Freedom – what in the world is it?

July 4, 2014 Rota, Cádiz, España

If you're like me, you frequently see images on Facebook with pictures of Ronald Reagan standing in front of an American flag with the caption in big type - “Freedom”. And probably down at the bottom there will be some smaller text with the message the authors really want you to accept.

And when I read the comments, I see quite a few knee-jerk reactions to the word “Freedom”.

OK duhh, who is against freedom? Not many of us, and yet we seem to take the word at face value without examining what it means. So let's look at it a bit.

Here in Europe, the word Freedom doesn't seem to come up nearly as often. But America was born as a nation of small merchants feeling strangled by the taxation and control of England. So the word got into our vocabulary and has remained as a high expression of patriotism.

So what does it mean? Well, I suppose the highest form of freedom is the ability to do whatever you want whenever you want. Sounds good, no? But what kind of world would that give us? To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, your right to swing your fist ends just short of your neighbor's nose. Yup, the other side of Freedom is Responsibility. The study of Ethics is all about resolving the right of the individual to act freely and the right of everyone else not to be harmed by that action. It is not a simple conversation...

It gets even more complicated when we move to “do whatever you want”. Hang with me on this one, please. Whatever we want should be pretty simple, no? I assert that what we want doesn't happen in a vacuum. It comes from the possibilities in our culture. Alas, ever since the emergence of mass culture supported by the media, maybe starting in the 1950's, Americans have been bombarded by misinformation provided by the public relations industry. Perhaps you have seen the series Mad Men? It shows the advertising industry as it began to feel its power at the beginning of the television age. The characters discuss ways to influence the thinking (and feelings) of the public about their products. I hate to say it, but public relations is all about distorting the truth to favor the client of the moment. That's a nice way of saying “lying”.

Now here is when we get back to the topic of Freedom again. I assert that during the Nixon years, when the flower children were taking to the streets, the Powers That Be got seriously alarmed at the radical change in public thought. And it didn't take a handful of millionaires very long to figure out that, for a few paltry millions each, they could fund activities of the new public relations industry and begin to influence public thought. I doubt that they ever really appreciated how powerful their efforts would be.

We have now seen three generations of Americans who have been subjected to an increasingly manipulated reality (at times Brainwashing is too strong a word, but in other cases it seems spot on). Having grown up in this brave new world, it always seemed natural to us and we cheerfully accepted the Orwellian social class – consumers. We were born into consuming and never thought to question whether materialism leads to a life we would like to live. Well, most of us didn't question it. So now we are conditioned to want things that our grandparents could have cheerfully lived without.

And just as surely as we have been taught to want products, we have also been taught to want certain political outcomes. Few of us are political scientists or sociologists and so the political outcomes that are paraded in front of us as the solution to all the nation's problems just get accepted, largely because they come from the media. We have an irrational trust for things that come from the media. This is strange because almost everything that comes from the media is a lie! Does X brand soap really get our clothes whiter than Y brand? Probably not, but they say it will.

So even what we think we want is shaped by the public relations industry. That is sobering, but to fully appreciate the truth of that statement is to begin to regain some freedom. So paradoxically, when we see the picture of Ronald Reagan in front of the American flag with the banner FREEDOM across the front, real freedom is the ability to realize that we are being manipulated and that reality is probably quite different than what the caption at the bottom of the graphic would assert.

The Ceremony - making every day Valentines Day (La Ceremonia - haciendo que todos los días sean San Valentín)

The Ceremony     (La Ceremonia en español debajo)

Quite by accident, I invented a romantic ritual that has become an essential part of the daily routine.  First, let me explain how it came about.  I was raised by English parents. Neither of them knew how to express love and affection.  As a result, I was almost never hugged or touched.  So I grew up a bit reserved when it came to expressing affection.  I have tried to overcome this all my life.  But the need became even more urgent when I entered a relationship with a Spanish woman who was the total opposite - warm, expressive, and very physical.  I was afraid that she would find me cold and unloving (which I am not once I get started).

So I invented The Ceremony.

So what is it?  It's a wordless way of saying "I love you" in a way that is undeniably true. At the most basic level it is a long naked hug. Yes, naked!  Skin to skin. Chest to chest, belly-buttons to belly-buttons. There is an energy that passes between bodies that is beautiful and for me has always been one of the most enjoyable components of sex.  But the Ceremony is not about sex.  Certainly sexual energy is present, but the intent and the actual result is to experience most directly the existence of We in a way that is normally not present in daily living. Given how important our relationships are for our happiness, a few moments dedicated to just being together is a very good investment of time.

Let me describe possible ways to practice the Ceremony in more detail.  It is probably best to do it in the morning upon awaking (although repetitions at night are not penalized).  We allow at least 15 minutes which means that, if we have to get up to catch an airplane at 3 AM, we set the alarm for 2:45.  The Ceremony is sacred and I doubt if we have missed it more than a few days in a year. I like a little baroque music in the background - streaming www.sundaybaroque.org on my phone provides the ambiance.  Then you just melt into each other's arms.  There are no rules, but usually it is better if you don't talk. Just feel the energy and transmit love. Since we are retired, we don't usually have to rush out in the morning, so we may linger in bed for quite a while.  You can fall asleep in each others arms; or talk; or give caresses, or maybe it leads to sex. But the end result is something so gratifying that it is the highlight of the day.  It is hard to have a bad day after such a good beginning.  And my lady never feels that I am too cold and "English".

Let me mention sex here because although older people find the Ceremony mildly arousing sexually, younger people, especially men, will certainly become fully aroused at once.  That is natural and not a problem. Adolescent men have had to learn to ignore arousal.  In the Ceremony, being aroused is just there in the background. But for the Ceremony to be about love, the man needs to avoid trying to change the subject. Sometimes the most loving thing a man can do is to not push for sex. That said, the energy between the two people will be what it is and there will be many times when moving on to full sexual expression is the most natural thing and all the more sweet because it starts in an expression of love.

I recommend trying this for a week and see what happens.

La Ceremonia (disculpan mi castellano)

Por accidente, inventé un ritual romántico que se ha convertido en una parte esencial de nuestra rutina diaria. En primer lugar, permítanme explicar cómo se produjo. Yo fui criado por padres ingleses. Ninguno de ellos sabía cómo expresar amor y afecto. Como resultado, casi nunca me abrazaban ni me tocaban. Así que crecí un poco reservado cuando se trataba de expresar afecto. He tratado de superar esto toda mi vida. Pero la necesidad se hizo aún más urgente cuando entré en una relación con una mujer española que era todo lo contrario - cálido, expresivo y muy físico. Tenía miedo de que me encontrara frío y sin amor, ya que yo no soy así.

