Thoughts on Independence

Today we spent the morning at the Utah Scottish Festival, celebrating my Scottish heritage by listening to bagpipes, watching people by various weapons, wearing a kilt, and eating haggis.  It was a great day, one which I really enjoyed.  

At noon they had the Gathering of the Clans, when the Clan representatives march in a parade, proudly hefting their banners and showing their unity in Scottish culture.  It's a grand sight, makes one's Celtic blood heat up in pride.  

But it got me thinking:  Scotland was rarely that unified in it's focus.  In fact, they were often fragmented against each other regarding alliances to England, cattle lands, etc.  They fought more against each other than against England.  So where did this idea of "Scotland" come from?

First, it came from the idea of Independence.  Not independence from England, though that was a major concern for centuries, but rather independent in their lifestyle.  They loved being responsible for themselves, and would always rebel against any perceived slight to that independence.  

So what is independence?  It's being able to be completely self-determinate.  You don't depend on another entity to run your life, or augment your life.  Sadly, this concept is often overlooked when we go about our daily lives.  Are you really independent?  Are you able to take care of your needs, or do you need to rely on external support?

For instance, financial independence is one that we all strive for.  Living without credit cards, bank loans, etc. is perhaps the greatest "American Dream", though I'm sure all people everywhere would like this same independence.  The quest for financial independence is often troubled by the need for conveniences.  Traveling quickly and freely, being connected through communication in various forms, and bringing in external amusement and entertainment often make us dependent on one service or another.  

Consumptive dependence has become rampant since the creation of the Super Market.  We rely on specialized growers that produce one product, package it, process it, and ship it to us from all over the world.  We don't see the origins of the product, we don't know the grower.  We just know that the product is ready for consumption.  

But if something goes wrong, what recourse do we have?  For instance, the nation is currently experiencing a tomato shortage because of a salmonella outbreak.  It's been weeks, and the FDA only knows that it should be from the crops on the East coast, not the West.  That's how dependent and disconnected we are from our food production. 

Of course, there is also National Independence, or rather a lack of dependence of the Nation on other nations.  The original Independence Day, July 4th, marks our political independence from England.  We could then decide what was best for our nation without another nation showing influence.  Since then we have become dependent on a global economy, particularly in energy, and as such that dependence highly influences our internal politics.  All I hear now regarding the 3rd District Congressional race here in Utah is focus on "Foreign Oil Dependency", high gas prices, and illegal immigration.  

Now, I'm not arguing any specific political position.  Lots of people have strong feelings on both sides of any of these issues.  But rather I was focusing on the concept of independence.  At what level can you call yourself independent, whether at a personal, familial, communal, or national level?  What does it mean to be independent, to you?  

It's a weekend thought, but one by which I have been troubled.  You tell me:  What do you consider independence?  How would you define an Independent nation?  Perhaps it's something we should think about as we approach the Independence Day holiday on July 4th.  

A New Facet in Sustainability: Energy Recycling

Ever since I can remember, the argument for environmentalists have been to move to Solar and Wind power as the only way to save the planet.  Their position is from a green point of view:  that is, if it isn't natural, it isn't an option.  This is fine, and there are a lot of merits to these methods of generating energy, but right now it just isn't enough.  We need something else to bolster our energy needs until these more green technologies can be made more efficient.  And the best move that can be made right now is energy recycling. 

What's Energy Recycling?  It's the process of using the excess heat created by a process to boil water, create steam, and move a generator.  One excellent example of wasted energy this way would be many cooling towers in Atomic plants.  

But that isn't all!  Many factories, refineries, and smelters are major sources of excess heat, and as such could be producing electricity.  Just place a boiler on top of the plant, capture the heat, boil water, create steam, use that steam to move a generator and you are all set!  

Now, you may ask where I got this idea in the first place.  Well, I'm guilty of perpetuating an idea of others.  It seems that Europe and Japan has been doing this practice for years, bolstering their grids with additional energy from their factories, refineries, etc.  Heat is not wasted if it's sufficient enough to boil water.  This was reported this morning on my way to work on NPR, by the way.  

