.

That a top Chinese electronics company, Huawei, wants inside the United States is of no surprise. This is the second high-profile technology incidence in which the United States government has had to play an active role. Not long ago, a Chinese maker of wind turbines, Ralls Corp, was banned from fulfilling a contract to build a wind farm in Oregon.

Actually, that was a good choice, to ban the wind farm. The wind farm was beside a sensitive military base which develops and tests unmanned drones. If I were the Chinese, I would have loaded those turbines with all sort of spy devices the blades would barely turn. And, if it were the United States selling turbines to China, you know we would have done the same thing. We do it all the time when we build an embassy for some country, load the place with every sensor known to Humankind.

The rub, though, is this; politicians within our own government refuse to support technology and Education, as if both are forms of Elitism. Politicians are caught in old Cold War mentalities which hold that any government involvement is a form of “Socialism” or “Communism” and is not simply bad but against our way of life.

I am not advocating for Socialism.

I am advocating for sound, rational, and realistic approaches to commerce, industry, manufacturing, and education.

Why is a U.S. company not building a wind farm in Oregon? Or, Texas? Or, Missouri? Why is our best option a Chinese company?

Why are we worried about a Chinese technology company selling technology inside the United States? My own D-Link wireless router was assembled in China. I would wager most of Cisco’s gear, Belkins, and LinkSys gear is also all either manufactured or assembled in China.

Why are we not producing some of these devices inside the United States if we are so worried about a potential Chinese espionage threat?

Our own governance philosophy is at the root of the problem. Politicians do not want to support or invest in domestic business for fear of being labeled as a “Socialist.” Politicians, particularly Republicans, advocate for letting the Free Market decide. So, the Free Market decides the best place to build and assemble is China, and then politicians, again mostly Republicans, cry foul.

I would argue Lawyers, and those with Political Science degrees – wow, that’s an oxymoron – make the worst politicians. We don’t need lawyers and people gerrymandering politics around religious bigotry and non-science, like Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Creating, supporting, and nurturing Education is fundamental to national security. The added benefit is that we also have a robust industrial and manufacturing climate where we don’t necessarily need to rely on outside contractors, because we have had the foresight to invest ourselves in those technologies, and invest in ourselves.

Higher Education is a Monolith

Higher Education in the United States is a monolith. I imagine the higher education system in the United States as the Titanic. Before the ship was struck and sank, I imagine there were many interesting conversations, people learning and their knowledge increasing. Even if not overwhelmed by the size and technology represented by the ship, I can see people simply sitting around dinner tables, or at the bar, debating politics, debating science or philosophy.

And then the ship strikes the infamous iceberg. We know the rest of the story.

Designers and engineers, captains and staff, caught in the currents of their own hubris, could not imagine their ship would fail, that their ship could be damaged, so much so the ship would sink. Unimaginable.

In the United States, I see higher education buying into their own hype, their own hubris.

Higher Education grew out of the need to develop thought, specifically engineers and scientists, architects and chemists, biologists and doctors. Higher Education was designed to address the deficiencies in the education background of our citizens, and to meet the needs of businesses and industries within the United States. Higher Education was also promoted as a means to ensure National Security.

In other words, intentions were good.

Structural implementation addressed the demand, though to be fair, implementation was sexist and racist. I say this because entry into the university systems was often not fair to women or minorities. Some universities were exceptions to my generalization, but overall, my comment stands.

Early success of colleges and universities were based on the fact these institutions contained the necessary knowledge. Public libraries while important starting places for learning were simply not the fortress of knowledge represented by colleges and universities. If someone wanted to know something to any great detail, one had no other choice but to attend college. History, language, biology, physics, engineering, most any field required college attendance. Of course, some jobs did not require a college education, such as auto mechanic or roofer, and some still do not require higher education today.

But, my point is, colleges and universities have historically been the reservoirs of knowledge because that is where the knowledge was located.

Today, that is becoming less the case.

The Internet is changing education, delivery, access, and content. Especially in Higher Education, access to the Internet is evolving our access to knowledge in every field. Internet sites such as CodeAcademy, Khan Academy, Open Culture, TeacherCast, and even YouTube are changing the delivery model, content, and technology of learning.

But, many in Higher Education resist change.

Higher Education promotes online education – at their own institutions, yet may not accept online course credit taken at other institutions. Furthermore, many colleges and universities either do not accept degrees from online universities or cast wary glances at those people who earned degrees from online universities, or from online programs offered by brick-and-mortar universities.

Higher Education fails to utilize homegrown talent or talents within their student body. On the one hand, Higher Education says they promote open learning and initiative; on the other hand, Higher Education turns its back upon faculty, staff, and students who have initiative, knowledge, and determination and ignore untapped potential.

