Patriotism: Leadership & Politics

Deep dive podcast.

What is a patriot?

A patriot is a citizen who demonstrates love and respect for America by upholding the rule of law. It is fundamentally un-American to violate these principles and values as established by the Constitution (not religion).

You cannot be a patriot unless you respect the Constitution while following the law. Supporting someone who doesn’t follow these principles would be unpatriotic. Our Constitution is what makes America, America.

You can love America yet still not respect America by being a selfish scofflaw. Knowingly parking your car in a handicap spot and paying the fine shows a lack of respect for the law compared to simply parking legally. It’s not ok to break the law, even if you’re willing to pay the price.

A man can love his wife yet still not respect her.

A man can be a seemingly great parent, citizen, worker, etc. But if he constantly cheats on his wife, then there is neither respect nor commitment to the marriage. Infidelity violates the fundamental principles of marriage.

Let’s break down the difference between principles and values.

The Supreme Law Of The Land

The Constitution embodies America’s principles. It is the supreme law of the land.

Laws implement the Constitution’s principles as America’s values.

Think of principles as the lay of the land. They are virtually unmovable.

Think of values as implementing principles. Laws codify principles as values.

If you think of terrain features on the surface of the Earth as principles, then a map represents values. There are different kinds of maps.

Some maps highlight roads and highways for automobile drivers; certain maps focus on terrain, with contour lines for hikers or mountain climbers; some show water depth and hazards for sailors and divers; while other maps point out towers, radio beacons, and buildings for pilots.

All of these maps depict the same geographic area (principles) but they highlight different features (values).

Having a map for the wrong area is not helpful no matter how much you want it to work in your favor. A map of New York City does you no good in Los Angeles. The values a drill instructor instills in recruits during boot camp differ from those a parent imparts to a toddler, yet both align with the principles of the Constitution.

If a law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law either needs to be struck down or else the Constitution needs to be amended. Maintaining a law that conflicts with the Constitution is toxic and dysfunctional.

Oliver North: A Personal Journey in Ethics

Shortly after I enlisted in the Marines, news of the Iran–Contra Affair broke in the fall of 1986. The following year, Congress held hearings to get to the bottom of the matter. It was concluded that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North – a highly decorated Marine officer who attended the Naval Academy – illegally sold arms to Iran and funneled that money to support the Contras. The Contras were Nicaraguan rebels fighting against the Sandinistas who were the political group in control of Nicaragua. The Sandinistas had policies aligned with the Soviet Union and were considered a Cold War threat to the United States. Contras good. Sandinistas bad.

During the Iran-Contra Hearings in Congress, LtCol Oliver North, as the key witness, was hailed as a celebrity for standing up to Congress, looking them in the eye, and taking full responsibility for the affair.

This seemingly brave and bold sense of patriotism and accountability would have a big impact on me, personally, when I attended the Naval Academy a few years later.

In the 1980s, I, too, hailed Oliver North as a hero, until I learned the fundamental flaws in his unethical and illegal practices.

This doesn’t mean that North didn’t accomplish truly patriotic acts that contributed to the nation’s well-being before or after the Iran-Contra Affair. But it does mean that his actions that led to this affair were misguided – a vigilante patriotism devoid of checks and balances.

During the hearings, Oliver North was asked if he received any ethics training while at the Naval Academy. After answering in the negative, a mandatory semester course was required for all Naval Academy Midshipmen (students). This ethics course was the most impactful class I took at the Academy. Second only to the Naval Academy’s course, Law for the Junior Officer.

Taking this ethics course gave me a clear understanding of North’s legal and ethical violations. Not only did he break the law, but he also lied to Congress about it. It is important to keep in mind that North’s power and authority as a military officer was bestowed upon him by Congress – the very institution he intentionally deceived.

This is the equivalent of a child being given permission by their parents to go outside to play until a curfew time. But, while out and about, the child commits vandalism and returns home late. Then, when questioned by their parents, they lie about coming home after curfew and also deny the vandalism.

The People empower the government and the government empowers certain people with authority to act on behalf of the government. In my Naval Academy ethics course, I learned how to follow a clear line of power, authority, and justice. This line originates with the Constitution and flows through the three branches of government by way of laws, codes, policies, regulations, and ethics, ultimately defining the actions allowed or restricted for both citizens and the government.

