Showing posts with label technology and innovation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology and innovation. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
Post No. 181: The Most Deadly Mental Illness in America
© 2012, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
We’re not fans of CBS’ 60 Minutes, because we’re not fans of folks who let their values dictate their thought processes. In our view, one’s analysis of issues ought to be a thing apart from one’s values. For us, the presentation of news ought to be as value free as humanly possible. The 60 Minutes folks rarely ask the logical, follow-up question in the pursuit of balance.
But last night was different. First Senators Harry Reid (Democrat) and Mitch McConnell (Republican) sat side by side while being interviewed. They provided their views as to the source of gridlock in Congress. Nothing new came out of the discussion; however, we gained some perspective through the second guest.
David McCullough is an award-winning American historian who has written numerous books, including those on Presidents Adams (John), Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy), and Truman. He was initially interviewed in his 8’ x 10’ office in the back of his Cape Cod home, where we saw him hunting and pecking on a turn–of-the-last century manual typewriter. When asked why he preferred the relic over a computer, he quipped, “I don’t like to hit a button and see a month’s work disappear.”
Per McCullough, despite complaints today there is nothing new about extreme partisanship and personal attacks. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, national candidates branded each other thieves and common criminals. One even accused his opponent of being a hermaphrodite. (Fortunately, we did not have cameras, or we suspect that the foundational photo would have gone viral.)
The Good Historian also reminded us that there is nothing new about a country feeling it is in a state of decline. While he was a kid, McCullough’s Father always voted Republican. Following the election of Truman in 1948, his Father was absolutely certain the U.S. would become a third-rate power.
Years later, the Elder McCullough would quietly say, “I sure wish we had old Harry back….”
Upon leaving Cape Cod, instead of moving the camera to Washington, the interview transitioned to Independence Hall and other historic locations in Philadelphia. The men who sat in the room, where the new governance model was invented, feared for their lives since they realized that their discussions were treasonous. According to McCullough, they even closed the windows of the building during the heat of the summer of 1787, out of concern that there might be eavesdroppers.
In thinking about it further, perhaps we’re giving the 60 Minutes folks too much credit for this broadcast. It was really McCullough who brought clarity and a sense of historical perspective regarding this very toxic environment.
And maybe we’re overly complimentary of McCullough’s comments, since he managed to succinctly state in a phrase something which we have felt but have had difficulty articulating in 4-1/2 years of blogging.
Paraphrasing McCullough, what is most troubling about politics now, particularly with the tons of money being spent, is that there is, “a dearth of ideas.”
At an earlier point in our existence, when the Institute was located in one region of the U.S., we’d assemble people with varying points of view and from different disciplines, and after working together, folks would say, “Let’s give it a try.”
In another, we’d go through the same process, and people would find every imaginable objection and complication leading to a state where nothing was done.
The toxicity in the air can be significantly traced to our national attitude. It’s not as though it is totally unreasonable. There are a couple of factors contributing to this zeitgeist.
1) Uncertainty - we’re no longer secure in our role as top dog. Osama bin Laden did a lot to foster that mood - he bit us in the ass and globalization has further contributed to it; and
2) We’ve lost our edge educationally and technologically (and we know it). We rode the coat-tails of our prior triumphs for far too long. Today, too many kids (through the power of the Internet and electronic media) want to be entertainers and athletes, and play in reality TV shows, not scientists, engineers, and inventors.There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with the former; but everything in the Universe is about proportion and timing, and technology drives everything.
Right now, the Randle Patrick McMurphys of the world are running the institution. We need Nurse Ratched back, to shock us to our senses, with the assistance of the college students of today.
We’re not generally ones to pine for practices of the past, opting instead to come up with new approaches. But this might be, like our praise of 60 Minutes, one time where we make an exception, and revert back to some of our past practices infused with youthful ideas.
