On-the-Level: Common Sense, Technically Speaking

by Charles R. Jones

 

Timeliness of This Book

The observation that this book is deeper than might be expected for a book on common sense is consistent with my initial decision to make Technidigm-2000 available to everyone “online” and at no charge.  Indeed, one of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 is the need to take time to do things right.  The need for this book was just not as evident 10 years ago as it is today.

Thus, On-the-Level has enjoyed a decade of waiting for the right time.  Thousands of Internet surfers have stumbled upon it as a result of Googling and other such searches.  Many who have commented on Technidigm-2000 to date have done so favorably, with only one dissenter, who apparently balked at clicking his way through all the online pages.  Thus, I hope that this integrated version is less intimidating and readable than the previous overly hyperlinked version.

I now believe that the thoughts (perhaps deep but increasingly relevant) in this book are much more needed by our country and the world.  I think they are more relevant to modern issues and conflicts; and many more people are likely to benefit from these thoughts and the associated problem-solving paradigm, particularly the personal evaluation scheme that I have included in the appendices. 

While this may be the right time for this book to be made available in a more agreeable form, the reader is cautioned that understanding the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 requires some effort and practice.  The reader must take the time to consider its relevance to many (if not all) issues, large and small, and learn to use Technidigm-2000 as the framework within which to consider and deal with them.

 

Dedication

 

To Ginny

 

In 1966, I married Virginia Jane Wheeler, a 1966 Hood College graduate who grew up in Baltimore, Maryland.  After quite a few military service related moves, we settled in Germantown, Maryland, where we have lived since 1981.  We have two daughters, Susan and Jennifer, who are now in their mid-thirties.  Ginny, besides being my main source of encouragement over the years, is a cancer survivor and also an elementary school teacher, a reading specialist in Montgomery County Public Schools. 

This book is dedicated to Ginny for many reasons, one of which is that she read this book in draft form ten years ago and only offered one comment, that “it sure is more deep and complicated” than she thought it would be.  Since then I have tried to uncomplicate the presentation.  I suppose it will always be a bit complex and in draft form since it must change constantly to keep pace with our complex, constantly changing world and its many problems and issues. 

Preface

In this book I provide a relatively concise “technical paradigm,” coining the new word “technidigm.”  This technical paradigm consists of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, a framework for dealing with issues in our new millennium.  While I could have established a more complex paradigm with many more elements, I decided to bow to the popular notion that 12 of anything is an upper limit for many people, and it is intended that this book should reach many people.  Thus, the 12 elements discussed in this book represent those that I consider to be the most powerful and most useful across the broadest range of issues, concerns, and problems in general.

This book, titled On-the-Level, is subtitled Common Sense, Technically Speaking.  In this increasingly complex world, our notions of common sense may not be as lucid as we would like.  By the time we understand intuitively how things should work, technology moves on and produces a new world with new frames of reference, diminishing as well our confidence in the validity of basic social and moral principles that we once considered to be self-evident.  Thus, this book is more about dealing with social and political problems that seem to constantly plague us even in this advanced world of technology and, possibly, as a result of this advanced world of technology.  It is intended to be extremely useful in dealing with all such problems.

It used to be that society and its basic principles changed little over many decades or even centuries.  Now they seem to change (or be corrupted) a great deal even in only one decade.  Change is driven by technology and is accelerated by the catalyst of “commercialism” (“greed” might be more accurate), and not all of this change is for the good of society.  For example, television ratings (the number of people watching a given program) improve when crude or oversexed programming is provided, whether or not the program’s level of decadence outpaces the ability of society to recognize and to counteract its negative cultural consequences.  We are momentarily amused by men and women behaving badly, while the constant portrayal of misbehavior gradually erodes society’s standards of behavior to lower and lower levels.  Many of our young people do not even realize that the world was ever much different.

"Living together" before marriage has become the norm.  Casual attitudes toward family cohesiveness and problem-solving responsibilities are particularly troublesome when accidental parents struggle with their “feel good” level of commitment and, later, to maintain basic connections with their own young-adult children.  Failing to apply the wisdom of their ancestors as codified in the rituals of courtship and matrimony, they become increasingly unable to apply common sense to either avoiding or dealing with life’s expected problems. 

While a few informal unions manage to succeed and result in the formal commitments of marriage, an increasing number offspring cycle between divorced or never-married parents in search of stability, while finding chaos and further instability.  Stable families seem to be more of a rarity, unstable children more common, and school shootings by students confusingly common.  Yet, we somehow continue to reject the lessons of life passed to us from generation to generation, lessons based in common sense.

Of course, such family related social problems comprise only one arena for our modern disconnect with common sense.  This book addresses much more than that, all within the same paradigm, the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000.  In addition to family and social issues, there are now many governmental and political disconnects, constitutional issues, and a whole range of media issues that need a strong injection of common sense.  Just like Thomas Paine’s original “Common Sense” pamphlet that helped spur the 1776 American patriots to take decisive actions toward independence from Great Britain, perhaps this addendum on the subject of common sense is timely, will ring true to many people, and will spur modern patriots (a subgroup of the silent majority) to finally unite and take steps to gain better control of their own lives and, hopefully, of their country.

 

Our Colonial Frame of Reference

Two centuries ago, Thomas Paine taught the colonists about common sense by writing a short book with that name.  What he had to say was sufficient to have an impact on solving the problems of the day, encouraging a dramatic shift in the political paradigm and leading to the independence of the American Colonies from Great Britain.  It is the goal of this new book on Common Sense, Technically Speaking to have a similar impact on our modern problems, from the year 2000 onward. 

The principles that formed the foundation for Paine’s Common Sense were primarily government related.  Paine’s central theme was that government is a necessary evil, but a government that is not close to the people it serves should be discarded.  Fortunately for Paine, the big question of the day was regarding independence from Great Britain.  The arguments were easy to make, and the actions needed to achieve that independence were obvious.  Modern notions of common sense are far more obscure and require effort to develop them properly, an effort that is made much easier when one understands and applies the twelve common sense elements explained in this book. 

While what Paine taught about government in his book Common Sense is still valid today, it does not provide us with enough insights to address our many, more complex problems without some additional help.  This is where this online book comes in.  In addition to common sense problems with government, there is often lack of modern versions of common sense in complex social issues, which are increasingly impacted by rapid changes in technology.  Indeed, there is even a lack of common sense applied in modern technical fields such as the space program and in the nuclear energy field, arenas in which we might think that the application of common sense "is a given."

Some of the complexity involved with applying common sense today is a result of so many of our leaders and special-interest people not being on-the-level, thus the name of this book.  One must first be on-the-level to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

It Includes Everybody!

After you learn about Technidigm-2000, you become more aware of what is going on and how to deal more effectively with problems in our complex world, with its increasingly technological society.  It is a condensed version of how to deal with complex issues.  It is condensed in the sense that I have avoided the hundred shades of gray that would make it impossible to convey and understand.  Thus, I have settled on the 12 most significant, critical elements of all issues.

These 12 elements are seldom all understood and satisfied in our modern society, resulting in the unfortunately high level of technical and social problems that we see today.  Even those of us who fully understand Technidigm-2000 find it difficult to bring them to bear in discussions with the uninitiated.  Most people are simply not accustomed to discussing issues in 12 parts, but everyone will be helped if we require this of government leaders, politicians, the news media, and anyone else involved with identifying and fixing problems.

Still, even 12 elements are a challenge.  Amazingly, Technidigm-2000 accommodates this fundamental human limitation or difficulty by making it unnecessary to invoke more than one or two of its elements to win an argument on almost any topic.  Once studied, the applicable elements will likely pop into your head as soon as you start thinking about an issue or problem that you have. 

Technidigm-2000 practitioners can dismiss most social or technical arguments as "level one" (opinions) and concurrently propose several approaches to reaching a more valid “level four” (solution) understanding.  Technidigm-2000 is just in time for each of us to be able to deal more effectively with the modern social dysfunctions that we now consider to be rather normal.  Perhaps soon you will hear an on-the-level politician describe his level four solution to an issue, and also share his personal self-assessment score.

Common Sense Revisited

As already alluded to above, few of us can pursue "profound thinking" about common sense (a contradiction in terms) without at some point visiting Thomas Paine's original work, Common Sense.  His 200 year old, revolutionary-period pamphlet is well-known but not widely-read.  It is also a bit out-of-date when we consider the profound impacts of modern technology on whatever it is that we mean by wisdom and common sense.  Yet it provides a starting point as well as a counterpoint for any modern effort on the subject of common sense.  His focus was on common sense in government, which is addressed here as well.

Since I graduated from high school in 1962 (when I was sure I knew everything!), I have witnessed the gradual demise of common sense and the counter-parallel rise of nonsense.  Each of us has some notion of what I am talking about here, but in this online book I state my version of that notion.  With the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, we can start to push back at some of the nonsense.

Unfortunately, as an engineer I am without the necessary skills to be so convincing and articulate that I can hold your attention throughout the presentation of On-the-Level.  I am no Tom Clancy, but I think I have something here that needs to be said, something that will be understood, appreciated, and applied by a growing number of us modern citizens.

 

It's a Paradigm, Not a Paradox

While I can not grant you an increased portion of common sense, I can provide a "framework" or "paradigm" within which you can organize and exercise your own common sense.  More importantly, once we all understand the framework, we will better understand each other and better communicate with each other.  I offer only a framework, supplemented by a few level one opinions to get you thinking, but it is up to you to come up with the plans for level four solutions. 

At this point, please assume that I have managed to capture your attention and have motivated you to read, understand, and apply this online book.  The level of motivation is, of course, very limited, especially when compared with the many other interests and distractions available in our modern society.  It is my hope that there is enough interesting stuff in this online book to provide insights and to change your approach to dealing with common and uncommon issues.

A Bold Claim

Now for the boldest claim that I can make for this entire effort:  Those people who understand and apply the 12 common sense Technidigm-2000 concepts will quickly become more effective members of our technical society.

Whether the issue is nuclear power plant safety (my area of expertise, by the way) or political-campaign funding (I can only suggest a solution in this book), Technidigm-2000 provides you with an approach to achieving important insights that are readily communicated.  Even when other people do not understand the ins-and-outs of Technidigm-2000, what you say is concise, unambiguous, and easily understood.  It can make the difference between success and failure in our sound-bite world.

To those who want to hurt you, Technidigm-2000 feels like a sharp sword.  To those who want to help you, you can explain the 12 Technidigm-2000 concepts in about 10 minutes.  After all, it is only common sense!

Charles R. Jones

Germantown, Maryland

 

 

 

Part I


The 12 Elements of Technidigm-2000

 

 

 

Chapter 1
A Simple Paradigm for All

Today, everyone is supposed to be equally wise and able, or at least be treated as such even if it violates common sense.  It is expected that some readers will be able to read about, understand, and apply the concepts presented in this book, using it much like a text book on modern applications of common sense.  Others will not be able to make it past the front matter and will perhaps never read these words.  Still others will skim through the many pages and, perhaps, keep On-the-Level on their bookshelf as a reference book.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether he or she is “wise and able” enough to comprehend and apply this book effectively.  Even if the reader gives up early, the reader needs to consider whether it is appropriate for our national leaders and others (such as those in the news media and other professional critics) to be able to say that they were able to comprehend the book and can communicate effectively using the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000.  That is, would you vote for a senatorial or a presidential candidate who was simply unable to read and use a book on common sense?

Let us now jump right in, starting with something most people have already figured out for themselves.

 

 

Computers Can Not Do Everything

Offensive or not, the above "straggling thoughts of individuals" quote at least reminds me of the modern version: A computer can randomly write words forever and will eventually state everything.  Now if we could just read it all and ignore the nonsense, we would not have to think for ourselves! While not quite that effective, the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 will from now on help us to ignore all the gibberish and organize our thoughts and make it obvious when those around us have not yet done so. 

More notable than the computer's ability to generate mountains of random gibberish is the fact that even a "straggling thought" by a human being is likely to contain some elements of what we humans refer to as wisdom.  As far as I know, no computer has ever been accused of having the slightest amount of wisdom.  Nor are computers blessed with what we refer to as common sense.  Only humans can have common sense, so only humans can have an unexpected shortage of it, straggling (lazy) or not. 

It is the "wise and able men" part of the opening quote that deserves more of our attention.  In pointing toward wisdom and ability as elements necessary to produce something useful, Thomas Paine's statement lays out the basis of common sense.  That is, common sense presumes the presence of at least some wisdom and some ability that is human and, thus, common sense lies beyond purely mechanistic actions such as produced by computers, however powerful they may be.  If common sense were available from computers, we would have more common sense in institutions such as our government. 

Although computer technology is rapidly advancing, it remains a tool and not an end in itself.  The skilled technicians and programmers who are improving our high-tech computer environment are doing little (if anything) that would enhance common sense.  Indeed, it is more likely that rapid changes in technology are facilitating misguided cultural changes, changes that are outpacing our ability to anticipate consequences and, thus, our ability to develop a modern version for common sense. 

Television, movie theaters, and the Internet provide communications vehicles for whatever perversion and titillation society has to offer.  Technology promotes perversions and titillations by making them more available and more intense.  For example, automatic weapons, bomb-laden trucks, portable nuclear weapons, and surface-to-air missiles provide the means for terrorism.  Terrorism created and portrayed by modern media provides elements of suggestion, self-fulfillment, and false apprehensions that further complicate the social landscape. 

Nothing prepares us adequately in advance to deal with the impacts of technology, so countervailing social structures are often developed reactively.  Even if they could be developed more rapidly, perhaps also using technology, such countervailing social structures are still easily outpaced by the power of commercialism and profit seeking.  Moreover, the inexperience of our youth makes them easy targets for degenerative lifestyles, especially when human wisdom and maturity, culturally positive religious dictums, and respect for laws and lawmakers are all undermined as part of a supposedly enlightened culture.  If youthful friends obsessed by shallow interpersonal foolishness are portrayed favorably on television as a means of attracting an audience, we can expect shallow youth. 

Exacerbating our misguided culture and its common sense foundations is the fact that many of our brightest young people are caught up in computers rather than community.  They are focused on developing what we can do rather than what we should do.  Our government is also caught up in what it can do rather than what it should do.  Our youth and our government require wise guidance to avoid being misguided.  With the help of Technidigm-2000, we can each contribute to providing that guidance. 

Moreover, as much as the socially useful notions of common sense are based on wisdom and ability, such notions in turn can provide a stable basis for "amplifying" that wisdom and ability.  The need for such an expansion of our capacity for wisdom and ability is increasingly evident in this world of accelerated developments in technology. 

The meaning of "high-tech" is redefined annually.  However, if we presume that high-tech equates to high-wisdom, we are already disconnected from common sense.  The dominance of youth in the high-tech arena reduces the probability that experience-based wisdom will be applied to important issues in a timely manner.  We are increasingly entering into an era of social and technical trial and error.  Technidigm-2000 provides us with a universal framework within which we can catch up with and manage these changes.

- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

 

Common Sense Is Wisdom, Not a Gut Reaction

Assuming the participants are "on-the-level," Technidigm-2000 focuses us further on common sense and on our notions of applied wisdom.  One cannot apply a useful amount of wisdom without periodically invoking common sense.  It follows that one cannot make wise decisions without being consistent with common sense.  We would all like to think that we have this thing called common sense, but our common sense is often confused with our gut reactions. 

There is a difference between gut reactions (does not require thinking) and common sense (requires thinking).  The lazy substitution of our gut reactions for common sense is a natural result of the confusion created by modern conveniences.  For example, global communications require the compression of our daily news into one minute "in-depth" stories and strings of 10-second sound bites.  We barely get enough information to have any reaction at all, but the news media that titillate the most while appearing to be sincere get the biggest audience and, thus, give us more of the same false analysis.  They appeal to our gut reactions rather than to our intellect and common sense. 

Technidigm-2000 addresses these gut wrenching, rapid, and superficial communication modes, creating an environment in which common sense and even wisdom once more thrive and can be communicated almost instantly.  If you already know the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements, you know that in the case of the news media, everything must be presumed (at best) to be level one opinions until proven otherwise.  We would be hesitant to make any conclusions at levels two and three, and most decisions will be made at level four.  If you do not yet understand these levels, you soon will.

With Technidigm-2000 in place, in the rush to claim level four validity, some news sources will simply demonstrate that they are not on-the-level.  Nevertheless, our emotions are often stronger influences on our behavior than our intellect.  Thus, even when we know something is not accurate or proper, we are likely to go along with it because it feels better.  Even for those of us who are intent on making progress toward reason and wisdom, emotions will often overwhelm common sense and even logical proof on most subjects.  Technidigm-2000 simply makes our errors in judgment more apparent, enabling us to make personal progress and, also, to promote clear thinking by others. 

Technidigm-2000 reaches back more than 200 years to the common-sense thinking of the U. S. founding fathers, particularly as reflected in Thomas Paine's detailed essay on Common Sense.  Under Technidigm-2000, Thomas Paine's colonial notions of common sense are updated in terms of our modern technical culture.  In particular, Technidigm-2000 restores our confidence in our modern notions of common sense, overcoming the confusion introduced in part by technology. 

This modern lack of understanding regarding common sense is real.  We have no basis for applying common sense to issues that we do not understand.  Professional specialization and advances in technology cause much of this uncertainty.  Ironically, these advances in technology, although rapid, have been just gradual enough that many people sense the problem but are not sure what it is.  They certainly are not eager to admit to personal defects such as a lack of common sense. 

Technidigm-2000 clarifies the arena of modern common sense and concurrently provides a shorthand language for communicating common sense even when we are dealing with issues that we do not fully understand.  Thus, Technidigm-2000 is a powerful and unprecedented tool that all of us can use at any time to deal with any issue. 

The Technidigm-2000 user reflects on principles, objectives, and issues in terms of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, creating a powerful modern version of common sense.  Technidigm-2000 applications include all of the major categories of human interest and activities involving decision making and conflicts.  For example, the Technidigm-2000 approach is effective in addressing issues of politics, religion, social programs, the military, crime prevention, and even the news media.  More importantly, Technidigm-2000 often points directly at the best solutions to problems while quickly overwhelming opinions and out-of-context facts. 

A good example of modern solutions is found in the arena of nuclear safety, my area of expertise.  While I have spent most of the past 40 years working on many and varied nuclear-related level four solutions, there is no point in me reminiscing about them here.  Less than one percent of you readers would be fascinated with any of that, but the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 apply there as well.

It applies to all issues and problems because Technidigm-2000 is to a technical society what a hammer is to a house -- an indispensable tool for construction and maintenance! Yet, before the tool can be used, it must be picked up.  You will learn the basics of Technidigm-2000 here, and then you will be able to discuss almost any issue in terms of those basics, especially after reviewing some of my level one application verbiage, discussions that are admittedly limited to the lowest level of Technidigm-2000. 

The level one discussions contained in this book merely point out that, even without knowing much about an issue, anyone can understand its basis and start to understand what others are saying (or not saying) about a problem, and some even create a common sense solution on their own.  The only prerequisite is being on-the-level! If you have a pre-established agenda that you are advocating at the expense of all else, you are simply off-the-level and can not perform effectively even at level one.  Moreover, using Technidigm-2000, others will readily perceive and challenge your slanted agenda.

Only the Serious Need Apply

Thus, Technidigm-2000 supports those on-the-level, serious people who want to be effective in dealing with the complexities of modern professionalism and the problems of our modern society.  As you will discover, those people who are on-the-level do well in dealing with others in the unofficial community of Technidigm-2000 users.  Those who are off-the-level are exposed as such and, thus, become motivated to upgrade their integrity. 

Initially, not everyone out there will know about or want to take the time to understand Technidigm-2000.  Those who do understand Technidigm-2000 will simply talk over the heads of others as may be needed to get the job done, including constituting an informal political party wherein every candidate is assessed relative to all others. 

Care must be taken not to be arrogant or otherwise offensive when doing this, but people who have common sense also have a surplus of integrity and have good manners anyway.  Once you have communicated using Technidigm-2000 terminology, you will be a bit annoyed by people who cannot do so.  Nevertheless, your Technidigm-2000 communications will be unambiguous, concise, and defensible even if your listeners have no clue about Technidigm-2000. 

Most importantly, Technidigm-2000 places integrity at the center of everything.  For example, integrity is a key focal point of the Technidigm-2000 self assessment, as discussed at the end of this book in the appendices.  After completing the ten-minute self assessment, you can even use your score on your résumé and in correspondence.  Professionals who understand, subscribe to, and use Technidigm-2000 methods can work more reliably and effectively on any task.  Thus, a continuing application of Technidigm-2000 thinking is a commitment to the pursuit of excellence. 

Anyone can learn about Technidigm-2000 basics, but applying those basics indicates that the user is serious about understanding and dealing with modern issues and, just as important, has achieved a mature level of integrity.  Technidigm-2000 is about integrity as much as common sense!

 

Why Technidigm-2000?

Have you ever put a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle together?  You can spend days, weeks, and even months trying to fit all of the tiny and almost-identical pieces together.  Each piece of the puzzle that you are able to place becomes a small, personal triumph.  Yet, chances are you will not have the time or the patience to complete the puzzle.  You just hope that whoever gave you the darn thing never finds out that you gave up in frustration!

But what if someone showed you how to identify the twelve most important puzzle pieces for every jigsaw puzzle?  What if these twelve pieces are so important and central to solving the puzzle that once they are identified, placing all of the remaining pieces becomes trivial?  Would you be impressed?  Knowing immediately which twelve pieces are the keys to solving the puzzle would really cut down on your level of frustration, and you might even enjoy yourself!

An ability to simplify complex situations is what you will have when you understand and apply Technidigm-2000.  With the start of this new millennium, it is appropriate for each of us to learn about the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, perhaps contributing our own thoughts and ideas about how to improve this solution facilitator.

The logical framework of Technidigm-2000 provides substance for what you have intuitively suspected all along but were too unsure of yourself or too confused to assert with any confidence.  As you learn more about this logical framework for assessing problems and communicating your own highly perceptive views, you will actually enjoy identifying the key pieces of the complex problems that come your way!  You will routinely apply one or more parts of Technidigm-2000 to put a problem into proper perspective quickly, or you may decide to apply all twelve parts, reaching a conclusion or solution.  It is your choice.  Nevertheless, Technidigm-2000 beginners should practice using or thinking about the 12 elements daily, even while not addressing major issues, perhaps gradually overcoming their dependence on the views of others. 

More important than solving the problems of an individual is the possibility of solving complex societal problems.  Technidigm-2000 provides a common language and frame of reference within which each individual can communicate effectively on any complex issue regardless of his or her personal ability, education, or experience.  An individual applying the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 can easily produce results that exceed the products of study committees and consensus groups and in less time. 