At the Naval Academy, many things we learned could be effectively summarized in soundbites.

What’s the most important leadership trait? Set the example.

When asked in an engineering class at the Academy, "Why is something a certain way?"—like, "Why are there two turbines instead of one in a ship’s steam cycle?"—the answer was simple: Because it’s more efficient.

Unethical behavior can also be succinctly summarized as a sound bite: Committing or soliciting an illegal act or the intention to deceive or not let the whole truth be known (with a few, clearly defined exceptions).

Leadership and The People

In leadership, I learned that followers look to a leader to provide stability and make them feel as safe as possible, while setting an ethical example. This applies to all levels of leadership, regardless if it’s a parent showing up on time to safely drive their kid home from school, or a military officer leading troops into combat, or a political leader announcing new policies.

We look to our leaders for safety, but before someone can lead, they must first learn to follow. A great leader cannot be a poor follower.

Politicians are leaders. In politics, we can question a political leader’s policies. However, we should never question a political leader’s patriotism. They must respect the Constitution and the rule of law above all else.

Additionally, any organization that allows a leader, no matter how talented, to operate under rules that apply only to others will create a toxic environment where someone is considered “above the law.” Formally documenting any unwritten rules will go a long way to creating a healthier environment.

Finally, being a patriot doesn’t mean blindly agreeing with every government action; it can also involve critiquing the government or advocating for change when one believes the country is not living up to its ideals. But this advocacy for change still needs to follow the Constitution and law.

Veterans Day for Marines

Every Marine knows the date, 10th of November, which makes the following day, Veterans Day, a bit different.

Veterans have Veterans Day to commemorate their military service on the 11th of November. And the Marines have the Marine Corps Birthday to commemorate their roots, one day earlier. All active duty and former Marines will wish each other a happy birthday on the Marine Corps Birthday. Marines will also tell you that the timing of these two back-to-back American holidays is ideal since it gives Marines a day off after their Birthday Ball celebrations and festivities.

America’s military is a unique breed of people who are called to serve, not only to protect their country, but, more importantly, they’re called to serve through their oath: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The distinction between country and Constitution is vital because it prioritizes the principles spelled out in the Constitution ahead of the desires of our citizens or the values we codify in laws.

A Unique Breed

U.S. Marines are a unique breed of America’s military. While each of the military branches have different missions and specialties, one key fact that makes Marines different from the rest of the U.S. Armed Forces is that all Marines are combatants. They are all basic riflemen trained to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat. More specifically, the Marine Corps does not have doctors, dentists, chaplains, etc. However, since the Marines work so closely with the U.S. Navy (a separate military branch) they receive health and spiritual services from Navy doctors, medics (called corpsmen), chaplains, etc.

Additionally, the Marines are a small, tightly integrated military corps with both tactical fixed-wing (fighter jets) and rotary-wing (helicopters) to support their ground troops. The U.S. Army only has tactical helicopters to support their ground troops. If the Army needs fixed-wing combat support, they’d call on the U.S. Air Force.

Celebrations and Observances

Veterans Day is officially observed with two minutes of silence at 11:11 AM PST to commemorate the ending of WW I on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. (It’s celebrated at 11:11 AM PST instead of EST so that all time zones in the United States can celebrate it simultaneously.) Additionally, dozens of parades and ceremonies are held, throughout the country, along with deals, discounts, and freebies, to honor our Veterans.

While Veterans Day is marked with two minutes of silence, the Marine Corps Birthday is observed with two hours of pageantry, throughout the world, at Marine Corps Birthday Balls. The highlight of the Marine Corps Ball is the cake cutting ceremony which follows a basic script where the first piece of cake is presented to the guest of honor. The second piece of cake is given to the oldest Marine present who then presents the youngest Marine with the third piece of cake to symbolize the passing of experience, knowledge, and tradition from the old to the young.

Even though active duty Marines aren’t yet veterans, they greatly appreciate having the next day, Veterans Day, off from work to rest up from the previous night’s celebrations. 

Semper Fi and thank you for your service. 

Second Amendment

In theory, I've always envisioned our Forefathers's primary intent of the 2nd Amendment as a way for citizens to keep the government in check. This is no longer practical given the disproportionate balance of power between citizens and the government. Citizens, at most, have semi-automatic assault rifles whereas the government has tanks, bombs, planes, weapons of mass destruction, etc. 