Así que me inventé la Ceremonia.

Entonces, ¿qué es? Es una manera de decir sin palabras "te amo" de una manera que es innegable. En el nivel más básico, es un abrazo largo piel con piel. Sí, desnudo!  Los pechos con los pechos, ombligo contra ombligo.  Hay una energía que pasa entre los dos cuerpos que es mágico y para mí siempre ha sido uno de los componentes más agradables del sexo. Pero la Ceremonia no se trata de sexo. Ciertamente que la energía sexual está presente, pero la intención y el resultado real es experimentar más directamente la existencia de Nosotros de una manera que no está presente en la vida diaria. Considerando la importancia de nuestras relaciones personales para nuestra felicidad, unos momentos dedicados solamente a estar juntos es una muy buena inversión de tiempo.

Permítanme describir posibles maneras de practicar la ceremonia con más detalle . Probablemente es mejor que hacerlo en la mañana al despertar (aunque las repeticiones en la noche no se penalice). Permitimos que por lo menos 15 minutos, lo cual quiere decir que, si hay que levantarse para coger un avión a las 03:00, hay que definir una alarma para 02:45. La ceremonia es sagrada y dudo que hemos perdido más de un par de días en un año. Me gusta un poco de música barroca en el fondo - "streaming" www.sundaybaroque.org en mi teléfono proporciona el ambiente . A continuación, sólo se derriten en los brazos del otro . No hay reglas, pero por lo general es mejor si usted no habla . Solamente siente la energía y transmitir el amor. Ya que estamos jubilados y no tenemos que salir corriendo por la mañana, podemos permanecer en la cama por un buen rato. Usted puede quedarse dormido en los brazos del otro, o hablar, o dar caricias, o tal vez conduce al sexo. Pero el resultado final es algo tan gratificante que es lo más destacado del día . Es difícil tener un mal día después de un buen comienzo tan agradable. Y mi señora nunca se siente que soy demasiado frío e "Inglés "

Permítanme mencionar el sexo aquí porque aunque las personas mayores encuentran la Ceremonia ligeramente estimulante para relaciones sexuales, las personas más jóvenes, especialmente los hombres, sin duda se convertirá totalmente excitado con el contacto físico. Eso es natural y no es un problema. Hombres adolescentes han tenido que aprender a ignorar la excitación. En la Ceremonia, la excitación puede existir en el fondo. Pero para la Ceremonia de ser sobre el amor, el hombre necesita intentar evitar el cambio de tema. A veces lo más amoroso que un hombre puede hacer es no presionar por sexo. Dicho esto, la energía entre las dos personas será lo que es, y habrá muchos momentos en los que de pasar a la expresión sexual plena será la cosa más natural y aún más dulce porque comienza en una expresión de amor.

Recomiendo probar esto por una semana y ver qué pasa .

On Terrorism....

The War on Terrorism is another of the failed domestic wars from our government, along with "wars" on drugs, poverty, etc.  But it has destroyed the constitutional rights that made our country a source of pride.

Wikipedia defines terrorism as violence conducted for a political purpose.  It first began to be called that in the 1850s and since then has had a growing impact, especially since the arrival of television and mass media. I assert that terrorism will continue to exist wherever there are desperate people who want their message to be heard and don't have access to mass media.  Now that terrorism is a known technique, there is no way that it is going away.  Like it or not, terrorism is going to be with us forever.  And no government activity is going to change that.

Like all governments, after 9/11 ours wanted to convince us that they were going to do everything possible to prevent another such occurrence.  And with the Patriot Act and subsequent changes, they tell us that we are now safer. But in the process they have managed to eliminate most of the rights provided by the constitution to protect the individual from the government.  I will not comment on the growing body of evidence showing that 9/11 was a staged event except to note that it gave the government an excuse to eliminate a lot of civil rights that were a burden to the plans of the military-industrial complex and the highly profitable national security industry.

If we really wanted to get rid of terrorism, there is one sure way to do it.  If we had a global agreement between all possible sources of media that there will be no reporting whatsoever on terrorist attacks or activities, terrorism would virtually cease to exist.  There are few people bloodthirsty enough to want to kill innocent people if they will not get attention from doing so.  Of course, terrorist attacks are very "newsworthy" and a source of profit for the media, so we won't hold our collective breaths for that solution.

But since terrorism isn't going to go away, what about our lost civil rights?

I assert that we cannot continue as we are with our government running amok, spying on virtually everyone in the world; ordering the murder of individuals that it "believes" to be enemies; intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations; all on the pretext that all of that is necessary to protect our citizens from terrorism.  It is not pleasant to realize that a survey done in most of the nations of the civilized world has shown that the United States is considered to be the greatest existing danger to world peace.  You would never come to that conclusion listening the the American media, but living in Europe we have another vantage point.

Since terrorism is here to stay, we need to restore the civil rights that have been taken away while conducting activities to protect the citizens in an intelligent way.  What do I mean by that?  We have to see that there is a cost/benefit consideration at work.  Yes, we need to screen airline passengers.  There is an obvious benefit in traveler safety.  But there is also a significant cost in lost time and inconvenience - as well as issues of personal privacy.  We need to accept that we cannot, on a day-to-day basis, do everything possible to eliminate terrorism.  And that means a certain acceptance of risk.  It is unpleasant to contemplate, but do we want to suspend civil liberties forever to eliminate some casualties? How many more casualties would we have if we had the civil liberties we grew up with?  There is a balance between casualties and freedom that is difficult to reach.

I assert that our best course is to return to the constitutional rights that we have enjoyed since the enactment of the Bill of Rights.  And then we need to take all the intelligent precautions possible given those untouchable rights.  For instance, since we seem to be having terrorist attacks from single Islamic individuals between 18 and 40 years old, then to not give such persons extra attention in screening is just plain stupid.  Sure you can call it "profiling", but to body searches on an 85 year old grandmother from Duluth just so that you can do body searches on everybody is just plain dumb.

I personally am willing to assume some extra risk in order to have civil liberties. Ultimately, if we keep losing civil liberties and the government becomes more repressive, we are in danger of having more domestic terrorists - that is what the government will call anyone who tries to resist it.  The government seems to be anticipating that, having bought the Dept. of Homeland Security enough bullets to kill everyone on earth.  I do not know if the vacant internment camps shown on the internet are in fact part of some government plan. I didn't start out as a conspiracy theorist, but the evidence keeps growing.  The revelations of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange cannot be easily dismissed.  My greatest concern is with the willingness to quickly define those who disagree with the government and want to protest as terrorists.