(You can view Part 2 of McCullough’s interview next Sunday, November 11, 2012.)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Post No. 57: A Case for More Governmental Involvement
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over this past weekend, we suggested that our readers watch a panel discussion on the economy aired on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9889&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No). The panel consisted of authors and columnists not normally associated with a discussion of national economic issues, and yet we thought that what they had to say might be instructive.
After all, the folks with all the economic and financial training, and purported expertise, managed to foul it up. Why not hear the views of some folks with different perspectives? The panelists were Thomas Friedman (http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/), Barbara Ehrenreich (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/), and Michelle Singletary (http://www.michellesingletary.com/).
Over the past couple of months while Friedman has promoted his latest work, Hot, Flat and Crowded (http://books.google.com/books?id=vQxnKb_GZvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22hot,+flat,+and+crowded%22&ei=pgj8SMr1NJWyyQS_oKXFDQ), he has argued that although he does not advocate a Manhattan Project-type response to our current energy and climate change issues, he does feel that some government “encouragement” is needed.
During the course of the discussion on the economy, Friedman generally took the position that the private sector is better at solving problems and coming up with innovative solutions. Ehrenreich, out of concern that the audience might think that within the private sector lies the solutions to our problems, reminded us that the private sector had recently failed us, and plunged our nation into a precarious situation.
In thinking about it further after the conclusion of the program, I recognized that at least in the case of the private sector, the company dies and discontinues doing business, when it is not properly managed. In the case of government, it can make all sorts of bad decisions, adverse to the interests of its constituents, and the government will continue to roll on and collect more taxes. Consequently, there is not much incentive to change, adapt, or innovate. Only the elected leaders periodically change. The employees pretty much continue to do what they do, despite the failed policies of, and execution by, the governmental entity.
Several months ago, the local school board requested that members of the public attend the public hearing before the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to let the Commissioners know that the public desired that the full funds, requested for the upcoming school year, be included in the final approved budget. At that time, I chose to use the opportunity to make a point, not about how much money be spent, but the manner in which it be spent.
I argued on behalf of more funding for science, math, and other courses that would lead to more inventors, scientists, engineers, and people capable of inventing innovative products. I argued that this would ultimately translate to producing things again, from which jobs and tax revenue would flow. I further argued that a society, whose jobs primarily consisted of those in the areas of education, government, and healthcare, are essentially welfare societies, without an affirmative engine to drive the economy.
Yesterday, we posted an article about the techno-cultural divide in the US, which appears to be widening between the haves/educated class, and the have-nots/poorly educated class. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-56-i-may-not-know-how-to-define.html.) We suggested that society come up with some innovative approaches to narrow that gap, in order to prevent the long-term, negative ramifications on society at large.
Later during the day, in thinking about my comments to the Board of Commissioners, I realized that I did not recall seeing a single, governmental official or politician participating in the blogging and social media and networking technology conference (http://2008.convergesouth.com/) which I had attended. That is not to say that they were not there; however, it sure wasn’t obvious.
There were participants and contributors from New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charleston, SC, and the Silicon Valley. It was a major event, and yet there was no obvious governmental involvement of which I was aware. Politicians routinely show up at churches, hospitals, restaurants, schools, and such. We need government – private sector collaboration, if we are going to encourage the pursuit of science and innovation in our society, particularly amongst our youth. Just showing up at this technology conference, to acknowledge the role of, and encouragement by, government, would have been a nice start.
Perhaps if we had more accountants, business people, engineers, and scientists, and fewer lawyers as politicians, we might fare better. We had better pay more attention to science and technology. Our global competitors are making substantial strides in the world of technology, and with quite a bit of our help.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Over this past weekend, we suggested that our readers watch a panel discussion on the economy aired on C-Span2 Book TV (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9889&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No). The panel consisted of authors and columnists not normally associated with a discussion of national economic issues, and yet we thought that what they had to say might be instructive.
After all, the folks with all the economic and financial training, and purported expertise, managed to foul it up. Why not hear the views of some folks with different perspectives? The panelists were Thomas Friedman (http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/), Barbara Ehrenreich (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/), and Michelle Singletary (http://www.michellesingletary.com/).