In practice, I see a more likely purpose for the 2nd Amendment would be if the country, state, or city moves to lockdown and law enforcement can't respond to crimes. 

This thought comes to mind after a friend, originally from another country, asked me about what lockdown could like as she voiced her concerns of being alone if movement was prohibited.

Vote!

I rarely publish anything partisan since most people have already made up their mind– and this piece is no exception. It will take a huge paradigm shift for someone to change a political point of view or affiliation.

But, now is your time to make a difference and put your political thoughts, ideas, and beliefs into action by voting. My goal isn’t to tell you what to think, especially not via a one-sided, emotional story that's out of context; rather, my point is to encourage you how to think using logic and reason for a deeper understanding of the issues. There are a times when we simply want to be told what to think, instead of figuring it out, ourselves – this is not one of those times.

The more citizens who vote, the more representative our federal presidential constitutional republic will be.

Protesting Without Action is Complaining

Most all political talk from private citizens (social media, beer and bar philosophizing, etc) ranges from useless noise to parroting others' views without critical thought and deep understanding. Protest without identifiable, effective action is simply complaining. Sure, sometimes the sheer volume of the protest, in itself, is enough to effect change, but that’s rare --- especially when protesters' views are diametrically opposed those of their government. Protesting didn’t work effectively during the Vietnam War, the rise of fascism during WW II, Tiananmen Square, etc. It's great that we have the right to air our grievances but it's terrible how much work it takes to be effective in the face of government power. Giving blood for a failed cause isn't effective.

Politics, without objective truth, is partisanship and, frequently, chauvinism in its extreme forms. I can usually justify a position on either side of a political hot button issue simply by flipping the timeframe from short-term to long-term, or vice versa; what seems like a good idea, today, might be bad decision, tomorrow. As a random example, it’s very easy to oppose most any ballot initiatives involving construction/infrastructure development with a blanket claim “the biggest beneficiary of this initiative is the general contractor since they’ll be paid to do this work.”

While the Constitution may be nearly ideal, our government is made of imperfect people and politicians who decided that slavery was good business, women shouldn’t vote, Japanese-American citizens needed to be interned during WW II, etc. We make mistakes.

Democrats vs. Republicans

Democrats and Republicans both try to create a fair government, but they go about it from different angles.

By de facto definition, Democrats tend to be left-leaning liberals who believe there are inherent inequalities in society which need to be evened out. For example, simply because a person grew up in a broken home doesn’t mean they shouldn't be given the opportunity to reach their full potential if given a little boost (i.e. grant, scholarship, etc). This left-leaning philosophy does not fully describe my political leanings in all cases.

By de facto definition, Republicans tend to be right-leaning conservatives who feel that all inequalities in society can’t be evened out, believing that societal hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. For example, some citizens will continue to make very poor decisions (declare bankruptcy, drive drunk, etc) and they shouldn’t be allowed to game the system and receive free handouts at tax payers' expense. This right-leaning philosophy does not fully describe my political leanings in all cases.

What we really want are humble leaders with a human side, not heroic leaders who we expect to be perfectly infallible. Leaders who thoughtfully look at the issues and make decisions based on a responsibility for the long term while focusing on the present.

Rule of Law: Punish Everyone?

Judge Judy, chatting with my mother in Little Italy, NYC,
epitomizes the rule of law – with a big dose of common sense.

The rule of law states that every person (or legal entity) is subject to the law. But that doesn't mean every person must be punished for every crime.

Thanks to the Constitution and jurisprudence, a punishment can be reduced or suspended. We've frequently been the recipient of this benefit when pulled over for speeding and let off with a warning. This doesn't violate the rule of law since the warning is a form of punishment.

But, what about the case where most people aren't warned, sentenced, cited, arrested, or punished? Does it violate the rule of law when a police office sets up a speed trap and ignores all the drivers who are going over the speed limit by only a few miles per hour? The short answer is no, because even though these drivers aren't punished, they are still subject to the law. So, while they aren't punished, they could be. Rule of law is upheld.

Fear, Free Press, and the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

– First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Foreword

We're at the point where entertainment has become more real than reality and we now suffer from information obesity.

