More Sun Tzu: The Healing Arts

-------------------------
I really liked the little book quoted from the previous post, so here's a bit more with a little different twist;

From the Translator's Introduction, the following:

"According to an old story, a lord of ancient China once asked his physician, a member of a family of healers, which of them was the most skilled in the art.

The physician, whose reputation was such that his name became synonymous with medical science in China, replied,
"My eldest brother sees the the spirit of sickness and removes it before it takes shape, so his name does not get out of the house.

My elder brother cures illness when it is still extremely minute, so his name does not get out of the neighborhood.

As for me, I puncture veins, prescribe potions, and massage skin, so from time to time my name gets out and is heard among the lords."

Among the tales of ancient China, none captures more beautifully than this the essence of the Art of War, the premier classic of the science of strategy in conflict.

The healing arts and the martial arts may be a world apart in ordinary usage, but they are parallel in several senses; in recognizing, as the story says, that the less needed the better; in the sense that both involve strategy in dealing with disharmony; and in the sense that in both knowledge of the problem is key to the solution.
----------------

In both healing arts and martial arts Sun Tzu's philosophy the peak efficiency of knowledge and strategy is to make conflict altogether unnecessary.
And like the story of the healers, there are are all grades of martial arts;:

The superior militarist foils enemies' plots;
next best is to ruin their alliances;
next after that is to attack their armed forces;
worst is to besiege cities.

The ideal strategy whereby one could win without fighting, accomplish the most by doing the least, bears the characteristic stamp of Taoism, the ancient tradition of knowledge that fostered both the healing arts and the martial arts in China.
The ancient Taoist masters showed how the man of aggressive violence appears to be ruthless but is really an emotionalist; then they slay the emotionalist with real ruthlessness before revealing the spontaneous nature of free humanity.

Real ruthlessness, the coldness of complete objectivity, always includes oneself in its cutting assessment of the real situation.

Real ruthlessness can be perceived as inhumane, but this is not used by the original philosophers as a justification for quasi-ruthless possessive aggression, but instead as a meditation on the ultimate meaninglessness of the greed and possessiveness that underlie aggression.

In India, Buddhist aspirants used to visit burning grounds and watch the corpses of those whose families couldn't afford a cremation rot away.
They did this to terrify the greed and possessiveness out of themselves.
After that they turned their minds toward thoughts of ideal individuals and ideal societies.

Similarly, Master Sun has his readers dwell on the ravages of war, from its incipient phases of treachery and alienation to its extreme forms of incendiary attack and siege, viewed as a sort of mass cannibalism of human and natural resources.
With this device he gives the reader an enhanced feeling for the significance of individual and social virtues espoused by humanitarian pacifists.

Paradox is often thought of as a standard device of Taoist psychology, used to cross imperceptible barriers of awareness.
Perhaps the paradox of the Art of War is in its opposition to war.
And, as The Art of War wars against war, it does so by its own principles;
it infiltrates the enemy's lines, uncovers the enemy's secrets, and changes the hearts of the enemy's troops.
----------------

Writings like this ancient one renew my hope that there is a better, more peaceful and more sustainable future for those living on this planet, despite the many formidable challenges.

In particular, the concept of individual actions that can be magnified and become part of our personal, local, regional, national and international dialogue.
Such changes as we need are within our ability to achieve, but not without the clear thinking, right actions and hard work that actually make steady and meaningful progress.

Perhaps, the time is upon us for for this transformation to grow in earnest, with all the financial, social and environmental problems that have become evident to all but the willfully blind.
We are literally witnessing our own version of burning grounds now, if we care to look at the world's situation that way!

I hope that being faced with such severe challenges will now spur us to correct their causes, and soon.
I will try to do what I can to make the individual changes that I can, and that are so clearly calling out to be made.
I hope you will consider this as a clear opportunity to do so too.

May God bless us all in this endeavor.
----------------------

On Warriors & War

From a translator's preface of Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War', published by Shambala in 1991, comes the following:

The Art of War, compiled well over 2000 years ago by a mysterious Chinese warrior-philosopher, is still perhaps the most prestiguous and influential book of strategy in the world today, as eagerly studied in Asia by modern politicians and executives as it has been by military leaders and strategists for the last two millenia and more.

