The Democrats' Trump Card in 2016

Back last fall, I considered the possibility that Donald Trump's campaign were being instrumented by Democrats.

In fact, looking at the field, I was wondering who (http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html) might have organized it so that I might have to seriously consider voting for the former president's wife.

Nothing against women in general or Hillary in person, but she is not the woman I want to fulfill, in the literal sense for the US, the prophecy in Isaiah 3: 12.

Mind you, the problem is not the gender. And the prophecy is already being fulfilled in the allegorical sense that matters: that people should be seeing gender relationship as warfare.

Sorry, guys, when we insist on making it a fight, we're going to lose.

Not that women really win. Nobody really wins the battle between the sexes. But when we insist on making it a battle, women may lose the battles, but they end up being in charge of everything. Whether they are the power behind the throne or the occupants of the throne, they end up controlling things. That's what the prophecy is all about.

And that is bad. We need balance. We need everyone to participate as equals, regardless of gender or other personal traits.

Fighting is the wrong thing to do.

Frankly, if it's between Trump and Hillary, I'm most likely voting for Hillary. Trump is a loose cannon.

And, this is where he is fooling everybody: Trump is just as much old guard as anyone else in the field. More so in many ways.

The old guard is all about money. Getting lots of money and "doing stuf with it".

Trump doesn't have a lot (relatively speaking) of money of his own. What he has is money he gets people to give or lend him. What he does with it is sell what he thinks people are buying.  (And, frankly, his record there is pretty mixed. He has not demonstrated that he knows how to get out of debt in any other way than to find something new to sell. I don't think he understands generating real value (http://free-is-not-free.blogspot.jp/2013/07/where-does-value-come-from.html).)

He just happened to tap into the frustrations, and he is selling the obvious political salve now. Salve is at best a temporary measure. Salves quit working if you don't fix the underlying problems.

His brand of salve is pretty caustic, too. Wall around the US? We were celebrating the fall of the Wall in Berlin just a few years ago. 

If you look at what he has been selling as an entrepeneur, you have an idea what he will sell when the salve no longer works. He is old guard at it's worst.

If you think you want to elect someone who knows how to use money, look at Bill Gates. And then ask yourself why you want to elect someone who knows how to manipulate people, facts, and markets like that. Charisma has its limits.

Back to the topic of manipulating the primaries.

At the time, I was thinking of such a tactic as mostly a propaganda move. Poison the well. Paint the whole party black by association with Trump.

But I also thought about the possibility of an attempt to divide and subvert the opponents by orchestrating mass "defections" from one's own party to support a non-viable candidate, and otherwise reduce the effective influence of the other party. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_voting)

It has happened before, in local elections. And the influence of party line crossing in "key" voting districts in past presidential elections has also been the subject of political analyses.

I've read a number of news articles recently that say the exit polls indicate a lot of crossover voting -- voters in Republican primaries claiming to be erstwhile Democrats who are voting for Trump as a Republican candidate "because they really want a change". (https://newrepublic.com/article/127442/explains-trump-sanders-crossover-vote)

Who organized this mass crossing of lines?

How can we avoid this kind of party crashing?

Who drew the lines in the first place? There is a problem here. Actually, the lines are a political weapon, used to divide a people against itself. But this problem also demonstrates one of the serious weaknesses of the two party system as it presently exists. If Republicans were thinking in terms of warfare, it would be time to go vote in the Democratic primaries for Sanders.

Start crashing their party.

In many cases, you can go back and vote in the Republican primary, too.

Wow. It's not really a problem if both parties allow crossing the lines. Unless you think that giving the people the power to turn the incumbents out is a problem.

I'm thinking it may be a good way to help really ensure a decent turnover in government.

This sword has two edges. Still wielding a sword is like wielding an axe. It's a dangerous business. We want to be careful where and who we cut, and we need to remember that every stroke has a possibility of being turned against us.

