Russian Speech Indicates Military Expansion and Possible U.S. Solutions

You will want to listen to this speech to gain a sense of understanding of working dynamics. What I believe Putin is saying here is that he wants to expand his military alliance and that includes the use of science and tech collaboration across allies. It is likely an attempt to shore up support for redrawing parts of the Iron Curtain and as a method of placing Russia as the center of that paradigm (i.e. Peter the Great comments and era of unipolar world). You can read in Ignoring Ukraine setbacks, Putin touts 'superior' Russian weapons exports. 

The one thing that seems to be coming from this is that Russia would like to develop and sell more military equipment. They have a large international sales base and they are likely seeing that as a line of desperately needed revenue. Not to mention I suspect that international arms dealers have all types of ways to circumnavigate sanctions. 

That being said, I think we might think about how we can create rapid innovation systems and in turn start to innovate many of our own industries; not necessarily all military (As an example robotics and wearable tech impacts many different industries form military to manufacturing.) We are now competing against China and Russia and will need to put on our A game (Why we need to find our focus and become much more bipartisan in thought and outcomes.)

As end producers of advanced products and manufacturing, we can see ourselves move to the center of the investment and manufacturing supply chain if we take the right steps. Matching new developments with a human capital push and universalization of institutions, we might be able to hedge our strengths in diversity to create unique advantages in the Digital Era that less free societies like China and Russia may not be able to quickly copy.

(Its just a theory and maybe not even a good one. Remember that economics is about human interaction and in turn when you have the right people and resources in the right place you might be able to find economic synergy.)

Let us see where all this goes and keep our eyes on the horizon.

Why Free Passes Cost Society? The Cost of Placation

 Free passes for hate does cost society and eventually they do catch up to us. We see this now with more radical members of society willing to call for and engage in violence to get their way. I would suspect if we looked back at the histories of many of these members there were probably crumb trails leading back to all types of aggressive displays at different times and locations. 

We had the sacking of the capital, targeting of law enforcement, uptick in attacking minorities, feelings of mistreatment by minorities, mass shootings, and much more. There is a general increase of  the acceptance of violence and scapegoating. If we think about the possibilities of growth in the acceptance of violence and our willingness to direct it like a tool we should all cringe a little  (From a national development standpoint there is likely a point where if violence rises too high it begins to lower the productivity of the entire nation and increase disagreements as hypervigilance moves upwards. Thus, in general strategy, we may want to reduce violent rhetoric and focus more on problem solving and concepts of "togetherness").

I have been advocating for universalization of our institutions and ensuring we don't allow hate to fester in our communities. We have learned that hate and extremism is for the most part a social affair that is often catalyzed by individuals with mental health issues (In theory). Once someone starts spewing misinformation, mixed with emotional manipulation, to an unquestioning social group then situation can turn sour quickly.

Holding people to account doesn't always mean prison time. Catching individuals bent on harming others early can do a lot to help them and help future victims. In the case where my family and I were targeted by a group of mediocre ex sports players from 20+ years ago that eventually led to the downing of two local institutions (possibly three) in an effort to create pressure on us, as stated by one of the members, because we were Muslim . (I have a Muslim sounding name and my kids are mixed race but these people have no idea what I or they believe. Yet they put us in harm's way for their distorted misperceptions/bigotry and very little remorse or correction has come forward in the aftermath. It doesn't necessary apply to this local hate group but we can learn from them. Not taking local level hate because of social connections and lack of respect for life, diversity, and the Constitution allows such individuals to be ripe for recruitment for national hate agendas. Not race, religion, ideology or party specific Its a general mechanic of society and history tells us how that happens from the "normalization" of poor behaviors.). 

( If an attempt to coordinate slander, aggression, or corruption to pressure certain caste like "untouchable" to leave is called a type of cleansing that we see as acceptable in the most war torn third world nations. Except, I don't think most of those members knew what they were doing on that level; ignorance, and malicious childishness wrapped into one. Likewise, most are good natured people but they have an issue they are not aware of. The wrong personality mixed with low boundaries, a false sports identity, feelings of entitlement, general in-out group put downs, existing racism/bigotries, inappropriate social pressure on local officials with an easy to define projection target of someone(s) we love to hate and lots of interesting things start happen: we see defaults across the board as one institution impacts the next through social expectation. Think of socializing and normalizing bad behaviors.)

When we know behaviors are highly destructive we should not placate. Knowing when to intervene in the most positive way when protecting individual rights is important. There are differences between opinions we might disagree and intentionally inflammatory language designed to direct hate toward specific targets (i.e. law enforcement, minorities, government officials, judges, etc...)