As individuals, our only way to return to our constitutional liberties is to continue to speak out and demand that change.  We need to make that an issue in elections.  Our government is no longer very democratic, but if the demand is great enough, eventually it will respond.

Ideas to repair a broken system....

February 21, 2014  Rota, Spain

I am assuming that you share my conviction that the United States has become a nation that requires some serious repairs.  I think about this a lot and finally decided to put down some concrete suggestions.  I'll present them as problems and proposed solutions. To cover this much ground in a blog, I can't be academically rigorous. These ideas are offered in a general form to those with open minds. The opinionated may not agree.

The philosophy that is the basis for the following suggestions is simply that I believe that government must exist to serve the public - all the public.

Big Money has corrupted our political process to the point that it no longer represents nor serves ordinary people:

As a first step to eliminate systemic corruption, we need to free our politicians from the need to accumulate huge campaign funds in order for them to win elections. Even the most ethical politician has little chance of election unless he/she accepts money with strings attached,  Most of our current legislators spend an inordinate amount of their working time on fundraising.  In addition to eliminating donations to politicians we need to prevent our elected officials from getting all their information from lobbyists.  Here are some ideas:

1) There shall be no campaign contributions to any individual politician.  Acceptance of direct contributions shall be a criminal act. Contributions to political parties shall remain legal but all such contributions shall be registered publicly.  Political parties will disburse funds to their candidates as best serves the electoral strategies of the party.  In no case shall a contribution from a corporation or individual exceed $5000.
2) General elections shall occur no more than two months from the primary elections.
3) Television and radio political messages shall be provided at no cost by the media companies as part of the cost of using public airwaves.  Time and support shall be provided equally to all candidates.  Clearly this will reduce considerably the quantity of political advertising, giving the candidates only enough time to define their positions on key issues and to present their qualifications.  Negative advertising shall not be allowed.  Paid advertising on behalf of candidates from persons or organizations who wish to influence the election shall not be allowed.
4) The voting process, whether traditional or electronic, shall be conducted only by public agencies with scrutiny from representatives of the political parties.  No part of the electoral process shall be contracted to private companies.
5) Presidential elections shall be conducted as a popular vote.  The Electoral College shall cease to exist.
6) Elected officials shall document all public contacts, whether in their offices or in private social events.  This record shall be available on their webpages for review by their constituents.  That would include listing their golfing partners...
7) General lobbying shall cease to exist.  Politicians will not receive private visits from persons outside their constituencies unless that person has direct business with a constituent.  In cases where politicians need to be informed by corporation/s in order to vote on an issue, such presentations shall be made in public meeting rooms.  In the event that national security is involved and such meetings can not be open to the public, then there shall be a representative of the Department of Justice present to ensure that no illicit offers are made. The Dept. of Justice shall monitor the activities of politicians and those who have private contacts with lobbyists shall be reported on their own websites and in the event of a repeat, shall be removed from office.
8) Agencies within the Administrative branch responsible for regulating in the public interest shall not employ persons who have ever worked in businesses that are being regulated by the agencies.  Those who currently exist shall be transferred.
9) I saw an article somewhere on the web that had an idea that would reduce the impact of lobbying.  It would create a new webpage for every new bill proposed in Congress.  It would work like Wikipedia where many authors could contribute, but whenever a contribution turns out to be not true, it is deleted.  In time, the comments that are supported by facts will remain.  Since much lobbying is based on lies that are not discovered by the general public, they will not be able to force their viewpoint into the comments.

Obviously, the above list of changes would have huge resistance from those who benefit from the status quo.  None of this is likely to happen given our current circumstances.  However, it serves us to create a list such as this to see that there are some possible options.  Without dialogue we are unlikely to change anything.

In the interest of brevity, I have listed simple solutions and it may not be clear why some of the items were presented.  I leave it to the considerations of the reader.  In truth, all of the numbered items above could have been better presented with several pages of discussion - but then who would want to read that?

Our National Defense has become a for-profit enterprise which has caused our government to conduct military activities that are not in the interest of the American public.

In no case should military activity be conducted by an organization that will profit from that activity. I assert that our national defense is best executed by persons who have no financial stake in military activity and who have taken an oath to defend the constitution - as sworn by all regular military personnel down to the lowliest soldier.

1) The United States shall not contract for any military services whether those services are actual mercenary services as seen in Iraq, the gathering of information to be used by the military, or any other service.  All such services shall be performed by uniformed active-duty personnel who have taken an oath to defend the constitution.  In the absence of qualified personnel, a program of training and recruitment shall be established with compensation adequate to attract talented staff.
2) Procurement of weapons systems shall be based on the defense of the United States against actual or potential military danger based on the following military mission:
3) The Department of Defense shall be just that - for the purpose of defense from external danger.  That shall not include threats to the interests of American corporations abroad.  Nor shall any part of the Department of Defense intervene in the affairs of foreign sovereign states.
4) The Department of Defense shall meticulously account for all public funds - there shall be no secret budgets for black ops.  Given the huge amounts of money involved, the Department of Justice shall establish a section to audit military budgets and to scrutinize commercial contacts of the military.

Our Financial and Banking system has evolved into a system that benefits a small elite while creating significant risks to the world economy and harming ordinary citizens.

Few of us really understand the complexities of the financial system.  I assert that this is intentional and serves to obscure malfeasance.  I propose the following:
1) There shall be no financial instruments that cannot be understood by a 12 year old.  That would eliminate derivatives, credit default swaps, and any number of other arcane instruments.
2) Banks shall return to the traditional definition of banks - guarding savings of the citizens, facilitating payment of debts, and making loans.  Investment of the customer's savings shall not be a part of the definition.
3) Debt shall not be bundled and sold.  In the event of the sale of a mortgage or other such instrument, the sale shall be done on a one-at-a-time basis with the buyer receiving documents showing exactly what property and persons are involved.
4) The agencies responsible for supervision of the financial system shall be purged of industry insiders. Such supervision shall be vigorously conducted in the interests of the general public.
5) A study by leading economists shall be launched to examine possible options to the Federal Reserve and possible ways to return to a currency backed by something of tangible value (like a kilowatt of energy).