This is one fact about war that every individual hungering for a rumble should remember: Swords regularly injure the wielder thereof. You will not cut just the enemy. You will cut yourself and people you care about.

Now, as for the ultimate possibility of Trump getting elected, let's open our eyes and take a long view.

First, Hillary -- Eight years ago, she would have been a disaster as president. At least, at first. She has gained a lot of experience since then, and it's evident that she is no longer the idealist that would have initially wrought havoc in the White House.

Next, Sanders -- Yes, he could still cause some serious problems in the White House until he learns the ropes, learns the limits of the office, and the limits of political power. As long as he remains a political socialist, he will be liable to make a mess of things. But he is definitely showing more understanding of political realities as his campaign continues.

Cruz? -- No. He is not showing evidence that he even wants to understand the underlying issues. Not yet.

Rubio? -- The media portrays him as SO YOUNG! He's the same age as Cruz, and his faith in human nature which the media has played as naivity and weakness is something I want in a president. And he has a good record in Florida, shows flexibility, shows an ability to bring people together, and shows tenacity for issues he understands to be important. He was the most dangerous to the old guard.

I liked Rubio the best of the candidates in the two major parties, but now he has dropped out. I don't understand why he's endorsing Trump. Maybe that's more media misinterpretation.

Kasich? -- Initially, he seemed too removed from the political processes to survive the current political climate, but he is showing more ability to articulate his case. His record is good, and his politics are sound. I could vote for a Kasich - Rubio ticket.

The major party candidates have "grown" in a way since last fall. Even Cruz, really. Last fall, the media was able to portray Hillary as the only serious candidate. Now we have more serious candidates.

Looking at the minor party candidates, I'm sort of interested in Gary Johnson. His record indicates the sort of competence the office requires these days and the sort of idealism and leadership that could be effective in the major course corrections coming up.

Last fall, I was thinking it was about time for a minor party candidate to be elected. I'm not sure I've changed my mind.

They say the office makes the man, and it's true. Every candidate, including Trump, would likely be able to grown into the presidency. Trump, as he is now, would do some significant damage in the process.

Damage in terms of helping upset the status quo is not necessary a bad thing. The damage I'm worried about is what Trump thinks he understands about the Constitution, and the bad precedents he could set while fixing his understanding. I have similar concerns about Cruz, Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, but the concerns are not as deep. Less concerns about Hillary than eight and four years ago.

I don't really think Trump's candidacy is a direct product of Democratic conspiracy, but Democrats could have played key parts in getting his candidacy started and in feeding the media frenzy that is helping drive it. Whether the line crossing is part of deliberate efforts to undermine the Republican party or not is not really important. It's a two-edged sword.

Some of those line crossers will actually stay in the Republican party for a while, too, which is also just fine.

If Trump's candidacy were really part of a conspiracy to undermine the Republicans' game plan, I'm going to say now that it won't work that way.

Here's the real reason for the race: to get the citizens thinking in terms of what they as individuals should be doing to solve their own problems and to help solve the problems of the people around them. Who wins is not so important as long as the voice of the people is not muted.

The president is not king for four years. He's just one part of the picture. Congress, the courts, and the people. Four powers to provide checks and balances.

(Yeah, four. Not the three branches of government we used to be taught when I was in the primary grades. Four branches. Sovereignty, the power, comes from the people.)

Absolute Freedom, and Campaign Promises

Having talked about the roots of terrorism a little bit, I think I should talk about the concept of freedom a little bit as well.

Do you want to be free?

Freedom has costs. It doesn't come free and it doesn't come easy.

And there is no absolute freedom.

Platitudes, platitudes. Okay, let's walk through some thought experiments.

When I was just out of high school I often rode my bike to work. Pushing against the West Texas wind, riding up and down the rolling hills of certain parts of Odessa -- easy slopes on a ten-speed, but long, I often wished I knew of a way to counter all the forces I worked against. Gravity and friction were way up their amoung the forces I lazily thought I'd like to be free of.