The older generations will have more difficulty understanding and applying the 12 elements than will the younger generations.  Students naturally have more time to contemplate and reflect on such things, and they have less intellectual baggage to overcome.  A high school student who thinks and learns in terms of these 12 elements will ask the best questions, reach the best conclusions, and develop a life-long skill that can be used everyday.  Such a student will extract and separate opinions and facts, look for the rest of the facts, do the necessary research, and seek the best overall solution to each problem or issue.  The student will recognize views that are polarized and will seek a higher level of more circumspect understanding. 

At the minimum, with almost no effort, the student will quickly recognize when this higher level of understanding has not yet been attained.  For example, politicians will no longer be able to talk about their solutions to problems without addressing each of the 12 elements.  Anything less would be viewed as a shallow approach compared with what the student wrote in a short essay as part of a routine homework assignment.

Those people who learn to communicate using Technidigm-2000 will be more interested, effective, and precise in sharing their thoughts with others who have done likewise.  In many cases, others will be forced to learn Technidigm-2000 simply to keep up.  Politicians will be much more able to communicate with voters, and the news media will be able to provide a more efficient conduit for communicating news.  Much less room is left for misunderstanding.  Ambiguities and distortions are easily identified and eliminated, and everyone is tuned in on separating fact from opinion and whether the facts are all present. 

The goal is to have everyone understanding and using Technidigm-2000 as soon as possible.  This is why it is on the Internet.  You can pick up the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 rather quickly, allowing you to understand what others are saying.  With this minimal knowledge, you will understand what is happening when a politician responds to news reporters' so-called tough questions, taking them head on and elevating (or limiting) the responses to the right levels of discussion.  Moreover, there are dozens of ongoing problems that pop up in the news media daily, most of which you will be able to better understand yourself as you read them!  You will become a more effective critic. 

Technidigm-2000 is a powerful tool, but only those having good intentions should wield it.  It can help us solve problems, or it can help us make them worse.  Since it is a two-edged sword, the most important attribute for a Technidigm-2000 user is that user's integrity or intentions.  With a premium placed on the user's integrity, it follows that each user will apply strict standards of integrity in as many situations as may be appropriate, which is to say all of them.  Thus, Technidigm-2000 cuts a wide swath through the center of society, and its effects are most notable in arenas of relatively questionable integrity such as modern politics.  Those who choose to wield this powerful tool inappropriately (radical elements, as usual) will soon be embarrassed by those who do it properly (the majority of users).

Thus, the two edges of the sword may be referred to as (1) on-the-level and (2) off-the-level.  It is far easier for young people than us older folks to be on-the-level and to be perceived as such.  It does not take much of an off-the-level "track record" to make it very difficult to be perceived as being on-the-level.  Political campaigns are notorious for resurrecting a candidate's failures to be upright, whether it be the usual media effort to tear down what is up and to build up what is down or an opponent's effort to create doubt regarding the other guy's character.  Often, all political candidates are damaged during a political campaign (political warfare) by their own off-the-level behavior, often presented out of context and with little appreciation for elapsed time and possible character growth. 

Young people are idealistic until bent by the realities of life.  The bending forces are often imposed by their off-the-level seniors seeking to make a buck, get promoted, or get elected to some political or government position.  Being off-the-level is frequently more effective than being on-the-level, just as liars are more effective thieves than are honest people.  Stealing an election by lying or pointing out the youthful indiscretions of one's opponent has become acceptable in that it generates little outrage among the general population.  With Technidigm-2000 thinking and interactions available, everyone has an effective means of countering such intellectual thievery and deceptions. 

You are already technically competent to some degree if you downloaded this book from the Internet.  The wonder of Technidigm-2000 is that any intelligent person can understand it and use it effectively with very little time invested.  If you know of any intelligent people out there, tell them about what you have learned here, and perhaps they too will want to be able to address issues effectively and to communicate in terms suitable for the Third Millennium!

 

 

Many politicians are polarized, by definition, and polarized people are almost always not on-the-level.  Attempts by politicians to apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements inappropriately to social issues quickly expose their underlying principles and objectives to the glaring light of common sense.  All we have to do is to ask about their level four report on an issue, a question that forces a detailed explanation or reveals that there is none.  If you look at the kind of level three research and level four solutions that are now commonplace in nuclear safety, and then you will start to understand what I mean by a detailed explanation.

Asking for a level four report is easy, but the response to such a request is difficult.  This rapid, inescapable Technidigm-2000 exposure makes it easier to discourage social anarchy and to encourage more thoughtful, experienced, and capable people to step forward into the political arena.  Yet politics is merely a simple application for Technidigm-2000, one that is so obvious that we will perhaps eventually wonder how politics ever existed without using Technidigm-2000 terminology!

But we will not be able to turn simple areas like politics around until a lot more people understand and use the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.  I would like to include you in the Technidigm-2000 community.  To realize its power in politics and other areas of your life, you must first take the time to understand Technidigm-2000!

 

Twelve Parts

The 12 puzzle pieces of the Technidigm-2000 solution system are shown below.  When all 12 pieces are in place and understood, you are ready to solve the problem or establish a program to address the problem systematically over a period of time. 

This puzzle-like picture of the key elements of Technidigm-2000 will become central to your problem solving for now on.  You will be able to recall each of the 12 parts readily as you deal with any situation.  The pieces are arranged in specific locations that help you learn and recall them. 

The foundation piece of this puzzle, being on-the-level, is probably the most important Technidigm-2000 concept.  Personal integrity and honesty are required for those people who are on-the-level, so the left side of the puzzle is held up by character and principles.  Similar but different is the pillar on the right side, objectives.  Most of us associate principles with honesty and integrity, but a person can have principles without being honorable.  If they do not have honorable objectives, principles have no real meaning.  Once an individual is on-the-level, however, chances are that his or her principles are the right kind of principles, and they will naturally pursue honorable objectives. 

The fourth most important part of Technidigm-2000 is found at the top of the 12-part solution picture.  After we are sure we are on-the-level and that we are using the right principles to pursue the right objectives, it is also important to be using the right context.  Most people understand that facts taken out of context can cause more problems than they solve.  Unless we are using the right context as we solve our problems, it does not matter much whether we are honest and have good intentions.  Solving problems in the right context requires the application of knowledge, and knowledge is the cumulative result of education and experience.  Thus, it is more likely that a problem is being resolved in context when leaders and decision makers are properly educated and experienced.  A method for comparing people in these areas is included in this book in the appendices.

The root cause of a problem (and thus a solution) will escape us unless we understand context.  Even with the general context identified, part of the solution process is to ensure that we have identified the specific context needed for a more applicable solution.  One of the primary defects in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations is that generic rules are derived from one set of specific contexts and then applied to another set of specific contexts.  OSHA inspectors are simply not prepared to assess the overall safety of diverse industrial plants, but they have no problem identifying hundreds or thousands of potentially safety-related defects.  They can cause a safe factory or plant to be shut down unfairly because they are not able to assess the in-context impact of potential defects. 

Keep in mind that context changes with time.  Time is a central element of Technidigm-2000 since it impacts (1) context as well as (2) the achievement of solutions or programs through resources, components, and feedback.  The cyclical social and progressive technical changes that have occurred over the past two centuries have been dramatic.  Yet time's relationship to context is what created the need for this book on technical common sense in the first place.  Technology changes during the past 50 years have occurred so quickly that we have had little time to evaluate their impact on society and to dampen society's constant cycles from good-and-heavenly to bad-and-devilish.  But time seems to be running out, and we have to plan for the future, as did our own forefathers.  The 12 Technidigm-2000 elements will play an important role in that future, but it is up to us to understand and apply them. 

 

 

Chapter 2
The Four Paradigm Boundaries

 

The four border pieces of Technidigm-2000 are (1) being on-the-level, (2) having principles, (3) pursuing objectives within the limits of those principles, and (4) keeping things in context.  These boundaries are critical to understanding the remaining eight pieces that I have elected to place in the center of the paradigm diagram. 

Most issues or problems should first be understood in terms of these four elements, and this basic understanding should be kept in mind as each of the other eight pieces is considered.  As will be described in more detail on later pages, the eight internal pieces of the puzzle can be divided into two sets of four.  The four pieces on the left are referred as levels (one through four), which culminate at level four in a solution, and the four pieces on the right are referred to as elements of that solution, the elements needed to execute the solution systematically. 

Together, levels and systems allow us to develop a comprehensive and highly effective approach to addressing almost any problem or issue.  Yet, we must take care to protect the four bounding elements and revisit them frequently to make sure we continue to be on-the-level.  As powerful as these key concepts are, levels and systems are useless unless the four bounding pieces are in place -- being on-the-level, applying principles consistently in achieving objectives, and getting things into the proper context of time and place. 

Each of these four bounding pieces is addressed in much more detail below.  The approach I have taken is to provide a lot of reinforcement so you can learn the 12 elements thoroughly, such that they will become a normal part of your thinking -- your native tongue rather than a foreign language!

 

Being "On-the-Level"

You have often heard the phrase "on-the-level" used as a substitute for honesty.  The personal quality of being on-the-level is closely related to one's integrity.  Being on-the-level is probably derived from many centuries of using scales and weights to conduct trade. 

With or without the use of scales to conduct transactions, a merchant is either on-the-level or off-the-level.  Once a buyer decides a merchant is off-the-level, future transactions with that merchant are not likely to occur.  Likewise, if the buyer believes that the merchant is always on-the-level, the use of the scales becomes a formality rather than a necessity. 

Just as doctors practice their bedside manner, politicians practice being sincere.  Politicians become experts at "looking good like a candidate should."  Many news media personalities are also paid big salaries because they look good and appear to be sincere, conveying a sense of integrity that captures a bigger audience than that of the competition.  Politicians and news media people have an advantage over doctors since they are just a little more detached from the focus or personal context of the individual citizen than are doctors from their patients.  They also do not have to maintain detailed records, nor is it likely that anyone will file a malpractice suit against them, although they do worry a little about libel suits. 

Likewise, people in the entertainment industry are largely unaccountable simply because they admit to being actors.  They have instant emotional capital among their fans, so they can influence a large number of people.  Once again, technology plays a significant role in enabling actors to attain such influence.  Properly used, that influence can be positive.  When used simply to support a narrow or polarized special interest agenda, an actor's influence can be problematic.  Like politicians and news media people, popular entertainers are difficult to hold accountable, especially in the absence of a critical framework such as Technidigm-2000. 

In contrast to doctors, politicians, entertainers, and news media personalities, industrial plant managers are likely to be held strictly accountable.  In particular, nuclear plant managers can not afford to just look good, at least not for very long.  They must operate their nuclear plants under the scrutiny of independent inspectors (I used to be one of them) who get paid to make long lists of discrepancies.  If a nuclear plant manager or worker is not on-the-level, it is likely that they will be identified as contributing to the root causes of problems or potential problems. 

In one instance, a nuclear department manager merely suggested that our inspection team should ease up a bit on the inspection.  He was unemployed before the day was out.  He was held accountable for his poor approach to nuclear power plant safety.  There are many such stories that could be told about the strict standards and accountability in the nuclear industry, but off-the-level people are found much more frequently in areas of context more familiar to the reader.  Indeed, most of you could write your own book on people who are not on-the-level and not inclined to do the right things (objectives) for the right reasons (principles).

No Point Being Off-the-Level

You do not often hear the phrase "off-the-level," but you immediately recognize that this refers to dishonesty.  Being "on"-the-level is important because there is no point in trying to conduct business or solve problems in the midst of dishonesty.  Thus, Technidigm-2000 stresses personal integrity, making it a central litmus test for those who want to participate in Technidigm-2000.  How would you like to have dishonest people operating a nuclear power plant in your community?  Fortunately, the nuclear industry has no tolerance at all for dishonest people.  The same is true for the military.  The tough part is identifying the individuals who should be removed. 

The need for honesty and integrity in human relations was much more evident a couple of hundred years ago when people depended on each other more than they depended on government.  Being on-the-level was a litmus test for most situations, a test that quickly removed a lot of the confusion surrounding most problems.  People were on-the-level, and their handshake was enough to seal a deal.

A person's handshake was as important as a signature on a contract is today.  Some would say that personal integrity was at one time more important than a signature.  The fact is that integrity is just as important today as it ever was -- we have simply failed to recognize its importance and have failed to require it in a consistent manner. 

Being On-the-Level: A Matter of Intent

Requiring integrity is not the same as requiring perfection.  Perfection is merely enabled by the good intentions of honest people.  Such people have good intentions, and they should be forgiven their honest errors more readily than people of questionable integrity. 

Integrity is a key part of Technidigm-2000 and is closely related to the "fifth dimension" of context.  Integrity is needed to keep things in context or to apply experience properly in new situations.  Integrity is one of the most powerful tools that we have available to us as human beings.  We associate integrity with truth and honor, so we award people of integrity an initial presumption of being correct.  They do not have to prove that they are correct on an issue -- we take it for granted just like we assume that the captain of a ship will make correct decisions, or at least the best decision humanly possible in a given context.  This does not mean that mistakes will not be made. 

Most of us would say that it is foolish to fire people when they make honest mistakes.  Who would have or could have taken better action, given the situation?  Yet, if a captain takes the ship aground, the custom is, indeed, to hold that captain accountable.  In the context of the navy (where I spent many years), even honest mistakes can cause the loss of many lives, so captains are held strictly accountable for those lives as well as for the proper and efficient use of their ship and its assets.  As compared with non-military leaders, military leaders are far more likely to be presumed to have integrity, and they are also the easiest leaders to replace, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly.

We can also look at it from the opposite direction.  People of integrity are often viewed as being natural leaders, but they are also presumed to be good leaders as well.  Their intentions are noble, so they command respect rather than suspicion.  They do not have to defend everything they do.  Those people who understand, subscribe to, and practice Technidigm-2000 are also presumed to have good intentions, so their mistakes are honest and not intentional.  Practicing Technidigm-2000 does not mean that they are going to make perfect decisions.  It does mean that they are more likely to make the best and fairest decision available at the time.

 

 

No Greater Love Intent…

We associate self sacrifice and integrity with military organizations simply because military people sometimes have to put their lives on the line in a way self-serving people would not.  To the extent that military leaders rise to the top of a military organization due to their demonstrated integrity, especially in combat, we can easily sense that integrity.  They have proven that they are willing to lose their lives for (at least) something. 

We presume that such a military leader would make a fine government leader, even with no previous government experience.  The first president of the United States, George Washington, was a professional military officer and was known for his integrity.  Dwight Eisenhower served as president in the 1950's as a result of his 1940's World War II military leadership and his aura of professional integrity. 

More recently, Colin Powell could have taken the same path with similar credentials, but he was reluctant to take on our modern political and media arena.  Thus, we are stuck with professional politicians who place priority on getting elected rather than on the more noble aspirations of mankind.  Not only do they not have the nobility needed to place their lives on the line like the pre-revolutionary colonial founding fathers, they actually shun the military. 

Getting a noble military leader to participate in the modern political arena will be much easier under Technidigm-2000.  With enforcement by an increasingly significant segment of the voters, successful political candidates and political party campaigns will increasingly be based on integrity.  While there will still be a significant portion of the voting public that makes foolish choices on election day, their numbers will continue to decrease as more people become aware of and apply Technidigm-2000. 

 

 

Different Kinds of Integrity

Doctors are judged on what we might call absolute integrity.  Politicians and the news media are expected to have at least some integrity, but they are judged primarily in relative terms.  Also, politicians and the news media are often presenting us with information and decisions that are outside our personal knowledge and experience, so we may not realize what aspects are out-of-context or blown out of proportion. 

We are seldom able to assess the true integrity and competence of politicians and news media personalities even in relative terms.  They are also much more practiced at simply looking good than we are at assessing their integrity, much less their competence.  We seldom have the opportunity to get to know these people personally, so our judgment is easily manipulated. 

We hardly realize that most of the talking heads on television are simply reading words written by others on topics with which they themselves are unfamiliar and even totally ignorant.  Yet, these people apply their good looks and credibility in a highly influential daily news context, with television viewers being swayed to believe that the commentary is accurate, circumspect, balanced, and complete.  They can literally say just about anything and get away with it, as long as a gross violation of ethics is not evident.

In contrast, we deal with our doctors one-on-one and can more readily sense their true level of competence and forthrightness.  It is also easier for us to find another doctor who is more competent and forthright than it is to find better politicians and news media personalities.  We have more control.  One Technidigm-2000 objective is to motivate politicians and the news media to act more like doctors when it comes to dealing with society's ills.  While such a objective may be unattainable with regard to all politicians and all of the news media, we can hope to achieve an improvement trend across the political scene and in the media industry. 

Medicine is also an industry.  Doctors are increasingly expected to perform their services within a profit-and-loss organization, and they are more vulnerable than most professionals to legal actions.  Some doctors and health management organizations take illegal advantage of public health programs sponsored by the government.  Without inherent integrity, it is relatively easy for those in the medical industry to steal from the public coffers.  Likewise, many government contractors have figured out how to extract undeserved profits from the government. 

Indeed, the government seems to have established many avenues for off-the-level individuals and companies to thrive.  When they are found out, we may have a scandal for the news media to talk about, and the attention thus given to such scandals ensures that those people who are defined as being responsible will be severely punished.  Their careers are destroyed, and they may even go to jail for a long time and have to pay exorbitant fines.  Such is the effect of public opinion as created by the media and as applied by judges and juries, sometimes at an emotional level rather than in proper context.  In a technical society such as ours, it is increasingly difficult to find a qualified judge and a jury of one’s peers.  Often, we can only claim such fairness out of habit rather than reality.

Thus, the importance of integrity is readily apparent, but a consistent and comprehensive approach to demanding integrity is needed.  Technidigm-2000's emphasis on being on-the-level places a premium on integrity.  The other 11 elements allow each of us to achieve high levels of integrity and concurrently discourage the kind of nonsense, special interest influence, and accidental unfairness that permeates much of our modern, complex society. 

We mean well, but we can not do things very well simply because of a lack of the kind of integrity needed to actual realize that we probably do not have the correct answers to complex problems available to us in the news media or in the polls.

On-the-Level Integrity

Being human, we find it far less difficult to deal with issues of judgment when we are allowed to use simplifications, including the bad simplifications (out-of-context facts) as well as the good ones (trusting people based on their apparent integrity).  Integrity is a virtue, so it becomes a valuable generalization or simplification that we can use to mold our opinions on issues that are well beyond our personal frame of reference or personal competence. 

When we know that we can depend on someone else's integrity to help us make decisions, we feel comfortable dealing cooperatively with them on even the most complex and obscure issues.  It is often just too hard for each of us to deal personally with issues within the context of the properly developed, comprehensive set of facts.  We are in a constant search for persons of integrity who at least claim to know what is right to do in various circumstances.  Under Technidigm-2000 it becomes easier to sort out such claims, and it also becomes easier to identify people of integrity.  Moreover, levels and self-assessment scores provide dramatic competency sorters and filters.  If someone claims a self-assessment score higher than what they deserve, their integrity is questioned.  If it is calculated to be low relative to others, those others will be given an advantage in terms of public acceptance of their opinions and any facts that they may offer relative to solving a problem or addressing an issue.

The nuclear industry depends greatly on personal integrity and unreserved cooperation, as do the independent assessment teams that inspect nuclear plants and facilities.  There are many different functional areas or departments at nuclear plants, and their interfaces with each other and with senior management are complex.  An example of these interfaces is provided in the management assessment guidance that I helped to develop over a decade ago.  Such assessments are applicable to many industries that have significant safety responsibilities and that must rely on individual integrity. 

Importantly, it is of little or no value to poll the public as to the propriety of building new nuclear power plants, on how they should be managed, or whether they are really as safe as they should be.  There are probably less than ten thousand people in the entire world who would be able to come close to the right answer, and their answer today might be wrong a year later or a decade later.  Such matters are just too far beyond the ability of the average citizen and even the most highly respected news media personalities to comprehend.  The same could be said of most modern technologies or industries.

It's Really All Relative

In these times of individual specialization, we have to rely constantly on an individual's integrity to get things done properly.  When neither side of an issue or in a political campaign can claim much personal integrity, then we often have to resort to assessing relative amounts of integrity.  Professional politicians know what is required to get elected just like each of us knows what is required to be successful in our own professions.  They know that (1) how they look on camera and (2) simple name recognition are usually more important than their ability or integrity.  If a politician looks really good, many voters can be convinced that a politician has a lot of integrity even when surrounded by contrary evidence.  This is especially easy when we consider that politicians only have to create an illusion of having more integrity than the most popular opposing candidate. 

An appearance of integrity is a lot easier to develop than true integrity, so it should not surprise us that some of the most successful politicians merely appear to have integrity.  Indeed, true integrity often gets in the way of developing an appearance of integrity.  In our sound-bite society, the appearance of integrity has become more effective than true integrity, especially for successful politicians.  Bill Clinton's raised eyebrows and ambiguous language convince us that he will always do the right thing regardless of the issue, setting the standard in some respects for all professional politicians.  Yet, we suspect that such integrity is pretty shallow and self serving. 

Yet, with the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 being used by such politicians, they will have a lot of opportunities to demonstrate their leadership and integrity simply by using these elements routinely as part of their vocabulary and approach to solving problems.  We seek to improve the fairness of our perceptions of the integrity to be found in others using Technidigm-2000, motivating even politicians to do the right thing at the right time. 

Successful politicians seeking re-election find it even easier to appear to be honest, capable, and knowledgeable simply by avoiding responsibility for what went wrong during their tenure.  With incumbency-based name recognition, most politicians can get re-elected just by maintaining appearances and never admitting to any faults.  Politicians having integrity are more easily defeated because they will admit their mistakes.  Thus, without a direct emphasis on integrity and real substance, we are likely to have unscrupulous and unqualified politicians running things. 

On the other side of that coin, it is easy enough for the news media and pollsters to create an impression that an incumbent has made or is making mistakes.  As described in more detail later in this book, the news media exist and thrive by being able to report change rather than reporting on the status quo.  A prime example for 2006 is the notion that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq since no weapons of mass destruction were found.  The more elegant assessment that, if such weapons (especially nuclear weapons) had been found we would have failed to invade that country in time, is lost in the rush to find fault and to seek to replace all the leaders who are in place. 

Indeed, even more elegant an argument could be made that the invasion of Iraq eliminated a nuclear weapons development program once and for all, a program started in the 1970s and which cost the Iraqi people hundreds of millions of dollars.  The Iraqi nuclear program expenditures were mostly wasted on trying to build isotope separation facilities that they could not get to work, but with a continuing clandestine program that had perhaps only been delayed during the 1990s. 

With regard to keeping the former Iraq regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, we could make the case that it was a great success, especially as compared with subsequent developments in Iran and in North Korea.  Yet, the news media and the opposing politicians are eager to find fault with how all three of these countries were managed in terms of their nuclear weapons programs. 