What if we found a way to have empathy and accountability?

If we catch people early enough we can deter them from greater sliding into hate and rage. That does require a level of empathy as many of these people may have mental health issues that predispose them to hate based rhetoric as a need to belong (i.e. "super cool" ex sports players with rigid social expectations) and as a method to punish others for how they feel about themselves (...again, while many members are very good people they are easily manipulated and willing to accept a direction of rage without critically thinking. It only takes one!)

Early intervention is key. When we see people trying to bully and intimidate others as a matter of course we should have some concerns arise. If they begin to use others i.e. "flying monkeys" as tools for punishing others a bigger red flag should pop up. Placation of these behaviors will likely increase their frequency as people are socialized to the acceptance of hate and scape goating as a problem resolution strategy (Do that on a national scale and what do you have? Think historically when this has happened in other countries.)

Can one say that something like track and resolve through early intervention is the best idea? Nope. It is just an idea based on giving opportunities for people to get the help they need and stop their issues from becoming a bigger issues for others (community/nation) down the road. It also provides a generic method of understanding the root causes that spark extremism and find solutions.

 Our national issues start with our local issues and are interwoven as a societal expectation (i.e. concept of Federalism). If we don't understand, report, and help individuals on a local level they sometimes morph into much larger national problems (i.e. low reporting of hate crimes and following up on such crimes. They are not race or religion specific.). 

I wish I knew what the solutions were. There are lots of hands in the problem solving pot and everyone seems to have an interest (Way too many with self interest). I can tell you from my side I believe that me and my children (and every one else's children.)should be able to walk on any street in this country and feel safe (That is my self interest. Like I said, empathy should come with accountability when behaviors were/are intentionally malicious.). Likewise, that on a national level our own real path forward as a single national identity is through shared perspective on what it means to be an American/"American" and the inherent rights within (i.e. as value of life and freedom).

This might be an important lesson for others some day. I have forgiven my aggressors because I know the weakness that comes from cravings for money, social emulation, and the avoidance of self reflection. These have been part of human kind since we were aware of of our own existence (i.e. crawling out of woods into consciousness/awareness). While one can forgive without accountability one cannot undo the wrong and thus accountability is necessary to deter further social learning around bad behaviors (Social Learning and observational model). Good intention/karma is at the forefront. 

Where do we go from here? I hope we are a learning society.  We will overcome if we do what's right and stick closely to our American values and principles as agreed and codified in our Constitution as a central social contract. We will fail if our moral conscious and good judgement fail.

Me, I plan on continuing to encourage togetherness, evidence based decision making, and shared national/local perspectives that will ensure the torch of democracy passes from out generation to the next (Allegory of Cave). We can do so with love but not sugar coating/placating bad behavior.

Picture of the Super Moon on a Ship

Super moon shot taken from a ship. Its interesting because while the picture is a little dreary it sort of has its own charm. I guess many things depend on taste.

You can see these and other pictures in my gallery HERE.
Ship Under Super Moon

Governor Hogan Discusses the Political Environment (i.e. Classified Documents) and His Thoughts the State of Affairs

 I like what Governor Hogan is saying in terms of sort of looking at these things and waiting to fully understand them before jumping to conclusions. While allegedly keeping classified documents, and in turn the raid to recover them, is highly unprecedented we can't say at this point it is unnecessary/necessary. That will be dependent on what transpires in terms of evidence/justification (I believe they likely have solid justification as one would know the action will go under a magnifying glass.). No one should be above the law and sometimes it may be necessary to act for the greater good of society (Why we have bodies of legislators vote on laws as a social group. Keep the concept of individual within the collective in mind as important for a later discussion. i.e. I, Me, We.). 

What I found interesting is Governor Hogan is talking about an increase in independent voters. I think its possible that such a middle group will grow. Whether or not they form into their own party down the road remains to be seen. It might just be history in the making. For example, if people form a political identity and gain sponsors as a rationalist/centralist group that would change things. 

Such a party might be focused on using logic and science to make decisions as it would become increasingly possible to gain supporters through good ideas brought forward and vetted to solve societal problems (i.e. party choices being based on evidence based decision making and the likelihood of potential outcomes that put the U.S. in the best competitive position while still understanding the quality of life needs of the populace.)

(BTW I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but just taking note of the possibility if a trend forms)

Back to the video.....