All the science fiction I used to read, and my habit of daydreaming, I dreamed about getting rid of gravity. I'd heard the kite string analogy in a Church Conference talk, so I was roughly aware of where that would lead.

No string:

Nothing for the wind to work against.

The kite is just tossed about in the wind, blown in the air and then back down against the ground.

Blown away down the road and across the fields and into the trees.

And broken to pieces.

Then I worked over the high-school physics I knew in my head and realized that, indeed, without gravity and friction, I'd have a much harder time getting to work.

Assuming the earth somehow held together, I'd be floating around above it, nothing to push against, no way to accelerate in any direction without getting rid of mass, perfectly free, unable to get anywhere.

So I then daydreamed about getting rid of friction.

Again, assuming things would hold together without friction, it would be tires slipping against the pavement, feet slipping off the pedals.

Everything would slip.

No way to pump, no way to get moving, no way to steer, no way to brake.

No friction and no gravity.

Perfectly free in all directions, and no way to get anywhere or do anything.

Perfectly free is not free at all.

Freedom is definitely not something you want and number one priority. Number two or below. (I'm thinking about number five or eight, depending on how I'm counting on a particular day. Way up there, but not as important as God, family, country, or being able to work.)

Actually, I'd put freedom and law about equal in priority, but that's a rant for another day.

What does this have to do with not running for president?

Look at all the campaign promises. Look again. Is the candidate promising anything that looks just a little like perfect freedom for all?

Which of those promises do you want the winning candidate to actually follow through completely on?

Even my abstract platform of cleaning up the body of US law -- if that's taken too far, too quickly, it would tend to be rather destructive of society.

Imagine 400 million Americans floating above the surface of the earth, perfectly free, perfectly unable to do anything. Alleghorically speaking.

Many people who think they hate America would think they love that idea.

Google Filtering This Blog?

I get the feeling that maybe there is some subtle manipulation of blogs on Google's part.

Some of my posts in this blog have somehow missed the usual announcement process.

They are published, they are visible, but they don't seem to get announced.

Generally, my posts to any of the (too many) blogs I have on blogspot register pageviews immediately. I hit the post button and I already have at least one view show up in my stats. If I check back in a few minutes, I have more views.

Yesterday, when I posted a rant recommending the President take more active part in cleaning up the mess of spaghetti that is the US Legal Code, there were no views of that page. There still aren't any views of that page as I type this.

Today, I started another rant, as a note to myself that I want to rant about Amendment 16. My thumb must have dragged on the trackpad when I was trying to backspace, to correct some mistyping in the title, and the publish button got pressed. There was nothing but an uninformative "Course Corrections #2: An Ammend" or something like that in the title, and nothing at all in the body.

It immediately got one view.

I quickly reverted that post to draft, and it is sitting there with 2 views recorded. (Maybe I should keep it as it is, and re-publish it, just to demonstrate what I mean a little more clearly. I'll have to think about whether that would be meaningful.) 

I remember this happening to at least one other post in this blog.

I don't remember whether it was my rant on the non-felicitous nature of the current definition of, and focus on terrorism that met the same fate, or my first rant here, on a proposed ammendment for avoiding the potential for re-interpreting treaty provisions into a loophole against the Constitution. But one of them did suffer this effect.

It could be a simple glitch. They definitely haven't completely blocked those posts, nor have they black-listed them in their search engine.

But they were not announced via Google+:

That's the way Google+ shows my blogs right now, in spite of having edited and re-published the rant on untangling the law at least twice since I published it last night.

 

The other time(s) this happened, the post(s) eventually found their way into Google+, after a day or more. It'll be interesting to see this time, as well.

So, glitch or hidden censorship? Or maybe there is a list Marm for Google+, monitoring for posts that need to be kept from the full light of day until someone makes sure they won't start a riot?