Over the past couple of months while Friedman has promoted his latest work, Hot, Flat and Crowded (http://books.google.com/books?id=vQxnKb_GZvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22hot,+flat,+and+crowded%22&ei=pgj8SMr1NJWyyQS_oKXFDQ), he has argued that although he does not advocate a Manhattan Project-type response to our current energy and climate change issues, he does feel that some government “encouragement” is needed.
During the course of the discussion on the economy, Friedman generally took the position that the private sector is better at solving problems and coming up with innovative solutions. Ehrenreich, out of concern that the audience might think that within the private sector lies the solutions to our problems, reminded us that the private sector had recently failed us, and plunged our nation into a precarious situation.
In thinking about it further after the conclusion of the program, I recognized that at least in the case of the private sector, the company dies and discontinues doing business, when it is not properly managed. In the case of government, it can make all sorts of bad decisions, adverse to the interests of its constituents, and the government will continue to roll on and collect more taxes. Consequently, there is not much incentive to change, adapt, or innovate. Only the elected leaders periodically change. The employees pretty much continue to do what they do, despite the failed policies of, and execution by, the governmental entity.
Several months ago, the local school board requested that members of the public attend the public hearing before the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to let the Commissioners know that the public desired that the full funds, requested for the upcoming school year, be included in the final approved budget. At that time, I chose to use the opportunity to make a point, not about how much money be spent, but the manner in which it be spent.
I argued on behalf of more funding for science, math, and other courses that would lead to more inventors, scientists, engineers, and people capable of inventing innovative products. I argued that this would ultimately translate to producing things again, from which jobs and tax revenue would flow. I further argued that a society, whose jobs primarily consisted of those in the areas of education, government, and healthcare, are essentially welfare societies, without an affirmative engine to drive the economy.
Yesterday, we posted an article about the techno-cultural divide in the US, which appears to be widening between the haves/educated class, and the have-nots/poorly educated class. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-56-i-may-not-know-how-to-define.html.) We suggested that society come up with some innovative approaches to narrow that gap, in order to prevent the long-term, negative ramifications on society at large.
Later during the day, in thinking about my comments to the Board of Commissioners, I realized that I did not recall seeing a single, governmental official or politician participating in the blogging and social media and networking technology conference (http://2008.convergesouth.com/) which I had attended. That is not to say that they were not there; however, it sure wasn’t obvious.
There were participants and contributors from New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charleston, SC, and the Silicon Valley. It was a major event, and yet there was no obvious governmental involvement of which I was aware. Politicians routinely show up at churches, hospitals, restaurants, schools, and such. We need government – private sector collaboration, if we are going to encourage the pursuit of science and innovation in our society, particularly amongst our youth. Just showing up at this technology conference, to acknowledge the role of, and encouragement by, government, would have been a nice start.
Perhaps if we had more accountants, business people, engineers, and scientists, and fewer lawyers as politicians, we might fare better. We had better pay more attention to science and technology. Our global competitors are making substantial strides in the world of technology, and with quite a bit of our help.
© 2008, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Post No. 9: Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process (We are a Better Country than We Currently Think of Ourselves)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Let's talk about innovation. Much has been made of President Bush’s historic, low approval ratings, which have been in the 25 – 30 % range for quite some time.
However, there was a recent poll far more troubling from my perspective, that being the poll reflecting that 81% of the American public feels that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
I would suspect, truth be told, that the figure is actually closer to 98%. I would also submit that the President’s low ratings are a reflection of what we currently feel about ourselves as a Nation. After all, we allowed him to be placed in that position of authority – on two occasions.
I seriously doubt that anyone really relishes where the United States finds itself today, unless you are outside of the United States and have interests antithetical thereto.
We will probably have a record turnout for the presidential election this November. Virtually everyone is afraid of something about our current state. I, too, recognize the importance of projecting a positive, confident, upbeat image to the world; but the world sees through this.
