Stuff Lasts Too Long

The tires on my van seem to generate more road noise than they should, and the ride strikes me as a little harsh. Fifty years ago that would have been a short-term problem: tires usually lasted only 15 to 20 thousand miles. But radial tires typically give 60,000 miles or more of service. I can't justify trading in tires with plenty of tread life remaining, so I'm stuck with the noise and bumps. One of the TV sets in the house must be at least fifteen years old; I can't remember when we got it. It'd be nice to have one of those sleek, compact LCD sets, but now that televisions use solid-state circuitry instead of tubes they are trouble-free for many years. I can't justify junking a TV that works fine, so I'm stuck with a clunky box on the dresser. Wouldn't it be nice if we could go back to the old days when stuff wore out fast? No, it wouldn't. The increased durability and reliability of many consumer products is a significant but unrecognized factor for reducing the true cost of living. Not only are many current products cheaper (after adjustment for inflation) than their old counterparts, we don't have to buy them so often. Can't beat that deal!

2 and 1/2 Wars

There was a time when the U.S. military establishment was so vast, it planned for the contingency of having to fight--simulataneously--two and a half wars: two sizable regional conflicts, perhaps on other sides of the globe, and a small dust-up somewhere else. But after the cold war, the force structure shrank substantially. The old planning paradigm was replaced by the worst-case assumption of one and a half wars. Today, our defenders are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. One might quickly conclude the planners' scenario has been fulfilled. But in a larger sense, the combat extends to another front. The third battleground is internal. One one side is the Administration and others who share an understanding that Western democratic institions are threatened by fierce and fanatical enemies, especially the Islamofascists, that cannot be appeased and must be vanquished. On the other side are those who counsel retreat. Notable among the determined opposition are idealists who dream of a world without violence, leftists who see practically all American policy and practice through a Marxist lens, intellectuals who see virtues in all cultures as long as they are not Western democracies. The opposition's voice is heard through major newspapers and broadcast news organizations, the entertainment industry, and a wide assortment of do-gooder, busybody and grievant organizations. The battle is joined on the field of public opinion, where the Administration appears to be losing ground. It is not just that their communications efforts have been modest and fitful. The government's case is generally undercut by media that omit, misstate or exaggerate facts as needed to fit their world view. (Just one example: an exceptional speech by the president that comprehensively explained the necessity and purpose of the global war on terror was covered by a national newspaper with a small and hostile article on page A-13 that dealt with only one small aspect of the topic.) So at present, there is no safe bet regarding the eventual outcome of this battle for America's minds.

Build It 4 Miles South, 1 Mile West, Then 3 1/2 Miles South, and They Will Come

The Oklahoma panhandle is very empty country, so it was a surprise to encounter this sign for a Bed & Breakfast. Surely there aren't many travelers who drive eight miles down a dirt road to take lodging at this establishment. On the other hand, the facility certainly has the market to itself.

Pay No Attention to Those People In Front of the Curtain

The Dallas paper ran a three-part series on suburban Collin County. They want us to understand how those smiling good-looking folks enjoying a splendid  high standard of living are actually in a miserable condition. "The cars. The homes. The life. They make it look easy. But what is the price of prosperity?" It seems that in "a county among the most affluent 1% nationwide" there is also "high credit card debt, lower net worth, and a large number of bankruptcies, particularly among younger couples with kids." Amazing. Who would have thought that young families rapidly accumulating houses, furniture and orthodontist bills would have--shudder--lower net worth? Um...come to think of it, pretty much everyone can figure that out. And are those bankruptcies really something for us to worry about? It's mainly a problem for reckless creditors, I'd say. Whatever the "price of prosperty" in Collin County may be, the truth is that most of humankind would be delighted to pay it to attain the comforts, tranquility and bright future that make Collin County one of the planet's most blessed places. There are more deserving subjects for our concern and sympathy.

OK, That Explains It

I had pulled off the highway and was taking the state park road to the golf course to verify funds. In my rear view mirror I saw a car behind me. It was closing the distance between us quickly. Really quickly! I jerked my steering wheel and hugged the road's shoulder as the car blew past me.  "What sort of person drives like that?" I wondered. A few minutes later I arrived at the course and saw the speedster's car was already parked there. As I walked toward the pro shop I glanced over and saw his bumper sticker. It answered my question: it read "As a matter of fact, I DO own the road."