Under Technidigm-2000, it is much more difficult to change principles and objectives to suit the special interests of the few, and more attention has to be paid to the differing context of each situation.  With differing context, the level four solution could easily be totally different.  It is just that we sometimes fail to articulate the solution or, as in the case of issues involving nuclear weapons, it is in the best interest of everyone to keep those solutions secret. 

Within the realm of applying secrecy on behalf of the interests of a nation, those with the most integrity will keep the secrets better, and the same people will seek to find the best solution to these important issues on our behalf.  Thus, we need to elect the best leaders that we can in a democracy, and give them the benefit of the doubt on issues and problems that require or depend on secrecy to be effective.  Under Technidigm-2000, this kind of election and reliance process is facilitated.

Insisting on Integrity and Ability

One Technidigm-2000 objective is to minimize the need for assessing relative amounts of integrity.  This can be accomplished in part if we expand our insights by adding to integrity the relative levels of knowledge and experience -- that is, relative wisdom.  Not only should politicians and government officials have good intentions to do the right thing, they should be able to do so.  With this complementary need in mind, we can develop a simple quantitative framework within which to assess ability and integrity.  As long as it is applied consistently, a comparative assessment process is almost as good as an absolute assessment process.  It would be a great service to all of us if the news media expended more of their resources on generating objective assessments of political candidates rather than simply tearing down those who are up and building up those who are down. 

In the nuclear industry, one goal is to improve each nuclear plant's safety record continuously.  This requires positive recognition for good performance records and negative consequences for not-so-good performance records.  Under Technidigm-2000, time and feedback elements (discussed more in later sections of this book) are used to generate positive recognition and negative feedback quantitatively, making integrity a significant component of one's qualifications for any leadership role. 

If we are able to assess integrity quantitatively, and two people are about the same, we must look at experience and education in identifying our most capable and deserving leaders.  If the levels of integrity are significantly different, we may perhaps decide that, at least for the people being compared, education and experience do not need to be assessed.  Unfortunately, it is far too difficult to assess integrity, so sometimes it is useful to assess everything else first. 

We may give credit to some for military experience and credit to others for corporate experience, inferring some measure of integrity based on their actions that reflect integrity.  We would give a medal of honor winner an edge on integrity based on military actions.  We would give a corporate president a few points for initiating an expensive recall of a defective product that otherwise might not have been found out by the consumer.  Each political candidate is already eager to release such information, and we only need a way of using it, a way provided by Technidigm-2000 thinking and assessments.

 

Basic Integrity

Honesty used to be important and even critical to a person's social position and employment.  Many view the simpler times before the explosion of technology as more honest times.  People did not even bother to lock their doors. 

The modern era of technology brought us advanced communications and an awareness that not everyone is as good as we might have assumed in the past.  With technology came a worldly awareness that made people a little more suspicious of others.  It became easier to move to another town, state, or country, so our neighbors became strangers.  In conjunction with this increased awareness of the world, we also somehow became less aware of our own neighbors and neighborhoods.  Who knows whether a Frankenstein or serial killer is at the door or in the neighborhood?  Maybe the people down the street bought their house and cars using drug money.  Even more alarming is the fact that it is now possible for a total stranger living in another country to steal from us over the Internet.  Moreover, they are dedicated to doing so.

It used to be that people viewed their world more from the narrow confines of their own neighborhood, their schools, their local businesses, and their religious communities.  Most of their experience was on-the-level.  Dishonesty and deception existed, but they were not of constant concern, even when dealing with strangers.  If it was not totally natural to be honest, it was natural to be nonviolent and to participate positively in society.  Whether or not this is true today seems to be obscured by our view of society, a view distorted by television, movie, and computer game violence.  Perhaps it is a matter of innocence lost.  Once lost, it may never be regained.  What remains may perhaps be better managed and controlled, but we have to seek out ways to do so.  Technidigm-2000 facilitates such principles and objectives.

Movies and Television

Yet the world is largely driven by other principles and objectives.  People view their world from the broader social and emotional environment created in the profit-and-loss world of commercialized technology, particularly movies and television.  From my own experience of over 60 years, I can note for the ready that I believe we started a steep decline in moral values (and thus integrity) in about 1975, if not somewhat before.  We had to segregate entertainment into different moral categories, although it has never been quite proper to state this openly.  Nevertheless, I doubt that many would argue that the best social values are found in G rated entertainment as compared with all the other ratings.  Yet we as humans are not that eager to seek G rated movies out when we can find other entertainment that strikes us as being more entertaining, if less socially redeeming. 

More modest societies around the world are even more shocked by our crudeness and our capitalistic bent on exporting our violence and immodest sexuality.  Still other countries simply wish that they could keep up with the U.S. on generating profits from vulgarity, brutality, and sensuality in the entertainment arena.  Still other countries are so bad that no one needs to go to the movies since they experience such things everyday in real life.  Some radical elements in come countries use our relative level of decadence against us, even if we fail to acknowledge that we have such a problem.  Some of them have declared war on us and intend to destroy us totally.  We call them terrorists and they call us the Great Satan, mistaking us for those few among us who are without integrity and honor.  Each is a cultural minority, perhaps, but the two minorities are making life miserable for the rest of us, and neither should be acceptable to us.

Thus, even if the U.S. population perceives itself as morally upstanding (which I think it does, fairly erroneously), we are certainly not winning friends around the world by exporting our kind of entertainment and other decaying value streams.  We are ready to admit a decline in values to ourselves but do not recognize it in the context of the world. 

Yet no one really wants the government to impose limits on morality.  We will likely have to impose them from within by simply learning to shun anything that is not G rated.  I do not intend to hold my breath until that happens, of course.  Nevertheless, Technidigm-2000 forces us to lay out what principles we think are important and what objectives we really want to seek. 

If we choose to excuse the few Great Satans among us, we need to be ready to share the disdain of others in the world with such people.  If we choose to establish ourselves as defenders of all things that are not G rated, we may have a long way to go to achieve victory.  If we choose to globalize without become a good global neighbor, we will have trouble with some of those neighbors.  It is up to us, not to our government, since in a democracy we essentially are the same as our government.  Our leaders often take a poll to see which way we are leaning.  It may be time to lean in another direction.  Each of us has to decide such things.  Technidigm-2000 can help sort the facts out and, perhaps, be used to move in a direction that is more useful to us as a country.

What Do We Perceive as Being Entertainment?

Well, you already know the answer to that.  Dishonesty and deception are depicted as being everywhere, even if the good guy usually wins.  Violence and murder are common themes, with whatever other lesser offenses can be fitted into the scenario.  These are counterweighted a bit with interesting characters who serve as the good guys with whom we can identify and feel good about ourselves as we are entertained with this material. 

Indeed, with increased pressure on movies and television programming to contain some redeeming value, the current trend is also to include some gratuitous moralizing near the conclusion.  While concluding violent and immoral stories with countervailing scenes of morality is a nice trend, the net effect is to excuse and promote more titillation to achieve higher ratings and profits.  This is our culture at this point, and we need to decide whether we want it to continue like this.

Most of us find it difficult to discourage titillation, yet it is not good for our children or our culture, which is changing relatively quickly.  Our emotional weaknesses override our logic and common sense.  Even with the increase in television shows that purport to represent angels and even cartoon depictions of God, one wonders if the writers have sufficient religious background to present an appropriately religious or socially beneficial theme.  "Touched by an Angel" seemed to encourage the development of character and integrity.  Where did that show go, anyway?

There remains a great deal of controversy over other television shows that are titillating in every conceivable direction, seeking improved ratings.  This is especially true of those that suggest homosexuality should be considered a normal lifestyle.  We have now come to accept homosexuality on television more than we really accept it in real society.  Comedy shows are particularly able to promote homosexuality, as long as the net impression is at least neutral, if not positive.  Certainly, no show would dare suggest homosexuality is a bad thing.  Indeed, it is now difficult to imagine a news story or television show presenting homosexuality in a negative light.  Yet, it is easy to find people ready to condemn homosexuality on religious grounds.  Those kinds of polls do not make good news, perhaps.  Moreover, perhaps we should poll people in other countries to see if they think as we do.  They often do not, of course.

The change in our attitudes in the are of entertainment was perhaps enabled by technology since it is now much easier for small groups to influence society, especially the relatively inexperienced thirty-ish entertainment people among us.  Also, the news media eagerly cover even small group activities such as marches and protests, which are encouraged by that coverage to make a lot of noise for the evening news.  With a sympathetic presentation, the news media can start the process that results in forcing society to change its view of certain topics. 

Those who stick with the conservative views are treated less sympathetically and become the new object of ridicule.  It is as if conservative people have no right to be conservative.  Liberal activism and liberal changes to society are the life blood of the news media and of television in general. 

•     If it is exciting, it is news.  If it is exciting news, it draws viewers. 

•     If it is conservative, it is not news.  If it is conservative news, it does not draw viewers. 

With these simple rules in mind, it is easy to see why character and integrity are difficult to promote in society.  Yet, these rules make it much easier to understand how powerful the forces of degradation and violence can be when coupled with the forces of commercialism.  We now have to almost apologize for expecting non-violent television shows and shows consistent with the moral fabric of almost every religion or social order created by mankind to date. 

It is the purpose of Technidigm-2000 to help us to come to grips with both the good and the bad in society, defining each as objectively as possible.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework that enables us to deal with modern communications and the diverse motivations that come before us as sound-bite speed and disappear like bullets into a target.  With Technidigm-2000, we can catch the bullets in mid-flight, examine them, and even turn them around. 

Integrity and the Media

Movies and television are pretend and not reality.  We should be more concerned with real-world problems and issues.  With modern communications, the news media provide nearly instantaneous accounts of every problem in the world, often before all of the facts are available.  Pressure is placed on police and government authorities to solve crimes quickly and with the expertise of a television detective.  Moreover, the approach of the news media is often to infer higher expectations for the performance of honest and upright people than for the ways of dishonest and perverted people, who are often viewed as "victims" of a corrupt or biased society.  Thus, it was far easier for Bill Clinton to survive impeachment with his character flaws that it would have been for Ronald Reagan. 

Sometimes people of integrity also become temporary victims of society, but they do not make it a life-long profession and an excuse to fail.  Their shortcomings are always newsworthy events since we are more shocked by chips in diamonds than by chips in coals.  It is not so much a problem that news media people tend to be liberal, there are just more diamonds in ancient rock formations than in river mud. 

People of low integrity simultaneously become part of the problem as well as part of the explanation of the problem.  They are reliant on their own corruption and on the corruption in society rather than being self-reliant.  It is easy to blame society's corruption while ignoring one's own corruption.  Honest people of integrity do not spend their lives blaming society for their problems.  They are intent on becoming self-reliant regardless of the obstacles.  They are the diamonds. 

With so many people seeking to explain why people are corrupt, the fact that they are corrupt seems to become less important.  That is, corruption is largely ignored unless the corrupt individual is supposed to be one of the "good guys."  Interestingly, when someone is viewed as a defender of society's supposed victims, that person's integrity seems less vulnerable to being held to high standards.  They may hold a political office normally reserved for the good guys, but they are not held accountable to the level that defenders of goodness and self-reliance are held.  Thus, we are less disappointed and less surprised when an individual of obvious low character simply conducts himself in ways that seem normal to him. 

In the United States, there are so many personal freedoms and economic opportunities that it is difficult for people in other countries to understand why there are so many supposed victims.  Self-reliance is all that is needed to be successful in a free country, but there is so much government-reliance in the United States that many people are led away from self-reliance.  Government assistance becomes viewed as a life-long right that carries no obligation to strive to be self-reliant.  This expectation is being turned around, but more for financial reasons than for common sense reasons.  In the absence of a foundation built on principles, principles are only applied when they are convenient.  When they are not convenient, we are asked to be flexible and understanding.  Fortunately, using the Technidigm-2000 framework, we are able to be very understanding. 

Dishonesty is easier than honesty.  It is the "path of least resistance," so it grows.  It also is surrounded by excuses, some of which even make sense within the confusion of modern society.  For example, income tax forms are harder to fill out when you are trying to be honest and law-abiding.  Honest people are tempted to be dishonest, and they certainly suspect that many other people are not as honest as they.  Successful politicians and lawyers are presumed and expected to be skilled at being dishonest.  Chances are the unsuccessful politicians and lawyers are more honest than successful politicians.  Technidigm-2000 turns this around. 

Being on-the-level can be morally fulfilling, but it can also be a great disadvantage in a society that tolerates dishonesty.  If that society also has all of the tools provided by modern technology, honesty and integrity can not only be a disadvantage, they can be a real hardship.  It becomes acceptable to move to Canada rather than be drafted into the army.  After all, everyone knows that corrupt politicians cause wars and that Rambo will eventually regret fighting for his country. 

In spite of the current media-based culture, most people are really quite honest.  There are more people in prison, but there are also more people who have never committed a serious crime.  Yet, "the tail is wagging the dog" when our perceptions are that dishonesty and a lack of integrity are the norm.  The bad guys represent only a small percentage of the population, but they seem to be getting all of the attention. 

Under Technidigm-2000, honesty and integrity are again the norm for society.  The importance of being on-the-level within the Technidigm-2000 problem solving process is apparent in that those who are not on-the-level are not allowed to be part of the process.  Honesty and integrity are rewarded, sometimes with the aid of technology.  No one needs to go to a dishonest used car dealer when there is an honest one available.  No one has to vote for a dishonest politician when there is an honest one available. 

The standards for honesty and integrity change to conform to the expectations of society.  The bulk of society simply needs to have a means for expressing and enforcing its expectations.  The "silent majority" needs a voice.  Technidigm-2000 is that voice. 

The Prime Task:  Always Being On-the-Level

The first task in the Technidigm-2000 process is to continually ensure that all of the players are on-the-level.  They might occasionally be wrong, but they are ready to admit their mistakes when presented with facts, and then they move on.  They even admit their mistakes when it is apparent that no one would ever find out that they made them.  They do not have a pattern of making and hiding mistakes, being found out, and then seeking forgiveness. 

With modern technology, it is now possible to label each person of integrity as being on-the-level.  Those who consistently demonstrate that they have earned such a label are included in the database of on-the-level people.  Modern social attitudes make such a database seem at first to be repugnant and unmanageable, but that was before Technidigm-2000. 

We are likely to associate qualities such as honor and integrity with a youthful George Washington admitting that he cut down the cherry tree.  The other "Founding Fathers," especially those who signed the U. S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are presumed by most of us to have been on-the-level and, thus, to have had integrity.  They risked their fortunes and lives for relatively abstract concepts.  They are also viewed as being well educated and experienced leaders.  They are models of integrity even today, perhaps more honored than they deserve in some respects, but still highly esteemed. 

While these character and ability presumptions regarding the Founding Fathers may be arguable, democratic governments are founded upon and dependent on the collective good intentions of the governed, intentions that are supposed to be reflected in elected officials.  At the end of the 1990s, it is evident to many people that these perceived standards for political and government leaders are no longer as high as they were when the Founding Fathers established the government of the United States. 

What Is Integrity in a Technological Era?

One reason that integrity is lower in priority is that we have lost track of what it is, who has it, how it is used, and what it means to a technological society and democracy.  Other than the basic traits of a few very distinguished religious leaders, there is no general understanding of integrity even in a non-technological framework.  We are not confident in our ability to determine who has basic integrity, so many of us make an assumption one way or the other, until proof emerges.  Thus, the question of basic integrity relative to any issue or situation can elicit a spectrum of responses.  Moreover, in a technically oriented society, integrity should not be limited to our basic personal traits.  This means that we can have layers of opposing responses piled on top of our basic responses as to the nature of integrity and who has it. 

Integrity refers to notions of completeness as well as firmness relative to being prepared to deal well with a question or issue.  Since people seldom can perfect their abilities and instantly deal perfectly with every question or issue, we often choose our leaders relative to each other.  When we fail to understand the layers of experience and ability related to integrity in a technological society, it is easy to mis-select leaders.  The evidence of this mis-selection may not emerge for years, and even then we may not recognize why we failed to select properly.  We then may too easily justify our failure to select properly by claiming that we were simply voting against the other candidate, avoiding the issue of positive selection of leaders. 

In the nuclear energy field, our popular notions of personal integrity are fundamental but not sufficient for proper operation of a nuclear power plant.  This is because our popular notions of integrity are limited to good intentions and fail to consider the increasingly important technology-related contributions to the integrity environment.  It takes a lot more than a "nice guy" who has been to college to run a nuclear plant in conformance with society's needs.  The same can be said of . 

The Incomplete Manager

It is increasingly difficult to have not only basic human honor against which to measure integrity, but also sufficient knowledge and experience such that integrity may be applied to the complete set of functions needed.  Yes, there are additional and important integrity pieces that involve knowledge, experience, and even an appropriate industrial or interpersonal culture.  A good nuclear safety culture is fundamental for nuclear power plants.  Yet, there are some nuclear plant managers and nuclear oversight organization managers who have never worked in that culture.  They may have integrity in terms of personal honor and good intentions, but they fall short in understanding issues of technical knowledge, experience, and the unique culture required for success. 

When a manager having an incomplete portfolio of integrity is too high up in the organization, it can become very difficult for others to keep the organization on track and to ensure success.  These incomplete managers can have a highly developed sense of their own personal integrity, but they seldom provide evidence of any technical integrity because they do not have the knowledge and experience to form the basis for technical integrity.  They are simply managers who have peripheral technical knowledge and experience. 

Incomplete manager spawn whistle blowers.  Most whistle blowers not only have the basic personal integrity needed in their industry, they also have the technical and cultural integrity that most directly supports that industry's objectives.  It is up to senior managers and leaders to establish and maintain a climate of integrity throughout the organization in which all members are comfortable raising questions and getting issues resolved responsibly.  When someone is forced to play the role of whistle blower, it should immediately be evident that incomplete managers exist in the organization.  This should be enough to cause an intensive reflection on technological common sense within the organization. 

Sometimes leadership is so powerful that whistle blowers are intimidated into silence.  Many commercial nuclear plants and even nuclear weapon plants were supposed to be "saved" by retired Navy nuclear admirals, but most fell on their faces because they did not have the technical insights needed for technical integrity.  They relied too much on leadership by intimidation, mimicking the highly esteemed Admiral Hyman Rickover, but bringing less than a full measure of technical ability and, indeed, less than a full understanding of the model, no-fault nuclear safety culture instituted within the Navy nuclear propulsion program. 

Thus, the absence of whistle blowers in an organization does not imply an adequate culture or adequate levels of technological integrity.  You may still have incomplete managers running the organization.  It only takes one of them in the organizational chain of command to set up conditions that could lead to disaster.  This is why the organization's culture is so important.  Most nuclear plant managers would have a difficult time passing a nuclear safety culture test, but almost none of its critics could even recognize the importance of the individual questions. 

Perfect Integrity

In the following discussion, integrity is defined in even broader terms, and those broad terms help us to understand the narrower concept of personal integrity.  Developing an understanding of integrity in its broadest sense is one area in which it is very useful to borrow directly from technology.  Integrity in technology is less ambiguous than it is in human relations.  If computer chip has a single flaw, even one that shows up only under extreme circumstances, the chip's integrity is largely destroyed. 

If we held people to the same standards as we hold computer chips, how many would meet the standard? We hope that more people would meet the standard than is indicated by the popular media, but there is a reason that we can expect things to be more perfect than people.  The integrity of things is largely established when they are made.  People have to establish their integrity continuously!

Pretend for a moment that you do not understand this abstract thing we call integrity.  Such ignorance occurs all the time in engineering circles.  The designers and operators of the failed nuclear power reactor at Three Mile Island (TMI Unit 2) believed that they had done their best, right up to and including the melting of their nuclear fuel.  The TMI plant was designed with effective containment buildings, so while a series of unexpected problems led to the meltdown of one of the plant's reactor cores, most of the radioactivity was contained.  The TMI plant design had a kind of integrity that we seldom consider.  It was not perfect, but it was adequate relative to the 1986 event at Chernobyl. 

TMI was the best we could do given the information available at the time of design and construction.  The feedback (on of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements) from TMI's core meltdown was used to improve reactor plant design safety and operating procedures.  Feedback allows technology to approach perfection - - design integrity.  Feedback can help managers and their organizations to approach perfection and to become more complete. 

Incomplete Integrity

At TMI, design integrity success compensated for failures in plant operational and maintenance integrity, even though the technical records and rationale behind the plant's "design basis" had already been discarded or lost.  The nuclear industry refers to these compensating qualities as defense-in-depth.  Similarly, the design success of the U.S.  Constitution has often compensated for our failure to operate the resulting government as intended.  We have been slow to understand and maintain the "design intent" of the Constitution.  Technidigm-2000 provides a vehicle for turning this situation around. 

The designers and operators of the failed nuclear power reactor at Chernobyl also believed they were doing the right thing.  Yet, the Chernobyl plant was designed without effective containment buildings, leaving little room for human error.  The Chernobyl design integrity was faulty.  The defense-in-depth was not as strong as at TMI.  Then a Chernobyl supervisor, in the absence of an adequate nuclear safety culture as well, deliberately overrode a safety interlock while testing one of the Chernobyl reactors.  The reactor core melted, and large amounts of fission-product radioactivity were released.  Interestingly, the integrity of the Soviet reactor plant design conformed with the integrity of the Soviet governmental system, much like the integrity of the American reactor design and government conformed with each other. 

Integrity for a Lifetime

The radioactivity released from the core fission products was largely contained at Three Mile Island, while the radioactivity released from Chernobyl contaminated most of the world.  The difference between the two results was the amount of integrity associated with the technical design (relatively fixed) and operation (people) of each of the plants.  Integrity of the original design, the integrity of construction, operation, testing, and maintenance all play a part in the definition of engineering integrity.  The failure to maintain any of these factors impacting the integrity of a nuclear plant at any point in its life cycle can open the door to failure.  Likewise, constitutional government requires careful design, testing, operation, and maintenance.  We are its operators and maintainers.  Our job is continuous. 

The fact that the Chernobyl accident and its release of great mounts of radioactivity to the atmosphere were was kept secret for a few days reflects on Russian governmental integrity.  It was not until scientists in other countries detected the radioactive cloud and stated the obvious that the source of the radioactivity was acknowledged.  The Russians were forced to admit that they had released a large quantity of radioactivity into the atmosphere.  When you are forced to be honest and forthright, your integrity is questionable.  Such questions remain for a lifetime, including the lifetime of a country. 

Although it falls within the most common understanding of integrity, forthrightness is only one aspect of integrity.  The problem at TMI was acknowledged immediately.  Nevertheless, the argument over the severity of the TMI radioactivity release continues as a result of the polarized interests involved -- pro-nuke and anti-nuke.  Polarization leads to extremism, which almost always takes us off-the-level. 