The entire system of Higher Education once supported an insidious form of hazing. You would be tested, and tested, and tested in the hopes you would fail. It’s a filtering process, really, hazing. Hazing is still present, to some extent in the higher echelons of learning, at the doctoral level. Advisors who want changes without need simply because of their dislike for another advisor.

Higher Education organized itself into semesters and classes with specific meeting times and faculty became supervisors. In fact, Higher Education mimicked Business and Industry in both word and deed.

Both became monolithic and entrenched, behemoths in their respective sectors. The steel industry and the automobile industry and the textile industry in the United States were large, economically powerful, and firm in the belief of their invulnerability. How has that worked out?

Higher Education has been recalcitrant in evolving and modifying their education models. While the U.S. automobile industry seems to be finally getting a clue, at least Ford, Higher Education in the United States is not moving quickly enough to address challenges developing in this new Age of Knowledge.

Higher Education needs an deep introspective evaluation.

Are semesters really necessary? What is more important, meeting at a specific time each week? Or, is the conversation, content, and exposure to questioning the real need? Isn’t the process of learning and acquiring new tools really the goal?

What if education were more like a series of workshops, each a couple weeks long?

What if a student could really take a course at their own pace?

What if learning included all forms of media, video, games, lecture, reading, discussion boards, with or without a formal meeting time?

Shouldn’t we be thinking about destroying the box?

If you – and by “you” I mean if you are an instructor – how would you want someone to learn what you know? How would you really coach your material outside the confines of the rules and policies of your institution? How would, or how should, your students be exposed to the material they need to be knowledgeable about? How would you encourage your students to engage in thinking about the subject?

I read the Chronicle of Higher Education, Campus Technology, and a few other media sources. I am encouraged to some extent that some universities are taking baby-steps in the correct direction. But, having some experience with people at other universities, I find the same stories being shared.

I find showcase stories of “revolutionary” new ideas are simply that, a showcase example of someone who got permission to try something new. These pedagogical ideas, like using iPhone clicker apps in a classroom, make people think Higher Education is progressive, I tend to think otherwise. These “revolutionary ideas” are not being pursued aggressively enough, in my opinion. I would say, why is this a great idea? This is what is supposed to be going on! Using technology in the classroom should be mandatory, not an accolade.

Finally, something I have found very troubling.

Many colleges and universities do not have a Technology Implementation Plan. Colleges and universities often have long-range plans for capital growth, new buildings and such. They have plans for tracking graduates for fund-raising and asking for donations. They have plans for recruiting students.

They have no plans for addressing technological change or implementation of technology. Colleges and universities for the most part affect a form of Ad Hoc technology policies: “do what it takes to make it work,” or “we will cross that bridge when we get there.”

Education in the United States is not simply a matter of improving the livelihood of U.S. citizens and hoping they earn more money and pay their taxes.

Education is a matter of National Security. We need smart people supporting other smart people who create smart companies training smart people. And, its not simply about economic security, but in overall geopolitical security. People who can speak other languages, Russian, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic and interface with people from cultures representing these languages.

Imagine standing in a room or people and you are the only English-speaker. At some point, you’re going to become paranoid all of these people are talking about you. You’ll have to find someone who can translate if you want to say something. How can you be sure your conversation is being communicated correctly? How can you be sure they really aren’t talking about you?

Higher Education does not need to be the intellectual equivalent of the Titanic. One concern, though, is the people hired to run Higher Education are BA/BS, perhaps fresh out school with little experience and little interest in interacting with faculty other than to make sure the classrooms contain warm bodies.

Higher Education has the intellectual knowledge and creativity bank on-site not only to prevent collision and calamity but to devise solutions with which to avoid near-term concerns and chart for long-term success.

Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

Earthquakes. The mere mention of one can send a person into shaking tremors. New York City and Washington DC experience a moderate earthquake and one would think Armageddon is upon us. Meanwhile, Sendei, Japan will require a decade or more to recover from their catastrophic 9.0Mg earthquake.

The Richter Scale is not a straight-line scale. The Richter Scale is logarithmic. In other words, a 4Mg earthquake is not twice as strong as a 2Mg earthquake. A 4Mg earthquake releases more than 60x's as much energy as a 2Mg earthquake.

I was watching and reading about coverage of the East Coast earthquake. People ranting about "earthquake preparedness." Newscasters mistakenly "rounding" the 5.9 earthquake to a 6.0. Preparing for an earthquake in DC makes about as much sense to me as having people in Montana prepare for a hurricane.

But, it did get me to wondering; "what is the difference in energy between a 5.9 and a 6.0 earthquake?"

