President Obama Report Card

"I think I will be an evil person" is not something that many people seriously take as a life goal. It would be too difficult to be evil all the time. In addition, you would be totally alone, with no one to follow you or respect you.

Most people see themselves as good people. But sometimes actions and ideas can be bad or even evil. Even the best of us has a bad day, and the worst of us a good one.

The key to leading is to separate people from bad ideas and bad deeds. There are two problems with this.

1. Dunbar's Number. Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, postulated that the human neocortex is large enough to only have a close social understanding of about 150 people. Beyond that, the people we meet are placed into groups and not seen as much as individuals but as representatives of groups. It is very easy to classify groups as evil, since you do not know them, nor do you see them as people, good with some bad ideas and bad deeds.

2. Who you know intimately does not map onto the population of the people you lead. If your core group of social acquaintances is primarily from a minority, you will not see the majority as good with flawed ideas or flawed deeds, but as evil people. A similar problem arises when the leader is from the majority, but in that case, the leader is still in touch with the will of the majority (which need not stand opposed to minority rights and freedoms).

President Obama

It would appear that President Obama did not have enough contact with majority members of the US population to enable an open minded approach. For example, he characterises people working in finance as "Wall Street Fat Cats" and "Fat Cat Bankers", has attacked the chief of BP. He jumped into the fray between a college professor and a police officer, assuming racism where it was not present. He assumes evil (or sometimes stupidity) of those who do not agree with him. This tendency to consider those who find fault with your ideas or deeds as evil or stupid is a serious flaw in a leader. If everyone took this approach there would be no learning or growth, no search for common ground and no compromise. It takes courage to stand up against evil deeds and evil ideas, and even more courage to stand up for the right of good people to challenge your ideas and deeds.

So, a leader leads by ideas and deeds. One would hope that both the ideas and deeds of the leader, if enacted by all good people, would lead to a better world. Lets see how Mr. Obama is doing:

• Smokes cigarettes. While a benefit to tobacco growers, the overall impact of smoking is negative. Indeed, smoking, like all preventable risk factors for disease, is best avoided by good people.
• Many vacations. The President earns $569,000 per year which includes $100,000 for travel and $19,000 for entertainment. If everyone who had a good income flaunted it by taking numerous vacations at a time when the nation is suffering from high unemployment, would that be a good thing?
• Borrowing against future generation's income. This is the equivalent of selling our children into slavery, as the children of the future will have to pay the debt we incur today. This is an evil idea.
• Failing to understand how tax policies impact employment. It is said that we are in the middle of a jobless recovery. This was predicted by others, but rejected or ignored by Mr. Obama last year. Now, Mr. Obama is coming close to calling corporations and their executives evil because they are not hiring the workers that Mr. Obama would like to see removed from the unemployment lines. One fears that the next idea will be to force private enterprises to hire people or face governmental penalties. This would certainly be an evil deed.
• Failing to understand the concepts of negotiation. (See prior post).
• Blaming others for his failures. Whether the classic "its all George W. Bush's fault" or any variation of that, this ad hominem attack indicates the failure to "man up" to his own overselling or underproducing. Either his deeds have been inadequate or his ideas have been bad. Even if his ideas and deeds are bringing us to the best conclusion, his failure to set an accurate time schedule is no one's fault but his own.
• His tendency to see the majority as evil and the minority as good colors his entire perspective of leadership. This not only labels many good people as evil, it fails to separate ideas and deeds from people. This painting of people with a large brush does not build unity, but instead fosters division. Indeed, I heard a supporter of Obama state that it is the responsibility of the majority to be sensitive to the needs and wants of the minority, but not vice versa. This implies that just by being a member of a majority, you are somehow evil and less deserving of respect. This failure to separate the person from the idea or deed is a failing of courage and peace, and is divisive.

These are a few of the problems with Mr. Obama's approach to leadership. Unlike his vision, I believe there are few truly bad people, but certainly many bad ideas and bad deeds, many done with the best of intentions. For example, an economy should be sustainable and one that relies on government redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation on present and future generations, manipulation of the money supply, and government take-over of the private sector is not sustainable and certainly cannot grow with the population. Focusing on the deeds and ideas, testing and excluding ones that don't work, is the key to great leadership, not demonizing those who would oppose you. As of now, Mr. Obama does not show the characteristics of a great leader.

Let's Negotiate!

How do you know if you can negotiate with someone? Here are a few prerequisites for peaceful, friendly negotiation.