So why don't we do the same thing?  It's such a simple idea, why haven't the US thought of this before?  Because there are currently State and Civil laws that protect power companies from having to pay retail prices for the power that gets pumped back into the grid from an non-system source.  That, and most older facilities would be subject to new EPA regulations if they made any modifications to their facility.  

Now, the other day, I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio.  Now, this isn't a regular thing for me, as I don't like to get just one side of the story (I find NPR the least biased news source).  But he had an interesting argument for the Republican Party:  Rebuild yourself.  He pointed out 10 items the Republicans could do in order to rebuild the party.  Number 4 was Energy Independence.  What could be more independent than using recycled energy?

So, my challenge to Government, both parties actually, is to challenge the protection laws currently in place for energy companies to allow energy recycling.  We could generate almost twice the energy we have now, if we follow Denmark's model (half their energy comes from recycled energy projects), and lower our energy growth needs.  That's the kicker: the need for foreign oil could be lowered as far as overall energy production, and allow more oil to be diverted to transportation (at least for now).  

Now, I don't expect it will magically solve our nation's energy needs overnight.  But wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about rolling blackouts?  More energy means cheaper electric manufacturing costs, and cheaper overall bills on the consumer.  Also, those factories that produce a lot of heat in order to produce their product can save even more money as they generate that excess heat into energy savings, or potentially a secondary revenue line.  

Those are the benefits, at any case.  Now the hard part needs to be hammered out:  negotiating with power companies and potential power generating sources a fair and sustainable model.  Perhaps they can offer to buy the recycled energy at wholesale costs..  Anyway, that's a fight that will be well worth the effort.  

Politics, Presidents, and History: Why Can't They Get Along?

It often surprises me when Politicians are able to make vague historical references, say they won't make the same mistakes, and the people just eat it up like candy.  I'm also surprised with the failure of the Media to provide adequate background information for candidates that run for office.  Is it that they just don't want to look at the past, or perhaps they feel the American people don't have the attention span for a history lesson?

What prompted this statement, you might ask?  Last night I was watching the American Experience on PBS in an attempt to get my son to sleep.  He's not feeling well in the heat wave that hit Salt Lake this week, and was restless.  This night, it was a special on George H.W. Bush.  It covered his rise to politics from his father's involvement in the Eisenhower Administration to his eventual election to President.

Now, I wasn't a big fan of George Bush Sr. while he was in office.  Granted, I was just a kid in Jr. High at the time, but with some politically minded friends, I was kept in the loop.  He provided little in the way of what I expected, because I loved Reagan.  Why did I love Reagan?  Because he made Americans feel good about being Americans.  George didn't do that.  He wasn't the showman that Reagan was, nor was he the actor.

But he was a Statesman, and if I had known what a Statesman did at the time, I would have applauded his efforts.  George H.W. Bush was first and foremost an Ambassador.  From his few years of working at the UN, he managed to build a huge relationship with all nations and use it to his advantage while both Vice President under Reagan, and while working with the Soviet Union during the fall of the Berlin Wall.

He was willing to let the Germans be Germans, instead of puppets of the US, and thereby fueling the anti-American block in the Kremlin that would have taken any excuse to tighten their hold on the Eastern Block.  He made Eisenhower-esque moves and decisions that allowed other people and nations to shine, all the while keeping the US economy strong.

But even further back, George H.W. Bush built the current idea of Republican Conservatism that pervades in politics today.  He did so in the 60's by welcoming those Democrats into the Republican party that were a little angered by President Kennedy and Johnson.  And this was in Texas, where at the time you couldn't find a Republican.

His foray into politics in the 60's represents a clean shift in the ideals of the Republican party, and forced the Democrats to shift to their current position.  It's interesting that now, 50 years later, his son instigated a shift in the Democratic party in the same way Kennedy and Johnson forced the Republicans to shift.  Now the Republicans are shifting again, back to the Eisenhower days.