The Terrible Crash

Northbound traffic was moving swiftly when I saw ahead the taillights of rapidly slowing vehicles. In a moment I was in the midst of a double line of cars and trucks, just creeping along, but eventually I came to the scene of an awful accident. A vehicle was on its side. EMT's were looking after a person in the median. Two firefighters were bent over a person stretched out on the shoulder of the road. One firefighter was rapidly pumping the victim's chest. As I passed by, out of the corner of my eye I caught a glimpse of what might have been a pink shirt. Shaken by what I'd seen, I drove slower the rest of the way home. The next day there was a short report in the newspaper. A woman and a small child were dead, killed by injuries sustained when they were thrown from an SUV that rolled when a tire blew out. Another child had survived but was in critical condition.  What a horrible sudden turn of fate for the victims, I thought. And unexpected, of course. If we could know the future, we'd presumably  live differently. We'd treat loved ones better; we'd savor each and every day. We'd be prepared. In reality, however, "no man knows the day or hour." So instead we spend our days fretting about inconsequential things, and assuming that we'll have time to wind up all unfinished business before entering the spirit world. Perhaps it's less stressful that way.

Just the Essentials

In grad school there was a joke that the final exam for a PhD in Political Science consisted of one question: What is the best form of government for the happiness of mankind? We all thought the answer would have to be encyclopedic. But in the days of quill pens, the objective was described in very concise form: "A government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully administered and obeyed" -- George Washington. (Seen carved in the wall of the Oklahoma County Courthouse. Talk about reach exceeding grasp!)

We were going down a secondary highway in South Carolina and had almost passed by the church when I saw its sign. The question it posed amused me; having done some auditing I knew most people would regard being audited for eternity as tantamount to a permanent residency in Hell. But of course, it's not about an audit that lasts forever, but rather the great exam on Judgement Day when the book of life is opened to reveal all our deeds. So that question on the sign is taken very seriously by people of faith. But not by everyone. For some, it is foolish, an artifact of primitive superstitions. Some simply have a different religion: winners die with the most toys. Many just never give the issue any thought. And that's pretty much the way our society divides when political issues get intertwined with spirituality.

Most Americans may--and all should--recognize and venerate these immortal words from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Interestingly, that sentence is shortened from the one in Jefferson's draft, and there is a telling difference. Originally it asserted those truths are "sacred and undeniable." That is, the truths themselves are holy and eternal, of Divine character, and must be affirmed upon the sufficiency of those grounds. Franklin's substitution of "self-evident" reflected his confidence that the truths will be revealed through reason. But now, two centuries later, the Age of Reason seems as distant for much of the globe's population as it was in the Founder's day. For millions it is and must always remain the Age of Faith. Perhaps the Enlightenment's ideas would be more easily accepted by denizens of pre-modern cultures if individual liberties come to be seen by them, as they were by Jefferson, as God's will.

It Ain't Necessarily So

The writer, George Washington Lee, was born into slavery in 1849 so he was practically grown when his bondage ended. In 1913 he wrote to Will Rankin, a "Dear friend" in Georgia, to express sorrow and sympathy upon learning of the death of his friend's father--a Confederate veteran whose South Carolina family owned slaves. (But there is no evidence that Lee or his kin were ever Rankin property.) The letter begins "It is with great sorrow that I am sending these few lines. I received your letter a few days ago, stating that your father had died and 'Aunt Belle' had passed away, and my regrets are that I have been unable to be there during their illness as I know that I could have been of some help to them." Lee had moved to California but "it is my one wish to go back and visit any remaining friends and the scenes of early days." He adds, "When you tell me of the loss of your father, it brings back vividly to memory their early happy married life [they married shortly after the war ended] and when I ever think or speak of those days I say 'back home.' So bear up under this grief and if God is willing, I hope to see you again." Lee concludes, "So hoping to hear from you soon again and with kindest regards to all, I am as ever, your friend, Geo. W. Lee."

In Dr. David Burns' best-selling self-help book about depression, he explains how dysfunctional cognitive functions--bad thinking--produce depressive episodes. Among the habits by which your mind turns good to bad are "all or nothing thinking," "overgeneralization" and "mental filter." There's also "disqualifying the positive," "junping to conclusions" and "labeling and mislabeling." This stuff isn't just popular psychology; the list is also a taxonomy of the everyday downers in the big print and broadcast media. If it bleeds, it leads. Scandals and freak shows. One hot summer is proof of global warming. Problems aren't simply difficulties, they are crises. Temporary setbacks are portrayed as catastrophes from which no recovery is possible. So maybe Burns' book should be used as a J-school text. For when a person is bogged down in upside-down thinking, that individual suffers. But when the media amplify and incessantly communicate such distortions, society suffers.