In Japan, which was transformed directly from a feudal culture into a corporate culture virtually overnight, contemprary students of the Art of War have applied the strategy of this ancient classic to modern politics and business with similar alacrity. Indeed, some see in the successes of postwar Japan an illustration of Sun Tzu's dictum of the classic, "To win without fighting is best."

As a study of the anatomy of organizations in conflict, The Art of War applies to competition and conflict in general, on every level from the interpersonal to the international. Its aim is invincibility, victory without battle, and unassailable strength through understanding of the physics, politics, and psychology of conflict.

This translation of the Art of War presents the classic from the point of view of its background in the great spirual tradition of Taoism. What is most characteristically Taoist about the Art of War in such a way as to recommend itself to the modern day is the manner in which power is continually tempered by a profound undercurrent of humanism. The Art of War is thus a book not only of war but also of peace, above all a tool for understanding the very roots of conflict and resolution.

-----------------

Why would one imagine the lessons of Sun Tzu apply only to an actual war?
It seems to me that he believed, as I do, that actually fighting war was an indication of the failure of every other option.
Of course, Sun Tzu was always prepared for that eventuality and ready to fight fiercely and bravely if it came to that.
But, to him the ultimate success was to achieve a 'victory' by avoiding the fighting!
One certainly has to have a better grasp as to what constitutes a 'victory' than our current leaders, including President Bush and Senator John McCain.

I have the highest respect for Senator McCain, but he is not acting like the legitimate hero he is.
Maybe that's because he is trying so hard to match or surpass the careers of his father, grandfather and earlier ancestors, all of which had very distinguished military service.
And with my own Scottish heritage and limited Navy service, I do have many common beliefs and values that I share with John McCain.
But, I feel he is going about playing the hero, fear and anger cards too strongly, and at the expense of seeing the broader scope of conflict that Sun Tzu saw.
One does not have to fight in a war to be an effective warrior.
In fact, there may be a real danger in having a President whose first instinct is to fight!
--------------

The English language expression 'silver spoon' is an expression for wealth; someone born into a wealthy family is said to have "been born with a silver spoon in his mouth".
I think John McCain was born a 'brass spoon' because of his family's Navy and long military heritage.
That can be a blessing and a curse, as McCain himself seems to imply in his book 'Faith of my Fathers'.

McCain's military heritage is even broader than his father's and grandfather's Naval careers.
He also claims ancestral links to royalty; the famous fighting Scot, Robert the Bruce; a General in Washington's Continental Army and another grandfather, William Alexander McCain (b. North Carolina, 1812 – d. 1863), who died in the Civil War while serving as a private in Company I, 5th Regiment, Mississippi Cavalry, Confederate States Army.
During his life, this grandfather owned a 2,000-acre plantation in Carroll County, Mississippi known as "Teoc", as well as 52 slaves.

With that kind of background, who could doubt John McCain's patriotism and bravery?
Warriors of his dedication and skill are important to the future security of our Country, as are the US troops now serving in our military.
But, Amercia was established for peaceful purposes, to be governed by citizens and civilians, not professional military leaders.
It is important that our military be kept strong and ready, but also in check to be used only as necessary, and then as a last resort.
That is what Sun Tzu learned and has passed along to us through his teachings.
I think it would behoove us to pay attention to those ancient words of wisdom, be guided by them and adopt them as our National policy.
----------------

Term Limits: Great Taste or Less Filling?

-------------------
Term Length -not Limits- and the City Council has now become a question that asks voters their opinion, which seems a healthy practice.
It's taken a while to even get the limited measure of equalizing terms of office available for the public to weigh in upon, so resistant has been the Council in protecting some pretty ossified elements of the City Charter.

Fortunately, that ice has already been broken and a few measures actually adopted that ought to help our local governance going into the future.
Now, people get to decide whether voting for 1 of 7 Council seats makes sense every 2 years,which is a very short time for any new Council member to become accustomed to their elected duties.