Exercise: Fill in the blank:
"Houston, we__________ a problem."

Summary

TV news should make us better informed citizens; instead, it's making us unnecessarily more anxious. Here's why that is, and my personal solution for that problem.

Freedom of the Press

Why is a free press so important? Like the rest of the Constitution, its primary purpose is to give rights to individual citizens while limiting the power of the federal government. Freedom of the press is a key part of this right to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions.

Nowadays, it seems that the news has moved away from distributing information and, instead, it is predominantly supplying opinions disguised as news. Rather than telling citizens the facts, the media (especially cable TV news) seems to be telling people what to think, instead of how to think, which has the effect of dumbing us down.

The news media does this because we, as citizens, get lazy. Simply put, we now view TV news more as a form of entertainment than as a source of unbiased information. Journalists have, effectively, become agents of the news rather than reporters of it. Many so-called news reports on TV have been poisoned with opinions skewed to their audience's beliefs. This is clearly seen on both the left and right, liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican slants on news articles causing more and more division among the population. Rather than a single pluralistic America, it's clear that there are commercial and political advantages to the businesses and organizations who participate in increasing this polarization. Their gains are our losses. While it might be easy to point a finger at one side, the reaction of the other side seems to do very little for détente. Rather than trying to empathetically understand another's view point, we, all to frequently, shoot back with reasons they're wrong. This causes the other party to become defensive and dig their heals in. Many times, the reality of both sides --- why both sides think their opinion is the right one --- has a lot to do with context and their time horizon; short-term thinking vs. long-term thinking. But that's only one small point of a bigger problem.

No Longer Informing Citizens

As Americans, we've become over-entertained with news resulting in us not becoming informed citizens.

Here's a test for anyone, from a casual news citizen to a TV "news junkie" (typically, news junkies are people who seem well-informed, usually due to a fear of missing out):

1. What information do you miss out on by getting your news from reading (articles online, in a newspaper, or magazine) instead of watching TV? (In other words, reading the news typically delivers information with more logic and less emotion compared to watching it, regardless if it's CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc.)

2. Even more importantly, how well-informed are we when we pick up a voting ballot for the first time?

For me, the answer to #2 is that I feel very uninformed. I have no idea who most of my local, state, and federal politicians are when their names appear on my ballot. I'm hard pressed to name more than a few members of my city council or county supervisors except for when I have direct contact with them. We know very little about our local politics for many reasons, such as it's boring or there's less advertising revenue from local news compared to national or international sensational stories; frequently, the latter have virtually no impact on us.

The rescue of the 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped in a cave in Thailand grabbed national attention. But why should I, as an American, living in San Diego, be more affected by a story in Thailand while ignoring the plight of the others in my own city? The answer to this question is important. In this article, NPR boiled the answer down to one word: Drama.

Drama is more entertaining than simple, important facts.

Reducing TV News Anxiety

How do we reduce the unnecessary anxiety we get from TV news? In order to do that, we have to consume less of it --- much less of it --- while focusing on more impactful news in our lives, which is the less entertaining local news.

The first step I took, many years ago, was to simply not subscribe to any TV services (I only have an Internet cable subscription). This Vox video explains how TV news sucks us in especially during terrorist attacks or mass shootings. We get spun up, full of emotions and fear, which typically causes us to think irrationally. Everyone, from the NRA to the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) wants to reduce school mass shootings. While this is of paramount importance, we seem to overlook any significant effort to reduce the number of child deaths, each day, due to car accidents which far exceeds the number of mass shooting child deaths. Child car deaths only seems to come to a mind when we, as a parent, become concerned about our teenage kid and their fresh, new driver license.

Since I don't have live TV news, I simply read my news online. Lately, I've started to watch short clips on the Apple TV Twitter app (which behaves significantly different than Twitter on the web or the Twitter mobile app). However, I've noticed that even these short video news clips on Twitter raise my level of anxiety without providing any actionable news; and these clips certainly don't make it easier for me to pick candidates on my voting ballot.

Simply ask yourself why you're watching so much news? Are the key politicians that you constantly see in the national news helping to change your opinion; or is that news simply reaffirming your past voting decision which is something that you can't go back and undo?

Supreme Court May Overturn Third-party Doctrine

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a closely watched case tomorrow that will determine whether authorities can search your cellphone location data without a warrant. This dispute could change decades of privacy precedent.