Our system of trade relations with other nations benefits multinational corporations while harming ordinary citizens.

The corporations have used their political connections to alter our trade relations under the ideology of the benefits of Globalization.  This has proven to be a huge benefit to those corporations, emerging nations, and shipping companies.  It has proven to be a disaster for the American middle-class.

1) Return to a limited system of tariffs to remove the advantage of using cheap foreign labor and reward production and manufacturing in the United States.
2) Eliminate existing trade agreements not in the interests of the general public.
3) Make the health of the middle-class the guiding principle in trade relations.

Corporations have acquired a power and immunity from legal control that gravely harms the general public.

Corporate corruption is endemic without consequences for the corporation or it's officers.  It would appear that corporate ethics are primarily based on profits for the shareholders.
1) Congress shall enact a system of laws defining criminal corporate behavior and associated penalties. These shall be based on the best interests of the general public.
2) Corporate officers shall be held personally responsible for corporate behavior with criminal sanctions when justified.
3) Actual or attempted influence of the political process shall have legal sanctions and penalties.

On Corporations

December 2, 2010 Rota, Spain

I have been ranting of late about the degree to which our government is now totally controlled by corporations and the mega-wealthy. But my ideas are not all that original. Here are some warnings about corporations from political leaders and thinkers dating back to the beginning of our republic:

Thomas Jefferson—“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Abraham Lincoln in 1864—“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” (1864)

Theodore Roosevelt—“The citizens of the United States must control the mighty commercial forces which they themselves call into being.”

Woodrow Wilson—“Big business is not dangerous because it is big, but because its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt—“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

Dwight Eisenhower, farewell address—“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

And after that much wisdom, what more can I say?

Burning Questions of our Time

January 22, 2010 Rota, Spain
In the previous article, I suggested that the mark of true intellect may not be the quality of ones assertions, but rather the quality of the questions that one raises. Now I'm not claiming the title of "True Intellect" and so I am hoping that you will help out here by contributing to this list. I'll put up a few starter questions:

1) How should our republic handle Corporations? There were none at our founding and our constitution makes no provision for them. They have managed to assume ever increasing control over the machinery of government and the mass media for their own benefit. I can't see where they have any particular responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry.

2) If a democracy depends upon an informed citizenry, then how can we ensure that our citizens receive accurate, unbiased information upon which to base their votes? Public relations - the manipulation of public thought for a purpose has become a science where money applied to professional opinion shaping can produce a desired result for some client. But if votes can be influenced by the application of money - is that democracy?

3) Our federal government seems to be characterized by gridlock - not only partisan wrangling, but the inability to even understand the issues that need resolution. Reform of the financial system; what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; how to salvage Social Security; how to reduce spiraling health care costs? These are not only political questions - they are also complx technical questions - beyond the scope of the average citizen and generally beyond the abilities of elected officials as well. In a perfect world, where government acts in the best interests of the citizens, not just satisfying the interests of those who throw money at the political machine, in that perfect world how can the best solutions be identified? Is there some way we can assemble a brain trust to apply the best thinking available to our challenging problems? Is there some way politically that those solutions could actually be put into practice - even though some special interests might object?
In a complex and rapidly changing world, it appears that China might have an advantage in identifying solutions and putting them into practice quickly. Since accurate and rapid decisions leading to action give a strong competitive advantage, how can a democratic society compete with a technocracy???

On Ideology

Friday, October 23, 2009 Rota, Spain

Of late, I find that I am increasingly concerned about the degree to which political ideology is dividing us from one another. We all would like a world that works - with justice, a high degree of personal freedom, and a fair distribution of wealth. And yet, from small groups of citizens all the way to the halls of government, our conversations about how to achieve a just world are marked by acrimony and polarization based on our varying ideologies.

Let’s step back a bit and take a look at ideology itself. I would define ideology as a belief system about the nature of political reality. Please read that sentence again before going on.  I assert that reality, as it applies to the world of politics, is chaotic and messy. It is constantly in flux and very hard to capture in words – just like any other part of reality beyond our immediate senses. It is easy and tempting to formulate or embrace beliefs about the nature of reality. We all want to feel that we know what is going on around us. But, from an epistemological standpoint, belief is a rather low order of knowledge.

Being human, we would like to find a way to generalize in such a way to be able to talk about political reality. Here is where we get into trouble. Since we can’t directly perceive the way components in the political sphere interact with one another, we must make generalizations about cause and effect without really being able to verify those causes by direct experience. I have met some younger people who have decided to ignore politics entirely because of the uncertainty (and bad behavior on the part of their elders).

But as citizens, we are called upon from time to time to take actions in the political sphere, at the very least by actively voting. We are forced to choose between candidates or to decide whether or not a particular proposal will move society closer to our ideal. We must make these choices on the basis of far too little information. We read the papers, watch TV, talk to friends and are bombarded by theories about political reality - if we vote for X, it will cause Y to happen. But in reality, it often takes years before the consequences of some political action become apparent.

This is frustrating. It is human to want to understand reality better and paradoxically, the desire to understand can lead us into dependence on ideology – to embrace belief systems about political reality. This is a kind of political religion where we find others who agree with us that something is true although we can’t really see it directly. Political religion has its high priests – authors and commentators who earn a good living making messy reality easier to understand through simplification, generalization, and creating theories of causation. They write books, create slogans, invent formulas for how the world can be saved by rejecting certain political actions, and so forth. The worst part is they don’t limit themselves to suggesting theories on political causation, but move beyond that to suggest that those who believe in “our” particular form of political religion are good and those who don’t are bad. This divides us in a most unhealthy way.

Now, the consumers of this political religion are motivated by the desire to be better citizens and to better understand their world, a really noble motivation that I do not wish to impugn. The alternative to embracing political religion is to be willing to stand in mystery – to accept that we do not know - and yet be constantly attempting to come closer to reality by staying abreast of current events and by studying all kinds of political thought without necessarily believing in any of it. This is difficult to do for most of us. A truly independent thinker will seem a dullard in a debate with an ideologist because the ideologist has developed a system of thinking about his topic and has defended it against all perceived alternative ways of thinking. The independent thinker may in fact have a better grasp of reality, but will not be able to assert it with the force and conviction of the ideologist.