Notice, I mention any NEW member, because new members will be elected from time to time, whether an incumbent remains in office for a long period of time or not.
Naturally, a long-seated incumbent ought to have learned the job pretty well or they would not have been re-elected.

But, the question is not so much a member's re-election as it is their enthusiasm and effectiveness in the office they hold.
As someone who served for 9 years on the Council, I found my enthusiasm was directly proportional to my effectiveness, and both distinctly began to wane after 4 or 5 years.

Others undoubtedly have greater tolerance for the frustration, boredom and demands that an elected legislative office brings than I did, notwithstanding the accomplishments and sense of understanding that comes with such service.
I stayed too long, and I knew it. Then I couldn't wait to get out.
That partly reflects the way I saw the job, as challenging, of broad scope and unrelenting.
I certainly did not view my term in office as any sort of ego trip, or a chance to gratify my 'base', or an arbitrary exercise in pandering to populism.
But, all of that is just me, and this piece isn't about that subject at all, except as one perspective.

Bottom line is I think it healthy to have some turnover, not only on the Council, but in each seat.
That way, more folks get a chance to really learn what it means to serve others, to understand the rules under which decisions must be made, and to more fully appreciate problems and issues from more than one perspective.
In a diverse population such as ours, it is important for as many responsible people as possible to have the chance to serve, not only in volunteer positions, but in elected ones.

As a corollary, it is sensible for equal offices to have equal terms.
That not only insures sufficient time to learn the job, but also removes a formidable political barrier that favors incumbents.
In Whatcom County, there are reported to be about 232 elected offices, and only 1 -that of the City Council At-Large Seat- has a term of 2 years.
That ought to be a signal that something could be easily corrected.
------------------------

Years ago, Miller Lite Beer had a commercial that used 3 Major League Baseball Players as actors in a trumped-up 'argument' about whether the beer should be drunk because it 'tasted better', or 'was less filling'.
Anyone besides me remember that?
Anyway, in the commercial, the argument got really heated, before a third famous player was introduced to be the arbitrator.
Of course, that 3rd player turned out to be none other than Billy Martin, a known hot-head during his career.
When asked to decide between the 2 'arguments', Billy simply said, he felt strongly both ways!
And so it is with Term Limits.
There is no set answer, but the positions involved do vary, and the circumstances have to be evaluated to fit.

Why would Term Limits be considered at all?
For any position?
Might it have something to do with Americans not wanting to set up their elected officials as their entrenched, de facto, rulers?
How about having a failsafe plan to weed out the ne'er-do-wells from time to time?
What about introducing fresh blood, ideas, energy and approaches?
I can think of other reasons, too, but these may be the main ones.

Why would mandatory Term Limits be a bad idea?
Why would you want to get rid of some elected official who is still doing a very good job?
What about the impact of excessive turnover in a time of real crisis?
Would that be wise?
------------------

Lately, this question has come up from several angles, all of which bear on the question of when, where and how Term Limits should be properly employed.
Here are some situations to consider:

US Supreme Court
Our Founding Fathers saw lifetime appointments for the Justices as a way to separate the powers between the 3 branches of government.
In particular, they wanted to avoid excessive power of the Executive that could come from either short term limits, or appointed Justices.
Did they succeed?
Partly, I think.
The Executive still gets to appoint Justices, but only after relatively long periods of time, which can produce imbalances anyway.
Then, there's the question of the demands of any responsible office that is for lifetime duration.
Do Justices stay in office longer than is best for either them or our Country?
And, if they do, what can be done to remove them?
---------

SEC Chairman:
Alan Greenspan served in this office for 20 years, from 1987 until 2006, under successive appointments by at least 3 different Presidents.
Was this tenure justified, based upon the severe financial crisis that has befallen us because of unchecked -and unregulated- greed?
Mr Greenspan himself admitted that his market theory was 'flawed', and that earlier detection of it may have prevented the current melt-down that has taken on global proportions.
What is wrong with this picture?
Can't we set up an oversight using multiple views and experts, so that at least we have an early warning system in place?
--------------

Mayor of New York:
Michael Bloomberg, the current Mayor, is up against a 2-Term Limit, but has requested the NY City Council's approval to run for a third term because of his expertise in dealing with the current severe financial crisis.
That sounds very reasonable to me, as it also has to 29 of the 51 members of the NY City Council.
So, it will probably happen, despite the carping of some political rivals.