Problematic Integrity Has Root Causes

In engineering projects, engineers look for "root causes" of problems.  When they find something that is less than what was needed, they have also found a weakness in the overall project integrity.  The problem might be with the original design principles used many years ago, or it might be something that happened today for the first time.  Nevertheless, the fact that we did not anticipate a new problem is as much a failure of a program's integrity as our failure to plan for what we knew would happen.  We must allow margins for planning error and lay out programs and solution systems that are conservative enough to so hat we can maintain control of our enterprises.  The root cause of many problems is that we failed to plan ahead.  Planning ahead is part of integrity. 

Time (one of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements) must be considered in most decisions.  This is a difficult task because no one can fully anticipate what might happen in the future.  Yet, this is what we expect of nuclear plant designers.  They meet our expectations by providing design safety margins.  Their responsibilities for creating a design of high integrity are broad and circumspect. 

Likewise, societal institutions require a broad and circumspect definition and implementation of integrity.  One difference between TMI and Chernobyl was a society that is able to demand integrity of its leaders and one that is not.  In a democracy, the people expect more from government oversight organizations such as the U.S.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and they generally get something for these expectations.  Indeed, the NRC is almost as interested in trends that could lead to problems as they are in problems that have already occurred.  As in most situations, it is better to prevent a problem than to have to deal with it. 

Trends in Integrity

The trends in society and in politics are also important in heading off major problems.  The problem is that trends are not as easily recognized when the standards of performance are allowed to deteriorate.  Negative trends become acceptable when the standards of performance slide.  At some point, the problems get so severe that the lower standards are no longer acceptable, and the trend may cause reversals before a major problem. 

In a constitutional democracy, the people can cause such a reversal if they recognize the problem in time and take action.  This can become more difficult when technology accelerates social changes.  Technidigm-2000 helps us to recognize problems over time by recognizing time as a key element in dealing with issues.  Nevertheless, the trending or planning issue is only one aspect of our modern, technology-based, societal integrity. 

Even in a democracy success depends on understanding the problem and facing the facts of the situation.  Following the TMI accident, the NRC required all of the U. S. nuclear plants to reconstitute and validate their design integrity documentation.  Many nuclear utility companies simply no longer knew how their nuclear plants had been designed.  They had thrown out or lost their basic design information, so they could not maintain the plant in conformance with the designers' intentions.  The NRC required them to face the facts of the situation.  It was a very expensive requirement, but it reestablished the design integrity of the U. S. nuclear power industry.  Nuclear plant operational and maintenance issues will continue and also must be addressed with continued high levels of integrity. 

Importantly, nuclear plant integrity was reestablished and improved by identifying and elevating previously neglected but fundamental safety principles.  Engineering principles have evolved over thousands of years, but the integrity of their implementation is now more difficult and expensive due to increases in project size and complexity, not to mention the significant increase in the hazards that result from failure.  Not surprisingly, the identification and continuing support of principles are closely related to integrity, whether that integrity is in design of things or in the character of individuals. 

What we learn from all of this is the purpose of integrity.  The purpose of integrity is to implement and maintain principles even when it is difficult to do so.  Unless we understand the principles being pursued, the effects of time, and the importance of feedback within margins of safety, our notion of integrity can wander significantly.  This is true in any situation where integrity is an issue.  Principles and integrity are inseparable in good technical projects, and they are inseparable in good people and good social projects. 

Understanding Personal Integrity

If you think the need for personal integrity is obvious, no one will disagree with you.  The hard part is determining whether personal integrity is present.  The managers who decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle the day it exploded were full of integrity, but they did not understand how to apply their integrity in a technologically complex situation.  They had to learn the hard way, at the expense of the lives of others. 

When the Challenger space shuttle exploded, we all learned that being a manager does not bestow a manager with more technical wisdom than that of the cognizant engineer.  It was a single engineer near the bottom of the organization who understood the specific limitations of the equipment, in this case the temperature limits of a critical seal or o-ring.  There was little time and no effective means of expressing those limitations to the decision makers. 

Technidigm-2000 provides tools with which such complex and time-critical situations can be addressed more effectively in the future.  The decision to launch the Challenger was probably made on-the-level, but at level one (a manager's opinion) rather than level four (a fully informed and experienced decision maker).  To the extent that the manager's decision to launch was made due to inappropriate considerations, the decision was off-the-level.  Assuming that we are on-the-level, levels constitute four more of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. 

Many people believe that the engineering design integrity of the complex space shuttle launch system became a secondary consideration to the politics of the moment.  Reversed priorities occur all the time, but they seldom lead to such a dramatic result as an explosion and loss of life.  Much more often the politics of the moment merely suppress the thin threads of integrity such that adverse trends in relative to established standards develop.  Major adverse consequences that can be deferred are likely to be deferred.  When long term trends are involved, accountability for those adverse consequences becomes obscured by the passage of time and by changes in context.  Thus, a good solution system to an issue must consider a range of integrity-related concepts for the label of good to be true. 

If we are to achieve good solutions, we first need good personal integrity in those who develop and control those solutions.  With personal integrity in place, principles can be applied in the proper solution system context over the appropriate period of time.  When these elements are properly coordinated, adverse consequences are more easily avoided. 

Bigger Challenges

Changing ourselves such that we understand matters such as integrity at a more profound level is a significant challenge.  Such self-sponsored improvements are fully within our control.  Yet the challenge of self change pales in the face of the difficulty of changing society to conform with the deepest human values.  We find ourselves not wanting to change the titillation of profit driven television, even when we know that it is probably contributing directly to social dysfunctions that affect every family.  We all like to be titillated and amused. 

Even if we can eventually get to the point of wanting to change socially debasing influences, they will not change without the presence of pure rage.  There is and always has been a social consensus that illegal drugs are socially disruptive.  We have failed to stop drugs because there is no rage in our hearts sufficient to overcome the greed of those who profit from illegal drugs.  While most people can and would drive drug dealers away from their own neighborhoods, they are not likely to go into the neighborhoods of those cannot or will not do so.  Just like the issue of immoral television, we lack the level of rage needed to motivate our own effective actions in countering illegal drug sales in our neighborhoods and even in our schools.  We leave such things in the hands of ineffective politicians and their "programs."

The Good and the Bad

On the less optimistic side, technology has taken our formerly agrarian culture down a garden path, and it has also provided new tools for dishonest people.  Shady deals and scams have become more sophisticated but easier for dishonest people to dream up and to implement.  Most of us have received a phone call from a computer searching for people with low levels of sales resistance.  News stories about imaginative scams are frequent. 

Anyone having an email address on the Internet is constantly victimized by computer generated email advertising of the latest get rich scams as well as multi-millions of email addresses cheap.  Most of the bad stuff in the world is facilitated by high tech computer communications equipment far more easily and at less cost than the relatively low tech communications that it replaces. 

Overt scams are easier to protect against than other forms of emergent, technology-based social ills.  Vulnerable people yield more easily to temptation as obstacles decrease.  It used to be that people had to be a little drunk before their inhibitions could be circumvented.  Now their inhibitions evaporate as soon as they log on to the Internet.  It will take a while, but we will eventually need creative ways to impose a responsible social framework on the Internet, unless we are willing to continue to suffer under the whims of the socially irresponsible. 

Impressionable young people are exposed through television, movies, and networked computers to a diverse range of imaginative plots, special effects, and unconstrained information, including visual presentations that we would be embarrassed to show our family members.  The visual special effects require state-of-the-art technology and, to be fully used, the special effects often require an action theme based on violence and highly imaginative visual displays, which are now created quickly, realistically, and relatively cheaply with the aid of computers. 

In the absence of responsibility and accountability, the quest for money overrides principles of morality.  Responsibility and accountability are consistent attributes of people of integrity, and inconsistent attributes of others.  Thus, in the absence of integrity, immorality is promoted by greed.  While this is obvious to most of us, it needs to be stated so that the polarized views of self-interest groups are kept in perspective.  Without integrity, self-interest groups are free to claim freedom of speech and ignore the social responsibility that comes with such freedoms.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework for dealing with social irresponsibility even on the Internet. 

Experience and Common Sense

Our notion of common sense is distorted by what we experience, especially when our exposure to new experiences is not undertaken from the perspective of an effective common sense framework.  As a result of the greed-based violence on television and in the movies, we locked our doors and avoided our neighbors.  Morality interfered with progressive entertainment, so immorality became more acceptable and even expected.  As a result, society's fall became real rather than pretend.  As mentioned above, the Internet has now proven that it is a means of accelerating that fall even more. 

Again, not surprisingly, Technidigm-2000 can help in all of these social decay environments.  We must be able to distinguish between the artificial world of entertainment and real-life problems and their solutions.  Hollywood movie and television heroes are not real-life heroes.  Entertainment stars make good political candidates, social advisors, and leaders when they have the necessary integrity, experience, and education, just like everyone else.  Yet, popular actors and actresses may not have anything more than name recognition going for them when they try to guide us on what to do about everything from abortion to nuclear waste.  We even get environmental-quality advice from Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer dabbling in politics.  At least he has established a foundation in common sense, albeit presented in a flamboyant manner. 

Under Technidigm-2000, people and things are readily classified as either on-the-level or off-the-level.  Where there is disagreement, people find themselves discussing integrity, making integrity a goal and not just an abstract notion.  For each of the electronic media, there should be two classifications or, where feasible, two parallel channels.  One classification or channel would be off-the-level and one on-the-level.  One would reflect integrity and one would reflect everything else.  Ambiguity would be minimized because disputes would be resolved at level four as a form of arbitration, at least for issues of importance.  In the battle of good and evil, good still has a fighting chance!

Real Life Today vs. Options for Tomorrow

Given the current state of society, it seems quite unrealistic to believe that it is possible for good to triumph over evil.  Nevertheless, in a democracy we have the option of arranging things to conform with the will of the people.  We seldom exercise that option, but it exists. 

People have the power of the ballot box and the power of capitalism to help them exercise their options.  Technidigm-2000 makes it a lot easier to exercise these preferred options, whether good or bad, by taking advantage of political action and capitalism.  For example, if we had two Internets, one could be on-the-level and the other could be off-the-level.  Depending on which one was supported by the most people, the other would diminish.  IBM could not advertise on both Internets because being on-the-level in "mutually exclusive" with being off-the-level.  From a more practical perspective, the current Internet could be separated into two separate entities. 

Thus, email could arrive in your inbox unsolicited only on the off-the-level side of the Internet, assuming that it was viewed as inappropriate on the other side.  This is a safe assumption because each of us could identify which types of email we would like to have, making on-line marketing more focused and efficient.  Some of this is already in place in the form of routine news and similar mailings sent on the current Internet. 

From the Technidigm-2000 perspective, the on-the-level side of the Internet should apply the 12 common sense elements described in this online book.  Forcing integrity into the Internet environment is not easy, but it is not necessarily hard, either.  Many Internet providers are looking for a gimmick to distinguish themselves from others.  Remember, if we can think of something that computers should be able to do, they can most likely be programmed to do it, and any capability that we may dream up may already exist. 

Real Off-the-Level People Described

In real life, the number of victims has increased over the past few decades with the number of criminals, and the number of corrupt and manipulative politicians has increased with the demise of the popular basis for common sense.  The same technology that created all of the titillation and excitement and heightened concerns for personal safety expanded as well in the political arena.  Politics became a profession for more and more people.  Political consultants and spin doctors became full-time jobs.  As everyone locked their doors against the criminals, they also became more skeptical about politicians. 

In the case of criminals, television crime fighting and detective stories became abundant.  Specialized news programs proliferated on the non-fiction, real-life side of crime, providing some balance in terms of demonstrating that the bad guys do not always win.  Technology thus provided its own, partial social antidote for technology's over stimulation of our human weaknesses and evil spirits. 

Most of television crime fighting remains fiction, so the happy endings are not so difficult to achieve.  Yet, even happy endings only lead us to conclude that it could be worse and that we need parental controls built into television sets.  Moreover, even when the good guys win, some of the good guys are portrayed as having character traits that push the envelope of acceptability, again based on ratings and greed rather than goodness. 

As the envelope is pushed year after year, acceptability changes due to familiarity, resulting in more pushes.  These elements of context and time are addressed within the Technidigm-2000 framework, but the underlying issues are more related to principles and objectives.  Unfortunately, the key voices being heard in the entertainment arena are those of polarized, off-the-level, self-interest groups.  This needs to be changed, and change has already started.

On the real-life social and political side, the outlook is not as rosy.  Politicians and special or self-interest groups have figured out how to get what they want by manipulating the system.  To counter this, the citizens and voters have not quite figured out how to regain their position as the true source of power in a democratic, representative society.  Televised political debates have become fundamental to political campaigns, but we still have a weakened common sense foundation from which to view and sort out all of the political hoopla.  Political candidates oftern make it seem as if they are the keepers of the ladder to success for all voters, and everyone's personal success depends on voting for them. 

How a candidate looks on television also has become as vital as what he or she has to say.  Even when all of the candidates are equal in looks, we are not convinced that what they have to say is real.  Indeed, many political candidates will say anything if it helps them get elected.  It is this fact alone that causes the greatest amount of voter frustration.  Some voters are well aware of this frustration, but many voters are not at all aware that their voting efforts have been frustrated.  They will defend their votes even when they are later proven to be errant and unjustifiable. 

After 200 years of technological development, neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln would have much chance of getting elected to any office, much less to the office of President of the United States.  Most of the other former presidents would also lose simply based on how they look on television.  In spite of our high intentions and intellectual claims to the contrary, we most often like and trust people based on how they look and how they talk.  We know it is wrong, but we only give minor consideration to their experience or such abstract notions as their record of honesty, decency, and integrity.  We even tend to marry people and buy pets that look like what we see in the mirror.  Our likes and our sense of happiness are based on emotion, not on reason. 

Thus it is that the collective common sense of society has been set adrift in a sea of technology and an artificial world of superficialities, a sea of over-stimulation and excitement, a sea in which good and not-so-good people can drown.  Extreme behaviors no longer appear to be so extreme.  It becomes less unthinkable to shoot someone, but it also becomes normal to do other things that might not have been thinkable just 50 years ago. 

Not only have issues of right and wrong become clouded, we as citizens and voters now allow the presence of illegal drugs and recreational gambling just about everywhere.  Our intellect tells us such things are bad, but we have little confidence in the resulting emotions.  We are easily persuaded to elect political candidates who have few redeeming qualities even remotely connected with inspiring children to be as good or better than their parents.  We then defend our voting choices just like we do our new automobile -- out of pride.  It does not matter that we really got a lemon!

 

Principles

Being on-the-level is not the same as "having principles."  Principles may be good or bad, so having them is not necessarily a virtue.  Nevertheless, most people associate principles with goodness, and this association is consistent our intent in these discussions.  Given that principles are good things to have, we should consider the different types of principles.  In a technical society, some principles are as solid as laws of nature.  Those found in science and engineering, are sometimes so fundamental that they are referred to as first principles.  Other principles may be derived from first principles, but they must always be consistent with those first principles. 

Regardless of the types of principles that apply to a problem or situation, the violation of a principle is fundamental evidence that we are headed for trouble.  While complicated situations or conditions may obscure the applicable principles, there is almost always an underlying principle involved.  When people understand and agree with the underlying principles, identifying and reaching consensus regarding a solution to a problem should be less ambiguous and may even be simple. 

Conversely, when there is no agreement on basic principles, an effective and lasting solution to the problem is not likely to be found.  To reach any agreement at all, both sides of an issue are asked to compromise on their principles, creating a weak foundation for any plan intended to address the problem.  Examples of conflicting and, thus, compromised principles are found in Congress all the time. 

Principles Lead to Integrity

Ability to state and to defend the validity of one's principles is an important element of leadership.  The consistent application and adherence to those principles is what we mean by integrity.  When a political leader states and adheres to specific principles, it is much easier for the voters to hold that political leader accountable.  Since the current approach of many politicians is to adhere to ambiguity and obfuscation, a Technidigm-2000 voter might decide to vote for the candidate who most clearly stated a good set of long-held principles. 

If we can get politicians to argue over their basic principles first, we can start to select the best of them.  Evaluating their consistency in terms of their principles, we can assess their integrity.  From those having an acceptable level of integrity, we can select those with acceptable wisdom, a trait that is dependent on education and experience.  Then we can move on to selecting candidates based on their goals and solution systems. 

Principles and the Media

All of this idealistic dependence on principles and integrity impacts the news media.  As the public demand for solid information increases, news media and investigative reporters are faced with a more demanding scope of work.  While the dependence on pleasant looking and nice voiced presenters will undoubtedly continue, the people who write the verbiage read by these presenters will have to start thinking about basic principles and their relationship to integrity, wisdom, and solution systems. 

With a continued emphasis on principles and more intellectual reporting, perhaps we can speculate that news media reporters and their support personnel will gradually develop a better set of principles for their own profession.  Just the voters and consumers are able to select office holders and breakfast serials, they can select their preferred source of news and entertainment.  It would only require a little direct criticism of a particular news organization regarding its operating principles to suggest to the public to look elsewhere for their news. 

As discussed in greater detail later, Technidigm-2000 elements include four elements called levels.  The four levels provide a powerful communications framework for the media criticism discussed above.  With public awareness of the four levels, the public and commercial advertisers can influence news organizations to, at least, be on-the-level and may be able to get them to rise above level one opinions. 

Competing news organizations might claim a higher percentage of on-the-level and high level news reporting.  Using Technidigm-2000 terminology, their claims can be made quickly and clearly, encouraging an equally effective response from the competition.  Improvements in the news reporting environment become unavoidable. 

Principles Are Us

None of the above can be effective unless each voter and customer (the real powers in any capitalistic democracy) have a modern tool or framework to apply, such as the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, and takes steps to promote their use.  Technidigm-2000 first requires the highest standards of integrity of each responsible community member.  When we have integrity, we are on-the-level.  We may not all agree on how to solve every problem, but it at least becomes possible to discuss the problem effectively and to arrive at a principle-based solution that provides our vision of where we would like to go in resolving a social or other problem.  With this grassroots support for Technidigm-2000 thinking, solutions to problems will become more effective and, in many instances, less expensive. 

Principles Result in Common Sense Solutions

To the extent that a problem is resolved in a principle-based environment of forthrightness and personal integrity, the emergent program or solution to that problem enjoys the benefits of common sense.  While our common sense is often confused with our "gut reactions," when we require a connection between solutions and principles, then this confusion is reduced.  Properly based in principles, a common sense program or solution has a solid foundation, even when changes are required during its implementation.  Technidigm-2000 facilitates establishing and continuing such common sense programs and solutions. 

Stated from a different perspective, when we are not sure which principles apply, we do not have a solid foundation or understanding of the problem or its solution.  Without this understanding, it is much less likely that we have a common sense solution to the problem.  To ensure a common sense solution, it is much more important to state what one's principles are than to state what one is going to do.  Principles do not change quickly, if at all, but our solution can and should change as frequently as needed to ensure a continuing connected to common sense. 

The Interpretation Principle

One of our problems is understanding how constitutional principles apply today.  In the absence of a lot of constitutional amendments, we rely on frequent constitutional interpretations, interpretations that now very frequently involve the Supreme Court.  Amendments are hard to get, but court interpretations are easy.  Also, being a little more cynical, a high level of court activity at all levels to interpret things not dealt with by the Constitution helps to support a lot of attorneys and makes it possible for politicians to acquire more power. 

Similar to these path-of-least-resistance methods of government as embodied in the practice of judicial interpretations of constitutional issues, some nuclear plant operators do a lot of interpreting.  In their environment of "verbatim compliance," creative interpretations of procedural requirements are very attractive.  For example, if a step in a nuclear plant operating procedure is not in a convenient sequence, an operator might interpret the stated procedural sequencing as not important.  Since such operator interpretations have often resulted in problems, the word interpret is a "red flag" in the nuclear industry, at least among those who know what they are doing. 

Basically, the interpretation principle is stated as: If a nuclear plant operating procedure involves any interpretation at all, then the procedure is not adequate.  Most of us are relieved to hear that, but not all nuclear plant operators fully understand and conform with this principle.  Likewise, not everyone associated with politics and government is eager to conform with the interpretation principle.  They want to be able to interpret things on their own terms, which leads to constant argument. 

Nuclear plant operators having a more mature understanding of their nuclear safety responsibilities understand the importance of the interpretation principle.  Nevertheless, it only takes one unenlightened manager in the organization to make life miserable for those operators who insist on observing such basic nuclear safety principles.  In the short term, it is often more profitable to ignore basic principles, but the resulting long term consequences can be devastating.  The nuclear industry learned a lot about the dangers of interpretations as a result of the very expensive accidents at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl.  NASA and other high-risk programs and industries have similar interpretation issues.  Yet, the most consequential principles are embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Technology and Principles

After two centuries, constitutional principles are largely the same, but society has changed significantly.  Many of these social changes are the result of advances in technology, and the application of the underlying constitutional principles to meet objectives may need to shift with these advances.  The ambiguity surrounding shifting applications of unchanging principles can cause problems. 

For example, now that we can closely observe and assess pre-birth development of a human baby, we no longer agree on when life starts nor when the legal protections afforded individuals begin.  Life in the womb is now more real to us than it was 200 years ago.  A parallel but contrary technical development is that we can also better predict birth defects and are more able to abort a pregnancy.  The constitutional principles for protecting life will eventually win this conflict because more people will increasingly realize and accept that an unborn baby also lives.  We may even reach the conclusion that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother.  Depending on the topic, the transition between old and new interpretations of basic constitutional principles has been and will continue to be painful. 

For the skeptics among us, try to state this interpretation transition with the opposite meaning:  Can the life of the mother become even more important than the life of the fetus than was the case in previous years?  Can the convenience of the mother become more important than the life of the fetus?  Probably not, so the importance of convenience (if not the mother's life) will either stay the same or become less important relative to the fetus as its stature rises from that of a thing to being a baby.

As the life of a baby in the womb becomes more apparent with newer and newer technology, the rights of that technology-defined baby will approach the rights of the traditionally-defined baby.  This is a rather profound example of the constancy of principle and the resulting ambiguity produced by advances in technology.  In the absence of constitutional re-definitions, this technology derived ambiguity is unavoidable.  Importantly, such ambiguity can increase the power of government and institutions as they interpret the U.S. Constitution, a document written long before anyone thought of sonograms. 

Without constitutional revisions that reflect the more technological version of fundamental principles, it is tempting for many of us to vote for political candidates inclined to excuse the promiscuous or unintended creation of babies in order to get more votes.  Their principles are based on the ballot box, not on the kinds of principles that relate to good character.  Since they use polls and focus groups to tell them how to get votes, their basic character is achievement oriented rather than founded on good character principles.  As the popularity of condemning abortion grows, the same politicians would, presumably, follow the crowd. 