I assert that it is healthy, in a topic as vague as political reality, to be willing to hold a high level of self-doubt. I have always recognized a genuine intellect, not by the force of its convictions, but by the quality of the questions it raises. By seeing the quality of the questions with which the intellect grapples, I get a sense of the breadth of the intellect’s perception – how wide is the horizon for that individual? Having a broad view of reality usually indicates a person’s dedication to learning and grappling with questions without having to draw immediate conclusions. The ideologist is unable to resist the impulse to draw conclusions and in so doing terminates the learning process. I assert that the ideologist is more concerned with having the answers and being right about them than understanding reality. Let me hasten to assure that when I discuss Ideology, I am not discussing Ethics. Folks on different sides of an ideological position will often be coming from the same ethical basis - i.e. we all value a strong family. But the political question of how to create an environment for healthy families can result in wildly different answers, depending on the ideology applied (political belief systems).

Now I suspect that most of my readers, having gotten this far, are by now thoroughly insulted, disgusted, or angry. Politics is a hot topic today and few of us are immune to the heat. So to better illustrate what I am talking about; let’s move to a parallel universe to try to get away from the heat. That universe is economics, specifically the stock market, since that is one place where you can get measurable results from your ability to understand economic reality.

Now the economy is every bit as chaotic and messy as politics. Listening to economists talk, it is pretty clear that they don’t have it all figured out. But let’s limit ourselves to the stock market because there we can get results from our belief systems or lack thereof.

I invest in the market and so every day I read web pages about investing while checking the status of the markets. I find plenty of paid commentators who are eager to explain the complicated workings of the market and make it understandable to my less sophisticated mind. The problem is that, on any given day I can find a commentator who will tell me that the market is going up and another commentator who will tell me that the market is going down. These folks get paid to offer their opinions, but which of them do I follow? Well, some investors find their favorites, I suppose. And then of course, there are lots of theories about how to play the market – market religions we might say. For example, there are those who believe in technical analysis and make all their decisions based on the movements of the daily charts.

Now, in the past few years, I have had some success in the market. I’m not a bold investor, but have enjoyed some nice returns when the market was rising. Of course, anyone can make money when the market is rising. You can apply the goofiest theories around and still make money. The real test comes just before a market crash. As it turns out, I have managed to sell everything just before all the major market downturns. I watched my friends lose big chunks of their net worth during the dot-com debacle. I couldn’t advise them to sell, because I couldn’t articulate exactly why I had decided to sell. To call it a hunch would be to undervalue the process. The fact is that I had been reading and following the markets closely as well as following current events. I wasn’t necessarily believing the commentators, but I was listening to all of them and making my own decisions about the way the market would go. And finally, my gut told me it was time to sell.

Now the reason I point this out is simply to try to use an example of relating to reality without depending on ideology. You can’t aggressively assert why you are acting, but somehow your brain has taken input from many sources and has synthesized a “hunch”.

It is the same in the domain of politics. It is hard to understand political reality with the clarity that one understands the physical reality that is in front of us. When we are surrounded with people who believe in some kind of political religion, it is hard to stand apart and to be willing to not know the answers. But, I assert that we are better served and our nation is better served for us to do exactly that.

In a future essay, I propose to list what I perceive as the burning questions of our day and invite others to add to the list. From this, we might be able to find the basis for some stimulating conversations.

On Parenting

Santa Cruz, CA August 5, 2009

Knowing this is a sensitive issue for those of us who are present or former parents, I hasten to point out that the following essay is just a collection of some of my ideas, placed here to stimulate further thought on this important topic. I have noted that parenting seems to have fads and fashions - young parents seem to agree on certain principles of parenting without necessarily examining alternatives. I have seen a lot of changes in parenting styles over the last half century and they seem generally to have been an improvement. Parents certainly seem more committed to the task and devote a lot more attention to their offspring. But does all this attention benefit the child? Your mileage may vary.....read on.

Early childhood - From the moment of birth, the child has primitive programming for survival, like all living beings. This need to survive gives rise to the first and most important childhood game - domination. Since children need adults to survive, the ability to control those adults becomes crucial. As the child reaches the first birthday, domination techniques have moved beyond simple crying. Haven't we all seen bored toddlers sitting on the floor creating a fuss just to see if they can move 130 pounds of adult human from the the kitchen to the living room. It gives them a sense of security to feel that they can control their caregivers.
But there are limits to domination. I assert that it is important that parents teach the child the difference between "I need" and "I want". The child must always know that it's survival will be assured, that it is loved and it's parents will always be there. But wanting some brightly colored cheap toy in the supermarket is not survival - and crying or tantrums absolutely will not deliver that toy. After this lesson has been delivered and the tears have dried, it is important that the child receive a large dose of love and touching - but in a way that is not connected with any specific behavior, but simply as a consequence of being alive and being loved. In time, the child learns the difference between survival and wanting things.... a good first step.

Crying and Tantrums - Let's be clear that we are not talking about crying about hunger, diaper pins, gas, skinned knees or any other normal childhood need. Of course children cry. We are talking about dominating and demanding. Crying and tantrums are the first tools a child uses to dominate its environment and so the early parental reaction to this behavior is crucial in shaping the development of the child. At the time the child begins this behavior it is too young to reason with (I assert). We are dealing with primitive rage at being denied something that the child wants. Crying is a powerful tool for the child because, in these busy times, parents are trying to juggle far too many tasks in a single day and the overwhelming impulse is to do something that will get the child to be quiet. But if the child wants something, then hugging and comforting won't stop the crying. Getting the desired object will work of course, but at the price of rewarding behavior that we really don't want to become habitual. Here I am not just talking about the child wanting a toy that is just out of reach, but something that the child really cannot have.

And so, there will be those times when the child is crying or throwing a tantrum when the child will have to be removed from a space where it is annoying adults and placed in a room where it can cry safely all it wants. This is harder on the parents than capitulation, but pays big dividends. It doesn't take many alone-in-a-room crying sessions before the child begins to learn that crying is not it's best tool. And as soon as the child stops crying, touching and loving attention brings its world back into balance.

Discipline - to many this sounds like a dirty word, connoting a sort of rigid Prussian hard-heartedness. To digress a bit, a few years ago when we were sailing, we stopped at a luxury resort in Costa Rica that was hosting a convention of child psychologists. Over cocktails, they were asking, when did the word "OK" come into parenting - as in "I want you to go clean up your room, OK?" The fact is that the parent wants the child to clean the room and the OK part is a lie. It is also a fact that the child probably doesn't want to clean the room because it is having much more fun playing. Since the parents have discarded their inherent authority with the word "OK", it is clear to the child that cleaning the room is, at least for a while, an option - not a requirement.