From the NY Times:
"Many New Yorkers believe that if anyone changes the law, it should be the voters, not the Council. Many also see the proposal as a cynical effort by the mayor — who in the past has supported the law — and some Council members to change the rules in midcourse and perpetuate their own political careers.
We understand these objections, but there is a greater issue. This page has always strongly opposed term limits, and we continue to oppose them. We believe they infringe a basic American right: the voters’ right to choose who they want in office. If we had our way, the Council would be voting to abolish term limits altogether."

It seems Term Limits haven't always been the case in NYC, but sometimes the times require changes.
I don't remember ever seeing something cut in stone about Term Limits, except the voters -or their representatives- get to decide the issue from time to time.
And, if the voters' representatives get it wrong, they themselves can be punished at the ballot box.
--------------

In time, Bellingham may also want to consider Term Limits, but right now the issue is a much smaller one - that of Term Equality.
I strongly support Term Equality, and can think of no good reason why it should not be applied to every elected office of equal weight and responsibility.
-----------------

Footnote:
Not far removed in fairness is the issue of so-called 'District Voting', which is bad idea for many of the same reasons.
The system Whatcom County adopted a few years ago was misguided, and ought to be returned to the former system.
The former system is the same one now used in the City of Bellingham;
Each Council Member who represents a specific Ward, is required to live in that Ward -the exception being the At-Large Member.
Primary Elections -by Ward only, as necessary- determine the top 2 candidates from each Ward.
General Elections are for the entire City population of voters to decide.
That is certainly the fairest possible method to guarantee candidates are elected who see the job as representing the entire City.
Ward-only, or District-only voting only serves the interests of those who see it easier to attain and maintain control over a office with 'feudal' boundaries.
In England, this practice degenerated into so-called 'Rotten Boroughs'. You can Google it for details.
For most of the issues we face, that is a mistake that is avoidable, but only if voters recognize it as such.

Subscribing to the following idea might solve both of the afore-mentioned problems; think of all elected Council Offices as 'District Apportioned At-Large' positions.
That would require each candidate to not only reside in the District they represent, but to also obtain a majority of the County-wide vote.
Just seems fairer and simpler to me.
Last I checked those are pretty good goals to shoot for.
-------------------

Letter from a former Lt Governor of Alaska

Many people may be too young to remember either Lowell Thomas or his son.
Lowell the father was a renowned radio news broadcaster, world traveler and adventurer.
Lowell the son is a former Lt. Gov. of Alaska who has lived there for the past 48 years.
For Lowell the son and his wife to send the letter below (in their 80's) really says something about our time.

[double click to enlarge]

This & That

Just a few random thoughts, loosely connected:
----------

Now that strong action to enable the rescue of our economy has been taken there will likely be endless debate on the details.
That is healthy, and certainly better than continuing to do nothing and finger pointing.
But, the job is not nearly over! This is just the beginning of the beginning, as the stock market is showing once again.
And, let's not forget what got us into this mess either!
Incompetence and the ideology of so-called 'free markets' that turned out to be not so free.
-------

One pundit wrote recently that John McCain needs a simple and understandable plan for our economy to rescue his own campaign for President.
My friends -can I use that term?- if McCain had such a plan that stood a chance of working, wouldn't he have mentioned it by now?
Additionally, the same pundit opined that McCain ought to articulate his plan in 15 to 20 seconds!
Absurd as that sounds, this is October and politicians the world over have been known to try such desperate gambits.
---------

Did anyone else catch the humor inherent in the name of the Treasury official in charge of implementing the rescue plan for restoring the availability of credit in our economy?
His name is Neel Kashkari, a perfectly good name in itself.
But, phonetically it reminds me of 'cash & carry', which implies the old fashioned kind of credit; cash in exchange for goods.
Maybe, that's a good omen?
--------------

I can think of a few folks I'd rather see leave our planet than Tina Fey, don't you?
Think she might run for office one day?
We could do worse, as is being shown repeatedly.
--------------