At issue, for SCOTUS to decide, is the third-party doctrine, which says, if you hand your data (e.g. your location) to a third-party then you shouldn't expect it to remain private.

Currently, law enforcement can access much of your information simply by asking for it from the phone company or your ISP. While they frequently can't hand over your content, they can easily discover your location and who you communicated with. We're talking about metadata, which is data about data and how to route it. The USPS currently takes a photo of every letter and package mailed in the US and these images can be used by law enforcement.


One of the most read pieces on this blog, with over 100,000 page views, is a post about Facebook privacy. Then, I discovered that Facebook was keeping track of me via breadcrumbs. Would you like to see if Google is also keeping tabs on you? Then visit history.google.com.

Litmus Test

For tomorrow's case, Orin Kerr submitted a brief on behalf of the government arguing that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect location data because it’s the equivalent of being observed in a public space. 

I think Kerr's argument falls short because this data allows us to be observed in private spaces, too.

My litmus test is: how would this apply to the POTUS? Most of us would agree that we shouldn't expect privacy, in the case of a video surveillance camera recording us, in public. If the President walks down a street in New York City, many cameras will record him. But, shouldn't the President's exact location be private, in private? Did the President tweet from the Oval Office, his bedroom, someone else's bedroom, or perhaps a bathroom? Cell phone location accuracy using GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc can be accurate to within a few meters.

The current challenge is that technology is evolving so quickly that consumers don't fully understand how they unknowingly yield their privacy, and laws have not caught up with citizens' expectations or understandings.

Fake News, the First Amendment, & Critical Thinking

The challenge with fake news is it is protected by the First Amendment. Even a lie is protected by the First Amendment, in most circumstances (and there are clearly times when lying is OK).

The problem with fake news is "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." This is known as the bullshit asymmetry. And this is a rare case when it's easier to create something (the lie) than destroy it.

We commonly see spin and propaganda in business and politics; they're pretty much both the same thing, depending on the context. I like to think of spin as highlighting the lie in a truth or the truth in a lie. Or, to put it gently, spin is about highlighting the positive in a negative or, especially in politics, the negative in a positive.

The solution to fake news is critical thinking. I will not tell you what to think. But, I am willing to show you how to think. And I am willing to tell you what I think. The rest is up to you.

The most important part of critical thinking is to know the source, confirm the facts as best you can, and understand (prioritize) the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. If it doesn't make sense, then double-check it and avoid confirmation bias because once we make up our minds about something we tend to stop learning about it. At the end of the day... It's not enough to be right. It's more important to be effective.

And, never forget: Snopes and Wikipedia are your weapons in the war on ignorance. Open your eyes, only justice should be blind.

Protesting vs. Complaining

If every single one of your thoughts, posts, and comments are anti, anti-Clinton or anti-Trump, then you are not helping. You’re not even protesting. You’re complaining. You don’t like your lot in life, so you want to bring others down to your level by “informing” them through your biased view points.

You protest a cause to prevent or change it. You protest the war to end the war. You protest higher taxes to lower them. You protest evolution to promulgate the idea that Adam was made from dust and Eve was made from a rib; you do this to get your Creationist beliefs institutionalized.

For protesting to have an effect, it has to be organized as a group; it has to send a clear message that’s actionable. Venting really doesn’t help because it’s not as if you’ve discharged those negative feelings, you’ve simply amplified them.

I swore my life to protest your First Amendment. Never a regret there. But now it's my turn to exercise my freedom of speech; except I'm doing it in a positive way. Find a way to make it work or be miserable – that's your choice.

I'm not saying don't protest or demonstrate. By all means do that if you can make a difference.

Bombing American Suspects

A US military hand grenade has a
15' kill radius and 50' injury radius.

The Dallas Police Department set a new law enforcement precedence, earlier this month, when they bombed the alleged sniper who shot 12 police officers, killing five. (The media uses terms such as alleged and suspected because a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. They are suspected until convicted. This is an important concept that literally makes America great.) The pound of C4 (Composition C) explosive used in the Dallas bombing counter-attack is more than twice as much explosive found in a typical hand grenade (Composition B, with steel fragments).