You know, I'm not sure that would even be unethical. I've concurred about monitoring on users groups in the past, still do. And social networking is basically setting up a very broad users group.

Anyway, let's see what happens.

My Ideal Platform: Cleaning up US Law

[Note: This is an alleghory about law. I didn't think the computer programming examples were too far out of reach. But even if you think the listing of BASIC source code looks scary, please don't be intimidated. Bleep over the code. There's important stuff down below. JMR20160310]

If you have ever been involved in large software projects, you will have heard the expression, "spaghetti code". The term is used to indicate that the code is unstructured, tangled, difficult to understand, difficult to modify, and difficult to prove correct. In other words, spaghetti code is not good code.

("Rat's nest" is another term used with similar meaning.)

The entry in wikipedia on the subject, as I write this, mentions GOTOs, exceptions, and threads of control. It shows an overly simplified example:

10 i = 0
20 i = i + 1
30 PRINT i; " squared = "; i * i
40 IF i >= 10 THEN GOTO 60
50 GOTO 20
60 PRINT "Program Completed."
70 END

This is compared to the slightly more structured-looking

110 FOR i = 1 TO 10
120     PRINT i; " squared = "; i * i
130 NEXT i
140 PRINT "Program Completed."
150 END

The latter example (lines 110 - 150) is a bit more clear (especially if you are familiar with this use of the word, "for" in the English language).

But the former example (lines 10 - 70) is not really unstructured. The GOTOs are merely being used to construct the execution paths of a counted loop, whereas, in the latter (lines 110 - 150), the FOR ... NEXT explicit counted loop is used. The layout of the former code pretty much shows the structure of the loop. And the code is short and clear.

Some early dialects of BASIC had no multi-line loops. When you write structured code for such dialects, it basically looks like lines 10 - 70, but with more stuff between the GOTO lines.

So this example is a little easy to misinterpret. It doesn't really demonstrate the primary qualities of spaghetti code.

We need a better example.

In the following, I'll use a misfeature that was originally intended (ironically) to help improve code structure, the computed GOTO (line 300), to help slightly tangle the code:

200 e = 0
210 GOTO 300
220 PRINT i; " squared = "; i * i
230 GOTO 300
260 REMARK Remember to set e before you start! 
300 ON e GOTO 310,330
310 i = 0 
320 e = 1 
330 IF i < 10 THEN i = i + 1 ELSE GOTO 350
340 GOTO 220
350 PRINT "Program Completed."
360 END 

Yes, I deliberately contrived this example. And maybe my use of the computed GOTO was specious. Line 300 could have read

 300 IF e = 0 GOTO 310 ELSE GOTO 330

for the same effect. But you can see how the code is beginning to develop spaghetti structure. The code jumps around. That is, there are branches (GOTOs) and branch targets (the numbered lines) that you don't really know reasons for unless you sit and think through the code.

[I decided to check the code with a real BASIC interpreter, and I posted the results in my Programming is Fun blog. And now we are done with talking specifically about computer program source code. JMR20160310]

While you can read the program effect of each line of code, you are not sure of the real meaning, the semantic intent, of each line.

The question you should be asking is, "Why did this end up this way?"
Usually, software engineers don't intentionally write code like this. Sometimes we do it for fun and recreation. I've done it here to demonstrate a mild form of the junping around that we call spaghetti.

Some engineers (maybe engineers who are not all that confident of their own ability to keep a job) do actually write spaghetti code intentionally.

How this kind of code usually gets written, however, is that code just tends to grow. You start with something simple, then you find it doesn't work everywhere you want to use it, so you "fix it". Sometimes you want to add useful features, so you fix it up a bit.

That means adding code.

It also should mean removing code and re-structuring code, but we always have something else we want to be doing. And we usually have lots of other things our managers want us to be doing, because lines of code disappearing or just moving around doesn't seem to be evidence of productive work.

First, some lines will get re-used. Therefore, the meanings of those lines changes, because of the re-use.