One of my professors when I was in grad school used the Socratic Method, or at least something like it. He didn't tell the students in his classes very much, mostly just steering discussions around to untouched points. Conversations about academic issues were similar. Mostly he'd just say "hmm," fiddle with his pipe and nod his head. He didn't really tell you whether you were right or wrong, but he showed interest in what you were saying and encouraged you to elaborate. Or he'd ask open-ended questions like "Why is that so?" or "What else played a role in that?" Almost always I'd wind up realizing there were some angles I hadn't considered. Sometimes I had to admit error. Eventually I came to see such drawing-out as the essence of higher education: the unending asking of questions, especially of ourselves. For only if we understand there are limits to our understanding will we open our minds to, and indeed to seek out, new facts and perspectives.

NBC news anchorman Tom Brokaw attended an Oklahoma football game as guest of the university president. When he was introduced to the crowd, boos rang out. In the local newspaper, letters to the exprssed bewilderment and shame. How could people boo such an illustrious journalist, writers wondered, speculating the critics saw Brokaw part of what they erroneously deem to be the "liberal media." Well, the booing was rude, foolish and counter-productive. I wouldn't even try to defend it. Yet those dismayed letter-writers are at least as clueless as the boo-ers. Brokaw's news coverage undeniably has a palpable and consistent liberal slant. Dan Rather, CBS or the New York Times may be even more left-wing, but NBC is quite at home with that crowd. They seem to talk only among themselves, never bothering to question their assumptions and wisdom. Moreover, most entertainment programming embodies the peculiar world-view and mores of Hollywood and Manhattan, not the values of flyover country. So the boos came from people who feel their perspective is invisible when it isn't being misrepresented by dominent media voices. From that sense of impotence and exclusion arises an anger that provoked the inhospitable reaction to Brokaw.

Once I was criticizing some development and a colleague remarked that my disapproval was understandable because "people don't like change." My response was that people happily accept change if it is expected to result in improvement--but experience teaches us to be  cautious in predicting that outcome. Nevertheless, change is often not just tolerated, it is sought. People propose marriage, answer Help Wanted ads and move to frontiers in the pursuit of a better future. And change is often the subject of celebration: bar-mitvahs, wedding anniversaries and the Fourth of July are occasions for rejoicing. Clearly, the old saw "no one likes change" should be pitched into the dustbin of half-true cliches.

... which is an odd statement, considering I spent a lot of time to become a so-called political scientist. So let me clarify. I don't hate the idea of politics. Representative democracy is one of the great inventions of humanity. But I do hate politics as it is so often practiced. I hate the obfuscation, the lying and the demagoging. I hate the ignorance, the wilful self-deception and the indulgence in fantasy. I hate the glamorizing, the idolization and the trivialization. I hate the anger, the conflict and the rupture of bonds of friendship and family. I hate the greed, the vanity and the idolization. I hate it when credit is claimed undeservedly, when blame is cast unjustly, and when such lies are disseminated by complicit and self-serving media.

Those who listen only to the most strident and unmannerly critics might think America is about to crack up. Thankfully, that is not so even though our tensions are exacerbated by irresponsible and dishonest rants. But there was a time when the Union was indeed at great risk of permanent fissure, as Lincon well knew in 1861. His first inaugssural address contained this heartfelt plea:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Lincoln's message was more than rhetoric; it was a prayer, and one fit for our time as well. As is this declaration inspired by an earlier crisis in our nation's turbulent history:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was ridiculed by the uninformed after his comments about "known unknowns." It was a familiar subject, however, to auditors.  An accountant who is engaged to assess the veracity of a financial statement faces disaster if a "clean" opinion is expressed on a statement that actually is seriously flawed. That risk (failing to detect material error) is the product of inherent risk times control risk times detection risk.  The degree of inherent risk is a function of the nature of an account (e.g., cash is liquid and vulnerable, while land is static and much harder to misappropriate) and many environmental factors such as business conditions and management's attitudes that set the "tone at the top.") Control risk varies according to an organization's ability to prevent, detect or correct errors. Detection risk depends on the effectiveness of the procedures used by the auditor. All the risk factors are very real, but can be very hard to measure.  Now, disregard the geopolitical and humanitarian factors, which are additional complications, and consider how the risk calculation equation fits the situation in Iraq eighteen months ago. What is the inherent risk with unaccounted-for weaponry or the "tone at the top" of a murderous regime? What is the control risk when management is larcenous? Is there an acceptable detection risk when a small group is expected to prove a negative everywhere throughout a huge nation? Debate continues as to whether the administration overestimated the risk in doing nothing, but most fair-minded observers will agree that just estimating the risk of a false negative was a  formidable challenge.