Every 0.2 increase in earthquake magnitude corresponds to a doubling of energy released. Thus, a 5.9 earthquake releases TWICE the energy of a 5.7 earthquake. Therefore, a magnitude cannot be "rounded up" or "rounded down."

Check out this web site "WolframAlpha" for an earthquake energy calculator.

Returning to the Gold Standard is a Return to Lunacy

Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, have many quotes and attributions stating they favor returning to the stable economic days when the United States backed all of its currency with either gold or silver.

I think before anyone jumps on this bandwagon to CrazyTown, we need to really examine the Gold Standard.

Gold and silver are like many things, they are commodities. Commodities have value because we, people, specifically brokers, assign those things "value." For example, we could use sand for currency, but that would be a bad idea. Sand is pretty much ubiquitous. For sand to have any value, sand would have to be protected, isolated, and sequestered in order to control the scarcity of sand. If everyone had sand, then sand would have very little value. If we control the amount of sand, then we control the value. We control the scarcity.

In 1805, the United States had considerable debt from fighting with the British. Gold and silver were in high demand since the U.S. didn't have the gold or silver to pay debts. People hoarded gold and silver as they saw the value go up. I'm sure some people even speculated in gold and silver, thinking that as long as the U.S. had a debt, the value of gold and silver would continue to climb.

Thomas Jefferson, in order to inflate the value of silver, told the government presses to stop minting silver coins. Scarcity drove the value of silver higher, and the market was manipulated by controlling the government minting of coins.

In 1857, more "manipulation" occurred as the U.S. struggled to find gold to buy more silver. Silver had become the preferred currency among countries for doing business. The hunt for gold created the Gold Rush and people headed West to discover sources of gold that could be sold to the government. The government would then use the gold to buy silver. The silver would then be used as currency by our country to pay debts to other countries.

Again, people would hoard gold and silver, as the demand for each metal would rise and fall, depending on what the United States needed to pay its debts.

World War I would come along and force countries to examine how to pay for war needs. European countries were boxed in, not having enough gold or silver to use in order to buy weapons. Some countries had already abandoned the Gold Standard. Others countries, to pay for World War I, went off the Gold Standard in order to run up some debt to pay for war supplies.

And therein lies the rub. Countries needed financial flexibility in order to pay for stuff they could not afford without incurring some debt. Having to constantly maintain a physical store of gold/silver to pay for stuff was very limiting.

Around the turn of the 20th century, most countries either had a Central Bank or were thinking about developing a Central Bank. A Central Bank would establish the value of paper currency, and control the amount of paper in circulation, thereby controlling the value of currency.

Essentially, a transference of value has taken place. Gold has no more value than that which we give it. It's really an arbitrary and artificial value. So the same for paper money. But, paper money is much more easier to come up with than gold or silver. More on that in a minute.

Value is Faith.

People around the world trust the value of the U.S. Dollar. And the value of the English Pound. And the value of the Chinese Renminbi. And the European Euro. They trust these currencies because people have faith that these currencies will be traded and accepted.

Now, more things about the Gold Standard to think about.

In order for Rand Paul's Gold Standard to work, he has to be able to control the supply of Gold. Again, supply is tied to value, and value is tied scarcity. If gold is commonly available, then gold cannot be worth very much, i.e. gold is not scarce.

When the U.S. was on the Gold Standard, personal gold was against the law. The average U.S. citizen could not own more than 4 ounces of gold. We can't have everyone owning gold, if gold is the Standard. In order to control the amount of gold in circulation, Rand would (a) have make the ownership of gold illegal, (b) and collect the amount of gold already in circulation. People must not remember that only after 1972, when Nixon finished off the Gold Standard, was the ownership of gold really made legal.

Gold markets can be manipulated just like any other market. Suppose China decides to flood the market with gold to undermine the value of U.S. gold value. Or Russia. Simply moving the U.S. to a Gold Standard does not make the U.S. financials immune to manipulation.

All countries currently use a Central Bank or Banks for moving currencies around. Germany, France, England, Italy, all have Central Banks. These banks keep money markets stable. While they may not seem stable now, markets could be much worse. All countries Central Banks know how to deal with financial markets, how to conduct country-to-country business. That is our global standard. Moving backwards to a Gold Standard would mean that all countries would have to figure out how to work with our finances. Not as easy as it sounds.

Furthermore, the U.S. is the world's most powerful economy. It is our currency against which oil is priced. If someone really wanted to upset global financial markets and create worldwide chaos, let him destabilize the current U.S. financial markets by changing all the rules of finance.