Now comes the news that our national deficit will set a new record high this year, about $455 Billion.
That's not a good kind of record to be setting, is it?
The old record of only $413 Billion was set in 2004 by the same Bush league administration.
projects for 2009 are in the neighborhood of $700 Billion, a formidable problem for an incoming President that about equals the amount of the bail-out!
Tell me again, why does anyone want to be President?
But, maybe you'd rather listen to Dick Cheney who said 'deficits don't matter!
-----------

Some folks are complaining that the deals being offered to Banks are 'too sweet'.
Think that might be because the Government needs the banks more than vice versa?
Why not listen more to Warren Buffett?
He got a much sweeter deal than the Guvmint, because he demanded it and was willing to walk away!
Think people like Buffett ought to be consulted more frequently for their real business sense?
Personally. I'd trust him more than any current administration ideologue or hack.
But, that's just me...
--------

Out

Large Doses of Realism

"May you live in interesting times.' - An old Chinese proverb

Interesting doesn't always mean fun, does it?
But, changes are a'coming, whether they will prove to be positive ones or the other kind.
I do hope this Presidential Election has already experienced most of its 'October Surprise', compliments of our economy's excesses.
Just sorting out that mess will require some considerable effort, including prudent discipline, over time.
Then, it may be time to re-learn some of the same lessons again!

One of the themes of these elections has been to look forward to the future, not backward to the past.
How can that be done responsibly?
Don't we need to reexamine the causes and effects we have already seen to avoid stumbling into the same pitfalls again?
Surely, we don't need to reinvent the wheel every time!

Recently, I've read two books which attempt to put our past into context, then suggest better ways to manage our national affairs going forward.
Since all politics are local, perhaps there are lessons imbedded which we can begin to implement better at home.
Anyway, here are the books:

"Hot, Flat and Crowded' by Thomas L. Friedman [412 pages]
subtitle: Why we need a Green Revolution - and how it can renew America

"The Limits of Power" by Andrew J Bacevich [182 pages]
subtitle: The End of American Exceptionalism

Both books are fascinating and quite readable, with Friedman [a liberal Democrat] focusing on the convergence of three undeniable trends; global warming, globalization and global population explosion.
He identifies some bad habits that will need to recognized and changed, as well as some good habits we will have to learn and put into practice -and soon.

Bacevich [a conservative Republican] writes in a unique style and from the perspective of a high-minded knowledge of history. He -like Friedman- concludes that our 'empire of consumption contains the seeds of its own destruction'.
This is further exacerbated by our foreign policy establishment in Washington, DC, which is totally incapable of coming to grips with reality -despite who becomes President.

Despite their clear-eyed analyses of endemic problems, both books contain glimpses of how we can do better.
Interestingly, both authors conclude that America's continued dependence on fossil fuels and foreign sources are at the root of our dilemma.
Friedman's conclusions seem ambitious, but achievable.
Bacevich is less so, quoting from Reinhold Niebuhr's axiom of willful self-destruction; for states and social orders that fail to accept that the same rules which apply to others also applies to them.
What a concept!

Looking Out The Window

Above ground, from back to fore, sky, cloud, ephemeral & changing wisps,

sylvan serrations, swaying limbs, steady trunks, grainy bark, shimmering leaves,

in differing hues & shadows - dark green to lighter, yellows, beginnings of browns,

all blended together as Nature's smoothie.

Changing light trending to dimmer & darker, with interspersed brightening moments,

A statement of Peace, hiding in plain sight.

Until the moment of awareness arrives - fleeting, yet memorable.

And, likely to happen again & again, with variations on the theme...