We Win Every Debate With Ourselves

Supposedly you aren't crazy if you talk to yourself--as long as you don't answer back. Once I worked in a mental hospital and I met a patient who did just that. His conversations were like a two-person play with him playing both parts. So maybe there's wisdom in that adage. But even if arguing with oneself isn't a sign of insanity, it's still unproductive. We learn nothing if our ideas are never tested against other perspectives. Errors are less likely to be revealed if only friendly ears hear our assertions. Theories, like sports teams, are strengthened by competition.  Unfortunately, our society seems to be clustering into groups that only talk among themselves. So arguments are met only with affirmation. Propositions, often wrongly thought to be facts, never get tested against real opposition. Over time each point of view becomes more convinced of their inerrancy. In my work, I must constantly ask myself, "Is my conclusion adequately supported by evidence? Might I be wrong? Is a different view be more defensible?" My son is pursuing graduate work in science, and he is expected to observe the scientific method, which involves skepticism, testing against evidence, and willingness to jettison theories when better explanations are presented. Surely the world would be a better place if more of us retained a certain humility in our convictions: just possibly, things of which we are certain might actually turn out to be wrong.

My parents warned, "Never argue with a person's religion or politics." I appreciate their wisdom more now that I understand that religion and politics have so much in common. At bottom, both involve faith: beliefs about the world and our role that precede, and even deny, the empirical evidence.  In today's political environment, the Left's faith leads to the conceit that their positions are the inevitable product of superior intelligence and knowledge. The opposition, therefore, must be mentally defective. The Right's faith leads to the conceit that their positions reflect a  superior sense of ordained ethics and propriety. Hence, their opponents must be morally deficient. The natural outcome of such dualism is non-negotiable politics.

Educating versus Learning

America thinks education is terribly important, but it seems to have forgotten that the acquisition of an education involves two things: educating, which is what teachers are expected to do, and learning, which is what students are supposed to do. Educating is input; learning is the outcome. Educating is done to or for us; learning is done by us. Politicians and the education lobby have been working on the assumption that making just the right adjustments to the input side--with more teacher training, more teacher pay, new curricula, smaller classes or whatever--will produce the desired results: students will learn more. But there's little empirical evidence to support that idea. Dedicated, well trained, hard-working teachers can try every pedagogical trick known and still be defeated. Socioeconomic factors explain almost all the variation in student success. So instead of talking about "failing schools" let's admit reality: it's the students who fail. Their grade cards say so. And rarely can student failure be fairly blamed on teaching methods, oversize classes or any of the usual villains. Once we concede that students (and their parents, of course) share responsibility for learning, then we can move on to consider more effective adjustments.

Quotes for Obsessives to Ponder

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government." -- Bill Clinton, 1995

"The basis of all hatred is self-hatred." - unknown

A Mystery

Life is rife with uncertainty, so why is there so much certitude on every hand?

The Great Depression was a searing experience for many, and not least Sewell Avery, the CEO of mail-order giant Montgomery Ward. He'd gotten the company through a tough decade by squeezing expenses in every way possible. Even during the war years, when the challenge became a scarcity of supply rather than demand, the chain preserved its balance sheet by strenuous economizing, getting the last bit of use from every asset.

When the soldiers came home, America's economy shifted into high. Borrowing and spending, building and growing was going on everywhere. Sears, Roebuck & Co. understood the new era of great opportunity, and cashed in by expanding rapidly into the suburbs and new shopping centers. But at Wards, old Avery knew the prosperity wouldn't last. For him, the next great depression was always just around the corner. Wards continued to hoard cash, avoid debt, and cling to their traditional small and increasingly shabby Main Street outlets. Even when Avery was eventually deposed, he insisted an approaching depression would prove him right. Having put all his chips on the likelihood of calamity, he was Invested in Failure.

What's Wrong With the Middle of the Road?

 A Texas politician liked to say the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow streak.  The observation brought a smile, but it was unfair. There are lots of people in the figurative middle of the road, and it's not because they're yellow. They eschew the extremes of Left and Right because neither offers convincing argument to the critical thinker. Indeed, much empirical evidence attests that extremism is a road to ruin. Better, then, that humanity aspire to Mediocrity -- "half-way up the mountain" -- where the height affords a splendid view but the climate does not risk disaster.

Political Mirages