Gold and silver are also valuable commodities in the technology sector. Consider your smartphone, your laptop, your LCD monitor, every bit of technology you can think off. These devices contain precious metals, gold and silver, among them. How will changing the economy of gold and silver affect the cost of production of the most ubiquitous devices in human history?

In summary:

1. Ask Rand what he thinks about all other countries still using Central Banks. Will they have to return to the Gold Standard, too?
2. Ask Rand how he plans on controlling the supply of gold, and maybe silver. Will he make personal gold ownership illegal?
3. Ask Rand how he feels about manipulating the price of gold, and how that might affect the cost of materials in the Technology Sector.
4. Ask Rand how the Gold Standard is supposed to make financials more stable when historically the price of gold has undergone several manipulations.

Why Conservatives Are Doomed To Fail

I am often characterized as being naive. Sometimes, "too straight" or "too conservative" are also added to labels applied to me during conversations. My appearance, the way I dress, walk, conduct myself, comes off as conservative. At least, historically I have appeared as conservative might. A few years ago, I decided my appearance should more accurately reflect the "character" of the person inside.

I shaved my head, grew a goatee, and got some ink. At some point, I'll probably get some piercings. I have more ink planned. The reason for my changes was to bring my inside and outside into congruence.

Congruence is one of my favorite words; I work "congruence" into conversations as often as I can. "Congruence" means "agreement" or "harmony." People often say and do things which are not congruent. Their words and deeds do not agree.

Being an educator, I find incongruities in my life and I work to resolve those. Students and their lives are rife with incongruities. Recently, I received an email from a student who had trouble taking an online exam. The student elected to take the exam late in the evening, near the maintenance window. After 30 minutes, the student was closed out of the exam. The email stated, "Can I get back in to finish my exam? I want to do the best I can."

Not paying attention to the test environment is not making the best effort, not creating a successful environment for learning or anything else.

In large part, being ignorant of creating and building a successful environment is why I cannot be nor will ever support Republican Party dogma nor any Conservative effort or platform.

I am a Pragmatist. Determine the problem, consider a solution, a solution which has a good chance of working, with the least negative downside, and which also is the most sustainable and reasonable or logical. To my way of thinking, new ways, new methods, new technology, receiving input from different perspectives, personal sacrifice, and delayed gratification are all potential influences into decision-making.

Furthermore, the immediate goal is not necessarily the best goal nor should be the focus. From an economic perspective, the question becomes, "what are the downstream costs and benefits?" The implementation of a policy or idea tomorrow may seem like a really good idea, and have an immediate payoff and be immediately gratifying. The problem with such short-sighted thinking involves the future cost of an action which seemed like a good idea at the time and a decade later we have yet to even figure out how to pay for our decision.

"what are the downstream costs and benefits?"

Now, you can read between the lines and say, "oh, he is talking about Afghanistan." No, not necessarily. Individually, we all make choices which seem incidental at the time, we use credit cards, we receive financial aid, we buy a car and a boat. We have great expectations about our degree we graduated with. But, as a person with a Master's Degree in European History, what the hell am I going to do with it? What was I thinking? You weren't.

In the United States, we have encouraged people to stick their heads' in their butts, and said,

"Honey, if you're happy with your head in your butt, then I'm happy for you. Here, have a cookie. Oh, wait. You're head is in your butt. You won't be able to eat your cookie."

The Grand Old Party (GOP) and Conservatives have no interest in changing anything and would be more than happy if all U.S. citizens would put their heads firmly into their butts. By definition, the GOP and Conservatives believe this. A Conservative is one

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." (Dictionary.com)

To be Conservative then means to actively be engaged in the promotion of ignorance. Whether heads are in butts or buried in the sand the results are the same: the world changes while we do not change, adapt, modify, or evolve our behavior.

To be Conservative means to fear change, fear newness, fear difference, to be suspicious of different skin colors, of different languages, of different religions - nor no religion, to fear new ideas.

To be Conservative means to actively oppose change, to actively oppose even the notion of challenging old methods, techniques, and ideas.

Today, Conservatives are not simply advocates of the Status Quo, but the advocates of the Status Quo of yesterday, of last week, of last year, of the last 50 years.

Today, Conservatives argue against Same-sex marriage, advocate for Christian prayer in public schools, advocate for teaching the Bible in public schools, advocate Intelligent Design as theory (its not, its philosophy), advocate for the removal of the teaching of Evolution as science (it is science), advocate for the removal of foreign languages from public schools, advocate for the removal of arts and music from public schools, and perhaps worst of all, advocate for the abolishment of Department of Education.

Today, Conservatives will argue Democrats want "everyone to be the same." To be clear, I am not arguing for Democrats. The Conservative Argument is a logical fallacy. Democrats do not want everyone to be the same; they want everyone to have the same opportunity regardless of race, sex, gender, religion or creed. In fact, I contend Democrats want everyone to be different and want to encourage difference and acceptance of difference.