So why am I writing about President George H.W. Bush?  Because it's information I would have liked 15 years ago!  And I keep asking myself, where is the analysis on the current candidates?  Quick snapshots don't help, nor do sound-bytes.  In order to make a truly informed decision on a candidate, you have to know where they come from, where they have gone, and what they have been willing to do to get there.  That is a full measure of a candidate, because now you can predict with relative certainty what they will do in office.

Now, the American Experience is gearing up for the Election, preparing for it by providing profiles of the past Presidents.  I'm sure, once the Democratic candidate has been chosen, we will see well documented profiles of that person as well as John McCain.  But until then, I would urge anyone to watch the American Experience series on the Presidents.  Learn about what past presidents have done, both right and wrong.  For now, President George H.W. Bush has risen to one of my favorite presidents, right up there with President Ford, President Eisenhower, and President James K. Polk.

The Media: The Real Winners of Super Tuesday

Yesterday morning I was listing to NPR, and they had a little clip on the impact on such a volatile race has had on the major news outlets. More people tuned into the political debates than watch football. It's unprecedented, it's unbelievable, it's.... exactly what the major networks have needed since the Writer's Guild strikes started this winter.

This is reality TV that people just can't buy, make-up, or create no matter how hard they try. The big worry was that with the completion of Super Tuesday a final delegate would be selected on either side, and the news would go back to partisan bickering over "Us vs. Them". How were they going to keep the momentum going until November?

Luckily for the media and the networks, that didn't happen. Even if a Republican nominee comes out after the final count in California, the Democrats are still up for grabs. And quite frankly, the media has been more interested in that race than any other (you can call it bias, you can call it "firsts", either way, it's been their big focus).

What does this mean for us? Well, for those of us that have already had our primary, we will be clear of the TV ads until November (unless you are in Utah, where national Democrats don't seem to bother). For you poor souls in states that haven't had their caucuses or primaries yet, you are now the new battleground states. And the media and networks will be there with you, reporting every poll, every projection, every little sneeze you may have that indicates a position on the primary.

It's good to know that the political process has so many people interested, because we need people engaged in the debate, focused on the issues, and making educated decisions. But please, if you are going to get involved, become familiar with your positions and take the time to get to know all the candidates. Don't leave your research to the media, who may have their own biases. Your biases are just as important. ^_^

The Mark of a Good Local Politician

Lately I have been trying to get more involved in my local politics. Not that I am running for any offices, but rather I want to get more informed and more involved in the issues that affect me and my family. As such, I started corresponding with my representatives.

I've posted emails to my city councilman in West Valley, and to the Mayor of Salt Lake County. For the two of you who have been following my blog, you probably know the issues I have written about (bike routes in West Valley and County sponsored UTOPIA installations, respectively).

The problem is, neither one have bothered to even send me a generic form letter giving me their positions on these issues. Granted, they are not nearly as important as many of the other issues that they deal with, but it would be nice if they would at least acknowledge my questions. My wife chastises me for complaining, but didn't I elect them into office? Don't I deserve a response, if only a generic one from a staffer?

Well, I tried my luck with another representative: Jim Bradley. He is a member of the Salt Lake County Council, and is a Councilman at Large (meaning that anyone in the county can vote for him). I voted for him initially, not because of his political affiliation, but because he actually bothered to have a website with his positions outlined. I agreed with his position on the county spending County funds that should benefit the entire county to increase the economy in just one city (i.e., voting against funding the Real Salt Lake Stadium project). I figured that I was in for another dead end, but I was pleasantly proved wrong.

The Original Letter
Dear Mr. Bradley,

It was recently brought to my attention that the county is reconsidering allocated funds for TRAXX in leu of road repair funds. While I am all for repaired roads, I feel that the urgency for TRAXX to the West Side is by far more important.