We should also say that certain rhetoric is dangerous on both sides. Some Democrats put forward the idea of Defund Police and now some Republicans are saying Defund the FBI. It seems to not be well thought out strategy yet and designed more for emotional reaction. Without a concrete plan on how someone would foster stability in society and enforce its laws (i.e. collective will) it falls into the category of emotional rhetoric/manipulation. Asking for change (i.e. holding bad apples accountable, increased insulation from political pressure and more truth, wisdom, and moral conscious in decision making.) is helpful as a normal system improvement. (I don't see a need to scrap the current system and replace it with a high risk of chaos. i.e. the lack of Law and Order).

Discussing issues, changing things if you don't like, transparency, etc. are all acceptable because they work within our system (i.e. Systems Thinking). However, calling for violence is and of itself a sign of increased potential future violence by a small but influential group spawning from our highly politicized society. There is much in the words people use and the intentionality of conversation than one might initial think (Listen closely to the deeper meaning of language. ).

Me....I'm a light right Republican and hope very much that we reduce the rhetoric and draw people back to a shared vision of our country. That will require our leadership to really think about their choices, words, and voting. 

Rising Distrust of Other Party: Do We Need More Centralists/Rationalists?

 If you have been watching politics for a while you will start to realize that we have two highly opposed sides within the system. There are seen as two opposed ways/habit/logic of thinking. Some of the hyper politics seems to be fostered by those members of either party that have something to gain through the conflict (They are actually similar but you can't see that on the surface. There is a blended path I think. ). The very nature of politics i.e. Will to Power as coined by Friedrich Nietzsche, often entails some level of conflict but it doesn't have to be destructive and could very much be constructive (There are other avenues for our leaders to find power. I would think of problem solving as a useful political tool.) 

Most of the problems could be resolved with the right leadership, party members, and stakeholder sitting in the same room and having a heartfelt conversation about the direction of country. Throw radicals in a functioning group and your going to mess it all up because they have difficulty compromising (..and in turn not really part of politics as an art of negotiation and influence. See Harvard Toxic Study. They rely on power over versus power with dynamics and in turn team spirit dives down. According to that study the bottom line is impacted by toxic behaviors. I would suspect the same mechanics are on the national level as it is on the business level. Thus, finding solutions through bi-partisanship and/or a new party that can sway outcomes is part of national development. See Greatest Threats )

While I'm a light right Republican, I have no problem working with people from any background I can't as of yet see myself as running for an office. I may never, but I want to understand the landscape and be an influencer for divergent thinking (Conflict Modeling). Its way way too brutal out there for an average guy. (Think about it...one of the biggest ways to win primaries is to bash others but often the substance on how problems are going to be solved are short. We can't expect our leaders to know everything but we can expect them to make a rational argument because it impacts all of us.)

I want to watch Michigan politics to see if the centralist voter made up of independents, centralists and rationalists that don't adhere to parties strictly has grown. If that amebic group gets bigger we may find they have additional strengths to sway elections and voting. A shrinking central group may indicate increased polarization while an increase in centrality could indicate less polarization (I haven't really thought through it all but seems in the ball park. Social Capital Theory).

Now, there also seems to be within this report increased frustration with both parties and a desire to potentially break the two party system and add another party. Democracy can handle that as long as everyone works within the system (There are some who may not be working toward the same positive outcomes.). I would agree that politics (often made up the same actors and contributors) has veered a little off course and purpose (Why the best and brightest and not necessarily the most "connected" are needed in government and politics. Think about it....I believe you will agree the best and most capable people should be taking the important jobs that we rely on.). 

What would that Centralist/Rationalist party look like? I don't know....but I suspect them less reliant on emotions and more on science, debate, practical solutions, a certain objective chain of logic, etc... That would be something more akin to the somewhat objective personality that we expect CEOs to have when making decisions over diverse international companies. 

Thus, a centralist/rationalist type party would likely have business support because they may be better at balancing arguments to find the best solutions for everyone (Americans/"Americans" were/are seen as practical in nature.) I suspect there will be more pressure to find long lasting solutions to dangerously childish behaviors. That probably would require Republicans and Democrats to work toward larger national goals and diminish the power and influence of more extreme members of their parties (Cognitive Team Building). 

Let us wait and see what happens. Go ahead and read the study.... 

As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System

Albuquerque Muslim Killings: Likely Not Hate Crime but Possible Mental Health and Violence

Interesting turn of events in the case of The Albuquerque killing of 4 Muslim. At the current time it does not appear the killings were hate related but stemming from other events (Still undefined). We never really know something until there is an investigation and we understand events from a more hindsight and factual basis. That is why it is often best before making definitive conclusions and statements (Possibilities and probabilities are more accurate.)