Conservatives are not congruent.

Conservatives refused to acknowledge Islam as a religion. They refuse to acknowledge the issues of inner city Blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color. They refuse to acknowledge China and the government in Beijing is a partner with Chinese, Korean, and Japanese companies and has already focused on Green Technology and is now the world leader in solar panel technology and wind turbine technology. They refuse to acknowledge the importance of a unified approach to a national educational system to address the needs of today and the future of the United States. They refuse to acknowledge undisciplined finances are detrimental to our national educational system. They refuse to acknowledge education and health care are fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Conservatives see all change as a threat and something to be stopped. Wikileaks has proven this. All one must do to verify this is to examine SOPA and PIPA and the recent "Citizens United" decision.

Conservatives do not want people thinking for themselves and they certainly do not want to encourage free-thinkers to organize themselves via social media. While Conservatives might castigate Democrats for providing "welfare" to groups of people, and often rightly so, Conservatives want to control individual behavior, your bedroom behavior, your religious behavior, and what you have access to on the Internet.

Conservatives are working towards building a country of well-defended ignoramuses.

Conservatives won't spend money on Education but will be more than happy to spend more money on Defense, despite the fact the United States spends more money on defense than all other countries combined. And, while we will be able to shoot anyone, anywhere, anytime - because we will have smart Asians and a few U.S. citizens building military hardware for us; and, we will have some wealthy people who will have used family money to be able to attend Brown or Columbia and then segue their financial talents into Wall St, whereupon they will yet earn more money by taking advantage of the median U.S. citizen who have become dumbed-down by Conservative fears and ossified notions that decreased military spending translates into a Chinese takeover within a year.

Conservative ideologues and their bankrupt hypotheses not only hold back U.S. entrepreneurial energies but are fundamentally damaging to the social fabric of the United States. From the Birthers to politicians who refused to acknowledge Pres. Obama's presidency to the local Conservative who refuse to acknowledge Islam, Mormonism, Sikhism, or Atheism, the presence of these ideas undeniable contribute to the societal schisms in current U.S. life.

Conservatives are responsible for the lion's portion of the blame. The intolerance towards GLBT. The intolerance towards non-Christian faiths. The intolerance towards people of color. The intolerance towards education. The intolerance toward environmental protection and food safety.

I really think people ought to question why they believe the what they believe. Is it simply dogma, handed down from parents, or religious leaders? Is it simply a problem of thinking, in general? The historical inertia of false ideologies is too great to divert? Fear of being ostracized for being different?

If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, its intolerance.

And, I will never be a Conservative.

I hate the label, Liberal. But, over the last 3 years or so, of watching Conservatives denigrate in all things I find value, "Liberal" has become synonymous with "being educated."

By definition, Conservatives ride their horse into the future based on what they see behind them, and too afraid to turn around to see the path ahead.

I want to ride my horse into the future and plan for what I see ahead.

PAX

This Island of the United States

To understand the cultural, social, and political complexity of the United States thinking of North America as an "island" often helps. As I typed that statement I also wonder if another Thought Model (allegory) might be better, that of a watchtower along the perimeter of a prison yard, with the United States being the watchtower, our government being the guards, a few other developed countries being other watchtowers (Germany, France, Great Britain), and the prison yard full of prisoners, all of which have a spectrum of rights allowed to them, e.g. Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, etc. And, the thought also occurs to me which parents might appreciate is the notion of people telling you how to raise your kids based only on what they see while shopping at Kroger and not see the complete account of all actions throughout the day.

My point is, it's easy for someone to tell you what to do or how to act when they have little to no vested interest in the outcome, and won't bear any penalty for advice or action which goes wrong.
And, some of these people giving out advice are so far removed from their own nascent beginnings they forget how chaotic those circumstances were.

Western society, Europe plus the United States and Canada, have spent a couple hundred years hammering out the details of the Free, Fair, and Open Society. Make no mistake, this endeavor is still a work in progress. Yet, we have for the most part decided our conversations about our societal openness must occur in a non-violent way. These debates have not always been so; all one has to look at is the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Anti-war Vietnam Protests and Kent State, or the Socialist Labor Movement of the 20th century and we have plenty of evidence that civil unrest can be met with physical violence and death.

Events in the Middle East, from the Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, and the September 2012 Mohammed Movie Controversy appear to the Western World as violence associated with unsophisticated, ignorant, and underdeveloped societies.

And, to some extent, this is true.