Under Technidigm-2000, our common understanding of we mean by life is transformed more rapidly because of the focus on basic principles.  Focusing on principles makes it easier to arrive at a decision (Technidigm-2000, level four).  Moreover, when we apply Technidigm-2000 to such transitional social problems, it is much easier to understand where we are going and why. 

Thus, sorting out the confusion surrounding even the most profoundly difficult social issues is greatly facilitated with a modest application of technical thinking.  In this example, we only had to understand and apply one of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements to remove a great deal of technology induced confusion.  Nevertheless, understanding, having, and applying only principles in our thinking is not sufficient to meet the demands of modern society.  It is only one of the 12 parts, and it only contributes to the process of arriving at a good solution system for an issue. 

Without Technidigm-2000, issues are greatly polarized.  In the case of the life of the fetus, we have a continuing acrimonious argument by choice and life factions.  As with other polarized agendas, logic and principles are replaced with nonsense.  The debate, such that it is, is easily dominated by extremist organizations that have no motivation to work on updating the principles and resolving the issue.  Indeed, once a special interest group is created, it does not tend to phase itself out even in the face of being irrelevant.  Its key employees realize that their livelihood is based on being in a fight with an enemy, not resolving the conflict, so they convince themselves and their supporters that they are fighting for a just cause and that there are still (always) evil people out to get them. 

For its part, the news media promotes such ongoing battles, giving both of the polarized sides of an issue equal weight regardless of facts and principles.  In this environment, it is difficult if not impossible for a democracy to keep up with its own technology.  Under Technidigm-2000, the more thoughtful, non-polarized members of society can readily dismiss the extremist positions.  They may also decide to support one of the extremist positions, but they do so much more intelligently, depending on where their principles take them. 

 

Objectives

Objective Pursuit

Generally speaking, objectives are the same as goals, purposes, and functions.  Nevertheless, it is possible to pursue the same objectives while achieving different purposes or goals.  Most taxpayers support the objective of establishing an efficient social welfare program, with their underlying purpose being a reduction in their tax burden.  Politicians may claim to have the same objective, but their underlying purpose in claiming this is to obtain more votes.  If a political purpose could be served better with an inefficient welfare system, their objective likely would change, but then they would not be able to admit this to the taxpayers.  Increasing the number of people who benefit from welfare programs can increase votes more directly than can be attained by reducing the number. 

If a group is honestly and sincerely pursuing their objectives, chances are they will achieve them, assuming the objectives are realistic.  If the group is not honestly and sincerely pursuing their objectives, chances are that they will not achieve them.  It is much easier for a group of people to achieve objectives when everyone involved is on-the-level and working together with a common understanding.  This means that off-the-level people are often blindly combative and should not be involved.  Technidigm-2000 not only emphasizes the need for integrity, it also motivates everyone concerned to expect integrity in others and to improve in this area as well, working together while applying consistent principles to attain the desired objectives. 

Even after eliminating off-the-level participants, there can still be problems in achieving objectives.  Some problems are due to the presence of competing or opposing objectives being pursued by the same group of people or by other groups.  Even honest people often have to compete for the same resources to achieve diverse objectives. 

Also, sometimes the achievement of one group's objectives directly contradicts the objectives of another group.  In such cases the compatibilities need to be identified, the conflicts debated, and compromises reached.  Where compromise is not feasible, then a vote is taken.  One group wins and the other group loses.  The expectation that everyone will always be perfectly happy is not realistic. 

Purposes Are Not Objectives

The functions of different organizations may be best understood in terms of their purposes rather than their objectives.  Using welfare again as an example, most voters and taxpayers have an objective of achieving an efficient welfare program, with the underlying purpose being a reduced need for taxes, although this too can be considered an objective.  Some politicians have the same objective, reducing taxes, but their drive or purpose may be more directly related to obtaining more votes.  Politicians tend to weigh purposes and objectives in terms of votes, so they can be conflicted on the issue of taxes.  More rather than less taxes can result in more spending on programs that benefit their constitutnets, which may result in more votes than cutting taxes could get them.
 

Purposes are more closely related to desires and wishes than they are objectives.  We are not as likely to be organized to achieve a purpose as we are to achieve an objective.  President Kennedy's purpose in challenging the United States to achieve a man on the moon was to inspire everyone involved to achieve that objective.  He did this purposely.  The results of that effort benefited everyone and produced many technical spin-offs that are not achievable in vote-focused programs such as unending welfare benefits, where their are sometimes few motivations to achieve goals of excellence, however defined.

If a politician's true purpose for promoting a specific welfare program might be better served with an inefficient welfare system, the politician's objective likely would change to meet this purpose.  The tail wags the dog in this case.  Keeping extra people in a welfare program might result in more votes, so the political game becomes one of vote-related tradeoffs, which often requires a lot of ofuscations.  The politician's purpose may be to gain votes regardless of whether good principles are violated.  An unprincipled politician avoids clarity, skillfully appearing to support both sides of an issue (having it both ways).  People tend to hear what they want to hear, and it can also be all relative to what they hear from other candidates.  That is, which candidate is less non-commital?

In large programs and large government organizations it is not very difficult to obscure what is going on, especially when it is possible to say one thing today and another tomorrow in a different context, focusing on and pleasing the audience in each case.  The purpose of all this is sometimes simply to avoid taking responsibility for a failed program by not being committed to its success in the first place.  Thus, under Technidigm-2000, we reserve the word objective for principled and proper efforts and relegate the word purpose to the secondary world of ambiguity and lack of principle. 

Space Program Objectives and Their Benefits

President Kennedy made it a national objective to send men to the moon and back before the end of 1960s and to do so safely.  The motivation for this grand space program objective was primarily to restore U.S. national pride in the wake of the Soviet Union's successes with the Earth-orbiting spacecraft of their Sputnik program.  While President Kennedy's moon-mission objective's purpose to restore national pride was satisfied, the primary practical benefits realized from trips to the moon were the many scientific benefits that the project produced as incidental spin-offs.  This suggests that objectives are not necessarily the same as benefits.  Benefits are perhaps less relevant than purposes, which are less focused than objectives.  Also, benefits and purposes are usually only remotely related to principles, while objectives should be dependent on principles.  The closer objectives are to good principles, the more likely we will also have good spin-offs in terms of additional benefits, and it becomes a bit harder for adverse purposes to thrive.

Nevertheless, most people would agree that the U.S. space program in general represents a non-controversial example of a successful level four solution system, one that met its objectives and resulted in benefits, however limited they were in terms of advancing lunar knowledge to benefit mankind.  As difficult as most space program objectives are, the space program successes also demonstrate that technical program objectives can be easier to achieve than social program objectives.  One reason for this is that technical problems do not depend as much on level one opinions as do social issues.  Opinions on technical issues are most often taken less seriously in the absence of supporting facts, while social issues thrive on a range of opinions and a limited number of facts, otherwise they would likely be solved social issues. Some social issues are driven by stakeholders who can not afford to have the associated problems solved once and for all, so every opportunity is taken to fan the issue's flames, using opinions as kindling when the facts are not there.

Yet, social program benefits can be influenced greatly by facts.  The hard part is getting people to face facts so that the social program can be constructed on rock rather than sand.  Unless people are at least on-the-level, it is easy to appreciate how difficult it can be to unravel all the opinions and face the facts related to the issue or solution program.  Technidigm-2000 gets people on the level and also goes a long way toward defining and achieving a lasting objective. 

Technical program issues and objectives require at least a level two facts and a level three effort to gather more facts through research, which quickly reduces the number of qualified participants.  Once a technical program's objectives are set or mandated, the systems engineering process at level four leads quickly to the optimal approach.  Where technical issues and objectives are controversial, it is often due to mixing information from levels two and three without the benefit of a level four perspective.  Technical issues just have fewer opinions and more facts than social issues.  Thus, it is often easier to achieve technical benefits than social benefits using the same amount of effort.  This means that, since it took ten years to get to the moon, it might take many more years to turn around some social issues. 

News Media Objectives

Social program issues and objectives are far more compatible with the level one opinion environment.  In particular, news media articles and reports are often simply a mixture of level one opinions and a few out-of-context facts drawn from levels two and three.  News media reporters have a separate agenda and their own objectives that often are better satisfied when controversy is present rather than absent.  To the extent that their audience understands the Technidigm-2000 communication framework, even social issue controversies become more transparent. 

Reporters also can get into technical issues.  But in the absence of a level four study or report that circumspectly addresses the ramifications of the technical issues involved in achieving the desired objectives, most technical issue controversies are simply level one entertainment.  Likewise, if we carefully consider social controversies and issues in terms of Technidigm-2000 levels, it is easier to sort out what is entertainment and what is substantive. 

In short, properly constituted level four analysis minimizes controversy and makes it possible to define a path forward to achieve the intended objectives whether they are technical objectives or social objectives.  It just happens that applying Technidigm-2000 to achieving social objectives is far more likely to reduce the overall level of controversy reported in the news media. 

 

Context

High school students are taught in geometry class that the xyz coordinate system provides the first three dimensions.  If you know these three dimensions, you know a specific point or location in space.  If you know only two of the three dimensions, then you can be anywhere on a line that represents the third, which means you do not know exactly where you are.  Even when we know these basic dimensions, we may still ask about the frame of reference.  Where is the 000 point or origin of the coordinate system? Is it moving and is the coordinate system rotating? How fast?

Knowing only the three location dimensions that describe a point in space leaves us with several questions about the context of those coordinates, but the easiest question is simply when we are considering the point.  To keep things as simple as possible, time is often considered to be the fourth dimension, and this is usually where our education on dimensions stops.  We can solve a lot of physics problems just knowing, comparing, and manipulating these four dimensions in a range of complex circumstances. 

Physics Problems Are Easier Than Social Problems

If everything were a physics problem, we would have no problems.  Unfortunately, many important problems are social.  That is, even when we know where we are and what time it is, we still need to know what is going on around us in time and space.  Moreover, much of what is going on around us is based on totally different frames of reference.  Things that impress us in our roles as fair observers may not impress other fair observers in our surroundings. 

Thus, we enter the emotional, confusing world of social issues and social skills.  To work in this social world, we must supplement our physics skills with social skills such as empathy and wisdom.  We must know the context of our problem before we commence its analysis.  We must also know how its context will change in different locations and at different times.  Context can change independently of place and time, depending on the subjective perceptions of the observers.  That is, there are multiple contexts for any issue at a given place and time, and between places and times. 

If time is the fourth dimension, then context is the fifth dimension.  When we take facts out of their original context (their original points of application, their intended relationships with their own and with other systems, and their relevant timeframe), the validity of using those facts in problem solving declines.  Sometimes the only valid conclusion regarding facts taken out-of-context and applied elsewhere is that the facts are out-of-context. 

Knowledge Is Not Wisdom

Keeping things in the proper context requires knowledge of many different contexts and the ability to weigh their importance relative to the problem at hand.  For example, when I was assigned to a nuclear propulsion staff in the late 1970s, a nuclear weapons staff officer asked me several questions on the hazards of radiation.  Specifically, he knew that the nuclear propulsion program monitored its people for their level of occupational radiation exposure, something that the nuclear weapons people did not. 

He showed me his secret nuclear weapons radiation level information, which I compared with the comparable nuclear propulsion plant information.  Although the nuclear weapons community considered their personnel radiation exposure levels to be low, relative to the nuclear propulsion community exposures they were high! The Navy subsequently started monitoring its nuclear weapons people for radiation exposure.  The Army and Air Force soon did the same. 

Prior to this radiation level comparison there was no shortage of nuclear weapon radiation level information.  The nuclear weapons people knew the facts, but they did not have a good frame of reference within which to compare those facts.  Once they had that frame of reference, they quickly recognized that they had a problem.  The solution to that problem was also readily identified.  The recognition of problems and wise solutions to those problems are extremely dependent on context. 

Knowledge addresses the first four dimensions, up to and including time.  Wisdom requires an appreciation of the fifth dimension of context, an appreciation that enables but does not necessarily result in good solutions.  Knowledge is not wisdom, but wisdom does not exist without knowledge. 

Communication Provides Context and Enables Wisdom

In 1989, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Plant near Denver, Colorado, looking for evidence of deliberate nuclear safety wrongdoing.  The Rocky Flats Plant is where DOE made and machined its plutonium parts for nuclear weapons during the Cold War.  The FBI and the Denver civilian community had become convinced that outrageous accidents and safety problems were happening continuously at Rocky Flats. 

I was part of a team that assessed all of the alleged problems, focusing on criticality safety but producing a comprehensive report on all of the alleged problems.  The team consisted of a dozen independent experts from all over the country.  While we found that there was a basis for some of the alleged problems, the problems were far less significant than suspected by the FBI and the civilian community.  Our report was a level four report, although I had not yet codified the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. 

One of the most significant problems at the DOE Rocky Flats Plant turned out to be communications.  The DOE managers at the plant had simply established an information wall around the plant, ensuring that no one in the Denver community could establish a good frame of reference regarding plant safety issues.  Most of the information denied to the public was highly classified, and security clearances were required to have access to the plant.  Without information there is no context even for level one opinions, and there can be no application of common sense. 

Once the information was presented in our unclassified report, the safety allegations largely evaporated.  Plant managers also became more open in dealing with the public.  Reporters were given tours of the plant, making their previously imagined dire assumptions of an out-of-control industrial facility seem ludicrous.  Seeing for themselves the neat and tidy buildings loaded with safety systems, they were impressed even for people who had few facts and no experience.  They had been given a frame of reference and could see the plant in context, relative to the rest of their world experience.  Context had been communicated to them. 

Communications minimize misunderstandings for those people who are on-the-level.  Once everyone has a similar perspective on a problem, a consensus regarding the solution becomes possible.  More importantly, the solution to the problem becomes more acceptable within a good communications framework even if a consensus can not be reached. 

But good communications will not always be enough.  The people determining what the final solution should be may have to have more technical knowledge and experience than those who have to accept and live with that solution.  There is nothing that says that the required technical knowledge and experience exists in any available decision maker.  Good communications facilitate the application of wisdom to a problem, but the presence of sufficient wisdom is not guaranteed.  The necessary communications for this facilitation are emphasized in the four Technidigm-2000 elements referred to as levels. 

Once we have good communications, we need to pick the best decision makers.  Thus, even under Technidigm-2000 it is usually more important to have a consensus regarding who will make the final decision.  In short, decision makers must have sufficient wisdom and some measure of credibility if they are to avoid controversy.  Wisdom and credibility require knowledge, experience, and integrity.  Technidigm-2000 provides not only the necessary communications, it also provides credibility guidance by promoting integrity and clarifying the context for developing a solution system. 

Proper Context Is Elusive

It is the issue of proper context that causes the most confusion in modern society, making it quite difficult for most people to find a place to apply their basic notions of common sense.  With a significantly larger population, rapid changes in technology, and a more complex government, it is quite routine to do the right thing in the wrong context.  Generic methods of achieving goals sometimes impact specific situations in a way that directly contradicts the underlying principles or the program's intent. 

The application of generalized solutions to specific situations is often based on what engineers and mathematicians refer to as "simplifying assumptions." The difference between this technical use of assumptions and the social or governmental use of assumptions is simply a matter of application and context.  Engineering solutions are problem-specific, and simplifying assumptions simply reflect the fact that extreme mathematical accuracy usually exceeds any practical need.  Approximate calculations are all that are needed for most projects because accurate numbers are generally either not possible or not useful. 

The future aspects of in-context situations can not be accurately anticipated in engineering, in social programs, or in government.  Thus, experienced and well-intentioned people must have the authority and the opportunity to intervene as needed to ensure that the principles and objectives envisioned in a project are being met or that they are being modified to meet the changing situation.  While it is only fair that laws should apply equally to everyone, it is only the principles and objectives that must be enforced relative to a given context.  The prescribed methods for doing this must not violate any individual's personal freedoms and rights, but such methods should be as flexible as possible to achieve the intended results.  When social guilt is present such that principles and objectives are ignored, we have a "one-size-fits-all" solution that is self-defeating, over-simplified, wasteful, and quite possibly shameful. 

For example, a county government in Virginia imposed a "hiring freeze" because of budget limitations.  They later discovered they had wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars because the hiring freeze prevented the replacement of expensive consultants with new county employees.  The county employees who were aware of the ongoing waste did not believe that they had the power or the responsibility to seek an exception to the hiring freeze even in instances where costs could be reduced.  They were aware of the hiring freeze objectives, but the underlying principles were not stated clearly and, thus, the implementation methods did not include in-context flexibility. 

Principles are usually context independent, but understanding context is important to achieving objectives without violating the underlying principles.  Using Technidigm-2000, the underlying principles of the hiring freeze would have been stated and imposed as guidance.  The hiring freeze would only be one example of how one might proceed in meeting budget goals in a manner consistent with the underlying principles.  Said another way, any action contrary to the principles and goals would violate the guidance, so hiring new employees to replace expensive consultants would be expected, verbiage about a hiring freeze notwithstanding. 

On-the-Level Yet Out-of Context

In the absence of in-context authority, obtaining approval from out-of-context managers or government regulators on the in-context details can be too difficult.  If attempted, efforts among good-intentioned, on-the-level managers who are functioning out-of-context to provide subordinates with in-context authority might not be successful.  In such cases, accountability for not meeting in-context needs is easily evaded because the organizational culture protects the chain-of-command. 

It is the organization leader's fault when it does not promote the application of common sense within the context of specific problems.  If the boss does not understand that it is possible to be on-the-level and out-of-context at the same time, it does not matter very much how much integrity that boss may have.  Again, Technidigm-2000's emphasis on principles and goals corrects this problem, assuming integrity is present.  Fortunately most people in leadership positions have lots of integrity, so they only have to develop an understanding of context to become effective leaders.  Failing that, they become victims of the problem, not the heroes.  We could each come up with at least one example of this in the context of Hurricane Katrina.

Out-of-Context Equals Off-the-Level

There are many issues of context to address, and some professions are more context sensitive than others.  For example, political debates and campaigning often involve the use of out-of-context facts.  Political campaigns thrive on the deliberate misuse of facts since it is easy to find situations somewhere in a political opponent's life that are not consistent with the current situation.  People know the current situation far better than they remember (if they ever knew) the previous situation, and it is often too difficult to defend oneself by trying to explain the previous context. 

The user of out-of-context facts almost always has the advantage in a debate simply due to placing the opponent on the defensive.  Under Technidigm-2000, the deliberate use of out-of-context strategies to gain advantage is automatically off-the-level.  A single instance of this is enough to destroy permanently the user's reputation for integrity.  Once again, integrity is to be highly valued, frequently rewarded, and vigorously protected. 

Forecasted Contexts Can Be Off-the-Level

One frequently used and powerful out-of-context strategy is the combination of an in-context fact with an exaggerated projection.  It is easy take a simple fact, apply it to a new or hypothetical circumstance, and then forecast the most dire consequences.  Such practices are common in politics, making the political arena a continuous source of frustration.  Under Technidigm-2000, the emphasis on integrity and context provides a powerful tool for turning such political tactics around. 

Forecasting that a reputable opponent will be off-the-level in the future violates our notions of common sense.  With a grass-roots implementation of Technidigm-2000, a politician who made such an off-the-level forecast could lose an election due to this single instance of deliberate distortion.  From the opposite perspective, a politician with well established principles and integrity would rise to the top and would only have to compete with other candidates from political parties that practice the highest standards of personal and organizational conduct. 

Unfortunately, in our modern, rapid pace society, out-of-context facts are often highly competitive with the actual facts of a situation, especially when out-of-context facts are offered as proof that a negative outcome can be expected.  Misleading, out-of-context facts are readily generated and can be very damaging, especially when it is not easy or timely to consider the facts in their full or original context.  Thus, the fifth dimension of context can be corrupted by the misuse of the first four dimensions -- place and time.  This is why we hear a lot of "revelations" announced in public the day before election day, especially in close political races. 

Also, even when the truth is evident, not everyone is able to recognize its contextual details immediately.  It requires an extraordinary education and experience to be able to appreciate such subtleties at all, much less in all situations and under time constraints.  Under Technidigm-2000, the details are not necessary, and arguments are reduced to deciding whether someone is applying facts out-of-context.  Being aware of five-dimensions in specific instances and being able to articulate them accurately require focused thought, but it is a lot easier than fielding the specific details being used to confuse the situation. 

Context and the Legal System

The power of out-of-context information is also the reason that courts require witnesses to state "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" -- or risk being charged with perjury.  When unscrupulous people want to do so, they can easily make other people look bad, "bending the truth" to serve their purposes.  Principled people do not avail themselves of half-truths, which explains the phrase "nice guys finish last." Under Technidigm-2000, nice guys finish first. 

The current approach to the court system that we see on television shows a culture where the two opposing sides are represented by attorneys who are striving to win regardless of the truth.  This is particularly troublesome in the case of public prosecutors.  Just like politics, it is sometimes very effective to dredge up what someone did many years ago to establish a pattern regarding one's behavior.  While this practice demonstrates the importance of having a good reputation, it is easy to exaggerate that which can not be easily defended against.  The best defense may be to show that the situation has changed, including the element of integrity. 

Interestingly, it is the judge who is largely tasked with keeping things in context.  The judge must respond to challenges from both sides regarding relevance.  Often, the jury might have decided differently in a case if they had known about the prior behavior or even the previous physical appearance of a defendant.  Sometimes a normally scruffy defendant is cleaned up to look respectable in front of a judge or jury. 

It is largely due to the need to fail on the side of innocence that makes it acceptable and even necessary for previous behaviors to be excluded from the courtroom.  However, for most situations outside the courtroom, our notions of behavior context are best understood in terms of personal qualities such as integrity.  At least, we tend to give people of high integrity the "benefit of the doubt" in cases where behavioral inconsistencies might come up. 

A Life-Long Context of Integrity

It is only because so many people have consistent histories of integrity shortfalls that we may not be as sensitive to the presence of integrity.  Politicians, used car salesmen, and lawyers are often painted with the same brush as others in their respective groups because we experience them in the same context, with or without integrity.  Their professional trappings include pretending to have integrity.  If someone in these groups was truly a person of integrity, that person's professional career could be adversely affected unless that integrity is recognized. 

The only way to determine, encourage, and reward integrity is to look at a person's history over their lifetime.  For example, everything else being equal, I would trust someone who was an eagle scout over someone who was not.  We should also reward people for hard work, for observing laws consistently, and for helping others develop into better people.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework within which people can exercise their integrity and develop into better people in our technological society. 

Proper Use of Out-of-Context Experience

In spite the inherently negative bad implications, out-of-context facts can be used in a positive manner if this is done carefully.  Used in a new context, out-of-context facts may provide useful insights based on their value as experience.  We can consider a person who has a lot of experience as having a lot of out-of-context facts available to apply to new situations.  They are experienced in out-of-context facts, so they are able to use them as a frame of reference for going forward. 