The Dismal Science & 15 Minutes of Fame

Many years ago, Andy Warhol gets credit for coining this title's concept.
Now, on the eve of another 'Presidential Debate', and finding himself trailing in the polls, John McCain will likely try to prove it still applies.
He will attack Obama and try to 'make him famous' for all manner of things, contrived and otherwise.
Yet, Obama hasn't even been on the national political scene 20% of the time McCain has.
So, somehow Obama's time must be stretched to well before now in order to seed doubts and fears intended to aid McCain's image at the expense of Obama's.
Think that is useful?
Will it likely differentiate the two candidates on serious issues that face us now and will need to be addressed by our next President?
I think the tactics of mean-spirited, angry accusations and attempted associations with nefarious individuals and events is gratuitous and demeans both this election process and the American public -regardless of political persuasion.
But, it is not illegal and it is not disallowed.
It's just a shame that we have to settle for this kind of win-at-all-costs behavior from people who aspire to be our leaders.

John McCain's latest fling with fame is to emulate Yosemite Sam & the Tazmanian Devil by keeping on the attack with anything and everything, including shadows.
By associating himself with unabashed ideologues like Sarah Palin, he is pathetically trying to appeal to pure populism by instilling fear and empty promises of tax relief without regulations.
Does anyone really believe him?
I think he's acting more like a 'girlie man' by avoiding real issues that are staring us in the face.

Economics has been termed the 'dismal science', and it is certainly living up to its name these days.
McCain's comprehension of economics is also pretty dismal, as has been every Republican President since Reagan -maybe before.

The NY Times published an article today which I have reproduced below, because it summarizes the tough questions about our economic situation that ought to be the real meat of tonight's debate.
Too bad we aren't likely to hear what the candidates think about these questions, because of ridiculous distractions like the attack mode that McCain has decided gives him the best chance of narrowing his own deficit with the voters!
==================================

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, R. GLENN HUBBARD and MYRON S. SCHOLES
Published: October 6, 2008
John McCain and Barack Obama will meet tonight in Nashville for the second presidential debate. As Americans worry about a confusing federal rescue plan, a falling stock market and a financial crisis that is spreading across the globe, the editors of the Op-Ed page asked three economists to suggest the questions they would most like to hear the candidates answer.
---------------
1. When the current bailout of Wall Street fails to turn around the economy and reinvigorate credit markets, will you propose another one? How large should it be? Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke have said what is needed is a restoration of confidence in the economy. But won’t the failure of this bailout destroy confidence, with disastrous consequences — as happened in Indonesia and other East Asian countries when similar bailouts failed 10 years ago?

2. More than a million people have lost their homes in the past two years. A million more are expected to lose their homes in the next 12 months or so. Do you support a more direct program of relief for homeowners? The government pays more of the mortgage costs of rich homeowners, through larger tax deductions, than of poorer homeowners. What would you do to correct this injustice?

3. President Bush pushed tougher bankruptcy laws that were supposed to reduce bankruptcy and lower lending costs. But the new laws made it more difficult for ordinary Americans to discharge their debts, and encouraged reckless lending on the part of lenders, who thought they could more easily force poor borrowers to repay. Would you make any changes in the bankruptcy laws? Currently, it is more difficult to restructure a mortgage on a primary residence than other debts. Do you support bankruptcy reforms that would make it easier for people to stay in their homes?

— JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, a professor of economics at Columbia who shared the Nobel prize in economics in 2001 and who has advised the Obama campaign
---------------

1. Does the financial crisis indicate that we need more regulation? Or is the problem less one of too little regulation than of poorly focused regulation? The crisis had its origins in part in international capital flows that led to extraordinarily low interest rates. But high-risk mortgage lending drew some of its breath from regulatory interventions. Some heavily regulated financial institutions managed to get themselves in trouble. And it was government-sponsored enterprises, no strangers to regulation, that stimulated the demand for questionable mortgage products. Shouldn’t the next president be standing up to protect markets instead of sowing doubts about them?

2. The Federal Reserve has had to step into the political fray to an uncomfortable degree. Are we asking too much of the Fed? Should we create a strong financial regulator that would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Fed?

3. The existing capital standards for financial companies helped create the illusion that risky assets were “safe.” A reformed system could mandate more capital, to support incremental risk-taking, during a boom and lower such capital requirements in a bust. By changing capital cushions over credit cycles, banks would be less likely to be forced into asset fire sales. Would you support such a change?

4. Do you support the appointment of a presidential commission to report quickly on the causes of the current crisis and present options for regulatory reform?