Then, in order to support the changes in meanings, code is added here and there, and spaghetti-like structure gets added to the code.

It's like a shelf in your workshop that you quit using, then you start using it for something else. You didn't plan on it holding more than some small flower pots, but now it's holding a bunch of books, and you sometimes look at the nails and the warping planks and wonder how it's holding up. Someday it's gonna sag and fall.

Now, it's not so much where the code was coming from and where it is going to when it hits line 330, it's what the meaning of line 330 is in the context of where it came from and where it is going.

(I could offer more examples via include files and conditional compilation and macro definitions in the C language, but I hope this is enough.)

The spaghetti is semantic spaghetti more than flow of control spaghetti. You are following a thread of thought in the code, and suddenly there is stuff there that breaks the thread of thought that you thought you were following. And you have to go looking somewhere else in the code. Sometimes you have to spend hours just looking for where you should look.

What does this have to do with a campaign platform?
US law has a lot of semantic spaghetti in it. Laws that were written years ago are repurposed for things they were never originally intended for.

So the laws are "fixed" by adding snippets of code. Sometimes you put a note in that a particular word should be read with a special meaning in a particular section of the code. Sometimes you put in a note that a particular section has been basically repealed and replaced by something else, with notes about where to find that something else.

So you often have to jump through a lot of addenda to read and understand the current version.

Even in the best of cases, in order to write laws concisely, specialized definitions are use, and you have to refer to the specialized definitions or find yourself misinterpreting the laws. But the longer the code sits around gathering cruft, the more of those specialize definitions appear.

One more egregious factor in spaghetti law, there are usually "riders" on laws, things leftover from the bargaining process that add to the complexity of the law.

A law is passed for one purpose, but, in bargaining to get the law passed, agreements are made that have nothing to do, really, with the law. And those agreements are attached to the law, "riding" into the code on the backs of the irrelevant law. More addenda.

And would it surprise you to know that laws are often written using incorrect grammar and vocabulary? Too many lawyers never really got a good grip on the basics of language.

I have often thought that a "Doctor of Law" degree should require a minor in both computer science and linguistics -- linguistics because lawyers who can't read and write English can't make good law in English, and computer science because lawyers should be required to understand the processes of definition and implementation of code.

Code for humans is a bit more malleable than code for machines, but it's still code.

The end result is that laws, as they exist on the books, actually end up with a lot of effects different from the advertised intent.

The US law (US Code, they call it) needs to be cleaned up.

The president cannot void laws that already exist, but he can use his power of veto to send badly written law back to Congress, with his reasoning, and make them either fix the laws or override his veto, if they want the bad laws passed.

One platform I would like to see candidates run on is a platform of never allowing bills from Congress that he couldn't read and understand to become law, to veto such laws and send them back with the reasons.

That's what the Constitution says he is supposed to do. If he doesn't approve it, he is supposed to send it back, with notice of disapproval, and with his reasons. Take a look at Article I section 7.

Poorly constructed law, including the existence of riders and such, should be plenty of reason to send the law back. Almost automatic reason.

And a willingness to commit to do so on his platform would indicate he understands at least part of the Constitutional definition of the Office of President that he aspires to.

Enlightened about Mynumber -- マイナンバーについてひらめいた

I should be sleeping. I spent most of last week fighting off the flu, I've got important work tomorrow, and I should be trying for a soft landing.
昼寝しているはず。先週の大半がインフルエンザとの戦いに消え、明日は大事な仕事があり、今はちゃんとした治り方を狙っているべきでした。

I just got back from a very enlightening visit to the post office.
只今郵便局へ行ってきてよく悟りました。

Last fall, we had been hearing rumors about the "My Number" personal (identifying) number campaign. Then I got a notice, a pamphlet, and some paper "proofs of provision" temporary ID cards from an organization claiming to be the "Japan Agency for Local Authority Information Systems".
去年の秋、「マイナンバー」個人（身分指摘）番号のキャンペーンの噂を聞いたりしていたのです。ついでに手に届いた〜お知らせ、小雑誌と、借り証明書にあたる通知カードがいわゆる「地方公共団体情報システム機構（J-LIS）」から届きました。