• Both parties must want a friendly outcome. Smile and a handshake. Mutual respect, if not friendship.
• The negotiation and resolution must be trustworthy. If the person might go back on his word, or if the person does not have the last word, or if the person might be replaced by another who will see things differently, could you trust the negotiation?
• Ideally, there should be a win-win outcome to the negotiation. The two possible outcomes cannot be so diametrically opposed as to not allow a simultaneous win.
• Each party should have a fall back position, a position better than an unfavorable negotiation. Not an all or nothing approach; not a take no prisoners approach.

The alternative to this type of negotiation is war: to use violence, fear, bribery and force to make your opponent suffer and bend to your will. This is, after all, the so-called point of war: to exert your will over your enemy.

The concept of Israel negotiating with the Palestinians is a case in point.

• No Respect. Palestinians have no respect for the Israelis, and, given a choice, would not be friends with them.
• Unreliable and untrustworthy. The Palestinians have a history of unreliability in the arena of negotiations, frequently going back on their word. And with many leaders, who is to speak for all of them?
• No win-win. Many Palestinians hold strong to the position of driving Israel into the sea, with no Jewish state in the Middle East. This is diametrically opposed to Israel's plan to persist.
• No fall-back. The Palestinian fall back position does not exist. If there cannot be total victory, then sacrifice of the lives of individuals is the plan. Suicide bombers. Firing rockets into Israel with the chance of death from retaliation. Death is not a fall back plan.

The warm, fuzzy negotiation or the hard-nosed negotiator cannot win where the basics are missing. We are about to see the failure of another attempt to negotiate the Israel-Palestinian issue due to a failure to understand what peaceful negotiation can and cannot do.

Self Mastery

How can a slave be identified? A slave is a person who is not his own master. What things can be used to control slaves?

• Violence
• Fear
• Bribery

If you discover that any of your actions are due to any of these three factors, then you are a slave.

What drives a free person, a person who is his own master? Again, there are three forces

• Peace
• Courage
• Enlightened self interest (actions that, if everyone did, would serve you as much as anyone else)

It is certainly a sad thing if people are slaves. It is tragic when those who rule others are slaves. While many would say that the greatest misery of humanity is when those at the top impose slavery on the masses, DocBrain would also postulate that it is more likely that those at the top are slaves. Think of all the evil doers and ask yourself "Were these people motivated by peace, courage and enlightened self interest? Or, were they motivated by violence, fear and bribery?"

When we see our politicians in action, do their words and deeds favor one position or the other? Do their actions have data as well as reason to show that they are in one camp or the other?

Some Examples

Global Warming. If you are motivated by fear for our planet, if you believe in energy credits to change behavior, you are a slave. If you look at the situation, see a need for individuals to conserve energy and do it yourself, you are a free person. Your actions will encourage others to follow suit.

Illegal Immigration. It is in your own interest that all people in the US who are capable of working earn their own way. Your citizens cannot be subject to fear. So, those here illegally who are working at jobs that citizens don't want should be allowed to stay. All others should be returned to their point of entry.

Taxes. Ideally, taxes would be few and limited, only enough to protect citizens from bribery, fear and violence. This would leave enough wealth in the private sector to foster enlightened self interest through fair competition for jobs, open opportunities to establish businesses, and freedom to trade with others for mutual benefit. The problem with higher taxes is that the money coming in actually empowers those in government to be able to exert bribery upon the citizens and exposes those in government to being bribed themselves as they are wined and dined to use their positions to divert funds in one direction or another.

As usual, comments are welcome!

Tough Question?

This post will address national laws only.

In Theory...

We live in a nation of laws. So, laws rule us. We have officers of the law to enforce laws and judges and courts to decide if a law has been violated and to prescribe remedy under the law.

We also have Congress to design laws and a President to enact laws and to set the tone for enforcement. We have courts to judge on the Constitutionality of the law, with laws that go against the Constitution being declared illegal by the courts, thereby ending their enforcement and the right to seek remedy. In extreme circumstances, the Constitution can be amended, but this requires most Americans to agree to the change and is a process that spans years, sometimes decades. Some of the amendments have been good, others so bad they had to be repealed.

The Real World

Now, the average citizen wants two things out of laws:

1. Simplicity, so that he can understand the law
2. Congruence with the moral and ethical fabric of America

Unfortunately, the average citizen has no power to make sure that the first desire is met. Indeed, when laws are thousands of pages long, even those voting on the law do not fully understand the content of the laws. DocBrain believes there should be an amendment to the Constitution requiring that all laws be simple enough to be basically understood by the governed without needing to resort to legal counsel.