The West Side has been in dire need of TRAXX since it's inception. Lower income families on the West Side need a reliable form of transportation that is more predictable, direct, and inexpensive. It is the right thing to do, though it may delay some road repairs.

For someone known for their fiscal responsibility (I voted for you specifically because you voted down the Real Salt Lake Stadium funding project), I hope you understand the importance this project holds for the West Side, and work with your colleagues to bolster the construction projects here on the West Side. If a compromise must be struck, then have it delay expansion in directions other than the West Side. The economic impact for the West Side of the valley would be positive indeed.

The Response
Jeremy:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding transit funding. As you might have heard, at last evening’s Council of Governments (COG) meeting, members unanimously voted to maintain the original prioritization list. This list includes rail projects as high priorities.

Thank you for your continued support of transit projects.

Jim Bradley
Council Member at Large

That was it, a little message back to let me know that he read my email, and the status of the issue I had in question. That, my friends, is a good politician. Mister Bradley, if by some miracle you read my blog, I want you to know that you have made me a devoted supporter. Should you choose to run for County Mayor, you would have my vote. If only other politicians would have the same dedication to their constituents, perhaps more people will feel involved in the political process and vote.

It's interesting that the same principle that works in Customer Service, Education, etc. works for Politics as well: People like to feel as though they matter.

How to Rebuild a Nation

There have been a lot of talk about political progress in Iraq so far this week, mostly negative references to a people trying to build a government to satisfy their current citizens. Regardless of your political affiliation, the outlook appears grim based on our own short memories. It seems that people expect quick results, as one might expect from a company going through a management reorganization. But, unfortunately, that is not how government works.

First, it is important to understand that a representative government does not develop overnight, or even in a year. If there has been no history of representative government before in human memory, then humans tend to look at their own experiences of government and perpetuate what is already known. But, you might say, other countries have managed to go through political upheaval without chaos, right? Let's look at a quick historical overview, and see just how governments have been formed.

The Tribe
The first government developed in human pre-history was a tribal government. Tribes represent family relationships, and were an extension of the family in and of itself. As such, strong bonds are developed and sustained based on this basic, social structure.

The Clan or Monarchy
An extension of the tribal relationship is the Clan, where a single family that is very successful provides support, security, and safety to those that ally themselves. The success can be in many forms, and one might argue that organized religion provides the same success in security and stability as any other clan organization. So, I place the religious organization of government into a clan government. An excellent example of this type of government was Ancient Egypt. This begins the idea of the Chief, or Royal family.

The Oligarchy
The next logical step is community organization. Community organization begins the idea of Statehood, or belonging to a greater whole. In this organization, several clans or tribes can band together to create unity for mutual benefit. In effect, the tribes and clans become one big tribe or clan. Here, because you have a number of successful families trying to lead, you have the emergence of an oligarchy. Senates have risen because of this organization, as well as Nobility or Aristocrats.

Monarchy will give way eventually to this form of government, or work in tandem with this form of government. The idea is that at any given time, the Oligarchy, Nobility, or even Democratically elected Senators can take the place of the executive (King, Chief, Imperator, President, etc.), which keeps the executive in check. The thing is, the state organization is still limited to a small community. City States represent this type of government, such as Ancient Greek cities, Rome, Carthage, etc.

Scaled Oligarchy
Finally, as one city state becomes more powerful than the rest, you begin to get domination over the others. At this point, you have what I like to call the scaled oligarchy, or an oligarchy that continues to grow with the reaching influence of their city state. Eventually, you begin to add additional oligarchical members from absorbed (or conquered) city states into the political process, which causes more strain on the system.

Now everyone wants to be part of the political process so the oligarchical base becomes widened, and is no longer based on blood. It's based on the economic contribution of the members. This increased political pressure begins to hemorrhage, and political unrest results. Depending on how the oligarchy handles it, it can be a peaceful transition to a new form of government, or a violent revolution. Which brings us to our next step.