In the same vein, someone with little experience may not even realize that the facts at hand are out-or-context.  Thus, with inexperience we get overconfidence.  This explains the phenomenon of rebellion that is characteristic of youth.  It is only after we collect a lot of seemingly unrelated experience that we are best able to judge the context of a new situation. 

Regardless of our experience level, whether an application of information is good or bad depends mostly on our attitude, intentions, and sense of fairness -- it depends on our integrity.  Under Technidigm-2000, integrity is used to help us determine who is consistently on-the-level and, thus, who is likely to do what is right regardless of personal consequences.  People of integrity do not misuse out-of-context information for their own gain. 

Experiencing Context

Misunderstanding occurs when facts are misleading due to differences in context or due to a lack of experience on the part of the person dealing with the facts.  Misunderstandings also result from differences in experience.  For example, medical doctors have experiences that may result in their being insensitive to their patients' anxieties.  A medical problem that a doctor may have seen a hundred times is still new to each new patient, making it difficult for the doctor to appreciate a patient's apprehensions and concerns.  As professionals, doctors are expected to compensate for this difference in experience by deliberately raising their sensitivity to it. 

Thus, doctors have to work on their bedside manner, placing themselves within the frame of reference of each patient.  Once they are within the patient's frame of reference, it is easier to communicate medical information in its proper context for the patient.  While most of us know that our doctor is making this effort in a less than totally empathetic frame of mind, we appreciate the effort.  Also, the doctors who make this effort to communicate are likely to be more effective in diagnosing the medical conditions of their patients, and they may even become truly sincere in their concern for their patients' frame of mind. 

From a business perspective, it is more likely that patients will return to those health management programs where they feel the most sincerity and concern from the doctors and nurses.  However, in those health care organizations not driven by a business-development motive (profit), the doctors and nurses may not be so patient with the patients.  For example, military doctors have little to be concerned about in terms of building their business.  Military doctors do not have to build a business.  Moreover, with increased longevity there is a disproportionate number of retired military people seeking treatment at military medical facilities, as compared with active duty personnel.  Thus, there is a continuing problem with military doctors treating with disdain the many retired military personnel and their dependents. 

The military doctor's workload would be much less if it were limited to active duty personnel and dependents.  To the extent that retired military people and their dependents are shunned by military doctors, the effects of this difference in context are made apparent.  In spite of these less than ideal effects, it is not clear whether they represent a condition requiring remediation since retired military benefits include access to non-military medical care, albeit at a price.. 

Thus, as noted above, shifts in context can lead to misunderstandings and confusion.  Again, we must return to principles, objectives, and context to be able to perceive what should be done.  Then we need the integrity, enlightenment, resources, and time to do what should be done, including deciding to do nothing. 

Context and Levels

As will be addressed in more detail later, addressing problems in the proper context also allows us to elevate the discussion to the right "level." This is a central concept of Technidigm-2000.  A doctor is expected to replace the patient's apprehensions (level one: unjustified opinions) with a course of treatment or medical remedies (level four: solutions).  The remedies are based on the readily apparent symptoms (level two: available facts) and a comprehensive set of medical tests (level three: research). 

When we study an issue, we change the apparent context, making its context dimensional in a sense similar to changing the dimensions of location and time.  Technidigm-2000 makes this apparent through the use of its four levels.  Rather than just four levels, most issues could be viewed from many levels, each of which might be superior to a prior one.  However, the superiority of a given context (set of facts and circumstances) can only be judged in terms of the consequences of making a decision based on that context.  This is why it is not appropriate to make important decisions in a context that is only based on opinions (level one) rather than level three researched facts. 

Again, it is important to understand the dimensional nature of context.  From the inherent differences in our respect for opinions and facts, we might decide that our perception of an issue's context is influenced by misunderstandings and confusion.  We naturally assume that the more facts we have the less misunderstanding and confusion should be present.  Unfortunately, this assumption regarding the credibility and clarity of facts is only valid in a general sense and may not be valid in specific instances.  For example, insurance salesmen are well known of selecting only those facts that are most likely to lead to a sale.  Important to the dimension of context are the integrity and purpose of the people dealing with the issue. 

Empathy Context

Before going further, it is useful to go over the medical profession empathy context again.  As patients, we often react negatively to an insensitive doctor, even when we realize that we have a different perspective as patients.  Insensitivity is offensive even when it is a natural result of a differing frame of reference or set of experiences.  Thus, doctors work hard to develop the sense of trust and personal integrity needed for us to accept their leadership on making decisions regarding our health.  They may have to force themselves to slow down and to be more sensitive when they are working at the patient-to-doctor interface, but it is part of the job.  Insensitivity results from the failure to deal with the fact that different context levels or frames of reference are present. 

A doctor's sensitivity to the patient's frame of reference may be artificial, but the intent is (at least in most cases) to do what is best for the patient.  It is the doctor's intent that makes their artificial acts of sensitivity (reaching out across context levels) acceptable to their patients.  It is part of the profession of being a doctor, and it is viewed as a necessary part of being a good doctor.  It works because the doctor is trained and experienced in the highly technical field of medicine.  A doctor's technical credibility is earned, and the development of an appropriate bedside manner is simply a way of dealing with the doctor-patient interface. 

Media Context

In contrast to doctors, professionals in the news media do not generally understand the technical details and the proper context of what they are presenting.  Yet, they also are seeking credibility at their interfaces with their customers.  Television news people even have to practice looking sincere and knowledgeable, and they command high salaries when they are successful. 

Newspapers gain a reputation for being either liberal or conservative, although most of them try very hard to be balanced.  When a reporter's "story" presents points on both sides of an issue, the reporter is viewed as having done a good job.  The relative validity of the diverse points is of secondary importance, and the reporter often has no way of knowing which side is "right" or even in the "right ball park."

Often, news stories are, at best, as "balanced" as a two-part medical diagnosis, one part of which is provided by the doctor and other part of which is provided by the medical insurance company.  Since reporters often balance the views of high-integrity experts with those of either low-integrity experts or non-experts, it is often best to ignore the second half of their stories or articles.  Even when many high-integrity experts agree on one opinion regarding an issue, news media organizations feel compelled to find some kind of counter-opinion and will not easily be able to discern the relative levels of credibility between the thus-manufactured two sides of the issue. 

Those who know what they are talking about may provide the basis for the story as well as its most valid substance.  Those who do not know much about the topic provide the counter argument, valid or not, resulting in an apparently balanced set of words but distorted context for the reader to sort out.  In this increasingly technical world, the average reader is not able to remove the confusion.  The best the reader can do is try to judge the credibility of each side and draw conclusions accordingly.  Unfortunately, the reader often does not know anything about the news story writer nor any of the spokesmen for the different sides of an issue.  This confusion can be addressed by stating context for each side, which under Technidigm-2000 would be in terms of levels, assuming both sides of the issue are perceived to be on-the-level. 

As will be discussed later, the difference between doctors and news reporters is that they are working at different levels.  Doctors are responsible for understanding and presenting a complete set of facts based on directly applicable education and experience.  If additional testing and research are needed in a particular instance, doctors are aware of and can take the appropriate actions to solve their patients' problems. 

Reporters are often limited to first impressions or opinions, even when those opinions come from supposedly valid sources.  Reporters are at a disadvantage in evaluating the technical and context-related accuracy of the information that they use.  In a complex, technical society the readers and viewers of those stories are also at a disadvantage.  Properly understood and applied, Technidigm-2000 helps the news media as well as the audience. 

The News Media and the Social Pendulum

Almost by definition, a conservative system is one that is well defined, with little or no changes and with no significant risk of making a mistake.  The news media, as a system, thrives in an atmosphere of constant change, attempting to gain the interest of people who pay attention to news.  Conservatives are not newsworthy except to the extent that they oppose liberal changes to the status quo.  They become news when they seek to change the status quo which, after several decades of liberalism, is viewed by conservatives as needing to be changed back.  Those in the news media who are caught up in the liberal changes are currently at a disadvantage since the conservative news media led by Rush Limbaugh have been able to capture the attention of the silent majority by using the same theme -- the need for change.  The pendulum swings in both directions!

All the news media have a vested interest in changes and in reporting those changes.  This includes those in the news media who consider themselves to be impartial.  They thrive on change, but change can be justified only when the status quo is not adequate.  Therefore, the status quo is more likely to be attacked by the news media.  A questioning attitude is the safest approach, since it is non-committal while being destructive.  It tentatively conveys a level one opinion to the audience while avoiding the three more credible levels, especially level four decisions and accountability.  Even the most conscientious news reporter is likely to be limited to a mixture of level two facts and level three research.  Such a mixture of the lower levels can be slanted to show the need for change, but it then offers no path forward for such changes. 

While the pendulum of social change swings constantly, the underlying polar arguments persist.  When possible, each side states its case in terms of common sense and pragmatism.  From Rush Limbaugh's conservative perspective, liberals are still emotionally-driven big spenders of other people's money.  To liberals, there is enough wealth for everyone if only they can spread it around.  Neither position goes beyond Technidigm-2000's level one. 

To a systems-oriented conservative, if change is to be undertaken, it must be based upon deliberate implementation, feedback, and appropriate corrective action.  Concurrent changes in multiple areas are to be avoided so that feedback signals from different programs or systems are not likely to be confused with each other.  To conservatives, big changes should be tested in well-designed pilot programs.  Positive, overall benefits from expensive changes should be expected and demanded.  Conservatism may have a significant head start in its application of common sense from a systematic perspective, but the process still must operate at level four.  Rush Limbaugh's level one ridicule-the-liberals-and-their- media-cohorts job simply does not go far enough. 

Being In-Context is Dependent on Integrity

As noted above, integrity is closely related to the fifth dimension of context.  Integrity is needed to keep things in context or to apply experience properly in new situations.  Integrity is one of the most powerful tools that we have available to us as human beings. 

We associate integrity with truth and honor, so we give people of integrity an initial presumption of being on-the-level.  Good leaders do not have to prove that they are working a problem in its proper context -- we take it for granted.  People of integrity are often viewed as being natural leaders, and we do not feel compelled to quibble over their intentions and motivations. 

On the other side of the same coin, if we suspect that someone as being less than honest, we will quibble over their intentions and motivations.  They may also be natural leaders, but we do not fully trust them.  Due to the shortage of people whom we fully trust, we often find ourselves voting for the person whom "we trust most." Polling questions are often couched in terms of whom we trust most rather than whom we trust. 

Most of us want to be viewed as having integrity and as dealing with problems fairly and in their proper context.  Our own experiences and frames of reference limit us, but we do not necessarily realize that other people have a significantly different set of experiences and, often, a much different frame of reference.  Just as doctors practice their bedside manner and news reporters practice appearing sincere, politicians practice their appearances of being good leaders, all-knowing, empathetic, and eager to please.  Politicians become experts at "looking good like a candidate should." They know that this is part of a government or political leader's context, at least as applied to influencing most voters. 

As in the case of doctors, voters recognize that politicians are not necessarily as sincere as they appear, so the voters are not too critical of this point.  Appearances only become real problems when doctors or politicians are not on-the-level.  Again, the key difference is often integrity, without which we are not able to ensure that problems are addressed with circumspect wisdom. 

A political candidate who does not at least look like a leader will have difficulty getting elected even if that candidate could solve all our social and governmental problems quickly without raising taxes.  Other candidates may be basically incompetent, but in the context of modern politics all they have to do is pretend that they are competent and they are highly competitive in the political process.  After all, in the confusion of modern politics and a shallow, sound-bite media, the opinion polls are as variable as the weather.  As will be discussed in more detail later, even when they happen to be on-the-level, modern politics are often only on level one -- unsubstantiated opinions. 

Relative Integrity and Context

As mentioned previously, many news media personalities are paid big salaries because they, like politicians, look good and appear to be sincere.  They strive to convey a sense of integrity that captures a bigger audience than that of the competition.  They too are trying to be in-context.  Politicians and news media people are just a little more detached from their audiences than are doctors from their patients.  They also do not have to maintain detailed records, nor is it likely that anyone will file a malpractice suit against them.  After all, they are not accountable like doctors are accountable.  They, like all of us, are only experts in their own fields. 

Doctors are judged on what we might call absolute integrity.  Politicians and the news media are expected to have at least some integrity, but they are judged primarily in relative terms.  Also, politicians and the news media often present us with information and decisions that are outside our personal knowledge and experience, so we may not realize what aspects are out-of-context or "blown out of proportion." We are seldom able to assess their integrity in relative terms, much less within a circumspect frame of reference and, thus, in absolute terms. 

In the nuclear safety arena, the integrity of plant managers is expected to be absolute, much like the integrity we expect in doctors.  To be successful, nuclear plant managers must establish and maintain a special nuclear safety culture, a culture that provides a unique context within which all nuclear plant activities must be performed.  Anti-nuclear activists and organizations have their own culture and frame of reference.  Thus, as compared with other professionals such as doctors, nuclear plant managers must perform their jobs in an environment or context of constant anti-nuclear sentiment. 

Nuclear plant managers must be technically competent to do their jobs, but anyone can challenge their decisions even without any particular technical experience or knowledge.  Anti-nuclear activists need not subscribe to a nuclear safety culture, nor do they need to understand what it is.  As mentioned above, news reporters usually treat them as equals.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework for defining the cultural differences between opposing groups, even when both sides are on-the-level. 

Also, as mentioned in previous parts of this book, it is very difficult for polarized groups to both be on-the-level.  In many instances, polarized groups force each other to be off-the-level, twisting the context of their issues as far as they can in self defense.  In the wake of polarized discussions, the true context of an issue is often lost, and we are expected to come to a "compromise" solution between two extremes.  Using the Technidigm-2000 framework, we are less compelled to accept compromises between confusing and contradictory options. 

Simplified Context

Being human, we find it far less difficult to deal with issues when we are allowed to use simplifications, including the bad simplifications (out-of-context facts) as well as the good ones (trusting people based on their apparent integrity).  Integrity is a virtue, so it becomes a valuable generalization or simplification that we can use to mold our opinions on issues that are well beyond our personal frame of reference or personal competence. 

When we feel that we can depend on someone else's integrity to help us make decisions, we feel comfortable dealing with even the most complex and obscure issues.  It is often just too hard for us to deal personally with issues within the context of their comprehensive set of actual facts.  We are in a constant search for persons of integrity who at least claim to know what is right to do in various circumstances.  Thus, we make ourselves vulnerable to manipulation by those people who do not mind taking advantage of our human limitations. 

When neither side of an issue or political campaign can claim much integrity, then we often have to resort to relative levels of integrity.  In these times of individual specialization, we have to rely constantly on individual integrity to get things done properly.  We are sometimes disappointed with the results, but by then the damage has been done.  Our understanding of the context of a problem changes with time, but so does our memory. 

Without the tools to deal with the changing context of a myriad of issues and problems, we are often at the mercy of savvy politicians, who are themselves dependent on getting context information from special interest groups.  Moreover, without the right underlying principles and integrity, there is nothing keeping politicians from gradually becoming too dependent on special interest groups for information, especially when such groups donate to their political campaigns. 

The out-of-context deliberate distortions of politicians and the sensationalism of the news media would not work if we had the time and the energy to investigate and keep track of everything on our own.  Our failures to do so are caused by normal human limitations, so we just do the best we can.  But rather than have to weave our way through conflicting and sometimes subtle details, we find it easier to think in terms of extremes or polarized litmus tests.  We cooperate with the over-simplifiers and distortion artists, making them heroes instead of villains. 

The villains have a clear advantage.  The further we are from a specific situation, the easier it is to use generalized facts and to over-simplify a problem.  Also, the greater the number of specific situations and subtleties involved, the more likely a human being will want to deal with issues using generalized facts.  When we compare modern complexities with those of colonial days, it is easy to see how much more difficult it is to be a good citizen in today's world.  In today's world, context is more complex for almost every problem. 

Technidigm-2000 reverses all of this by seeking out and encouraging personal integrity and by keeping things in their proper context.  Technidigm-2000 responds to off-the-level professional politicians and to the less ethical elements of the news media by providing a mechanism for simplifying context.  Technidigm-2000 is a means of simplifying context.

 

 

Chapter 3
Communicating with Levels

Four More Level Elements

The first of the five level-related Technidigm-2000 pieces has already been mentioned.  It is simply deciding whether the problem is being addressed "on-the-level." This is the foundation of the twelve-part Technidigm-2000 puzzle. 

On-the-Level Four More Ways

The remaining level-related Technidigm-2000 elements are the four levels themselves: (1) opinions, (2) facts, (3) research, and (4) problem solving.  These four levels apply once you know that the problem is being addressed on-the-level -- honestly and with integrity. 

Interestingly, the four levels provide a framework within which we can readily communicate and determine who and what are on-the-level! We value on-the-level opinions, but we recognize that they are a far cry from effective solutions. 

For those readers who are impatient, the next four sections are summarized below. 

Level One - Opinions

Most of us have an opinion on just about anything.  Pollsters and on-the-street television crews can collect and assess opinions quite easily, but they seldom come up with any useful answers to problems.  On the contrary, poorly-considered opinions can be counterproductive. 

To the extent that any opinion on anything has any positive value, that value is made possible only when an opinion is on-the-level.  Unfortunately, random opinion gathering, even if representative of the population, can convince the audience that a popular path is the right path.  For example, it is popular to suggest that women should be in physically demanding combat roles during warfare.  A thousand people offering such poorly considered opinions can do a lot of damage especially when, in this example, these people have never been in combat and are not volunteering for it as a career move that appeals to them. 

There may be ten times as many people with the opposite opinion and even experience that would support not making any change, but the status quo does not make a good news story.  News stories often simply include an opinion from two sides of an issue, without regard to the validity or representative nature of those opinions.  It is even difficult to identify and properly weigh so-called "expert opinions" since it takes an expert to know one. Thus, Technidigm-2000 offers level one opinions can be a useful tool, but they are not sufficient for success. 

Level Two - Facts

Facts are not particularly useful unless they are complete and unless they are being applied in a proper context and with wisdom.  A thousand misapplied facts are not as good as a single fact that is properly applied.  Interestingly, out-of-context facts are available for almost any situation, allowing off-the-level people a factual foothold from which to influence decisions. 

When we do not have all the facts or when we do not know which facts apply where, then we may need to conduct research to get all the facts and to put them into a reasonably fair perspective.  In the nuclear industry, inspection teams spend most of their time collecting facts and assessing them from different functional perspectives.  Facts are context sensitive, thus often conflicting, and require context insights and tradeoffs to achieve the best overall problem statement, much less the best long-term solution to a particular problem. 

When we allow the facts on one side of an issue more weight due to the vociferous style of its proponents, we find ourselves falling off-the-level into a polarized state of confusion.  This state of confusion lends itself more to off-the-level politicians than to good government. 

Level Three - Research

Trying out facts or hypotheses to see if they work in a new situation is one form of research.  We can also try to develop new facts tailored to a new problem.  Sometimes we do not know when we have completed all of the required research, so we have to ask experienced problem solvers whether they think we might be getting close to developing the basis for a new problem's answer. 

With a lot of contemplation and hard work, they might be able to develop enough information to support the development of a good solution.  With a necessary and sufficient set of facts, a solution becomes feasible.  It is at Technidigm-2000's level three that we attempt to produce the new facts and relevant methods for responding to problems.  Technidigm-2000 is such a method since it provides a new framework for others to use in coming up with responsible, optimized solutions. 

Once again, a thousand researchers working on a problem are not as important in producing a solution as the experienced person or team that uses that research to lay out the path to the optimal solution.  Conducting research does not solve problems.  Also, level three is the first level that has no corresponding off-the-level counterpart.  It is simply inconsistent to expose all of the facts in the pursuit of an off-the-level objective. 

Level Four - Solutions

Finally we get to the top level, the one with the possibility of finding appropriate solutions to problems.  Making decisions based on adequate research solves problems.  By this time, it is apparent that the people who claim to be functioning at this level must be blessed with an additional portion of integrity and wisdom.  How can we trust someone who is not trustworthy? Even if someone is trustworthy and well-intentioned, how can we trust their decisions when they are not also wise and able?

Level four decision makers are dependent on level three research, but they are also dependent on their independence from preconceived conclusions.  They must apply their experience and knowledge impartially in resolving an issue. 

Although it is not made obvious by the popular media, most people are able to perform at level four.  They are not noticeably polarized by special interests, and they are able to make appropriate, fair decisions based on facts that are made available.  In particular, we often think of a trial by jury as being "fair," but obviously not all july trials include all the facts.  Jury trials can be polarized and not on-the-level, and trials in general can be skewed depending on the relative talents of the lawyers involved.  Examples of possible level four performers include judges, arbitrators, and juries. 

One key to identifying a level four decision maker is whether or not level three research has been completed.  Any decision make at level four will be consistent with level three, or the level four decision maker will be able to explain why it is not.  Also, several such decision makers will independently arrive at similar solutions, and any differences can be understood in terms of their differing knowledge and experience.  Indeed, deciding that no decision or solution is possible may also result from level four deliberations. 

Most importantly, if such level four decision makers consult with each other, they will be able to define a solution to a problem that is not a compromise between two poles or special-interest positions.  Any compromises will be with regard to degrees in the same direction. 

A 4.0 Grade

As you can see, the four levels increase in validity and usefulness from one to four.  Moreover, the four levels have multiple applications, depending on the situation.  There are at least four levels of communication and a corresponding four levels of knowledge and ability with which we individually or collectively form opinions, assemble facts, and produce results.  The process is roughly equivalent to what students do when they write a research paper.  A fully successful paper might receive a grade of 4.0. 

To reinforce our tentative appreciation for the power of Technidigm-2000's four levels and to begin understanding how all the pieces of Technidigm-2000 work together, it is worth repeating the example provided when we discussed context.  A doctor is expected to replace a patient's apprehensions (level one: opinions) with a comprehensive set of relevant facts (level two) as derived from tests (level three: research), before attempting to come up with a remedy (level four: solutions). 

The key question for most physical illnesses is less related to the problem than to the doctor.  You are welcome to get a second opinion, and you should choose your doctors wisely.  Chances are that you will get the same diagnosis regardless of the doctor.  However, depending on the doctors' pre-dispositions, you may get a different course of treatment. 

A surgeon might recommend surgery, and a doctor of internal medicine might write a prescription.  Nevertheless, each option might be a good solution to the problem.  A thyroid problem can be treated by surgically removing the thyroid or by irradiating the thyroid with radioactive iodine.  Sometimes the specific path forward is best selected by the patient. 

Simply Put: Four Levels of Communication and Ability

Under Technidigm-2000, we limit ourselves to only four levels, making the paradigm as simple and effective as possible.  Each of the four levels includes an inherent communication component that defines the general character of the level.  There is also a corresponding component that reflects an individual's ability relative to a given topic.  For each issue or problem, there are often four experience or competence levels that correspond to these four information levels.  It is easy to find people with enough experience to offer opinions at level one, but it is difficult to find someone qualified to produce solutions as level four. 