Apparently, there were three other prior domestic violence charges brought against the alleged perpetrator and subsequently dismissed. Likewise, some movement of rifles and weaponry (Was this related to easy access? We probably have people who study these issues.). No indication yet of mental health issues (Looking at each case leads to greater understanding of why and how certain behaviors unfold. I have seen the destructiveness of hate sparked by mental health. We need better systems of managing it and holding to account poor behavior in an empathetic way.)

It will be interesting to find out if there was a specific issues that caused the dispute. We may also want to understand if there was prior violence overseas (Historical perspective). In other words, a full understanding of the history of such individual could tell us about how we vet and manage such issues in the future.

There is a point to be made here. Assumptions are hard to make in many cases. One could easily jump to conclusions, and I do this sometimes as well, but should always be open to the possibility of alternative explanations. Having an open mind and willing to accept facts, and their strength, as they come is important for better decision making. 

In this case, targeting 4 Muslim men was all over the news. It is still a factual statement, however it may not be a hate crime or indicative of what actually happened (It happens. Its part of journalism to explain and we often explain concepts based on limited information.). Before we can solve our problems we must see things for what they are and that means being open to objective facts. The more detail we have, the more we can define the issue.

Let us see what the case brings....

Suspect in the killings of Muslim men in Albuquerque makes his first court appearance

You may want to look at a study on community based violence. While the study doesn't specifically state this and focuses on kids within communities there is a sense of community inclusion and exclusion factors (Another argument for universalization of values and institutions so that major sectors of society are tied to a shared perspective). Studying these factors helps us to think about how individuals and groups are formed and why they select their target(s). That also leads to the creation of better detection methods that in turn helps families targeted by hate and rage. 

Community Violence in Context: Risk and Resilience in Children and Families

(Before you get all excited I and write about those things in our society that are of a major concern. You will find posts on science, economy, politics, and extremism which are all national development issues. I am trying to understand and I think along that process it could be helpful to others. Perhaps someday we may get lucky and find a solution or two. I know In know!!! I do have a Muslim sounding name!)

.

Aisenberg E, Herrenkohl T. Community Violence in Context: Risk and Resilience in Children and Families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2008;23(3):296-315. doi:10.1177/0886260507312287

Death Threats Against Public Officials (DOJ)? The implications

Recently we have had death threats against public officials of all types that include politicians, judges, law enforcement and others (Notice intentional fear creation and risk of violence. Its important for categorization reasons). That anger is directed against the FBI among groups of what appears to be far right extremism. See FBI agents, Garland and Wray see increased death threats after Trump Mar-a-Lago raid: sources. What happens next is going to be interesting and the way in which we step will be an important one.

The threats indicate increased online chatter and with a background of paramilitary sacking of our Capital we should probably start taking domestic extremism/terrorism seriously. (Notice how domestic threats follow similar patterns. One could analyze that chatter and the people involved to ensure they are actual people/profiles and what other associations they may have with each other and other outside entities. None of this is new. Contingency planning for various scenarios and situations is important.)

For example, when groups begin to chatter about violence, group norms seem to indicate a level of heightened aggression and some of the groups have the potential to create violence we should be concerned. Its the same on a national level as it is on a local level and one often filters to the other. 

The same social mechanics of socialization, normalization and radicalization seem to occur in the online and offline world. Any ideology can be twisted for political gain. The key is how social connections spread information and who it reaches and how those groups form their identities. Depending on their chatter it could easily lead to violence as individual responsibility is minimized in the group's head.

What we will want to see is if there are questions about why a raid has occurred that we trust in a process and people will review that process to ensure accuracy/purpose. Such process can create more insight into behaviors such as innocence or guilt (For example, both sides many benefit by whatever the truth is and lead to increased transparency of government in general.). They are not yet a determination but only an investigation.

In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty (That is everyone!). Furthermore, we should hope our politicians will support processes, change if they don't like, but work within the system. As soon as members of governance split to work outside the system, we might see a second round of problems. 

In the end, our central American values will win out because it is the best and most prosperous way forward. It could be a constructive lesson on who we are supporting (not party specific) and the danger of hyper politics (not party specific). Freedom isn't free and talk should have purpose and meaning. There should be limits to some types of behaviors.

My side is always with the Constitution, the needs of the whole society, my own moral conscious (perspective of God) and working through problems such as these to improve the entire democratic system. Dealing with the sleeping monster under our beds in a thoughtful national renewal that seeks to find bi-partisan solutions and clearer definition of the core values that make one an American/"American" (i.e. build our collective consciousness around key values we all share).

Let where everyone starts walking. Me, I'm going straight forward and encouraging people to think wisely about politics, people, and our futures as a system. We shall overcome and be better for it!