Propaganda: Lions for Lambs

Lions_for_Lambs

I have never reviewed a moving propaganda before, but I thought since I watch it all, why not tap in.

Lions for Lambs is a very interesting attempt to rationalize going to war against two countries whose leaders decided to bite the hand that fed it.  First against Osama Bin Laden, then Saddam Hussein.  The only true words in the entire movie were, “Rome is burning”.

I don’t mind being called a “conspiracy theorist”, because, first, I concluded there was a conspiracy and second, theory is based on scientific observation and experiment.

FightClub-poster

You may not agree, but 9/11 was prepared for, allowed and cleanly executed.  The twin towers and the adjacent buildings were felled by demolition by the incumbent powers to incite Americans to war.  Doing so did not require a large group of people, just a small backroom fraternity.  Let’s call them the Fight Club.

This set up things for the attack of Afghanistan, followed by the really big lie:  The incessent repetition, and little more, of weapons of mass destruction paranoia until the country was psychotic enough to attack Iraq.  It wasn’t a war on terror.  It was a war based on terror.

obama-youth

So, six years later, we have Lions for Lambs.  With Meryl Streep doing her trademark crying jag, this time for all the American cannon fodder in the middle east.   The rationale of continuing the offensive?  World War against China whose allies are the Al Quaeda in Pakistan, the Iranians, North Korea.  The new Axis.  This is all sprinkled in amongst a call to raise an American civilian army little different than the pre-war force in Nazi Germany building the Autobahns and marching in formation with shovels.

minorityreport

Obama is currently changing the American legal system systematically to create a judicial system for future crime using the moniker “Rule of Law”.

America is preparing for war.  They are preparing to put a general into the next Republican Presidential seat or an actor called Tom Cruise.

its-all-propaganda

Hey, young America, grab your shovels, the Long Marchers are on their way.

Business Design: A Misnomer

eight-ball

I just came from IDEO’s Tim Brown’s blog, Design Thinking, post on “A Curriculum for Business Design” and I can see his want to emphasize the need for design, but he misses the point.

I think the word “design” is becoming too much of a “to a hammer, every problem is a nail” conundrum. Every problem is not a design problem.  Business is very diverse.  What I would like to see is the following curriculum:

Business Science Inductive (Problems and Visions)
Business Science Deductive (Entrepreneurship and Leadership)
Business Design (Climates and Trends)
Business Engineering (Location and Movement)
Business Skill (Innovation and Professionalism)
Business Training (Imitation and Apprenticeship)
Business Education (Memorization and Theory)
Business Networking (Fraternity and Sorority)
Business Products (Culturing and Manufacturing)
Business Services (Sharing and Caring)
Business Marketing (Branding and Pricing)
Business Transactions (Closing and Accounting)

Design plays a part in solving every problem, but not every part of a problem is a design problem.

Let’s instill the diversity of business with design as part of the solution, not the only solution.

Oh, and if you call a problem an “issue”, that is another misnomer.  Problems are scientific and can be solved.  Issues are political and can never be solved.

They Failed, But They Were Not Afraid

gwb

When we think of physicists, the majority of us think of them as geniuses who understand the universe.  But the truth is, they do not.  Physicists, make models to explain and predict phenomena.  They are called “hypotheses”.  If a hypothesis stands up after many experiments it is called a “theory”, but it just a model.

Einstein was not a success.  He had some victories along the way, but he never achieved his goal.  Neither have the quantum physicists over the last eighty years.  They have corroborated many hypothesis that led to their ideas being called theories, but their theories are not proven.  That is because they do not predict all of the phenomena that are observed.  There are exceptions that cannot be explained.  From the first living thing that reacted to reality organisms have been trying to model their universe.  And every model is incomplete up to the physicists we have today.

Religion has become the word for the denial that a theory is incomplete.  Every religion on earth is guilty of it.  Scientists are guilty of it as well.  I am right every time I say that a model is wrong.  Goedel would agree with me.  The only constant appears to be that no theory is constant.  In fact, science requires us to speak in absolutes to leave room for falsifiability.  We have to leave no room for exceptions in order to discover the exception and change our worldview.