I tried to scan through the pamphlet and it makes no sense:
サッと読もうと、意味が見えません。

Isn't it wonderful!
素晴らしいではありません！

We are officially presenting you with your very own personal identifying number! It slices. It dices. It unifies all your paperwork!
貴方にあなた専用の個人身分指摘番号を正式にご交付いたします！スライス型に切ります！キューブ型に切ります！全部の手続きを統一させます！

This is apparently a Japanese version of that peculiar atrocity of modern US Federal Information Systems, the Social Security Number. (How many of us remember that the SSN wasn't supposed to be an ID number? The US SSN cards are deliberately designed to be lacking in ID features.) Or, rather, the Taxpayer Identification Number (which is aliased to the SSN, unless you object for religious reasons).
見る上、これは米政府の情報システム機関の特殊の人道に対する罪たる社会保険保障番号の日本版のようなものです。（アメリカ人が思い出すかな？社会保障番号は元々身分証明番号になるはずではなかった。SSNカードの設計は目的をもって、身分を証明するものを含めていません。）エェッと、社会保障番号ではなく、連邦納税者識別番号のようなものです。（宗教上の理由で社会保障番号の義務を否定する人以外は、同じ番号ですが。）

Nobody wanted this. The claimed benefits are already available through other means. Why did this suddenly happen?
これが欲しいといった人はいません。主張の便利は他の手段で既にできます。どうしてこれがイキナリにできるのですか？

My sister sent me a little Christmas present -- a money order for less than a hundred dollars. So I went to the post office to exchange it today. (Yes, I've been busy since Christmas.)
姉に、クリスマスの小さなご褒美、つまり一万円以下の米ドル郵便為替を送っていただきました。やっと、郵便局へ行って日本円に変えようと思いました。（正に、クリスマス以来忙しくて行けなかった。）

The Japanese Post Office is also a bank, you see. It makes it much easier to send money in a society where checks are not used by ordinary people. (I should blog about the reasons for that sometime.)
アメリカ人は、日本の郵便局が銀行でもあることにびっくりすることがあります。アメリカの小切手を普段に使う慣習に関係があるでしょう。（いつかその背景についてブロッグを投稿しましょう。）

So the clerk at the post office tells me I need my Mynumber card to exchange the money order. (Serious personal information leakage potential here? Naw, of course we trust the post office personnel! Don't we?)
そして、郵便局の窓口の方は、外国為替を現金に替えるために、マイナンバーカードが必要になることを説明してくださいました。（これは個人情報の漏洩かのな場面になるかな？イヤイヤイヤ、郵便局の店員は個人情報についてはやはり硬いですよ！無論。）

Need the ID card to cash the foreign currency money order.
外国為替を現金に替えるために、身分証明証が必須です。

In other words, I'm a terrorist. In Japan. For less than two hundred dollars last year, if you include my birthday.
つまり、俺がテロ。誕生日を含めて去年に、２万円以下をもって、日本にしてテロだ。

No. That's not what this is. Mynumber is being foisted on Japan because Japan is third world.
否、そうじゃないよ。マイナンバーは日本に強制させられているのは日本が第三世界の国ですから。

Trump, Sanders, Clinton, ... what is that dance you are doing?
トランプ、サンダーズ、クリントン、諸君は何の踊りをされていますか？

What relevance does it have to the real world?
現世に関係がありますか？

I am not a terrorist, even if you seem bent on making things really hard for me.
ボクは脅迫主義者ではないよ。外国に住んでいるわたしの状況をずっと、一層に難しくしてくれるつもりのようであっても脅迫主義者ではないのです。

Not all poor people who live outside the US are as strong willed as I.
米国外に住んでいる貧しい人の中にわたしほどの硬い意志を持っていない人はいます。

People get mad when treated like dirt.
ゴミ扱いされる方は怒ることもある。

When will you quit fanning the flames of terrorism?
いつ、脅迫主義の炎を煽り立てるのを辞めてくれるかな？

Small is the Only Big Thing -- Woe unto Them who Build House unto House

Every religion has scripture. Even atheism and agnosticism have works like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. To the extent scripture is enlightened by truth, scripture is beneficial. The more general the truth, the broader range of application the scripture has.