Certain groups in our Nation are concerned about what we have become. Some are concerned about where we might go should a particular candidate win. Others are concerned about the power and influence of the church or religion.
Many feel vulnerable to another terrorist attack. And of course, there is the economy. Simply put, these are not the most comfortable of times.
However, the real question is whether we, as a nation, have the confidence and intestinal fortitude to get beyond this. Some others might describe it as the political and social will of the nation.
Last year, in my role as a motivational speaker, I had the opportunity to engage various groups of college students. Often times during the presentations, someone would make reference to the concept that “you can be anything that you want to be if you put your mind to it.”
Being a pragmatist, I would obliquely suggest that the concept is not literally or entirely true, but that rather one can be anything that one wants to be, within reason, and taking into consideration the time, the place, the resources, and on and on.
I would offer as an example, the fact that a five foot, obese, 45 year old, could probably not become a professional basketball player. I stressed the importance of a pragmatic assessment of one’s skills and resources, the market or arena into which one wants to enter, or the goal that one wants to achieve.
And then I thought about it. Something had changed in me, or something had changed about the realm of possibilities.
Part of it, I’m sure, is advancing age and realism. However, I was still concerned that my spirit had been affected, and I always prided myself on having an indomitable spirit.
I further recalled that during most of my life, I personally felt that I really could be anything that I wanted to be. Then I thought about the possibility that my age group or generation might be less optimistic about the future, but that the youth of the Nation were still very upbeat and had a positive outlook.
Well, the 81% figure quickly disabused me of that notion.
If you’ve been reading my “stuff” over any period of time now, you’ve probably noticed that I rarely respond to singular events, since I rarely consider them, in and of themselves, to be of much significance.
I have a tendency to examine multiple, disparate events, consider patterns, and examine events in history to gain some long term perspective. This is no different.
In his significant work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LvkVTPcYwEwC&q=Paul+Kennedy&dq=Paul+Kennedy&ei=GIk1SMvrOpzkyASXpOzLDw&pgis=1 ), Yale professor Paul Kennedy discusses and analyzes patterns that exist during the ascent to power, and those associated with the power’s subsequent decline.
Originally published in 1987, and after receiving rave reviews at the time, I am simply amazed that so little reference is made to it in the current discussion of where we are as a Nation. Anyone examining the book will immediately note that Kennedy did his homework, in that it is replete with economic data, which actually makes it somewhat difficult to digest.
Be that as it may, he concludes that there are three main factors that appear to repeatedly contribute to the decline of a world power. Two of them are of relevance to the United States at this point in time.
Kennedy submits that one factor is that the power is overextended militarily throughout the world, which leads to a depletion of its coffers, and a drain on its economy and energy.
The second involves technology. As a general proposition, the country which possesses the highest level of technology, which also translates to the most sophisticated and effective weapons, stays in power. It generally has spent a considerable period of time, and a significant component of its resources, on research and development associated with that technology.
When such a power exports its technology and that technology is easily and quickly duplicated by others without the attendant investment in its development, other emerging economic powers can then adopt it and overtake the inventing country. Not only is the technology exported in such a transition, but the scientific knowledge base is also adversely affected, along with the technology workforce.
All of the preceding having been said, this piece is not about doom and gloom. It’s about the potential of the United States if and when it applies itself.
It is about what can be done by the citizens of this great country, when we are focused, and we have effective political and social will. The question to be asked, as with many things in life, is whether we are sufficiently motivated.
Earlier this week, David Miliband, the young and dynamic Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of Great Britain, appeared on the Charlie Rose Show. (http://www.charlierose.com/guests/david-miliband) Charlie repeatedly asked Miliband about the current role of the United States and whether it still wielded power in the eyes of other countries. Miliband repeatedly responded that the United States is “The Power.”
He also said that for anything meaningful to be accomplished in the world, the United States has to exert some influence, and that we can do anything that we are sufficiently motivated to do.