Middle Eastern societies have evolved along a different societal form than societies in Europe. Most of the Middle East societies are tribally based where alliances are between large families and not to a central government. Monarchies developed, or were encouraged to develop by Western Powers, in order for countries to conduct business with each other. It is much more convenient to negotiate an oil deal with one person than negotiate with multiple tribal leaders scattered over the wilderness, right?

Monarchies enriched by the oil trade are not likely to cede power to anyone. If anything, monarchies are more likely to condense power into a few trusted family members, brothers, uncles, nephews, and cousins. Power becomes concentrated within a cluster of a few people who are given titles, like Minister of Oil, Minister of Trade, Minister of the Military, etc., but really are representative of the strength of the monarchical family.

In order to maintain the power of the family, the Monarchy, really a Dynasty, as governing power is passed to male family members, all opposition to the monarchical rule is crushed. And, if the religious leaders can be co-opted to support the monarchy, so much the better. Then, the hearts and souls of the population are essentially captured. And, by association, the mind is then captured, as most people will make decisions based on their feelings, that is, their heart or spiritual leanings than with their mind.

With the exception of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, who actively supports education, the building of universities and technical schools, and sends thousands of Saudi students abroad for education every year, the Middle East is overburdened with societal and cultural ignorance of the rest of the world.

Governments have actively suppressed education and societal openness. Governments have shutdown Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Governments actively spy on their citizen's cellphone conversations. Middle Easterners who use Blackberries should be aware that every single text, cellphone conversation, and voicemail is being stored and analyzed. Any comments against governments, families, or Islam run the risk of being used as a means to persecute the account holder or the account holder's family and friends. Jordan, Syria, Iran, UAE, Bahrain have all instituted draconian policies against certain types of speech.

In fact, being able to speak freely without incident is a very recent freedom for Libyans, Egyptians, Saudis, Tunisians, and millions of others throughout the Middle East. For decades, if not centuries, people throughout the Middle East have been punished, tortured, beaten, imprisoned, or killed for voicing opposition to the government. The Arab Spring Uprising began in Tunisia when a man set himself on fire because a local government official was trying to extort money from him, a common practice at the time in Tunisia. A person had no legal recourse, no way out; pay me money to sell from your cart or I will arrest you and put you in prison.

Bahrain activates its army to end protests. Syria activates its military to end protests and punish everyone and every town involved in the protests. Jordan issues a warrant for the arrest of YouTube.
Rather than address issues of important speech and open communication, governments, out of fear and cowardice, attack their own populations. "This is the way it has always been done." How many times have you heard that while growing up, right?

Even our own government forgets lessons it should have learned long ago, with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Forget for a moment the idea behind OWS, and focus on the idea a government will respond with police action or military action to suppress the rights of speech for large groups of people who come together out of a unifying concern or issue. Never is this a good thing to have happen. Not for a country which prides itself on the ability of sharing thoughts, ideas, and foundations of open, honest, and fair communication.

Consider for a moment those days a little over a year ago when OWS protestors in New York City were assaulted by police officers with mace and tear gas simply for protesting the egregious and wanton behavior of Wall Street investment companies wasting shareholder money on investments of dubious quality and of extremely high risk with no accountability. And, a year later, no changes to accountability have been implemented, little to no punishment and few Wall Street investment companies have altered their behavior.

Two points from all of this; one, the United States needs to get beyond the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. The hypocrisy of telling other countries to encourage free speech while simultaneously discouraging or shutting down speech in the United States will be lost on only the completely obtuse.
Second, countries exhibiting violence with regards to art, science, literature, and media available in other countries should be expected. These countries have been run by military or authoritarian governments, governments which have absolute control over all media, and the people living in these countries for the most part have no idea what it means to have "freedom of expression." To these people, expressing one's self always had bad consequences, loss of job, jail time, prison time, jailing of family members, and even death.

As long as countries like Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain continue to remain closed or resistant there will always be violent reaction to perceived insults and misunderstandings.

In a way they, too, are cultural and social islands, just like the United States.

Why manufacturing matters for America

The United States will always need local manufacturing. But, we do need a new manufacturing philosophy and new economic plans for continued success. Our current manufacturing environment continues to support labor practices and strategies which are still firmly rooted in early 20th century labor sentiments. We will never hold our own against other countries if we continue to behave as if we are a developing nation. We need heavy investment in education, training, and workforce enhancement to moderate structural changes in U.S. labor markets.

New York Times: "The Weatherman is NOT a Moron"

The New York Times has a cool article on Meteorology. The article is chock-full of good information, from the education required to analyze weather and climate, challenges faced in forecasting, the supercomputers used in forecasting, and some statistics on the improvement of forecasting and especially warning systems. Meteorology requires a ghastly amount of computer power. An interesting comment, though I suspect some embellishment, stated the supercomputing center generates its own weather simply due to the heat the center generates.