A gross approximation to the four levels of ability can be made in terms of education and experience.  Level one approximates the competence of a high school student, level two the competence of a college student, level three the competence of a research scientist, and level four the competence of an industrial engineer (or other professional) who must apply knowledge to get useful results. 

Ability also varies with the topic.  Most of us never get beyond level one on most topics, but we periodically achieve level four in our own fields of endeavor and expertise.  We are amused and sometimes appalled observing other people functioning at lower levels in our own fields.  Nevertheless, it is often quite difficult to tell what is happening in other fields because we just do not know who is at what level.  Technidigm-2000 can help us sort this out when we apply the 12 elements. 

Again, all discussions involving Technidigm-2000 levels one through four presume that the opinions and facts associated with an issue are "on-the-level." Those readers who have paid attention to all of the details to this point already know what this caveat means.  As soon as someone deliberately raises an opinion or a fact that is known by that person to be untrue or distorted, the entire discussion becomes invalid.  This is a very important and powerful consideration because it is the primary underlying difficulty that we have with current social paradigms, such as those involving special interest groups. 

With Technidigm-2000 in place, the unprincipled will either have to convert to the truth or they will be increasingly recognized for what they are and will be ignored.  For example, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear politicians have less influence under Technidigm-2000.  They are off-the-level and can not easily be restored to credibility. 

Level Four Perspectives

Getting to level four solutions usually requires leaders and decision makers to have much more experience and wisdom than supporting workers at the lower levels.  Wisdom primarily consists of education and experience.  For some issues and problems, a level four leader or decision maker must have a special level of education or set of experiences. 

For example, it is not likely that someone who is not experienced in the nuclear power industry could provide effective leadership for that industry even with all of the facts in hand.  This is because different facts have different weights in determining the path forward.  Deciding how much weight to assign to each fact requires experience.  When I led the technical assessment of each of 150 repair projects for a nuclear power plant in 1992, each project had to be considered from different perspectives and weighted accordingly. 

Most importantly, we assessed each project on-the-level and at level four, resulting in an incredibly effective path forward for this plant for the next several years.  Up to the point that our team arrived at the nuclear plant, each of the middle managers was skewing facts and analyses in favor of his own pet projects or areas of responsibility.  They were off-the-level, offering unsubstantiated opinions and incomplete facts in their efforts to get priority for their projects.  Plant management's effectiveness and credibility were at an all-time low, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission placed the plant on its Watch List of poorly performing plants. 

Senior managers were simply not able to sort out the myriad complex relationships and priorities without outside, independent assistance.  Our team had the advantage of technical expertise, which we were able to apply on-the-level and at level four.  The task was arduous but straight forward. 

Becoming an Expert with Levels

Once again, to use Technidigm-2000 effectively, you should study these four communications levels in more detail by reading the expanded discussions provided below.  Those who simply want an overview of the concepts involved can skip to the next 4-part subject, systems, and come back through the details on the four levels later, as desired.  As for most endeavors, you can not fairly judge that which you do not fully understand, and every shortcut taken has its risks.. 

By now you may have started to realize that this approach recognizes the impatience of some Internet surfers and the boundless energy of others.  Those readers having boundless energy will be able to read, understand, and appreciate the details and subtleties of the 12 elements and, thus, the value of Technidigm-2000 as an aid in just about every arena.  They will be far more effective in everything they do!

 

Level One: Opinions

There is a big difference between on-the-level opinions and off-the-level opinions.  This is also a major source of confusion regarding Technidigm-2000 applications.  First, it is important to stress that off-the-level people are everywhere, seeking to promote their agendas even when our notions of common sense are challenged.  There is little we can do with such distorted perspectives except recognize them as such and keep them from achieving undue influence. 

It should be clear to you by now that Technidigm-2000 stresses the value of integrity.  This means that, even when we do not have all the facts on an issue, we are at least open to the views of others and we acknowledge that we do not have all the facts.  When we are on-the-level, when we give an opinion, we do so with an acknowledgment of basic ignorance regarding the facts. 

Normally, we view opinions as non-substantive and relatively useless in getting problems resolved.  However, if we choose to view opinions as starting points in the problem resolution process, then we can start to solve problems rather than let them languish forever, cycling between on-the-level and off-the-level.  The other three other levels eventually lead us to problem solutions. 

Important also in understanding opinions is that experience counts even when we do not have very many facts available to us.  Everything else being equal, the opinions of older and wiser people normally serve as better starting points for problem solving.  While I am not the oldest and wisest person you have ever met, I have provided several on-the-level opinions in the form of short essays, which you can find and read under the heading of applications, specifically in chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9. 

Those chapters address the range of popular topics that you read about all the time in the newspapers.  Each chapter focuses on opinions in a particular category, starting with the U. S. Constitution (6), then politics (7), then government (8), concluding with a chapter on going forward from here (9).  The last chapter reflects my dislike for the opinions of all of those people who write editorials and books and tell us what is wrong without providing much help regarding what to do now. 

It is important to accept the fact that I am trying to be on-the-level in offering these level one opinions, but it is also important to try to understand all such opinions and issues in terms of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.  When we cast our opinions in terms of the 12 elements, then we are setting the stage to move to higher levels and to get problems resolved.  It does us little good to offer opinions on issues at level one, honest or not, if we do not intend to pursue the issues to resolution at higher levels. 

My offering opinions on constitutional, political, and government issues probably reflects my oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution.  All of us who entered the military for whatever reason had to take such an oath.  Many of us have only paid lip service to the notion of defending our country and Constitution, so a little emphasis in that area may be productive.  Next to saving the world from a nuclear power plant disaster, there are few topics that would motivate me to spend the time offering opinions. 

What is level one? It is one of the four communication categories of Technidigm-2000.  Communications at level one contain one or more opinions regarding an issue.  Since opinions may involve little or no relevant knowledge, ability, or experience, level one individual capabilities may approximate the level of knowledge of a high school graduate with no significant practical experience.  Of course, even the most educated and experienced among us may also offer an opinion, and it is usually appropriate to "consider the source" of an opinion.  Nevertheless, an opinion is just an opinion and is often poorly substantiated.  Opinion polls only tell us how a vote on a topic might have come out at the time the poll was taken.  They are not in themselves useful for making decisions on any important matter, and voting on important matters that are also complex can also lead us astray. 

For most problems, opinions solve nothing and can be misleading.  Nevertheless, as mentioned above, opinions serve as starting points for developing answers to issues or programs to address problems.  At level one, we often focus on one problem at a time and are not particularly concerned with topically-relevant interfaces with other problems.  It is not because we don't know what some of the other problem areas are.  We just don't know for sure what all of them are -- and we may never know. 

A single fact may form the basis for an opinion, but such an opinion is of little validity regardless of the wisdom of the person having the opinion.  For example, a person might see an airplane fly near another airplane and offer the opinion that they nearly collided and that something needs to be done to ensure that it does not happen again.  This observer would not necessarily know the related facts such as whether the pilots could see each other's aircraft or whether air traffic controllers were directing them. 

Even with such additional information as input, the observer would not necessarily have the experience to determine the risk of collision.  Yet, in the absence of a more knowledgeable and experienced observer, the level one opinion that the airplanes were in danger will probably have a chance of making the evening news.  Knowledge and experience properly applied at level one will often reduce controversy simply by injecting the idea that additional relevant facts are needed before forming a substantive opinion on just about any issue.  Nevertheless, possessing a substantive opinion on a problem is not the same as achieving a levle four solution to that problem.

Opinions are not good or bad, right or wrong.  They are simply opinions.  They are a starting point and are most often not sufficient to provide a solution.  We may like the opinions of political candidates because they are similar to our own opinions.  If the candidates are on-the-level, then we are potentially at a starting point for getting at good solutions to problems. 

Thus, the election of candidates to public office based on their opinions is not a bad concept as long as the candidates are on-the-level.  This, of course, is the problem -- candidates have learned how to appear to be on-the-level and have had no requirement to actually be on-the-level.  In a political world of sound bites, polls, and spin, it is quite difficult for honest and honorable people to be elected, and many of them would not even try.  This unfortunate condition can be challenged using Technidigm-2000.  Some level one examples of how such conditions can be challenged are provided in the application chapters. 

Now that I have made a big deal about the limitations of opinions relative to being on- or -off-the level, I must point out that some off-the-level opinion making processes will probably always be with us, Technidigm-2000 notwithstanding.  In some areas, such as businesses involving sales, false opinions are usually critical to success.  A buyer's emotions or impressions are generally more important than facts. 

Realistically, people often act on opinion and emotion even when they are aware of the countervailing facts.  When people reach decisions based only on opinion and emotion, they may be following the "path of least resistance," a path that we take all the time.  When level one is both the start and end of an issue or problem, we are less likely to be successful the first time around.  In the nuclear safety business, opinion and emotion are particularly troublesome.  In contrast, when it comes to spending billions of dollars on trial-and-error government programs, the level-one-only risk is at least on-the-level.  Anything on-the-level is less onerous than spending billions of dollars on a compromise.  Nuclear plant projects can also be stuck at level one for years, weighed down by anti-nuke critics, but little good ever comes from level one opinions if not taken to a higher level.  Thus, they proceed as expeditiously as possible to level four solutions and seek to start building their facilities and systems.

Regardless of the risk or money involved, while we can elevate our own thinking to the higher levels of Technidigm-2000, we may not presume to elevate or change emotional responses of others above level one or to change their impact on the decisionmaking process.  We need to recognize those responses for what they are and give them the consideration that they deserve.  Just because our opinion may be "right" or "better" does not mean that we will be able to proceed beyond level one and try to achieve a "perfect" solution to an issue or problem. 

In the case of nuclear power, the prevailing opinion in the United States is mostly opinion and emotion driven, resulting in decades of no new orders to build new nuclear plants.  Fortunately, the "do nothing" approach to nuclear power is in some respects safer and less problematic, at least for the time being.  However, as the world runs out of petroleum, gas, and coal to produce energy, nuclear plants are becoming more attractive if not absolutely necessary.  Fortunately, the Energy Act of 2005 includes some modest stimulation for the nuclear power industry, along with all the other requisite programs for alternative fuels needed to keep their advocates and beneficiaries relatively happy.

Also, if the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels are actually resulting in unacceptable world-wide climate changes, the expanded use of nuclear power will have to become part of a solution process or program.  As most engineers already know, stable systems such as the world's environment demonstrate their stability by staying the same, at least on the average.  It is like "rocking the boat" when we spew increasingly large quantities of combustion products into the environment.  Once a stable system "capsizes," it is usually too late to solve the problem.  "Natural disasters" and "acts of God" that result from our own actions (or lack of action) are neither natural nor holy. 

Whether or not we have a culture in place that is able to deal effectively with such emergent technical problems is dependent on what we do now.  You have now been exposed to some of the basics of Technidigm-2000.  Are you going to part of the solution or part of the problem?

Level Two: Facts

Level two communication on an issue includes one or more facts and no opinions.  In this situation, someone has actually made an effort to learn the basic, factual information related to the topic.  All of the currently available topical information is present, and it is accurate.  For most topics, we associate level two knowledge with that of the college graduate or the very experienced high school graduate.  Level two also includes those minor system interfaces (discussed in more detail later) that are within the topical framework of the applicable discipline.  It does not include all the applicable "interfaces" with other functional areas that are beyond that discipline, although many of those might be identified at level two. 

For example, continuing the previous problem, level two facts might include information such as that two airplanes which flew dangerously close to each other were actually under the close direction of an air traffic controller and that the pilots could easily see and avoid each other.  Level two might also include facts or data on how often airplanes which fly that close to each other actually collide or cause problems for each other.  However, it would not include an analysis of data relative to the specific event.  Also, depending on the character of the specific issue or question being considered, not all of these facts might be needed. 

A sufficiently complete set of level two information within a topical area, such as air traffic control, might not include facts under other topics critically important to the issue.  This might occur after the issue has been considered more circumspectly at level four.  For example, if the question is whether improvements should be undertaken in the air traffic control system, we might initially be missing the necessary financial information regarding the costs of such improvements.  This is information that is crucial to deciding whether realistic corrective actions could be taken, assuming corrective actions were needed.  Nevertheless, level two compilations would normally be equated with a college student research paper. 

At level two, we simply are not aware of other topical areas that might be involved, much less the relevant level two facts for those other topical areas.  We could get indications that a problem exists (e.g., the passengers were concerned), but such information barely exceeds level one opinions, and we seldom get a complete set of level two topical facts without a sustained effort to do so.  Even with dedicated effort, we have our problem-resolution and decision-making "blinders" on until we get to level four.  We would not be able to decide at level two whether the air traffic control situation needs to be corrected simply by collecting all the facts and data related to the issue.  Even if such a need were made clear by level two facts, we would not be able to determine how it should be upgraded. 

Level two facts, like level one opinions, may make the evening news, but they are also insufficient to place an issue into its full context or to solve a problem.  Most of the information provided by the news media is at level one, with a limited attempt to achieve level two, factual credibility.  Said another way, until all of the necessary and sufficient facts are present, an issue remains at level one -- unsubstantiated opinions.  The news media provide us with what is often a very entertaining mixture of opinions and facts, optimized to capture our attention while avoiding responsibility for distortions of context. 

Where time allows, news organizations often attempt to prop up the credibility of their stories by calling on experts (level three, state-of-the-art researchers – discussed below) to offer their "expert opinions" on the issue being discussed.  More often, however, news organizations must rely on the level one opinions of relatively polarized advocates (special interest groups) for comments on the different sides of an issue.  In either case, level one advocates and level three experts may be on-the-level, but they are not likely to come close to having balanced inputs or, in the case of level one advocates, to having the true and complete set of facts needed to address the issue in its proper context.  As will be discussed below, issues are most reliably discussed in their proper context at level four and only after completing level three research. 

Under the current news media paradigm, it is not viewed as the news media's primary obligation to decide or convey which side is credible or whether a story is being presented in a fair manner.  They simply claim impartiality, which is not necessarily something that leads to fairness or realistic solutions.  Indeed, the news medium that strays too far from level one opinions (including using level two incomplete facts and even level three research expertise) will not likely have much of an audience. 

Such is also the case for institutions other than the news media, at least under the current social paradigms, that encourage polarized debate and result in questionable decision making processes.  For example, under the current political paradigm, politicians argue mostly at level one, hoping that their opinions will match the emotions of under-informed voters.  Of course, there are politicians who are short on basic forms of integrity, so they may be somewhere below level one -- off-the-level. 

 

Level Three: Research

Level three research builds on level two facts by providing state-of-the-art facts or knowledge that could impact an important decision being made at level four, which is discussed in more detail later.  Level three is where research laboratories and doctoral level professors at universities provide new and unique facts that are not otherwise available.  Level three knowledge can be used in a level four decision or solution process, but it is not adequate on its own merits to solve a complex scientific, engineering, or societal problem. 

It is important to understand that expertise at level three does not imply expertise at level four.  Level three knowledge normally is associated with a relevant doctoral degree and with little (or very narrow) practical general experience.  In many instances, an individual who has devoted enough time and energy focused on a narrow topic so as to be able to perform effectively at its state-of-the-art level is unlikely to perform successfully the much broader fact integration and leadership tasks found at level four. 

Since narrow or focused level three research often has very poor or negligible interfaces with other potentially important, topically relevant functional areas, individuals who are productive at level three may not even be aware of them.  This is not to say that it is not possible, but with increased levels of technology comes an increased need for specialization.  Level three knowledge could produce a new radar system that might help to prevent airplane crashes, but it would only provide a portion of the information needed to make a good, overall decision regarding risk issues or the viability of system production and use relative to other options.  Likewise, the technicians and scientists that developed the radar design would not necessarily have the experience or the right skills needed to work on the overall risk and viability problems.  Other level three sources would likely be needed to develop state-of-the-art information in other topical areas, all of which is integrated and applied at level four. 

The importance of understanding level three limitations can not be over emphasized.  In our technical society, we have a natural inclination to value depth of technical knowledge and experience over breadth of technical knowledge and experience.  Each of these has its role, and Technidigm-2000 defines each role.  In-context (fifth dimension) solutions and the related interfaces are far more apparent when an issue is dealt with in its broadest context, something that requires a balance of breadth and depth. 

An example of the limits of level three knowledge is that nuclear physicists (a narrow technical discipline) do not necessarily have the experience and knowledge to make an in-context decision on the safety of a nuclear power plant.  A nuclear physicist simply does not have the design capability of a nuclear engineer or the operational capability of a nuclear plant operator.  Thus, the nuclear physicist will focus more on the potential nuclear fission radiation hazards than on the many layers of design and operational protections that are in place to optimize nuclear power plant safety.  Nevertheless, the nuclear engineer and operator depend a great deal on the technical insights of the nuclear physicist, as those insights relate to the practical aspects of ensuring nuclear power plant safety. 

It is conceivable that some level three individuals could also acquire expertise in all of the applicable areas needed to perform well in level four leadership roles.  However, due to their narrow scope of experience, many highly respected technologists would be counter productive in such a role.  The result of the news media and others going to level three researchers for level four answers is most often level one opinions. 

If an individual were able to master the three basic nuclear plant areas of knowledge (physics, design, and operation), then that individual would be more level-three capable in the topical area of nuclear plant safety.  That individual would probably not be a level three nuclear physicist conducting state-of-the-art research.  There just is not enough time and energy in most of our lives to be an expert in a narrow area of advanced science or technology and still be able to acquire the broader credentials and experience needed to place that technology into its proper context relative to the rest of the world. 

 

Level Four: Solutions

Technidigm-2000's level four connects all the relevant facts of an issue across the applicable interfaces with related topical areas.  It is at level four that we "brainstorm" to identify these related topical areas and attempt to understand their interfaces.  At level four, we also identify the need for additional facts, often based on the experience of the individuals participating at level four.  When an informed leader is confident that the necessary and sufficient facts needed for a good decision are available, the leader can establish an appropriate program or solution system to carry out necessary actions.  Where the relevant facts can not all be found, the best available opinions might have to be used, but only in instances where there is no better means of arriving at a solution in a timely and economic manner. 

Topical area brainstorming is most effective when several people are involved.  Brainstorming is a common tool in total quality management (TQM) environments.  Gathering the stakeholders to discuss a problem from their different perspectives can be critical to identifying the full breadth of concerns and sub-issues.  However, the approach implies a complete set of the necessary participants, ignoring the very likely possibility that important stakeholders might be missing.  It also fails to ensure that the final decisions are made by someone who understands all of the information generated by the team (i.e., a technically competent leader).  Nevertheless, there are some advantages achieved under TQM, such as improving group ownership of the problem and, eventually, the solutions. 

While teams of people working on a problem can result in the identification of the related topics, issues, and solutions, the team-analysis result is often an overwhelming body of factual information and uncalibrated professional opinions.  Each team member may defend his or her contribution to the joint effort as being vital, resulting in a log jam of possible solutions or requirements.  Team members are not likely to be held accountable for failed solutions, so there is little motivation to ensure that the right solutions are selected for implementation and properly balanced relative to each other and relative to the available resources.  Such results are useless unless a competent leader (decision maker) is available and prepared to deal with them. 

We need only look at the Japanese response to the February 1996 rock slide at the Toyohama Tunnel to realize the importance of responsible and empowered leadership.  The Japanese culture depends on group thinking and reaching a consensus before taking action.  Obviously, this approach has its shortfalls when a bus full of people is being crushed by a 27,000 ton rock.  No one at the scene was in charge of making decisions.  During emergencies, someone has to be in a position to decide exactly what action to take and when, so timely action requires level four preparation. 

There is often simply not enough time available for a consensus approach to solving a problem, even if such an approach is level four and might result in appropriate action.  In emergency situations, timely action requires knowledge, experience, and leadership, all of which require planning and practical exercises that address the full range of possibilities in advance of any problems presenting themselves.  The weak initial response to Hurricane Katrina is an obvious example of the failure to prepare for the full range of possibilities.

 

Clearly, emergency response procedures require an experienced on-scene commander.  In most time-critical situations, decisive and timely leadership is needed, but we must allow for the possibility that some leadership decisions may be wrong.  We find the best leader available (usually defined in terms of experience and education) and give that leader the authority to act.  The more urgent the decision, the more likely it will be wrong; however, failure to make a decision at all will likely preclude the possibility of success in dealing with the emergency condition is available to take action, hopefully timely action. Thus, while Technidigm-2000 solution systems require discounting unsubstantiated opinions and the development of an adequate set of applicable facts in various topical areas, it is level four leadership that determines when enough is enough. 

Unfortunately, we often fail to recognize the value of experienced leadership and timely decisionmaking in less time-critical circumstances.  Also, we tend to confuse political or managerial experience with technical knowledge and experience.  One can not simply manage a disaster response team, ignoring what is going on in technical terms.  Nor can we "take a vote" and expect to get other than mediocre results when technology is involved. 

Leaders make decisions and take responsibility for them.  In our current social paradigms, leadership is discouraged largely because we have come to believe that anyone who makes a decision that results in a mistake is somehow imperfect and undeserving of a leadership position.  Current paradigms favor those who are unwilling to make decisions, resulting in inaction or untimely action, the consequences of which are often far more calamitous than any mistakes made a responsible and capable leader.  Leaders are held responsible for the consequences of their leadership, while nonleaders are not held responsible for their nonleadership.  Technidigm-2000 encourages and protects leaders by optimizing their ability to succeed and freeing them from the second guessing of critics and nonleaders. 

If we need a leader who understands our technical world and can deal with it in an effective manner, we have to develop that person in the real world.  We must somehow make them circumspect enough to understand the impacts of their decisions on a broad range of activities and programs, not all of which fall within the boundaries of a profit-and-loss report.  A leader must learn how to get to the heart of a complex set of problems.  To be consistently effective, leaders have to have personal integrity and a suitable set of basic principles.  If they have a broad set of good principles, they can develop a common sense framework that is applicable in many situations.  Technical common sense must be developed -- it is not an attribute that is inherited or that evolves automatically from age. 

Even with enlightened leadership, the generation of a comprehensive report at level four regarding a problem does not resolve that problem -- it simply enables a solution system to be defined and created.  Solution systems are the result of decisions, and decisions come from leaders.  Crucial to a leader's ability to make a decision is the applicable technical knowledge and experience, which may involve several related topical areas or disciplines. 

A level four leader is more often broadly experienced technically and is not necessarily limited in experience to management positions.  In this technical age, it is rare that pure management skills and experience are sufficient to enable proper decisionmaking, so a need for technical expertise is not a new concept.  Technidigm-2000 levels are useful in focusing on the need for level four leadership while concurrently putting levels one, two, and three into a better perspective. 