Jeffrey Sachs is generally recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of our time. He is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sections/view/9). He recently published a new book, Common Wealth (http://books.google.com/books?id=t6HDAAAACAAJ&dq=%22Jeffrey+sachs%22&ei=HAU2SLzXDYu4yQTxm8zLDw).
During a recent presentation, Sachs argued that we the people of the world are biologically hard-wired and poorly led to always think in terms of us versus them.
He advocates a paradigm shift consisting of intellectual collaboration. Simply put, we are capable of thinking our way out of the problems which we are surely about to face, be they global warming or food scarcities. According to Sachs, if we propose a potential solution to a problem, there will always be negative ramifications associated with that solution.
However, we as humans have to capability to address those problems and try to minimize the impact through thinking. We can not be paralyzed by failing to utilize our problem solving capabilities and continuing to conduct business as usual.
There is another scientific development that I would submit for your consideration. In an article entitled, “Can You Become a Creature of New Habits,” appearing in the May 4, 2008 edition of the New York Times, Janet Rae-Dupree quotes Dawna Markova, as follows: “The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder.” Markova is the author of The Open Mind: Exploring the Six Patterns of Natural Intelligence, and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners.
Markova argues that we are taught today in our society to decide, as opposed to think. She adds, however, that, “…to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities.” According to Markova, most of us do not pay much attention to the manner in which our brain works when we deal with complications.
During the late 1960s, researchers discovered that humans have an innate capacity to deal with challenges in four general ways: relationally (or collaboratively), procedurally, analytically, and innovatively. Interestingly, at puberty, the brain stops relying on roughly half of its capabilities, and begins to rely on only those modes of thought that have been deemed most effective during the first decade or so of life.
Markova is concerned that the current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure. This means that few of us use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. According to M. J. Ryan, author of the 2006 book, “This Year I Will...” and Ms. Markova’s business partner, “This breaks the major rule in the American belief system — that anyone can do anything.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=9BTUAAAACAAJ&dq=%22This+Year+I+Will%22&ei=7As2SKrpFJW2ygTJr4TMDw ). “That’s a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters mediocrity. Knowing what you’re good at and doing even more of it creates excellence.”
There is one final thing that I should note from my personal archives. During my junior year in high school in 1967, I was fortunate enough to have an English teacher who required us to read Jonathan Kozol’s then recently published Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro Children in the Boston Public Schools (http://books.google.com/books?id=QCc8AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Death+at+an+early+age%22&dq=%22Death+at+an+early+age%22&ei=MqCwSLL-Lo3IywThv9CFBw&pgis=1).
Kozol, an elementary school teacher, chronicled how the low expectations on the part of teachers translated into low performance by the students. For some reason, the message of that book stuck with me for forty years.
A couple of years ago, I was “tricked” by a buddy, whose name will go unmentioned, into substitute teaching in an environment in which I simply thought that the students had suffered a delay in their education. I proceeded to teach them in the same manner in which I would expect someone to teach me. A number of them had surprising success.
When I say surprising, they were surprised, not me. I did not have any other expectations. One teacher even remarked about my ability to reach a particular student. This surprised me, because I did not do anything particularly special or different.
During a break-out session at a subsequent state-wide community college conference, I learned for the first time that I had been dealing with developmental education students, many of whom had purported learning disabilities. Everyone in the room laughed at my lack of sophistication, and failure to recognize the nature of the student population with which I had been dealing.
I then asked the break-out session leader whether I had been doing my students a disservice by assuming that they were capable of performing at a higher level. She was actually stumped for a second. Her response was essentially, perhaps in some instances, and perhaps not in others.
Earlier today on the History Channel, I heard the story of how the
Roman Empire was divided in half, with the hope that it would be easier to manage. Unfortunately, the western European half was in significant decline, as the Dark Ages approached. On the other hand, the eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, continued to flourish. Before becoming the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian I, married Theodora (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564894/Theodora.html) in 523 A.D. When he became Emperor in 527 A.D., Justinian made her a joint ruler.