But the questions from the therapists was why would the parents want to deny their inherent authority with this throwaway word OK? When did it become uncool for parents to be in charge? When did everything come to have to be negotiated?

I would assert that the child desperately needs the parent to be in charge - again based on the need for survival. In the primitive brain, "If they can't control something as small as me, how can they protect me from the world?" Psychologists talk about the need for limits and the lengths that a child will go to to find some limits. When I worked with delinquent youth, I saw first hand the extent that kids will go to get their parents (and society) to control them.

To clear the air a bit so that we can discuss discipline productively, let's create a definition of the word - let's say that that discipline involves having to do something that one doesn't want to do. There are two kinds of discipline: external discipline and self discipline. External discipline is someone else making us do something that we don't want to do. Self discipline is when we make ourselves do something that we don't want to do - like getting up for work the morning after a big party. We all would agree that self discipline is a crucial part of the formula for success. But I assert that until a child has experienced and survived external discipline, there is little possibility for self discipline. With gentle, but firm external discipline, the child discovers that it can do something that it doesn't want to do and then life goes on just fine. It is OK to do something that one doesn't want to do. This is an enormously important skill! As adults, we spend the majority of our time doing things we don't really want to do. We have successfully adjusted to this by just convincing ourselves that we really do want to do what we are doing so that we can reach some desired goal. But under all that, wouldn't we really prefer to wake up when we want, request the breakfast we want, be taken to the beach, and generally be pampered and spoiled all the time. See, we don't even consider that possible! Life taught us about discipline. We need to do that for our children - with love and gently, but also firmly.

As children grow, they begin to set up power struggles - to test their limits (and our commitment to their safety). A basic rule that I lived by as a parent is: if the child sets up a power struggle, the parent must ALWAYS win. Always! Yes, the commotion created by a power struggle could be ended more quickly and quietly by the parent giving in, but that just teaches the child how to dominate the parent more effectively. If the parents defeat the power-struggle-game early in childhood, the child may abandon it entirely - leading to a safe and relatively tranquil adolescence. On the other hand, let a teenager run a power struggle and the results can be truly dangerous. Better to deal with it early. Again, loving reassurance after the struggle is finished is the second part of ALWAYS.

Food Games - This is a game that is primarily created by parents, but children take advantage of it as a way to practice domination. It starts early. When the baby comes off the breast and starts eating solid food, parents notice that they prefer creamed corn to creamed peas and so, wanting the child to be well nourished, they buy more creamed corn. Of course. But at some time, the child is ready to sit at the table with the rest of the family. That is the time when the parents have to stand up as parents. The question, "would you like?" is the invitation to play food games. I assert that there should be no question - just the statement "today we are having...." The child does not get to choose the menu and absolutely does not get to have special foods that the rest of the family are not having. That doesn't mean that their favorites don't get on the menu from time to time - of course they do. But they don't select the menu.
Now the child has a choice - eat what is being served or don't eat what is being served. There will be another meal in 6 to 8 hours. No child ever starved from missing a meal. When the family food is what there is to eat, the child will eat it without games. The less the parents fuss over the child eating, the better. Matter-of-fact comment: "Oh, you don't see anything you want. That's too bad. Well, maybe you'll like breakfast."
Of course, if the child doesn't eat the regular meal, there will be no treats or snacks coming out of the icebox later. Conversely, if the child eats a little of everything, it qualifies for whatever treat the family might have later on. This sounds harsh - but it only lasts for a little while and then the child goes on to eat pretty much what is available and the issue is gone.
What is really harsh is to let the child develop a major food game. I have seen children who have taken this so far that they are socially crippled for life because they only eat a handful of foods. What the parents didn't do is now getting done by the cold, cruel world.

Why don't children want to grow up? - I started grappling with this question when I started to seek a reason for the persistence of drug abuse. I started to realize that people use drugs because their lives don't give them anything to look forward to. To add a little responsibility to that statement, I'll restate - that people have failed to find a purpose for themselves that gets them out of bed in the morning and shapes their daily lives. Since those folks find that life is unrewarding and boring, then drugs make things seem a little better - self medication.

But we are talking about children - and some of them going on into their twenties without finding anything more challenging than sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. What happens that makes them want to cling to childhood? Why does adulthood seem so unappealing? If we go back to last century, children grew up in small towns. With no mass media, they didn't think of themselves as teenagers. They didn't have their own culture and mores. They went to school and when they left high school, they started acting like adults. They went to work and started their own families. But now there is teen culture, drug culture, surfer culture, punk culture, you-name-it culture that offer a pre-packaged identity kit for those who don't want to grow up.

So what can parents do to take the fear out of adulthood? Well, it starts with chores. Yes, chores! I assert that middle and upper-class young folks today are waited on by their parents, chauffeured to soccer games, ballet classes, etc. without being asked to give anything back. They pass a childhood of ease, make a show of going to school (public schools now being so easy that they are rarely even challenged), Mommy and Daddy pay for college, buy them a BMW and so they arrive at the gates of adulthood with a minimum of effort expended. These young people have gotten to spend quite a lot of time doing what they wanted. They have been essentially parasitic - and awareness of this does little for self confidence or self esteem. Then suddenly we ask them to climb onto the treadmill and become a "consuming unit" - going to work to support their families and starting to make payments on stuff for the rest of their lives. (This could easily become it's own essay). This drastic change is a bit of a shock.

But we were talking about chores. I assert that every child should begin doing chores as soon as possible. When they can walk and work a broom, they get a floor to sweep. Of course, parents know that it is often easier to do the task than to assign it to a child because when it is assigned to a child, the parent has to ensure that the child has the necessary motor skills to succeed, that the child understands the importance of the chore, and that the child knows what successful completion of the chore looks like. Parental supervision is mandatory, especially early. Once a chore is assigned, it must be completed successfully - absolutely! Slipshod adult workers probably learned that they could get away with half-measures by parents who were themselves slipshod in their supervision. While the quality of a completed task may not be quite as good as it would be if done by the parent, obvious faults or errors will need to be corrected gently. Once the chore is satisfactorily completed, thanks and praise are the appropriate reward. Treats and rewards should be reserved for special efforts, not routine chores. Treats can be appropriate as a recognition for being helpful generally - in a way that is not associated with any particular chore. Older children should have an increasing load of routine chores and should get more and more responsibility along with it.