What about the second part, making sure the laws reflect our values? There are three ways this can be determined:

1. Public polls (such as Proposition 8), where a value is put up to a vote. Those in favor and those opposed vote their beliefs; those who could care less don't vote. We get a reflection of the opinion of those who care about an issue.
2. A standard (in the USA, the Constitution, as written). A law is compared with the Constitution, as written, and if not congruent, is discarded.
3. Expert opinion. Thought leaders, sitting in the position of judges, could allow certain laws that go against public opinion and against the Constitution (and squash laws that go with public opinion and with the Constitution) just because they believe that their decision would be good for America. These people see themselves as our betters, as more capable of deciding what should be legitimate or not than either public opinion or the Constitution (as written).

So, which of these three should be the highest standard? The lazy answer is "It depends". This answer is lazy because it leads to the next two questions "On what?" and "Who is to decide?" And then, we will have to decide if it depends on:

1. Public opinion
2. A standard
3. Expert opinion

and we have cycled back to the beginning again. So, what should be the highest standard?

DocBrain believes that, for better or worse, the standard should be the Constitution, which should be strictly interpreted based upon the original four legal precepts:

1. Equality under the law (all, regardless of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, income, level of education, intelligence, fame, political connections, or political affiliation are equal in court)
2. Life (the government may not take your life except by due process)
3. Liberty (the government may not take your freedom except by due process)
4. Pursuit of happiness (the government may not interfere with your acting in your own self interest and ownership of your own property, except by due process)

The next standard should be public opinion. Public opinion is usually distilled from traditions and core values. These do change over time due to diffusion of knowledge, alleviation of fears, and growth of trust.

The least standard should be expert opinion. One of the flaws of expert opinion is that the evidence to support it is not strong enough to have been incorporated into either the Constitution or the public trust. Also, experts often disagree, and neither the public nor the Constitution are in a position to determine which expert is more correct.

So, for example, when it comes to gay marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically forbids gay marriage, but also nothing that makes it illegal to ban it. While some experts believe that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, the public has spoken in California, and this should be respected as reflecting the will of the people at this point in time. While it is likely that, as time passes, the comfort level of people with gay marriage will increase, this involves prediction of the future, which is not possible. And who would predict the future but an expert, only to be refuted by another expert?

Comments, as usual, are welcome!

Retribution

Is it appropriate for there to be an Islamic mosque at ground zero? This makes as much sense as a white supremist reflection pool in Oklahoma. Perhaps the Israeli airforce could bomb the Empire State Building so there could be a synagogue in midtown Manhattan! It is self-serving and not an olive branch to world peace.

The World Trade Center was a symbol of capitalism. It was destroyed by Islamic fundamentalists, creating (or at least widening) a rift between the West and Islam. While many in the west have tried to calm the fears of citizens, little has been done by Islamic countries to mend fences, in the name of Islam.

DocBrain has a solution.

Islamic countries should pool their resources and rebuild the WTC in Manhattan. They should then turn it over as a gift to America, as a symbol of their solidarity with America and support of capitalism (which, incidentally, has made many of them quite wealthy). We have accepted symbolic gifts before (ie, Statue of Liberty), so no problems with lack of precedence. This gesture would cement the relationship between the west and compassionate Islam. While no building can replace the loss of loved ones, this gesture would certainly show that most Muslims stand with us and not against us.

Comments are welcome.

Capitalism...its not just for Conservatives anymore!

"I have more than the average person. What would be the best use of my money?"

This question, posed to a progressive, would probably be answered as follows: "Your money is best used when the government decides how best to use it to help those who are in need, those who have less than you, particularly those who have been denied their fair share of the benefits of society. A less good use might be for you to give it to private charities, but how can you know which is best? Better leave it to bureaucratic experts than your own flawed judgement. You certainly should not spend it!"

The progressive would hope that the government would not even have given you the opportunity to ask that question, as most of your money should have already been confiscated in the name of the needy people.

And yet, do progressives walk the walk?

A blatant display of capitalism occurred this past weekend when Chelsea Clinton marriage was paid for by her parents. No expense was spared in providing their only daughter with a fine wedding and reception. Private caterers, florists, musicians, and other support personnel were hired. The entire event was first rate, no expense spared.


Capitalism is a good thing, embraced by the Clintons. It is an excellent way to spread the wealth!