I have no doubt, had I been a member of the Dallas Police Department, that I would have supported the bombing. It's very "Dirty Harry-ish." It's very "Charles Bronson-ish." Quick and decisive justice. But the anger at the sniper, Micah Xavier Johnson, doesn't necessarily make this tactic right in a moral sense. Keep in mind that what works on TV, even reality TV, doesn't necessarily work in the real world. (Even though reality TV shows aren't scripted, they're still produced and directed.)

Police have the authority to use lethal force for defensive purposes, but this isn't a license to kill or summarily execute. So, the question hanging in the air is, "Is it wrong for the police to bomb suspects?"  The short answer is, "It depends." It depends on police departments codifying their procedures, openly, in a manner that doesn't conflict with any American's civil rights. Discussing and debating these laws openly is key, otherwise it will end up in a shady area like law enforcement's controversial use of the StingRay phone tracker.

Is it wrong to use atomic or nuclear weapons in war? For my entire lifetime, and then some, the answer has been a resounding, "Yes, it is very wrong." Yet, America is the only country to use atomic weapons. By doing so, America set a contrarian precedence that no one, including us, should detonate these weapons of war. So far, it's worked. It's worked primarily because of national treaties, MAD, and, more importantly, due to the fact that the effort required to create an atomic weapon is on the scale of putting a person into orbit. No organization has done either other than a national government. But that will change.

Where do I stand on the Dallas bombing tactic? While I wish the police didn't need to use military tactics on American's, here's the pragmatic reality of a tactical commander in the field... no one should second guess them. Police have rules of engagement (ROE) to follow. There were no ROE forbidding the use of atomic weapons in WW II because there was no precedence. But, once a precedence has been set, it becomes time to address it.

In the short term, the concern at hand is, if cops overreact and shoot blacks, and then blacks overreact and shoot cops, and then cops overreact and shoot blacks... well then, how does that end?

Apple's Stance on Privacy

Three days ago, Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, sent an open letter to customers stating the company's opposition to the Department of Justice's request that Apple develop software to implement a backdoor in the iPhone. The next day, The Daily Beast published an article, Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before, which, on the surface, would lead the reader to believe this predicament is no different from the scores of previous situations when Apple unlocked iPhones for the authorities. But there's a key difference between then and now in that iOS security was weaker, in the past. Currently, Apple has not developed the technology to circumvent their own security in order to extract the encrypted data. The Department of Justice claims their request falls under the All Writs Act and the has government ordered that Apple Inc. create a special version of its iOS operating system, with certain security features removed.

Keep in mind that strong security is similar to a wall safe. The only two ways to penetrate strong security is either with the key (combination) or through brute force. Even if the hacker has the blueprints to the safe or the software source code for the encryption it doesn't help with the attack.

Hard Come, Easy Go

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Apple's stance against the federal government stems from the NSA's PRISM program. The Daily Beast article points out, "It wasn’t until after the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that Apple began to position itself so forcefully as a guardian of privacy protection in the face of a vast government surveillance apparatus."

While federal officials speculate that access to the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone data might be a national security issue, that's not enough to warrant the creation of a backdoor. Keeping America safe is not the oath that elected officials or military officers take. Rather, their oath is to support and defend the Constitution. It is not a stretch to see how America could be much safer by curtailing our Bill of Rights. Saudi Arabia is a safe country to live in, with low crime.


Update 21 Feb 2016: Another point to consider is that Apple Inc. is a multi-national corporation located in different countries and jurisdictions. If one argues that Apple has to develop a special iOS version for the US government, in this single case, in the name of terrorism, then should Apple also develop special iOS versions for, say, France or China if requested? As the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson writes, “If it [the government] can tell Apple, which has been accused of no wrongdoing, to sit down and write a custom operating system for it, what else could it do?”

A Constitutional Amendment Addressing Technology?

The Second Amendment is the only article in the Bill of Rights that specifically addresses a rapidly changing technology. What if our forefathers wrote the Constitution today? Would the Second Amendment be the right to a car, computer, or Internet access instead of the right to bear arms?