Democracy or Representative Republic
A democracy or representative government is a result of sufficient economic growth to allow common people to afford participating in the political process. At this point, either by standing for office themselves or by bank-rolling their representatives, the people can participate. This again is a slow process and has many stages of suffrage, usually focusing on the economic impact of those participating.

That is a step by step outlook at the building of a national identity and democracy. Is it possible to short-circuit the process? As Simon Bolivar has shown us, the process cannot be successfully short-circuited without a dedicated economic base willing to change themselves. Unfortunately, those that live in a non-constitutional monarchy or dictatorship are used to having their political decisions made for them. Also, if the country is not sufficiently stable economically, the people are just simply not in a position to do anything about politics.

So why am I mentioning this? Mostly because people need to realize that when a government has been removed, it takes time to rebuild it. A lot of time, mostly based on the determination of the people within a tribe, clan, or community. Iraq will be in a lot of political turmoil for a long time, and it's a reality that we need to accept. The only "short-cut" would be to place a dictator in power and remove any gains toward democracy that currently exist.

My assessment of Iraq? It is currently in a tribal and clan state, slowly emerging into a community based government. We saw sectarian violence as a direct result of a clan state, people not seeing past their religious affiliation. That is now starting to change, either by reverting to a tribal state (shiites fighting shiites), or a community based government at evidenced in Anbar Provence.

So, where is the Iraqi National Government in all of this? They are just waiting in the wings. Quite honestly, I don't expect anything to happen on their level to better the situation. It all has to happen at the community level first, which will then provide supported political figures in national representation. They have tried to do this at the Clan level, and that has failed. It is now up to communities to see past any differences they may perceive, and bring stability to Iraq.

The Division of Government and it's Advantage

Lately, there has been several news headlines regarding the supposed "Constitutional Crisis" regarding the activities of members of the current administration. This has lead to many in the opposing political party to take action against the administration, while those within the administration's party (the current minority) have been very vocal about their opposition.

Now, you may have noticed my quotes around the term "Constitutional Crisis", because it's just a way to get people angry at the events, and mobilize them for the next election. The fact remains that it is not that serious. It's just politics as usual, or I should say it's the two party process as usual. I don't mean to say that as a cliche, but it really is that process that the government was designed to accomplish.

Let's go back in time to 300 B.C. in Rome. The Republic, designed by people who inherently distrusted their government (sound familiar?), had two complete governments that ran parallel to each other. The first was the Oligarchy, or the Senate, with the Consuls, quaestors, and other executives. The second was the Assembly set in place for the commoners and their Tribunes that could halt both governments with a veto. These two governments could both place laws on the books, enforce them, and even contradict each other if necessary (and have in several occasions).

The result was a government that, unless in a state of war, was almost completely ineffectual. Assembly members, Tribunes, Consuls, and even Senators would spend their entire career trying to effect a reform, and have it all come crashing down on them with one tribune's veto. The effect was a very stable society with little change in it's makeup. It took serious rebellion, war, or violence to make anything within Roman society change.

Now, for those of you versed in American History (particularly pre-Civil War), you will probably remember that much of the current Constitution was taken from Roman history, as documented by the Federalist Papers. This leads me to believe that the Founding Fathers of our Constitution were aware that "Checks and Balances" would occasionally mean that government would be brought to a standstill. As such, because it would keep the status quo, the society would continue with their lives to which they have become accustomed.

So, in a sense, this means that any time you have a divided government, it creates a conservative atmosphere where change is held up by partisan politics, bickering, and general politicking on both sides. As such, the general public can forget about the government and go about their daily lives knowing that nothing much is going to change. That is, until there is a true crisis that effects the security and safety of the general populace. But at that point, the politicking stops, and the government moves in the same direction regardless of party.

For an example of this, let's look back to the reforms of the Travel industry after September 11th. I don't recall any single party being in opposition to those reforms. Instead, both parties wanted to try to take it a step further than the other, in order to look more impressive to their constituents back home whom they were professing to protect. In the end, reforms have been put in place, and one can argue that they have been fairly effective (though a bit inconvenient at times for the unprepared).