By which, I mean to justify my referencing Christian scripture in a political post. I am not meaning to preach my religion here, just looking for a couple of starting points.

Look in your own scriptures, and you'll find similar teachings.

One of the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon contains this verse:

Wo unto them that join house to house, till there can be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth! (2 Nephi 15: 8, see Isaiah 5: 8.)

And it continues with some description of the inevitable consequences of empire building: desolation, catastrophically reduced productivity, the waste of seeking pleasure as a goal instead of as a side effect, and becoming prisoners of the enemy. (If war is not directly mentioned, it is implied.)

The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly forbid monopolies and cartels. Nor do any of the Amendments, as far as I am aware. Anti-trust laws in America are justified under the idea that, if the Constitution forbids having a political noble class, the governments under the Constitution should not support or allow an economic noble class (paraphrasing the arguments for the Sherman Act).

It's a shame that some of the proponents of the Sherman Act were willing to acknowledge legitimacy of monopolies attained by legitimate competition. Even in the field of sports, lasting dynasties are always shown to have been aided by unsportsmanlike conduct off the field.

There is no such thing as a legitimate monopoly. As history progresses, the truth comes out and we discover that all empire-building sacrifices ethics to some expected good to be obtained in the aggregate.

And the expected good is rarely attained. If it is temporarily attained, it is always soon lost, as the corporation gains precedence over the reasons for the corporation.

Cartels are by definition collusion.

As an example, Bill Gates argued that he needed to be allowed to continue in his effective monopoly in order to conduct his business efficiently and effectively. How can we put up with this kind of nonsense argument?

Every wannabe Napolean claims a need.

The computer industry has been impoverished by Microsoft's software. We look at competitor OSses and applications, and we discover that, twenty years later, with more than twenty times the raw processing power, Microsoft's software barely competes on the features that count with the OSses and applications that became the casualties in Microsoft's war to dominate.

Good things have happened during that war, but they have happened more in spite of the war than because of it.

Real competition is not supposed to have a single winner.

There is not supposed to be just one winner's circle.

Real competition is supposed to benefit every one, and not by forcing them to accept the standard OS, the standard application, the standard medicine, the standard food, the standard vehicle, the standard textbook, the standard scripture, ... .

Standards are only good if they are available, but not enforced.

And standards themselves -- competing standards have to exist or the standard loses all meaning.

What is this hunger some people have of becoming big?

It's a false dream, I'm sure, something like the hope that, if the world adjusts to your standard, you can be spared the necessity of adjusting to the world.

For those of us who have survived adjusting (partly, not completely) to the world, I can say that the adjustments have been

• painful at times, 
• drudgery most of the time, 
• not usually welcomed,
• but ultimately beneficial. 

A Book of Mormon passage that I find to be relevant is in Alma 37:

Nevertheless, because those miracles were worked by small means it did show unto them marvelous works. They were slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey; (Alma 37: 41.)

Inefficiency can be important.

Drudgery can have good and exciting results.

All the best benefits of being big turn out to be deadly to the corporation in the end, and damaging to the surrounding society.

Unfortunately, law has the same problem. The bigger the body of law, that is, the more laws there are, the harder it becomes to obey any law meaningfully.

So I can't really advocate more laws against monopolistic behavior.

So what? The president of the United States, for example, is not supposed to have all sorts of power to make people behave themelves.