From the parental standpoint, assignment of chores involves 1) clear definition of the task and the standards for satisfactory completion; 2) supervision of the ongoing task (without obvious "hovering") and evaluation of the quality - repetition if necessary; and 3) praise and recognition on completion. No part of this can be skipped. It is no surprise that busy parents prefer to park the children in front of some electronic device instead of involving them in family tasks. But this is abdication of parenthood and the loss of one of the greatest opportunities to really teach them something about life.

Chores have several benefits for children - first, they come to see themselves as contributing members of their families (and parents can help that process by pointing it out). This creates or enhances a sense of self-worth. Secondly, by learning to successfully complete tasks assigned by others to standards of others, children learn to tolerate discipline (that word again) and learn important lessons about completing tasks and working under supervision. To point out that these skills will be used throughout an entire lifetime might be overstating the obvious.

Parents as examples - most of us recognise the most obvious ways that children are influenced by parental example. If we get tattoos, use street slang, use drugs, and talk about burglaries in front of them, then they will probably grow up to be outlaws. If we work hard to support our families, put off current pleasures for future rewards, keep ourselves informed about the world we live in; recycle; all these things will have a positive influence on our children.

But there is another, perhaps more important, example that we can set for our children. And this one directly addresses the question "why don't our children want to grow up?" This one is not so obvious and nobody ever told us how important it would be for our children.

I assert that one of the most important examples we can set, right behind integrity, is to have fun! Yes, to have fun! We are our children's futures. They see that they are going to grow up to be like us. If we are bogged down in problems, struggling with life and getting beat up by it, then why would they want to follow in our footsteps? No, they need to see joy - they need to see love - and they need to see fun! That gives them a future worth living into.

For many of us, that means we'll need to learn something because we aren't particularly having fun at the moment. Yes, that is right. As parents, we get too damned serious about life and it is time to remember that this is it - we can't go back when we are 80 and start having fun. So whatever your circumstances, it is possible without changing anything but your attitude to create a little fun in daily life. Dare to be silly; sing dopey songs; extract every possible element of fun from the virtual cesspool in which you find yourself. And not only do your children benefit, but so do you! Might not be all that bad for the marriage as well, huh?

So the bottom line of this essay is - find the fun in your everyday life and build some fun into your future. No, don't spend the inheritance on a new ski boat - fun is not about stuff and having stuff. Fun is something you do - even more important, fun is something you are! If you are fun, your children will thank you for a fabulous future.

6) The Third of Three Ideas that could Transform Corrections.....

June 17, 2009 Madrid

Here is the last of the three ideas. For this one, I have to give credit to an old friend from high school, Dr. Ron Needham, who on hearing the first two ideas, gave me the kernel for this third one. I have added to what he suggested and at this point can't distinguish where his ideas left off and mine began. Suffice to say, without his input, this idea never would have happened.

Whereas the previous two ideas are simple and could be implemented without great cost or disruption, this idea requires a complete re-write of the Criminal Justice System - and so the probability of seeing this happen is beyond slim. Nevertheless, it is good sometimes to examine what might be possible in order to give direction to the evolution of the system.

Victim-Based Corrections - a system based on compensation to victims as the basis for incarceration. In this scheme, for every crime there is an identifiable victim. (If no victim can be identified, it isn't a crime. That would eliminate all of the people who self-medicate in order to tolerate their lives - so long as they don't steal a TV to support their medication. This part of the idea merits it's own essay, but let's stay on topic). If there is a victim, then there is a financial cost that can be assessed in order to restore the victim to his/her condition before the crime. The first phase of a criminal trial is the same as it is now - the establishment of guilt. But in the second phase, arguments are heard to establish a dollar amount of compensation required to make the victim "whole" again. In the case of murder, that is likely to be a very large amount.

Once a restitution amount is set, the convicted criminal either is granted probation to allow him/her to pay restitution while working in the community or is sentenced to prison. In the first case, probation remains in effect until restitution is paid and perhaps longer.

In the event the offender is sentenced to prison, he will not be released until the restitution is paid, no matter how long that might take. In the reception facility, he is given the opportunity to apply for work within the prison system. Vocational tests are available to help him evaluate his own skills and to demonstrate them to potential employers (within the system). More on employment in a minute....

I digress to note however that "will not be released" does not necessarily mean permanently living within concrete walls. There is no reason why prisoners who have demonstrated success at their jobs and lives could be transferred to sleep in half-way houses or other forms of independent living as they progress through the program. Now, back to the main theme...

At this point, I illuminate another key element of this plan - the partnership between corrections and business. Almost every prison would be built around a work facility (or multiple work facilities) run for profit by American businesses. But where would all the jobs come from? Well, most of them would come home from Mexico, China, Thailand, etc. where they had previously been "outsourced". The prisoners would earn less than they would earn in a comparable job outside the prison in order to make the program attractive to businesses. But the earnings would still be sufficient to make good progress on the restitution account. The discussion of how to make this attractive to business while still benefiting the inmates would create a very long essay on it's own, but for today let's just touch on it lightly.

The inmates, once "hired", move into residence into the facility attached to their work location. They are oriented and begin working. But before they can put money into their restitution accounts, they have to pay their room and board! (Yes, the prison system is intended to be "revenue-neutral"!) And next, they have to pay child support for any children that they may have left behind them. And then finally, money goes into their restitution account. Of course, there are other ways that they may chose to use their money. Educational programs would be available in the evening should they wish to improve their skills. By so doing, they could ultimately get themselves promoted and thereby earn more money in the long run.

So now we have a link between successful employment and ultimately being released through payment of restitution. The most important purpose of this is to finally provide socialization to a class of individuals who do not know how to function as non-Outlaws or who have chosen not to function as non-Outlaws. The inmates would have to get themselves up every morning, report to work, and deal with the kind of frustrations that work produces - boredom, work politics, acceptance of the authority of those whom one may not respect, etc. Thus far in their lives, they have not been able to do these things. They may be profoundly uneducated and may need their night school to qualify for anything more than menial work. Outside prison, Outlaw activity was far more attractive, but now they must actually confront and become successful at behavior that is actually functional.

In short, they are forced to behave in a way that would work for them when they are free. It may not be easy for them. Their employers are free to fire, demote, or otherwise discipline the workers just as they would outside the prison. If fired, they have to go back to the reception facility and apply for another job. They can also be returned to the reception facility for demonstrating the kind of behavior now seen conventional prisons - aggressive behavior toward other inmates or staff or any of a number of Outlaw behaviors.