So what is the point I'm trying to make? At the end of the day, regardless of what actions are taken in the short term against one party to the other, it will all wash out. Divided governments are the ultimate check to an abuse of power, and we shouldn't fear them. Instead it would probably be better for the country if we encouraged divided governments.

Please note that the author is not affiliated with any political party, but rather views politics as a source of entertainment.

Why Are Differences So Contentious?

November 7th is Election Day in the United States, and represents one of the most contentious events for the nation. My question is, why? Why is it so important to get personal about competition or races? It seems that regardless of the circumstances or the environment of the event, hatred results with personal attacks. Why? Why does the human mind feel so obligated to focus so much rancor against another bias that it doesn't agree with?

The first thing we need to understand is that all persons, regardless of who they are, have a bias of some sort. Anyone that claims they don't have a bias is obviously fooling themselves. This is as true for Politicians as it is for Journalists. It is also true for technology specialists and the OS Wars that are becoming far too common. Everyone's bias can define who they are, as it is generally an extension to the experiences one receives within their environment.

So why is it that we feel such a need to defend our previous experiences? Does mankind feel that any difference of opinion is a direct attack on themselves? Or is it rather that a difference of opinion has the potential to invalidate a portion of that experience, and therefore threaten to remove the cultural pillar that our lives are built upon.

It is natural for an animal to address any perceived threats with the "fight or flight" method, and to react in a number of different ways. Some react with violence, some with hatred and venemous words, and some with arguments. The ability to deal with the stress is indemic within these fight techniques, depending on the comfort level of those that are utilizing them. They are simply methods of dealing with the fight technique.

So why such a divergent range of methods to deal with a conflict in ideas? Those that do not feel comfortable in their ability to defend their own experience in a rational way need to defend in an irrational way. This usually covers the venemous and violent discussions and/or behavior. At least, that as been my experience (and as such, my personal bias). Those that make rational discussions generally feel comfortable within their understanding to make counter arguments that can therefore defend their own position. This means that while a complete change in bias is not possible, at least the bias itself has been adequately defended.

So, now that we know the background, let's get to the meat of the discussion. Politics are perhaps the most public expression of personal beliefs, ranging from positions on abortion to road construction. Because it's so personal, it becomes a part of who we are. We want to be respected for what we know, and for our experience. When someone else flatly dismisses that experience, it damages the ego. That is interpreted into an attack, and envokes a response.

This is the circumstance the allows mankind to differentiate itself from the rest of the animal world. The opportunity allows us to rise above the base need to attack another because of their experience, their personality. But it's also the an opportunity for us to show ourselves what we are made of. How we react defines who we are in any given situation.

So let's look at the Operating System wars. People become insensed when they are confronted with an operating system that is not their own. Windows vs. Macintosh, Windows vs. Linux, RedHat vs. SuSE, and so on. If one platform is found by one group to be useful, they believe that their platform is the only platform that can be used. Keep in mind that the it is a bias based on an experience. Just as those who used AOL couldn't understand the rancor unleashed by those that did not, those that use Windows can't understand why someone wouldn't want to use Windows.

What's important to understand that the completed task is the most important, and not the process taken to complete the task. If someone uses Windows to browse the internet, or Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, or even OS/2 Warp, in the end the task has been completed. The operating is just a tool to get the job done, not the job itself. If someone chooses to use the Macintosh to render 3D animation instead of Linux, or chooses Solaris to run a video streaming server instead of Windows, it's their choice. And as long as it works within acceptable levels, then it's a good choice.

So, what is my point in this post? Simply that experience can be a misleading pillar while dealing with other people. It's the results of those experience, and the ability to acknowledge other biases, that makes a human being truly human. Without that understanding hatred and violence can reign, free to destroy all that makes us "civilized". That is my bias.