In 532 A.D., the Nika riot broke out in Constantinople. Although the games being held on that day were between two rival towns, both joined forces against Justinian I, and stormed the palace, out of frustration with his rule. Legend has it that Justinian was running like a defeated man, and was literally on the dock about to step onto a departing vessel into a state of exile. He entreated Theodora to flee with him. She declined. She, who incidentally had incredible sexual proclivities, purportedly said that purple, the royal color, looked just as good on her in her capacity as empress, as it would serving as funeral attire. She convinced Justinian to remain and to fight it out. He complied, and launched a ferocious battle against the rioters, and regained control (albeit briefly). (I love this story!)
The bottom line is that we, the citizens of this once and current great nation, possess the capabilities to continue to be a great nation. Our confidence is shaken right now. However, but we haven’t been knocked out. There’s a standing eight count rule in this bout. We just need to maintain our wits about us.
We can not underestimate the power of focus, the power of hope, and all that we can do when we put our minds to it. I have not yet committed to a presidential candidate. I’m not sure that there is a whole lot of difference between them. Any one of them will do just fine. However, I understand the appeal of Barack Obama, who is purportedly light on substance and specifics. He has apparently inspired some intangible quality in millions of Americans. Isn’t that what Caroline Kennedy said? His followers aren’t quite sure where he will take them or the Nation; however, they suspect that it is better than what they have witnessed recently, whatever that is.
How many of you still wonder about the possibilities?
Let’s start thinking about our future, and the rightful place of America on the planet, before it is too late.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Let's talk about innovation. Much has been made of President Bush’s historic, low approval ratings, which have been in the 25 – 30 % range for quite some time.
However, there was a recent poll far more troubling from my perspective, that being the poll reflecting that 81% of the American public feels that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
I would suspect, truth be told, that the figure is actually closer to 98%. I would also submit that the President’s low ratings are a reflection of what we currently feel about ourselves as a Nation. After all, we allowed him to be placed in that position of authority – on two occasions.
I seriously doubt that anyone really relishes where the United States finds itself today, unless you are outside of the United States and have interests antithetical thereto.
We will probably have a record turnout for the presidential election this November. Virtually everyone is afraid of something about our current state. I, too, recognize the importance of projecting a positive, confident, upbeat image to the world; but the world sees through this.
Certain groups in our Nation are concerned about what we have become. Some are concerned about where we might go should a particular candidate win. Others are concerned about the power and influence of the church or religion.
Many feel vulnerable to another terrorist attack. And of course, there is the economy. Simply put, these are not the most comfortable of times.
However, the real question is whether we, as a nation, have the confidence and intestinal fortitude to get beyond this. Some others might describe it as the political and social will of the nation.
Last year, in my role as a motivational speaker, I had the opportunity to engage various groups of college students. Often times during the presentations, someone would make reference to the concept that “you can be anything that you want to be if you put your mind to it.”
Being a pragmatist, I would obliquely suggest that the concept is not literally or entirely true, but that rather one can be anything that one wants to be, within reason, and taking into consideration the time, the place, the resources, and on and on.
I would offer as an example, the fact that a five foot, obese, 45 year old, could probably not become a professional basketball player. I stressed the importance of a pragmatic assessment of one’s skills and resources, the market or arena into which one wants to enter, or the goal that one wants to achieve.
And then I thought about it. Something had changed in me, or something had changed about the realm of possibilities.
Part of it, I’m sure, is advancing age and realism. However, I was still concerned that my spirit had been affected, and I always prided myself on having an indomitable spirit.
I further recalled that during most of my life, I personally felt that I really could be anything that I wanted to be. Then I thought about the possibility that my age group or generation might be less optimistic about the future, but that the youth of the Nation were still very upbeat and had a positive outlook.
Well, the 81% figure quickly disabused me of that notion.