Unlike the 18th century, technologies and issues now become outdated or irrelevant faster than ever. One needn't look past the Third Amendment to see an outdated issue in the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision. And it may never be given that the United States has transitioned from a militia, to a standing army, to what now seems like a permanent war. A permanent war not against a state or government, but rather an idea: drugs, terrorism, etc. How do wars like this end? Who surrenders and signs the peace treaty leading to the release of the prisoners held in Gitmo? It seems to me that ending all terrorism in the world would be the equivalent of ending worldwide crime. A noble, yet impractical goal we should still strive for with the understanding that it cannot be fully achieved.

The key purpose of the Second Amendment was to give American citizens a daily tool while keeping the government in check. The balance of arms between the people and local communities, compared to the federal government, used to be even. Today, a rebellion by Americans against the federal government would be a disproportionate fight. Private citizens do not own or control weapons of mass destruction (nor should they). Two hundred and fifty years ago, people could not arm and stash a flintlock pistol in their pocket. Also the firearms of that time, from pistols to cannons, were single shot. Percussion cap weapons, the predecessor to bullets, weren't introduced until the 1820s.

I'm not suggesting that we add a Constitutional amendment banning firearms. Nor do I have a solution to ending gun violence. Part of my argument is that having the Constitution address a specific technology may have been a bad idea. More importantly, the Constitution is about giving rights to citizens, not restricting them. There's no place in it for banning alcohol, barring gay marriage, or restricting suffrage.

Simply because the Framers wrote the Constitution doesn't mean it's an absolute human right. Unless you think minorities shouldn't vote and alcohol should be banned. Bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege – which is more practical in today's America? So, I leave you with no answers, only questions.

Principles of Apple

This is one of the best Tim Cook interviews about Apple explaining the differences between Apple and other tech companies. In a nutshell, it's about Apple's culture, philosophy, and principles, not stock price, market share, or profitability.

What was Steve Jobs's greatest invention? Was it the Apple 2, the Mac, iPod, iPhone, etc? Nope, Steve Jobs's greatest invention was Apple, the company, or more precisely the culture he created within the company.

Apple focuses on principles. Principles are fundamental ideas that don't change. This is why they do what they do. We (people and companies) implement principles in the form of values. Our values can change depending on the situation, but the underlying principles never change. A good example of the difference between values and principles is the difference between a map and the lay of the land. A consumer, surveyor, and pilot may all use maps, but each requires a different type of map such as Google Maps for roads, surveyor maps for contour lines, or an aeronautical chart for mountains, towers and airports. As long as your values represent the underlying principles, then you have harmony; wrong map for the wrong land and you've got a problem.

Companies focus on metrics to attain goals. (It's important to note that Apple, like many other companies, has no mission statement.) The key metric for success is profitability. Obviously, Apple has that one nailed. However it's not their ultimate goal. But, Microsoft is profitable too. The key difference is in how a company attains their goals. There are different ways to do that. Microsoft does it by going after market share. In order to maintain market share Microsoft is reluctant to walk away from legacy products. Other companies may sacrifice future earnings for a good showing in the latest quarter. Apple chooses to focus on making the best products and that's measured, holistically, by customer experience, from when you walk into an Apple retail store, to buying, unboxing, using and calling for support. Steve's focus was not on quarter to quarter profits or Apple's stock price. Instead, his priority was maintaining a responsibility to the long-term. Sure, it's important for the price of Apple's stock to go up otherwise the executives lose their jobs, but that's a pleasant byproduct of making the best products in the world.

And, keep in mind, that not every one of Apple's products is a home run. Don't forget about the Apple G3 Cube (sexy, but too expensive), iPod Socks (too generic), iPod Hi-Fi (expensive and poorly designed). Make the best possible products that are simple to use and recognize the bad ones as soon as possible. In other words, do not reinforce failure; do not throw good money after bad.

To Support and Defend Heartbleed

I've seen flag officers testify about intelligence gathering techniques that involved spying on Americans. They've defended their possible Fourth Amendment violations by stating that they acted in the interest of national security and protecting the country.

My sticking point with these arguments is military officers take an oath of office that's similar to the Presidential Oath. These oaths make no mention of protecting the country. Rather, it's about protecting the Constitution. I have no doubt that Edward Snowden would argue that he acted in the spirt of this oath, more so than the NSA.

Here are some questions to consider:

1. If a criminal notices a security vulnerability at a bank, would you expect him/her to notify the bank? No.

2. If a security company, charged with protecting the bank, noticed the same vulnerability, would you expect them to notify the bank? Of course.

