The Professor's Notes

Transparency has been in the news not only with the occupy movement, but also with penn state following the big scandal.  But what is transparency?

Does transparency mean that you tell everyone everything you do and why do it?  bust you violate all levels of confidentiality?

It seems to me when people an organization promise transparency, they are acknowledging a problem and suggesting they can no longer continue doing things the way they have always been done.  I realize this is not always the case, in that sometimes we’re just promising to foster an environment of trust, but that trust is based on the concept of sharing information.

reach leads me to ask these questions is the reality of organizations promising transparency while then defending your actions as being consistent with how things have always been done. If things have always been done this way how is that being more transparent?  Or to put it another way, if you have always been transparent why promise transparency as if it is something new?

I welcome your thoughts on these questions.

The connectedness of… a newly selected nominee to the US Supreme Court, the abortion issue… Arizona immigration law… and a Pennsylvania tax amnesty commercial?

Privacy.  PRIVACY.  The RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Do you believe we should have a right to privacy?  Should we expect that our government will allow us to live our lives without surveillance, free from the need to check, to constantly look over our shoulders to see who from the government is watching?

As always the world is full of events occupying our time and driving the news.  And, as is usually the case, each story is presented in isolation.  Rarely does anyone discuss the connectedness of the stories or their implications.  Often, that means little, but occasionally the disconnectedness points to the dissonance in government when agencies pursue their agendas.  Once in a while the opportunity arises from this to view the conflict in “generalizable principles” that drive our government’s behavior. Read the rest of this entry »

A colleague of mine is a great friend. He would do anything for me, or for anyone for that matter. He honestly (and rightly) believes that we should do unto our neighbors as we would want them to do for us. My friend is a great man. I truly admire him and the heart he has for those around him.

He is also a self-professed liberal. This is not surprising. He believes that we need to look out for our neighbors, and his view of neighbor is expansive. So understandably (I hop) I found myself pondering if I am missing something. Is there something “great” about liberalism as we know it today? And if it is “great” does that mean conservatism somehow misses the boat?

After much reflection, I realized that we have two problems facing us. First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

There have been many articles and books written, speeches given, and studies done, identifying that we respond more positively, and give more freely, to concerns closer to home. So we are hard-wired to care for those around us. This “local giving” may not be motivated from a pure heart, but at least we know it happens. Superfreakonomics gives us a perspective on this altruism: ‘Most giving is, as economists call it, impure altruism or warm-glow altruism. You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.”]

So we, for whatever reasons or motivations, generally want to help our neighbors. Surely that extends to those we cannot see, correct? Well, the authors of the book SuperFreakonomics would perhaps argue no. Not only do they essentially argue that liberalism doesn’t scale, they go a step further and discusses research that indicates that, when given an opportunity, people will not only fail to behave benevolently towards their neighbor, they will in fact, cheat them. But what is most interesting here, is that, in the research they discussed, the cheating occurred most often between people who were not neighbors. “In the data, List found an interesting split: the out-of-town dealers cheated more often than the locals.”

So here is where I believe liberalism, or altruism, fails. When we ask the government to step in and perform altruistic acts, we ask the government to do a few things on our behalf:
1. We want an non-person to demonstrate humanity. We ask that the government “care.”
2. We want the government to make the “right” choices about what and whom to care for. Of course, we find that often that means bringing the “bacon” (or “Pork”) back to our own districts, where we “see the need.”
3. We want the government to do all this, without actually requiring that we pay for it, and simultaneously wanting the government to make sure someone else pays for it (“raise the taxes on the wealthy.”)

So over time, we find that government is called on less to be altruistic on a grand scale, and becomes for nearly all a way to force others to give money to causes and people they otherwise might not support, while simultaneously bringing resources to bear on my own local problems. Government then takes on the roll of proxy for the same local concerns we used to care for ourselves!

This is, of course, simply a blog. I make no pretense of conducting large scale research myself on this topic. I am simply tying together my readings, and my observations of the world around me. It seems to me that most people want to help those close to them, and most when presented with true and compelling need or tragedy, will give. But when we rely on our government to function on our behalf we become disconnected. We no longer have those “feel good” moments that cause us to practice “warm glow altruism.” Government

And then, over time, we stop caring.

Occasionally you find a company that just makes you stop and think.  And ask yourself “why didn’t they stop and think?”  Storming Media is one of those companies, and this is one of those times.  (see next post for more)

Storming Media is fast becoming the place to go to PURCHASE public domain government documents.  Yup, that’s right.  They are selling documents to you that your tax dollars have already purchased.  How do they get away with this?  They do it by providing the added value of having already done the search, and if you want, printing and binding the document.  Well, here it is in their own words:

Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects. Whether you are interested in biochemistry or military strategy, weapons or noise pollution, or anything in between, Storming Media delivers the information you need with speedy and courteous service and with our money-back guarantee that you will be satisfied. You may order any of our government reports in printed and/or downloadable PDF formats.

They also sell copies of research conducted by students at government schoools, to include my former school, AFIT–the Air Force’s Graduate School.   You can imagine the conversations that took place with students when they found their work being sold by this company.  “But it’s mine, how can they make money off it?” Read the rest of this entry »

I continue to find it amazing that the media, and President Elect Obama insist that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.  As I wrote previously, we are no where near the economy that Carter handed over to Reagan.  But lest my words didn’t convince, check out this great cartoon:

found at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Carter--Who-s-the-Worst-.htm

I have thought long and hard about what I should be putting in these blogs. My desire is to try to tackle the bigger questions, go for the “deeper” issue and philosophical underpinnings of an issue. Of course, this is predicated on the notion that logic will prevail. If presented with a cogent, factual argument, people will be persuaded, and can change.

I, of course, am not convinced of this.

For instance, I struggle with trying to identify “core values or beliefs.” I am frustrated by the constant repetition that the Democrats will unify, while the Republicans are divisive. Michael Medved was clear on his show Tuesday, when he pointed out the nation is divided, and that is seen in the political parties, and not the other way around.

Let me ask (yet another rhetorical) question. What makes the Democrats believe that they can “unify” the nation? The division isn’t simply one group liking one person and disliking another. We have at the heart of the dispute disagreements that are fundamental. While we all want the same overt outcomes (success for people, healthcare, jobs) how we view people, and thus how we believe our nation can best achieve these goals, are vastly different.

This is made manifest in just listening to the personalities on Air America, especially their morning shows. One morning they commented that they don’t disrespect, or hate, Christians, and then, literally in the next breath, they made fun of these people who “actually believe” these things. Now, how they can’t see the blatant hypocrisy in that statement, I don’t know. Another interesting aspect of the division is when Janeane Garafolo commented that George Bush “actually said the verdict is still out on Evolution” and continued to deride his Christian beliefs. The true irony came when she said essentially that it is terrible that “Bush doesn’t believe in Evolution.” Heck, is it belief, or something else?

See, the debate is fundamental. This isn’t about parties, and divisive politics. It’s about vastly different world views, irreconcilable world views.

So honestly, how can EITHER party truly consider themselves uniters? Even Clinton, who saw himself as a great uniter, never was able to earn even 50% of the popular vote, in either election.

The only way I can see, is to win the election, and then pretend that no one disagrees with you, and that your mandate is complete–the very view the Democrats have accused the Bush Administration for taking.

The exam is next week–I hope you are studying.