If you’ve been reading my “stuff” over any period of time now, you’ve probably noticed that I rarely respond to singular events, since I rarely consider them, in and of themselves, to be of much significance.
I have a tendency to examine multiple, disparate events, consider patterns, and examine events in history to gain some long term perspective. This is no different.
In his significant work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LvkVTPcYwEwC&q=Paul+Kennedy&dq=Paul+Kennedy&ei=GIk1SMvrOpzkyASXpOzLDw&pgis=1 ), Yale professor Paul Kennedy discusses and analyzes patterns that exist during the ascent to power, and those associated with the power’s subsequent decline.
Originally published in 1987, and after receiving rave reviews at the time, I am simply amazed that so little reference is made to it in the current discussion of where we are as a Nation. Anyone examining the book will immediately note that Kennedy did his homework, in that it is replete with economic data, which actually makes it somewhat difficult to digest.
Be that as it may, he concludes that there are three main factors that appear to repeatedly contribute to the decline of a world power. Two of them are of relevance to the United States at this point in time.
Kennedy submits that one factor is that the power is overextended militarily throughout the world, which leads to a depletion of its coffers, and a drain on its economy and energy.
The second involves technology. As a general proposition, the country which possesses the highest level of technology, which also translates to the most sophisticated and effective weapons, stays in power. It generally has spent a considerable period of time, and a significant component of its resources, on research and development associated with that technology.
When such a power exports its technology and that technology is easily and quickly duplicated by others without the attendant investment in its development, other emerging economic powers can then adopt it and overtake the inventing country. Not only is the technology exported in such a transition, but the scientific knowledge base is also adversely affected, along with the technology workforce.
All of the preceding having been said, this piece is not about doom and gloom. It’s about the potential of the United States if and when it applies itself.
It is about what can be done by the citizens of this great country, when we are focused, and we have effective political and social will. The question to be asked, as with many things in life, is whether we are sufficiently motivated.
Earlier this week, David Miliband, the young and dynamic Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of Great Britain, appeared on the Charlie Rose Show. (http://www.charlierose.com/guests/david-miliband) Charlie repeatedly asked Miliband about the current role of the United States and whether it still wielded power in the eyes of other countries. Miliband repeatedly responded that the United States is “The Power.”
He also said that for anything meaningful to be accomplished in the world, the United States has to exert some influence, and that we can do anything that we are sufficiently motivated to do.
Jeffrey Sachs is generally recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of our time. He is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sections/view/9). He recently published a new book, Common Wealth (http://books.google.com/books?id=t6HDAAAACAAJ&dq=%22Jeffrey+sachs%22&ei=HAU2SLzXDYu4yQTxm8zLDw).
During a recent presentation, Sachs argued that we the people of the world are biologically hard-wired and poorly led to always think in terms of us versus them.
He advocates a paradigm shift consisting of intellectual collaboration. Simply put, we are capable of thinking our way out of the problems which we are surely about to face, be they global warming or food scarcities. According to Sachs, if we propose a potential solution to a problem, there will always be negative ramifications associated with that solution.
However, we as humans have to capability to address those problems and try to minimize the impact through thinking. We can not be paralyzed by failing to utilize our problem solving capabilities and continuing to conduct business as usual.
There is another scientific development that I would submit for your consideration. In an article entitled, “Can You Become a Creature of New Habits,” appearing in the May 4, 2008 edition of the New York Times, Janet Rae-Dupree quotes Dawna Markova, as follows: “The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder.” Markova is the author of The Open Mind: Exploring the Six Patterns of Natural Intelligence, and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners.
Markova argues that we are taught today in our society to decide, as opposed to think. She adds, however, that, “…to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities.” According to Markova, most of us do not pay much attention to the manner in which our brain works when we deal with complications.
During the late 1960s, researchers discovered that humans have an innate capacity to deal with challenges in four general ways: relationally (or collaboratively), procedurally, analytically, and innovatively. Interestingly, at puberty, the brain stops relying on roughly half of its capabilities, and begins to rely on only those modes of thought that have been deemed most effective during the first decade or so of life.