Here is a link to the Nick Silver article [link].

Thunderstorms of September 6th, 2012

Bow Echo Thunderstorm systems are exciting :^) This is a screenshot taken on an iPad using the Intellicast app and which I have annotated using Paint.Net.

Bow Echo thunderstorm systems for quickly and move fast. They form from large differences in pressure between the surface and winds aloft creating wind shear. Bow Echo thunderstorms can generate winds in excess of 60MPH during their brief lives. They generally do not spawn tornadoes unless they are part of a larger series of Bow Echo thunderstorms like ...



...this one. Multiple Bow Echo thunderstorm systems are not comforting. Besides bringing strong straight-line winds, these can spawn tornadoes, and be part of a larger weather system called a "derecho" (dah-RAY-cho). Derecho are not a comforting sight, either.



Derechos are often called "shelf clouds" due to their very flat appearance with a clearly defined leading edge. They are generally 10s to 100s of miles in length, a long ribbon of clouds which foretell the immediate arrival of very bad and potential dangerous weather, strong winds and tornadoes.



The above image is the derecho which ran through our region in April 2011. I think this is the one which provided us with straight line winds of nearly 70mphs - almost like a Category 1 hurricane.

Using weather apps, Unisys, Intellicast, for example, can provide you with a cool way of watching thunderstorm development. Thunderstorms can have diagnostic features which help in their classification. Knowing what a few of these diagnostic appearances are can help even an "Armchair Meteorologist" determine what the coming weather system might be like, whether a simple shower is in the offing, or if you should bring in Toto and head for the storm shelter.

The Geography of Apple v. Samsung

I'm writing my post from my "13-inch Late 2007 MacBook" while I follow updates regarding Tropical Storm Isaac on my iPad 2. I have my iPhone 3GS within arm's reach as my iPhone is the only phone I own. While appreciate Apple's devices, I am not an Apple fanboy. I cut my proverbial teeth on MS-DOS and PC-DOS, have experience in Sun Microsystem's Solaris (both Unix and x86 flavors), in IBM's AIX (another Unix flavor), and have used a variety of Linux versions. However, due in part to wide-spread adoption of Microsoft programing and operating system environments, I have some experience with every MS OS since Windows 3.

Apple's victory over Samsung will have some interesting ramifications for the technology industry, some good, some not so good, and some bad.

Of some note is the disparity in international legal decisions with respect to Apple's legal claims as pertains to their patents. Most Americans may not be aware Apple has sued Samsung not only in the United States, but in Germany, in Italy, in the UK, in South Korea, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Australia.

Apple won an injunction in Germany against Samsung and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Apple itself is being sued by Motorola over push-notification technology in Germany. Motorola developed a push-notification technology for pagers upon which current push-notification technology is based. Sort of.

In Europe, and in South Korea, Apple has not made much headway in patent battles. The reason behind their inability to find favor abroad seems to be related to courts abroad being immune to notions that rounded corners should be a patentable feature.

Abroad, patenting environments are considerably different than in the United States. In the United States, an idea sketched on a napkin has the potential of being patented. A square or rectangle with arrows denoting various features has the potential of being enough to capture a patent license. Writing a bit of software code has the potential of being patented.

The idea behind patenting is to protect a real and useful "concrete" technology from being stolen by others and to provide the developer time enough to recover costs and make a little money. The idea must be able to be engineered and  implemented. The idea must represent a new and unique advancement of the natural sciences. In other words, mathematical formulas, business processes, the presentation of information, and software cannot be patented. Yet, another way, you cannot hold a formula or process in your hand; you can hold the tangible outcome of the utilization of a process in your hand, but not the process itself.

Are consumers really so dumb as to think the Samsung is literally a generic iPhone?

Can a shape be patentable? Should a shape be patentable? Should a gesture be patentable?

My response to the above is, no, shapes and gestures are "open source." In other words, they are not unique and represent no form of technological enhancement or contribution. In fact, language is "open source," too.

If language were not "open source" imagine the complexity of paying people who license every word imaginable and also licensed every permutation of every possible letter combination which might result in a new word. Every author would become instantly bankrupt.

Yet, in the United States, that seems to be where we are heading. The US Patent Office allows companies to patent their software code. Allowing patenting of software code is much like allowing Stephen King to patent all the words in his books so no one else could use those books. What S King does is copy-protect his stories, and to some extent he is offered protection from other writers deriving verbatim his works. Musicians cannot copyright the notes they use, but they can copyright the composition and lyrics.