Another benefit: when the inmate finally pays off his restitution account, he has already got an employment track record and references. He might chose to remain with his current employer, but as a free person now. Otherwise, he can seek another job, but he knows how to do it and knows how to function in a work environment. Those with limited contact with Outlaws may not appreciate how hard it is for them to function in a conventional setting.

For those who have some experience with our current system, you know that there are a certain number of hard cases who want nothing more than to get some new tattoos, lift weights, and play prison games generally. Fine, for those types there would be maximum security prisons like California's Pelican Bay facility. There they can go and act like prison goons all day long. However, they make no progress on their restitution accounts and every day they are going deeper into debt on their room and board. And so, it is unlikely that they will be seen on the streets anytime in the foreseeable future. And that is how it should be. These are people who have chosen antisocial behavior as a way of life.

But for the rest of the inmate population, without the pressure from the goons, the gang activity goes away. The only kind of behavior that gets an inmate released is functional behavior, work, and payment of restitution debt. Suddenly inmates are receptive to counselling and education. It could be possible in the last portion of an inmate's residence to have his family join him in a special family housing area, thereby making the entire family available for services (at a cost, of course).

There are many more possibilities than I have sketched out here, but at the very least we are talking about a prison system that only releases inmates who have demonstrated their ability to function as a non-Outlaw and who have actual job skills, leading to a much higher probability of social success. In addition, the cost of operating prisons would be less due to the requirement for inmates to pay for services provided by the system. Business would benefit by having a work force available in the US and a steady stream of trained employees on a career path. Unions, in industries typically unionized like the Electricians' Union, could provide training programs within the institution to prepare future union members.

And the fact that victims are compensated for their losses adds a whole new dimension to the idea of Criminal Justice. I realize that I have asked you to put on rose-colored glasses for this conversation, but so did Martin Luther King 40 years ago, and look who is our president!

5) The Second of Three Ideas that could Transform Corrections...

June 16, 2009 Madrid
If you have time, I recommend reading the first 3 short essays as background for this essay. But I will try to make it self-contained for the busy reader.

We've already discussed the enormous costs of running the correctional system and the relatively poor success that we get for our money. This article deals with an idea for increasing the effectiveness of our prisons in terms of actual rehabilitation.

Keeping Score - you can't get a result if you don't measure for it. Actual rehabilitation in prisons is such a hopeless subject that the professionals don't really want to discuss it. Wardens running our prisons are concerned with 1) staying inside the budget; 2) keeping staff and inmates from getting hurt; and 3) staying out of the newspapers. Changing the inmates values and goals is not a part of the plan - it is considered impossible, or nearly so.

It must be impossible; after all, didn't we make the effort back in the 70's and 80's when we threw our most powerful behavior altering tool, psychology, into the prison system. And psychology simply didn't make the difference that we had hoped for. So with shrinking budgets and ever more new prisons to build, we fell back to mere "warehousing" of prisoners - just holding them off the streets so that they couldn't commit crimes.

Once "warehousing" became the dominant operating mode, then other changes emerged from that (or perhaps just returned to an earlier mode used in the days before psychology was tried). To prevent staff injuries, the relationship between staff and inmates became more formal and much more separate. As staff became more and more established as guards rather than counselors, then the two distinct cultures within the prison became hardened - each with a negative definition of the other.

In the staff culture, the older guards trained the newer ones to be wary of the convicts and promoted the notion that "there is nothing that can be done for these people". Because staff were no longer involved in counseling, their educational requirements were reduced along with their pay (given the budget crises). As a result, the staff culture became a bit less idealistic. Being a guard was a job, not a calling.

In the inmate culture, the guards just became the unsmiling face of the non-Outlaw culture. As Outlaws will do, the inmates hoarded every injustice as proof of the inherent antagonism of the non-Outlaw culture. The result has been prisons where the Outlaws primarily relate to other Outlaws. Healthy interaction between staff and Outlaws became the exception.

Now let's get to the heart of the second idea: we don't really measure effectively the success and failure rate of each of our institutions. At the national level, we collect data on individual criminals and their arrests. This is done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There has been an effort to continually improve this record keeping, especially since the data has been computerized. It would not be all that hard to add a few new fields to the database and track the institutions where the criminal has spent time.

The reason for doing this would be to be able to rank all the correctional institutions in the nation in order of their success in releasing inmates who remain free of arrests. If such a list were published every six months, each of the wardens could see the comparative effectiveness of their own institutions. Let's imagine that there is some prison in Huntsville, Alabama that happens to be Number One in effectiveness. The other wardens would have to ask, "What are they doing that we aren't doing?" That is a question that isn't being asked today!

I assert that effectiveness in treating Outlaws will turn out to be based on the quality of non-Outlaw relationships available to the Outlaw as well as the availability of socialization to teach the Outlaws how to function in the non-Outlaw society. But once we start keeping accurate measurements of success, we may all be surprised at what works. Until we have the measurements, we are really just guessing.

The beauty of this idea is that it doesn't really cost very much. It doesn't add new bureaucracy. We already collect data - there would be a little clerical effort involved in reporting what inmates are in what institutions, but the amount of time required is fairly trivial. This is the heart of this second idea.

Now the correctional professionals reading this will at this point be eager to point out that any given inmate will probably spend time in a variety of institutions during his criminal career. It can legitimately be questioned how responsibility for the criminal's success or failure could be fairly apportioned between the various institutions.

Further, there are a variety of types of institutions ranging from open forestry camps to maximum security prisons. The forestry camps get relatively low-risk inmates, perhaps convicted of lesser crimes. The maximum security prisons get the members of prison gangs, violent and unsocialized individuals, and inmates convicted of serious crimes. How can a maximum security prison be forced to compete fairly with a forestry camp? The maximum security prison would expect a much higher failure rate given the pathology of it's inmates.

These two problems illustrate the difficulty of fairly comparing the effectiveness of different institutions. Difficult, but not a sufficient reason to abandon the idea. I assert that an enterprising graduate student in criminal statistics might very well take on as a PhD. project the development of an algorithm that would apportion responsibilty to each of the institutions that an inmate passes through. And it would clearly be necessary to establish classes of institutions so that maximum security prisons are fairly compared with other maximum security prisons and not with forestry camps. The algorithms used could be continually improved over time, but of course would need to be insulated to ensure that they are not subject to political pressures.

I remember as an undergraduate in Sociology, the Western Electric Study in which it was discovered that the mere act of measurement alters the behavior of an institution. How can we go on throwing 80 BILLION dollars a year at a system for which we have no measurement of effectiveness?