3. If the NSA had discovered the OpenSSL Heartbleed bug would you expect them to notify the U.S. in the interest of national security? Would you?

At what point should an agency or organization stop defending America in the interest of attacking or spying on others?

Perhaps a government agency did leak the details of this OpenSSL bug. Then again, perhaps they've been exploiting it in the interest of national security. But, I seriously doubt either is the case.

Author: Joe Moreno

When A Constitutional Amendment Outlives Its Usefulness

We have completely failed the dead children of Connecticut today. –Ric Arthur

"Why should a private American citizen own an assault rifle?" asks the city girl.

Good question.

"Because it's my Second Amendment right," answers the farmer.

Good answer.

Does the U.S. Constitution contain amendments that have outlived their purpose?

Certainly. The best example is the 21st Amendment which repealed the 19th Amendment on Prohibition.

What about the Bill of Rights? No Amendment in the Bill of Rights has ever been repealed.

The Third Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which prevents soldiers from being quartered in a home without the owner's consent, has certainly outlived its purpose. The U.S. Military is so large and well funded that there's no need to quarter soldiers in private homes. Repeal the Third Amendment and America doesn't skip a beat.

Surprisingly, yesterday's shooting isn't the largest K-12 massacre. In 1927, a disgruntled tax payer used dynamite to kill more than 40 people, including 38 elementary school children in Bath Township, Michigan.

So, what about the Second Amendment which gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms? Could that, too, have outlived its usefulness? What were our forefathers thinking when they drafted this amendment?

The Second Amendment serves several purposes. In 18th Century America, a typical citizen may own a firearm for hunting and protection. Constables didn't cruise the suburbs to maintain law and order 200 years ago. And there was no way to call 911 for help. Big chain supermarkets and grocery stores didn't exist with stocks of food that you could store in your refrigerator. Hunting was a big part of survival. 

But, beyond these reasons, there was another key purpose for 18th Century Americans to own firearms which was to keep the government in check. With the exception of the cannon, private American citizens were on even footing with the government when it came to weapons. Automatic weapons didn't back then, nor did weapons of mass destruction.

In colonial American, firearms didn't even have what we now think of as traditional bullets. In the 18th Century, firearms like handguns and rifles were single shot flintlocks with a hammer that held a rock mineral (flint). When the trigger was squeezed, the hammer hit a frizzen that threw sparks into a pan of fine gun powder which set off the weapon. If you turned a flintlock firearm sideways the FFFF gunpowder fell out of the pan making it unfireable. A flintlock firearm couldn't easily be concealed nor would it work in the rain (hence the phrase keep your powder dry.)

In the 18th Century, a battle between private citizens and government backed troops was nearly an even match in terms of firepower. It's clear that this is no longer the case. The U.S. Government has weapons of mass destruction and no reasonable person could make the case that private American citizens should own tanks, bombs, or missiles.

Question Without Answers

At this point, we only have complex questions without simple answers:

How does the current state of military hardware affect the Second Amendment? A matchup between the U.S. Government and its private citizens is not even close to a fair fight.

Should Americans own any firearms? Should private firearm ownership be better controlled? Could it be better controlled?

Even if private firearm ownership was eliminated, would people take to other forms of attack such as the Bath Township massacre or the Shoe Bomber? Bad people can always find big ways to hurt good people. Look no further than the 9/11 attacks to see how machines of peace can be turned into weapons of mass destruction.

Could schools be made more secure, similar to airports? Even if that's done, kids will still go outside to play which is where two elementary students were shot, two years ago, in my own town of Carlsbad.

Here's something important to consider… think critically of your ideas. If you think the Second Amendment should stand as is, consider yourself wrong. If you think the Second Amendment should be repealed, once again, consider yourself wrong as you think consider workable solutions. Not being able to critically examine your own thoughts and ideas leads to closed-mindedness. 

One final thought to ponder as the Constitution tries to keep pace with technology...
Which is more important: your privilege to drive a car or your right to keep and bear arms?

(Not that they're mutually exclusive nor am I suggesting the prohibition of all firearms. I'm merely making a point about the difference between rights and privileges. Driving, in Saudi Arabia, is a privilege that women don't have.)

There's no simple solution – but at least all sides agree that something needs to be done to prevent a repeat of yesterday's tragedy.