In Europe and abroad, computer languages are seen much like spoken or written languages. Companies are limited as to what they can protect with software patents. Code which accesses a DVD drive, or a software port, or a mouse, or calculates the volume of a sphere - I'm sure there are better examples cannot be patented simply because of the finite number of ways such events can occur. To sue someone because of button placement, button appearance, or button behavior is simply asinine in most European countries because these do not meet the criteria of being new and unique advancements.

In the United States, though, we seem to be heading down the path where even small snippets of code are patentable.

Take the Oracle v. Google lawsuit related to Java. Google was able to eke out a winning decision v. Oracle. In Europe, a similar lawsuit would doubtfully succeeded, as well. The judge did say the judgment did not apply to all APIs, however. The European High Court ruled against the US company SAS, stating "a computer language or the functionality of a computer program cannot be copyrighted."

The theme behind my comments reflects the changes the US patent system must implement to ensure and promote innovation and squelch those who simply want to be paid for property which is falsely labeled as "intellectual." Rounding edges, pinching screens, and vague descriptions of techniques for communicating using copper wire or via wireless communication networks need to be filtered before entering the patent system.

"Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone"

One comment I read this morning hinted the decision might be a good one for the industry. The judgment against Samsung will foster MORE innovation, not less, the contributor argued, because people will have to be more creative to avoid Apple's design elements. Companies need to stop jumping on the bandwagon, for sure. Samsung is a global telecommunications company and has been a dominant player in the smartphone market. True, Samsung made some very bad choices which essentially gave the jury no choice but to find in Apple's favor. However, if Samsung had simply said, "Oh, a smoothed rectangle works well in pockets, briefcases, and backpacks. Now, let's build a brilliant phone" they probably would have been OK. Instead, they opted to nearly reverse engineer an iPhone, which is really dumb, and now Samsung's own stupidity has brought a queasiness sense of dread to an entire technology sector, putting everyone on edge. Hopefully, though, the verdict will act as a cold splash of Reality in the faces of technology design teams around the world. "Oh, shit, we've been mesmerized by Apple. Duh. OK, everyone lets get creative."

As a direct result of the decision, lawyers will undoubtedly play an even bigger role in technology design simply to prevent further patent legal issues. Is this really good for innovation, to have more legalese involved simply to make sure Technology A does not "steal" from Technology B? Do we really want lawyers designing our technology?

"No, the radius of the curve is 0.57. The i6 has a curve radius of 0.54. That is only an 8% difference; that will never hold up in court. Your going to have to use a chamfered corner, instead.

No, you cannot use rounded icons. Let me consult the list of open source shapes, and those shape which have yet to be patented. Hmm, well, octogons are out. The octogon shape has been patented by the UFC. Uhm, no pentagons, either. Homeland Security doesn't want terrorists to be constantly reminded of what the Department of Defense building looks like. No triangles, either; GLBT have patented all triangle variants and most shades of pink and purple. Well, I'm going to have to get back to you on this."

All of this might seem silly, yet in light of swimmer Ryan Lochte wanting to patent the word "Jeah!" my comments seem pretty realistic.

Patents, in a sense, create a monopoly for the owner. In a corporate sense, hegemony, which is worse. Hegemony means complete ownership and domination. An examination of Apple's suits worldwide, as I discussed earlier, almost argues Apple is looking not simply for protection of intellectual property but complete hegemony over the global telecommunications markets, using local, regional, national, and international court systems.

I realize the jury made their judgment based on current US legal doctrine. The judgment might be "lawful" but was their judgment "prudent?" Recently, the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Brievik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for his crimes, the maximum legal judgement in Norway. In the United States, with 100% surety Breivik would have spent his remaining days in prison, or been executed. In Norway, Breivik's sentence was "lawful" in that he was punished to the maximum Norwegian courts allow, but was his punishment in proportion to the deaths of 77 people, most of them schoolchildren? That is my point. Sometimes, what is lawful is not necessarily proportional to the crime nor prudent.

Sidenote: Breivik will probably never again see the light of day. After commenting in court he didn't kill enough people, the judges will most likely extend his sentence. In Norway, while the maximum sentence is 21 years, options exist for extending prison terms by 5-year increments.

Patents were designed to be granted for tangible objects which represent new and unique technologies developed from knowledge of the natural sciences. A CD, or DVD, or Blu-Ray, or SD card reflect patentable materials. However, patent laws in effect today have not changed much to account for technology, innovation, or rapidly changing global economies. Pharmaceuticals are in the same IP/Patent boat which affects the prices we pay for medication, potentially keeping them artificially higher than they should be.

The patent process needs to be fully examined to ensure fair and equitable standards are implemented which work to the benefit of designers, developers, and consumers.