— R. GLENN HUBBARD, the dean of Columbia Business School and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2003
---------

1. Discuss the tradeoffs for our economy, if any, between growth (so-called trickle down) and redistribution (so-called sprinkle around) policies.

2. At this moment, there seems to be an overwhelming cry for retribution, in the form of new regulations aimed at our financial services industry (so-called Wall Street). To what extent do you believe that these measures are necessary? How will you judge the benefits and costs of the choices to be made? How will the new regulations take into account the evolution of the financial services sector in trading securities or goods and services, financing businesses and homes, saving for college or retirement, and reducing and transferring risk?

3. Individual innovation and creativity in our society are the cornerstones of our economy. They create wealth and improve the nation’s welfare. Through innovations, the 20th century became the American Century. Will the 21st century be so as well or will it become the Global Century? How, if at all, would your administration foster innovation in the following areas: the provision of health care for our citizens; an immigration policy that attracts and retains the best; educational policies that increase the value of our human capital, our most important resource; helping people accumulate enough retirement savings; international trade and manufacturing; the evolution of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and neuroscience; the allocation of water, food and energy and the development of alternative energy sources; and, to some, the most important, the environment?

— MYRON S. SCHOLES, who shared the Nobel prize in economics in 1997
--------------

Bailing Out: Preferable to Sinking?

This may be dated a few days due to being away from the Internet, but here goes anyway:

The second Congressional iteration of the Administration's clumsy & arrogant attempt at rescuing the credit markets did pass and was thankfully signed by the President. which may also serve to somewhat rescue him as well.
But, will it work?
Who knows, but it ought to stand a better chance than doing nothing.
That would simply continue the gross irresponsibility that has already greatly aided and abetted our present sorry state of affairs.
I hope it works, and you readers out there ought to as well.
Already, major damage has been done to thousands, maybe millions, of innocent people in the US alone.
That discounts the ripple effect throughout the world.
If when the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, was this a sneeze or something worse?
Under the circumstances, approving this measure -flawed as it may be- was probably the best choice available.

But, seriously, how could this situation have been prevented?
Or at least have been responded to better.
Think something like an emergency contingency plan might have helped?
After all, most communities consider these plans both common and essential.
Just look at 9/11 and its aftermath which spawned the Dept of Homeland Security.
Or Bellingham's own disaster, the preventable Olympic Pipe Line explosion which killed 3 young men and narrowly missed doing more harm than we want to even think about.

How is it that the Federal Government gets away without providing similar contingency plans?
Who's job is it to be prepared for things like these?

• 9/11 & terrorism
• horrific weather events like Hurricane Katrina
• failing infrastructure
• ruinous unemployment
• serious economic downturns
• housing shortages
• healthcare gaps & epidemics
• food shortages
• water shortages
• hazardous wastes & practices
• crime
• electrical failures
• Internet failures
• fuel shortages
• fires
• global warming
• international unrest

Maybe the US Govt has contingency plans they haven't had to use yet, or maybe even elements of the bail-out plan had already been anticipated to some extent.
I don't know, but it didn't seem like it to me.
To the extent there were no contingency plans to rely upon in this financial situation, this ought to be rectified asap!

I can't imagine any responsible leader, military or otherwise, who would not have such plans ready for emergencies.
Certainly, the legendary Chinese General Sun Tzu, would have planned for such 'unanticipated' and adverse events.
After all, his philosophy went so far as to prefer 'victory without war'.
That sounds like the ultimate in contingency plans to me; to be so prepared and aware of events, that war is actually avoided!

Then there's the famous General von Clausewitz, whose writings are still taught in military academies.
Paraphrasing part of his thinking was the following;

There are 4 types of people; smart & energetic, smart & lazy, dumb & lazy and dumb & energetic.
You want the smart & energetic types to be your military planners because they think of everything that might happen and come up with a contingency plan to respond to it.
The smart & lazy types to be your generals because they know what to do but won't do it themselves.
The dumb & lazy types make good soldiers because they only do what they are told.
That leaves the dumb & energetic types, who you better hope are the enemy because they are no good at anything!

What type of people have we got in charge?
Think about it.
Now, let's change it.