That is what a singularity is all about.  We refine our theory until it is cornered and then it realizes its transition into a new reality.  If we succeed in cornering out theory there is a climax.  If we fail in cornering our theory, there is an anti-climax.

Hiroshima was the singularity of the Second World War.  Nagasaki was the follow through to the exhaustion of Imperial Japan.

But Einstein’s life as a whole ended with an anti-climax as have the lives of every physicist who followed him.

Death is the ultimate anti-climax.  But do not be afraid.  No success nor failure is the complete measure of a person.  Accepting, changing strategy and trying again fearlessly is.

Jared Diamond: Societal Collapse

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Jared Diamond: System Collapse“, posted with vodpod

If you listen carefully to what Jared Diamond is saying in the TED video above, he is describing not a five part, but a six part power curve into a systemic singularity. This has been one of the core themes of discussion of this blog.  We all seem to be too close to our problems to see the commonality.  The interrogatives come into play here:

  1. Goals
  2. People
  3. Functions
  4. Forms
  5. Times
  6. Distances

Times and Distances being the basis on which the higher orders are built.

When we look at the recent economic “crisis” we see 300 trillion in currency circulating and roughly 1 trillion to 2 trillion shifting suddenly and unexpectedly.  We witnessed a systemic collapse, a singularity, a tipping point, a power curve, an exponential change, a phase transition or whatever label you want to call it.  These have been happening everywhere since Time and Distance began in different contexts and orders both in human and non-human systems.

What Jared Diamond and other alarmists are implying is that human society is now a system approaching its final singularity in this century on this planet.  We are implying that today we are experiencing a less than one percent crisis on a power curve into a singularity.  How many more iterations will the global system withstand?  Will humanity make the step into space successfully before we experience a global dark age?  How will the six or more factors in the power curve play out?

The truth to me appears to be that power curves whether they play out or not result in either a systemic climax or anti-climax followed by a systemic collapse.  Would it not be better if we experienced a systemic climax that led to us expanding into the solar system?

Systemic collapse seems to be the fashion of this generation.  Every generation looks with fascination at its own youth, maturition, reproduction and acceleration into mortality.  Some die early, some die late, but all die.  It is an irrevocable law of nature.  It is not about self-interest.  It is about what self-interest is defined as.

Related Posts:

Beyond the Singularity

Servitas and Libertas

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Romanticism vs. Empiricism

I’ve just finished reading The Long Tail by Chris Anderson as well as a fine article “Should you invest in the long tail?” in the Economist by Anita Elberse. Although I take both pieces of writing with a grain of salt one thing stands out. The scientist, Chris, conjured up a theory without any supporting data and the marketer, Anita, provided substantial supporting data and conjured up a conclusion. Chris said the long tail is fatter, while Anita found the tail is flatter. On the surface, what we have is a romantic physicist and an empirical marketer. But what lies deeper? It is a third party that Anita brings into play: William M. McPhee.

I could not find a book cover image for Formal Theories of Mass Behavior or a photo of William online, but his research is very interesting. In his Theory of Expousure, two concepts stand out: “Natural Monopoly” and “Double Jeopardy”. Natural monopoly says light users simply buy the most popular product. Double jeopardy says heavy users buy less popular products and like them less.  Another way to say it is 20 percent of us are polarized (double jeopardy) while 80 percent of us choose what the polarized like (natural monopoly).

This can be looked at in the context of a tipping point. Heavy users (Mavins, Connectors, Salesmen) will experiment with more products with a low benefit and high cost and light users (Accountants, Secretaries, Receptionists) will experiment with fewer products with a low cost and high benefit. It ain’t rocket science.

The same goes for stores, but in an interesting way. Heavy users will experiment with more stores with few products and light users will experiment with fewer stores with many products. Store count is regarded as cost and product selection is regarded as benefit.

Chris Anderson’s book appeals to a demographic that wants the benefits of heavy users and the costs of light users.

Anita Elbrese’s article appeals to a demographic that wants the costs of heavy users and the benefits of light users.

William M McPhee’s book appeals to a third demographic that says we ultimately all end up with much the same thing.

Atheism: Science vs Faith

Came across the following process flow charts and found them so amusing I thought I would reproduce them here.