His job is supposed to be that of a spokesperson and a peacemaker. He's supposed to talk us into doing what we can understand to be right, not issue decrees that force us to do someone else's botched idea of what is right.

As the current biggest (irony noted) example, guns are getting too big. But a ban on guns is the ultimate big gun. Both sides in that argument need to back off of the assertion of their right to be bigger than the other guy.

Too many of the BIG people in the US are too busy trying to be BIG. And failing, of course.
 And their failures are the proximate and ultimate causes of the escalating violence.

What Terrorism? What Terror? What Enemy?

[Update 2015.11.23: Should anyone be thinking that what I have written below justifies those who use violence to further their righteous causes, no. God is no respecter of persons. Not rich, not poor, not middle-class. Not even you.

What you do to others in your righteous indignation shall return to you, and consume the innocent around you, as well. Stop now, while there is anything left of those you care about.] 

There is something that has been bothering me about the war on terror ever since the attacks on the World Trade Center.

I'm going to say some things that some will take to mean that I am not loyal to my country, and some will interpret as sympathizing with the enemy.

So, before you read what follows, read some of my thoughts on conspiracies:

http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html.

If you are looking for enemies, make sure you start by looking in the mirror.

I don't mean to say end there, but what enemy can do you as much damage as you can do to yourself?

Thinking from the point of view of the attacker is an essential principle in analyzing one's own defences.

It has been long enough, can we temporarily set aside the shock and the horror? Can we set aside the righteous indignation and think for a few moments from the point of view of the attackers here?

I think it is essential, for our future safety, whether one is from the USA or from the Sudan. We must learn to think from the point of view of the other guy.

Look up the Camelford water pollution incident. It is not unique. Look up industrial disasters. Think about the things we "technologically advanced" countries do to ourselves. Are we just doing damage to ourselves? Look up the Bhopal incident and think about the number of people killed there.

Now, ask yourself? Could it be that there are people who would rather not have American companies causing industrial development in their towns, cities, mountains, and wildernesses?

Where would they perceive the threats to their peace and happiness and health coming from?

Broaden your perspective a little bit. Consider that, even in America, where discussions of abuse are common in the media, people in abusive relationships often prefer the abuse and the implied stability to changing to a life of unknowns, but free of the abuse.

Can you understand that people in certain countries would consider attempts by westerners to "enlighten" them to be attacks on their culture, traditions, and general well-being and happiness?

How many times have well-intended Americans dropped into supposedly undeveloped countries, spread a bit of money around to make changes for the better, and then left without making sure those changes could be supported and would really end up for the better?

Thinking soberly, it would be a bit unnatural for the the various World Trade Centers around the world not to be considered "strongholds of the enemy" by many of those who don't want to be pushed into the "modern world", or even by many who just want to take their own time and find their own way, getting there.

Is it becoming clearer?

Our assertions of good intent are awfully poor comfort even for our allies in Afghanistan. Our soldiers come in, do their thing, impress people about how strong they are, and then leave.

Impress people about how strong they are. Look at that concept really carefully.

Are we not trying to fight terror with fear?

How is that supposed to work, in the minds and hearts of those we are trying to "liberate" for our own security?

This world never came with a guarantee of peace, tranquility and lack of uncomfortable change.

If we want security, we need to learn to fight a different war. We need to start fighting our own fears.

We need to learn from the people we are trying to inform, even if our purpose in understanding them is to ultimately convert them to our own modernisms.

Better yet, can we re-evaluate our own headlong rush into an untried future? slow the pace down a bit? Make sure we clean up after our industrial activities? Be satisfied with not owning markets and industries?

Can we recognize that we ourselves have often played the 800 pound gorilla on the playground, the bully, and the terrorists?

We accumulate "our" money trashing other people's backyards, can we at least spend a little of that money cleaning up our mess?

Can we leave a little room for the other guy to have a little fun of his own, in his own way?