Markova is concerned that the current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure. This means that few of us use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. According to M. J. Ryan, author of the 2006 book, “This Year I Will...” and Ms. Markova’s business partner, “This breaks the major rule in the American belief system — that anyone can do anything.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=9BTUAAAACAAJ&dq=%22This+Year+I+Will%22&ei=7As2SKrpFJW2ygTJr4TMDw ). “That’s a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters mediocrity. Knowing what you’re good at and doing even more of it creates excellence.”
There is one final thing that I should note from my personal archives. During my junior year in high school in 1967, I was fortunate enough to have an English teacher who required us to read Jonathan Kozol’s then recently published Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro Children in the Boston Public Schools (http://books.google.com/books?id=QCc8AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Death+at+an+early+age%22&dq=%22Death+at+an+early+age%22&ei=MqCwSLL-Lo3IywThv9CFBw&pgis=1).
Kozol, an elementary school teacher, chronicled how the low expectations on the part of teachers translated into low performance by the students. For some reason, the message of that book stuck with me for forty years.
A couple of years ago, I was “tricked” by a buddy, whose name will go unmentioned, into substitute teaching in an environment in which I simply thought that the students had suffered a delay in their education. I proceeded to teach them in the same manner in which I would expect someone to teach me. A number of them had surprising success.
When I say surprising, they were surprised, not me. I did not have any other expectations. One teacher even remarked about my ability to reach a particular student. This surprised me, because I did not do anything particularly special or different.
During a break-out session at a subsequent state-wide community college conference, I learned for the first time that I had been dealing with developmental education students, many of whom had purported learning disabilities. Everyone in the room laughed at my lack of sophistication, and failure to recognize the nature of the student population with which I had been dealing.
I then asked the break-out session leader whether I had been doing my students a disservice by assuming that they were capable of performing at a higher level. She was actually stumped for a second. Her response was essentially, perhaps in some instances, and perhaps not in others.
Earlier today on the History Channel, I heard the story of how the
Roman Empire was divided in half, with the hope that it would be easier to manage. Unfortunately, the western European half was in significant decline, as the Dark Ages approached. On the other hand, the eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, continued to flourish. Before becoming the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian I, married Theodora (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564894/Theodora.html) in 523 A.D. When he became Emperor in 527 A.D., Justinian made her a joint ruler.
In 532 A.D., the Nika riot broke out in Constantinople. Although the games being held on that day were between two rival towns, both joined forces against Justinian I, and stormed the palace, out of frustration with his rule. Legend has it that Justinian was running like a defeated man, and was literally on the dock about to step onto a departing vessel into a state of exile. He entreated Theodora to flee with him. She declined. She, who incidentally had incredible sexual proclivities, purportedly said that purple, the royal color, looked just as good on her in her capacity as empress, as it would serving as funeral attire. She convinced Justinian to remain and to fight it out. He complied, and launched a ferocious battle against the rioters, and regained control (albeit briefly). (I love this story!)
The bottom line is that we, the citizens of this once and current great nation, possess the capabilities to continue to be a great nation. Our confidence is shaken right now. However, but we haven’t been knocked out. There’s a standing eight count rule in this bout. We just need to maintain our wits about us.
We can not underestimate the power of focus, the power of hope, and all that we can do when we put our minds to it. I have not yet committed to a presidential candidate. I’m not sure that there is a whole lot of difference between them. Any one of them will do just fine. However, I understand the appeal of Barack Obama, who is purportedly light on substance and specifics. He has apparently inspired some intangible quality in millions of Americans. Isn’t that what Caroline Kennedy said? His followers aren’t quite sure where he will take them or the Nation; however, they suspect that it is better than what they have witnessed recently, whatever that is.
How many of you still wonder about the possibilities?
Let’s start thinking about our future, and the rightful place of America on the planet, before it is too late.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)