But Technidigm-2000 consists of more than four fundamental concepts (being on-the-level, having principles, keeping things in context, and the proper use of time) and four levels (opinions, facts, research, and solutions).  It includes a complementary concept of systems, as described in the materials that follow -- four more pieces of the puzzle.  Together, the proper application of these twelve Technidigm-2000 parts allows even nontechnical managers to make the right initial solution system decisions in a reasonable and timely manner.  As will be described in more detail below, this is because solution systems include feedback and control systems that correct mistakes before they become major problems. 

If we have to rely on purely administrative managers to make level four operational and feedback technical decisions, we can get into trouble.  Similarly, if we have to rely entirely on professional politicians for governmental decisions that involve technical areas, we are likely to get into trouble.  When managers and politicians are free to override technical common sense with mandates and political maneuvering, the value of having expertly defined, assessed, and balanced technical issues is lost. 

Within limits, Technidigm-2000 constrains even nontechnical managers and politicians in positions of authority to be on-the-level and to provide some measure of technical leadership.  It is this unique characteristic of Technidigm-2000 that enables it to be applied immediately and broadly, regardless of the initial quality of an organization's technical leadership.  Under Technidigm-2000, leadership and technical quality continually improve as the 12 elements work together to achieve success. 

But not all of us seem to be inclined to be on-the-level.  In the absence of informed, on-the-level leadership, systematic solutions are less likely or are circumvented by path-of-least-resistance political maneuverings, including compromises and similar face-saving mechanisms.  There are countless examples of well-intended organizational mismanagement and political collusion, such as the losses of the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles and the Chernoby l reactor plant accident to our overly politicized welfare system.  Such problems result when we presume that we are functioning with informed leadership at level four, while actually functioning with a leadership void and unsubstantiated opinions at level one, even assuming we are on-the-level.. 

For many of the significant problems that affect mankind, level four requires the type of knowledge that we normally associate with a doctoral or professional degree.  It might also include the level of knowledge held by an experienced college graduate.  In addition to technical knowledge, level four requires a significant level of experience for those participating at this level.  Complex problems seldom can be addressed effectively unless the majority of the participants have a higher, technical education and appropriate, diverse experience.  Each interfacing topic must be sufficiently addressed by participants at level four. 

Level four knowledge and experience must be broad and address the applicable interfaces with other systems and disciplines.  Level four includes all of the ingredients needed to make a good decision.  If we are concerned about airplanes flying too close to each other, we would have to determine the risk involved and how that risk compares with risks found in parallel situations, such as in railroad and automobile transportation.  If we are concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants, we should ensure that they are being inspected and operated in a manner consistent with the potential hazards.  Most on-the-level, experienced people are impressed by the level of effort involved with nuclear plant safety assessments.  The application of high levels of effort and a great deal of experience and integrity is usually effective in addressing the potential hazards of nuclear plants. 

The level four solution to problems goes beyond technical details and includes the practical economic and societal factors as well.  Is all of this effort worth the investment? Can and should society turn to nuclear energy sources when all the fossil fuels are gone? Such an application of diverse factors to the proposed corrective actions for routine technical issues and problems found at an individual nuclear power plant is simply not appropriate.  If we limit the scope of the problem, we can come up with a limited solution.  To the extent that we ignore or avoid the other factors, we invite criticism from those people who are focused on those other factors, and we undermine our own credibility. 

Thus, it can be argued that we can come up with level four solutions to many problems, but we might not have stated and solved the more comprehensive problems or issues that are important to the topic.  We may have limited our context, we might not have identified all of the key principles involved, and we might not have considered how things might change over time. 

 

Level Relationships

Each of the Technidigm-2000 levels requires more explanation.  Keep in mind that we are still only addressing one of the two fundamental structures for the new paradigm - levels, and the other being systems.  Systems are introduced in the next group of topics.  We will combine systems and levels after that.  But first, it is useful to expand the discussion of levels by comparing them with each other.  Again, any discussion of levels includes the assumption that we are on-the-level and are trying to solve a problem in an honorable manner - with integrity. 

Level one (opinions) is the least dependable level.  It includes unvalidated information, and it requires little thought and no significant effort.  Level two facts are better.  Nevertheless, even if we validate a thousand facts trying to achieve level two or level three factual communications, the presence of a single unsubstantiated opinion can cause the discussion to remain at level one, just as one weak-link in a chain causes the chain to be just as weak.  Levels two and three do not include the broad perspectives or resources needed to sort out unrelated facts and opinions, although they may be used to show that some opinions are contradicted by related facts.  We can investigate a weak link and declare it to be weak, but this requires direct effort on a case-by-case basis. 

It is not until we assess facts and the remaining, uncontradicted opinions at level four that the weak links become apparent and can be placed into their proper perspective.  Even then there may be residual uncertainties regarding what is a fact and what is an opinion.  We are just more prepared to deal with this at level four, applying education and experience.  It is at level four that we apply wisdom, a combination of education and experience. 

Level two (facts) requires effort to establish the reliability of all the facts presented and to ensure that the available facts are complete within each topical area.  In contrast to much of what is undertaken in our perfectionist society, a complete set of the available level two facts is realistically limited and is not intended to be defined herein as the totality of all available topical information. 

For example, consider the issue of whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should approve a newly developed cancer drug for use in cases where a patient is already dying from cancer.  A sufficient amount of level two information might be that the experimental drug was found to be beneficial in certain similar cases.  Reams of documentation and years of perfectionist contemplation should not be needed to justify the drug's use with terminally ill cancer patients.  The narrow, similar-case issue could be decided at level four, with additional inputs from those people having other perspectives, but the broader issue could be deferred to allow a more comprehensive decision. 

Such a common sense approach is nevertheless likely to be defeated in any large organization since only one manager in the organizational hierarchy can usually stop all progress by saying no.  Approval of even a common sense, level four solution usually requires all levels of management to say yes.  I use the word usually here because we are talking about the usual culture found in large organizations or bureaucracies.  Such organizations often give rise to whistle blowers, which is why it is important to have a means to circumvent organizational obstacles.  That would take another book, but I can at least note that one way of doing so is to have every employee send a monthly report to the organization’s top manager.

In the case of a limited approval for a cancer cure, with additional understanding from a systems perspective (discussed later), the relevant information could be assessed by a level four review panel, and a responsible FDA official could make the common sense decision to allow such treatments.  Note that level four decisions require only a sufficient body of information, an opportunity for differing perspectives to be made known wherever interfaces exist, and a decision by the responsible individual.  Also note that decisions are made by leaders and by responsible officials or managers, not by panels and committees.  Under the current management and adversarial cultures found in many organizations, such decision making by leaders has become rare, resulting in significant loses to all of us. 

No significant topical experience is needed for someone who is developing level two facts and opinions, just dedicated fact finding and a sense of sufficiency relative to a specific issue.  The level two topical information developed for an issue may even be considered to be sufficiently complete to undertake a level four problem solving session.  Level two fact collecting is sometimes referred to as research since students often consider looking things up in the library as research.  This is not the same thing as level three research, which is defined as state-of-the-art research.  Opinions may be validated using level two facts, making level two information noticeably more credible than level one opinions.  Level one opinions are usually based on at least some unvalidated facts.  Nevertheless, level two and level three facts have to be developed in the relevant topical areas for each issue before we can deal effectively with the interfaces of those topical areas at level four. 

Level two fact collecting would seem to be helpful in building a good airplane, but this topical information would not include the advanced level of experience and cross-topical knowledge needed to build the airplane.  Level two airplane knowledge would not cover related topics such as the impact of the airplane's engine exhaust on environmental pollution.  Level two also does not include recognizing and dealing with the interfaces between potentially related topics.  Interfaces are dealt with only at level four as part of the problem solution process, often resulting in the need for more fact finding at levels two and three. 

Some additional perspectives on the relationship between levels two and four can be achieved.  For example, it is not likely that a college student would be expected to produce a research paper that explained how to build an airplane and also go into depth on how it would impact the environment.  These are different topics and disciplines.  Someone in a different topical discipline would have to undertake the environmental fact finding.  The college student could still get a perfect grade on a fact-finding project, but this level of information is not adequate in itself to achieve useful results in the real world. 

Thus, an attempt at level two to develop a problem solution (e.g., we can build something like the Concorde airplane) would be based on a relatively narrow range of facts, although the facts would be accurate.  Such a level two argument would be subject to attack from the different perspectives represented by the various related topical areas that may not have been fully considered (e.g., atmospheric pollution and economics).  In the political arena, decisions are likely to be made to do something largely because we are able to do it, with little assessment of whether we should do it. 

Even when a project or problem is considered at level four, we can still end up with non-optimal results simply by failing to inject the experienced leadership needed to identify and reach valid goals.  If the goals are political (e.g., national prestige), and if the politicians are in charge of level four solution decisions, the results can be a waste of resources even if the intended political goals are met.  It is at level four that we attempt to define what we mean by optimal results, but achieving optimization requires time (the fourth dimension) and context (the fifth dimension).  Time and context are parameters that require the presence of a solution system, a management tool described in the later sections. 

Level two is similar to level three in that it provides uncoordinated topical facts.  The difference between level two and level three is that you probably will not be able to find level three facts in your public library reference books or in any published document.  As described above, level three is reserved for topical, state-of-the-art knowledge and abilities that resolve very limited questions or issues.  Both level two and level three provide facts that can be useful to level four deliberations. 

Level four is the most valid problem solving level and, overall, is potentially the most helpful or useful level for most issues, especially complex problems.  Level four communication is an active, circumspect process and not a passive, reactive process.  All significant decisions and undertakings are appropriately accomplished at level four, where coordination with all interfacing topics or systems is emphasized.  To be optimally productive, all discussion, research, and decision making on any significant matter should naturally be undertaken in support of level four multi-topical deliberations.  Such deliberations address all of the relevant physical and conceptual systems and their interfaces, providing level four leaders with all of the information needed to make a responsible decision. 

Level four facts arrive from level two (available facts research) or level three (additional state-of-the-art research).  Level two and level three fact finding may discover that we do not know something that we need to know.  It then becomes the function of level four systems to find out what it is that we do not know and to make the necessary adjustments.  This fact finding process takes time and may involve conservative corrective actions until the necessary additional facts are finally uncovered.  Also, it is up to level four processes to screen facts for accuracy and to eliminate distortions that may not have been recognized at levels two and three.  Level four provides the fifth dimension - the most accurate and complete context achievable for the issue or program. 

The limitations on level three experts being able to deal effectively with level four deliberations become more apparent when we consider that there are often more than a dozen topical areas that must be considered at level four, each topic having a unique interface with the issue being considered. 

Level Three Synergy at Level Four

Speaking of communications, even level three state-of-the-art experts can use Technidigm-2000 to their advantage.  Level three research experts have a narrow range of interest.  We can find very isolated and narrow perspectives in level three state-of-the-art research.  It is these narrow perspectives that seem to result in new and contradictory "discoveries" every year, especially in doctoral programs at colleges and universities.

Sometimes a narrow focus is good, but multidiscipline synergy at level four can help to overcome the limits of level three perspectives.  For example, nuclear power plants are assessed by inspection teams that cover multiple functional areas.  These include the areas of management, engineering design, maintenance, operations, fire protection, and training.  Each functional area is evaluated first at level three on its own merits and again at level four relative to the other functional areas, a process that often results in unexpected synergies as well as a need to balance the implications and corrective actions for the various issues identified. 

The following example indicates the possible value of level four deliberations for level three thinkers:

Physicists and astronomers are contemplating their level three knowledge regarding the origins of the universe.  They are focused on the "Big Bang Theory," which proposes that all matter originated from one point, perhaps 14 billion years ago (give or take a few billion years).  In conjunction with this proposal, it is theorized that time itself originated due to the same originating event.  General and special theories of relativity seem to be supportive of this time-creation possibility, which seems to be dependent on the very high speed of mass formation and expansion at the first instant of creation.  Time may be an effect (similar to temperature and pressure) rather than a component part of the universe.  Time may have different values.  Newtonian physics depends upon time as we normally perceive it, but quantum mechanics does not.  Issues such as quantum gravity are a bit difficult to resolve, so there is no unified law of nature that ties everything from different contexts together. 

Since the unified law problem involves context, it is possible that level four processing of the problem would help.  That is, as a supplement to intensive study of the problem as a physics or quantum mechanics problem, it might be useful to step back and look at the problem from a broader perspective.  At level four, we might have physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and several types of engineers participating jointly to come up with an all-inclusive theory of the origin and nature of the universe.  Also, since it is the human brain that perceives the parameter of time most easily and naturally, we might want to involve the medical profession. 

Astronomers and mathematicians are more involved with unified law research than are engineers.  Yet, the engineering disciplines might offer useful insights or comments on observed phenomena from their practical experience.  For example, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, materials, and heat transfer engineers might bring up the issue of entropy since every physical process results in an increase in entropy.  Electrical engineers might bring up certain observed phenomena involving electrical or magnetic fields in terms of different materials.  Nevertheless, it is easier to describe what happens than it is to explain why it happens, so engineers can still function effectively without knowing all the answers. 

Man has come to the point of being able to guess more authoritatively regarding the nature of the universe and how it was created.  If time is indeed a parameter with different values, the next question is "How can the parameter of time be changed?" We get some notion of the answer in the mathematics of relativity, but are there not more practical and observable ways of modifying time's value? The answer to this must be yes if we are ever going to understand time. 

If you have ever been in a life threatening event, you might have noticed that time seems to slow down so that each second seems more like a minute.  This is a natural reaction of the brain, a reaction that may be linked to phenomena not yet fully understood.  In other situations "time seems to fly." What if the human brain has acquired an ability to slow down or speed up time as a local change to the parameter of time? How would we even know? What happens in the brain when the parameter time goes toward zero or toward infinity? Can time have negative values? What is the average value of time since the universe was created? How is this related to the long-sought unified law? Is it common sense or nonsense to even ask such questions?

A unified law solution system that includes all the appropriate interfaces and phenomena might be the result of the level four effort, even if some parts of the system were not well understood.  If the potential quantum mechanics explanations for the relevant observed phenomena were pursued systematically, there might be enough additional information generated to move us closer to a unified law of nature.  This one time-based example is offered only to illustrate that Technidigm-2000 has something to offer even the most sophisticated technocrats as well as those of us who are not very technically inclined at all. 

 

 

Chapter 4
Systems: The Last Four Pieces

 

A society that can produce nuclear powered aircraft carriers and operate them safely for several decades years ought to be able to figure out the best approaches for solving its basic social problems.  There ought to be an optimal means of addressing every problem.  Sometimes the optimal approach is to do nothing at all, but even this can not be determined without some work. 

Deciding what to do and when to do it can be done within a framework that engineers refer to as systems.  Engineers know that no system exists by itself, and most projects involve many systems.  The systems in a project are mutually supportive, but they all compete for resources and attention.  All of the systems in a project should be coordinated within a consistent framework that allows the project to meet its multiple objectives most efficiently.  While social projects are not quite the same as engineering projects, a systematic framework can be applied to social projects and will at least get us headed in the right direction. 

Yet, we may ask ourselves, why is it so difficult to achieve agreement and to make real progress on social issues when "all we have to do" is apply our knowledge of systems to our problems? Perhaps agreement difficulties arise from off-the-level exaggerations of special interest groups.  Having a narrow agenda, their positions can be more extreme without becoming self-contradictory.  Thus, we frequently cannot achieve agreement on social issues because special interest groups keep the dominant discussions off-the-level.  Establishing a Technidigm-2000 framework, we can force the debate of social issues into a common format, a format that allows each person to understand the tradeoffs that are involved.  Reducing unnecessary confusion is the first step in solving any complex problem.

The key to reducing much of the confusion is often simply keeping off-the-level inputs in proper perspective.  This is, of course, hard to do if you have a narrow perspective and limited experience.  Technidigm-2000 has a broader perspective and experience built in, including the concept of systems.

Systems Depend on Other Technidigm-2000 Elements

To simplify systems for the reader, we only address four basic elements of systems: resources, components, feedback, and objectives.  Yet, any engineer will tell you that system design must also be based on fundamental principles, a lot of factual information (experience), and even a little research (testing). Do you see how nicely this fits into the Technidigm-2000 12-element framework?

The 12-element model suggests that we consider many less obvious factors and relationships.  Systems must be designed to fit into the right context, and their time-dependent factors must be compatible within the system and at its interfaces with other systems.  The 12 Technidigm-2000 elements are highly interdependent and should all be considered together when feasible. 

It is through the application of these basic perspectives and systematic methods that Technidigm-2000 facilitates achieving optimal solutions.  Even when there is no clear and final solution to a problem, a systematic approach provides the best assessment process and the optimal result. 

When we have applied the first eight Technidigm-2000 elements in an honest manner, we can proceed toward a compatible solution using systems, which for the sake of simplicity we limit to four Technidigm-2000 elements: resources, components, time, and feedback.  Even when we discuss a solution system at level one (opinions), we can develop reasonable, tentative solutions for further consideration, improvement, or reversal at the higher three levels.  Often, the result is a solution system that requires time to implement and that needs to be adjusted periodically based on feedback.  Properly undertaken, a level four solution achieves the desired objectives by the application of a solution system or plan. 

Again, Technidigm-2000 provides a framework within which to address problems or issues more effectively.  It provides (1) circumscribing requisites, (2) a powerful communication shorthand, and (3) a technology-compatible way of viewing social system complexities. 

 

 

System Objectives

Among the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements objectives are somewhat unique.  The other 11 elements support the achievement of objectives.  If all of the 11 supporting elements are in all place and properly applied, our ability to achieve objectives is greatly enhanced.  On the other hand, if even one of the 11 supporting objectives has been neglected or misapplied, we can expect problems. 

Objectives are achieved through systematic solution processes that require resources, active components, time, and the use of feedback to make midcourse corrections.  Processes often need to be created and then modified over time to accommodate events and circumstances that can not be anticipated or (at least) were somehow missed.  Based on day-to-day successes or failures, feedback is generated that indicates how to modify the process so that progress is made toward the objectives.  Plans to achieve objectives must include a schedule, a means of providing feedback, provisions for knowledgeable management (level four) reassessment, and a mechanism for making needed adjustments in a timely manner. 

Objectives are the least complicated of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements since they are almost always quite clear and discrete targets that everyone can understand and either accept or reject.  Even polarized political parties often have similar objectives, but they usually avoid discussing them publicly.  All politicians are quite aware that their political power and government control objectives can not be achieved unless they win elections, and to win they must figure out and promote whatever objectives are important to the most voters.  At least this is the case under the current political paradigm. 

Managing Toward System Objectives

President Kennedy's challenge to send astronauts to the moon and get them back safely can help us understand the role of management in achieving objectives.  President Kennedy was a good leader, inspiring an entire country to excel by setting an objective that was to be met within a prescribed time.  While presidential leadership is an important type of leadership, primarily inspirational, there are other leadership types.  Military leaders gain much of their credibility by having actually done most of the things the troops are expected to do, at one time or another during their careers.  In terms of setting and achieving goals, the military leader often is viewed as having a more substantial leadership skill than that of politicians.  They are also backed up by the fact that, when they give orders during combat, the men who serve under them can be shot if they fail to carryout those orders.  While it would be great to be able to order people to achieve objectives, non-military organizations have to rely on managers. 

The primary difference between a good leader and a good manager is that a the leader, besides providing inspiration,  is more likely to understand everything that is involved in reaching the objective.  How else can one lead unless the direction is clear?  Managers have a more obscure ability and role relative to achieving objectives, and they can easily become an obstacle to progress.  Anyone can be a manager, but not everyone can be an experienced manager, a rather self-evident observation. 

The primary role of managers is to set objectives and apply the capabilities and the skills of the organization to achieve those objectives.  Once the objectives are set, managers should spend their time removing obstacles from the paths of the people tasked to achieve those objectives.  Indeed, the most important dat-to-day task for managers in a technical society is to ensure that the workers are not held back in their efforts to achieve the objectives set by the managers.  Such day-to-day facilitation is not the same as micro managing.  If President Kennedy had tried to micro-manage the space program, it would have failed.  Likewise, if he had not been a good leader, the program could also have failed. 

When managers or leaders give detailed guidance to workers, it is assumed that they know what they are doing simply because of their management position.  Similarly, when politicians are looking for votes, attempting to appear to support all kinds of voter interests, they can easily make unrealistic commitments that eventually might become top-down guidance in some government agency.  Since they are neither good leader nor good manager, the political forces that shape their agenda appear to be corrupt, contradictory, and even foolish by most management standards.  Foolish or not, resources are committed to high-priority but poorly considered objectives.  While the best-candidate-wins aura of infallibility provided by the electoral process produces unwarranted notions of confidence in top-down guidance from elected leaders, the lack of basic principles to connect to the objectives weakens the agenda. 

Political winner overconfidence results in false starts, which is the process of repeatedly running into reality, often a reality that is not recognized as such.  This reduces efficiency, increases costs, and compromises project effectiveness for perhaps hundreds of different projects.  Before long (about every four years), someone starts a new set of politically based programs intended to achieve the old objectives in a different way.  The old programs are either cancelled or the associated resources are reduced making the older programs even more ineffective.  Sadly, the new programs may be different but not any better than the old programs.  Their only credential is often that they are different enough to make the political leader appear different from the last guy. 

Even if no further changes are made in a compromised program, false feedback is often provided to the political leader since no one really wants to admit to failure.  When feedback is not assessed honestly relative to the right objectives, corrective actions are likely to be off-target and manager accountability is difficult to establish.  Thus, it is important to identify a program's proper objectives and to use program feedback to achieve those objectives incrementally, avoiding over reactions and simply making the needed changes.  This sounds like it should be easy, but if it were easy we would have already achieved better results in our social programs.  For example, it took many years before welfare programs were redirected based on feedback.  We had to wait until those programs were obviously failing in a ludicrous way just about everywhere. 

Putting aside political mismanagement, it is important for good leaders to establish a good culture that conveys a fundamental set of principles that managers can use to reach the desired objectives.  The consistent use of basic principles lends great stability to a leader's overall agenda, even if it makes it difficult for honest political candidates to get elected.  Under the current paradigm, good leaders need to be relatively unprincipled to get elected, and then must somehow revert to being principled as elected officials.  It is this paradox that makes this current paradigm unacceptable, even if it is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created a check-and-balance based government.  With this new form of government, they recognized that periodically unprincipled rogues would periodically gain power.  They anticipated all of this mismanagement by laying out a Constitution full of principles and culture.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework for continuing the application of those principles in our technical world. 

Political System Objectives

If all we had to worry about were technical program objectives, there would be little need for the Technidigm-2000 community.  It is largely the disconnect between modern social programs and common sense that makes the Technidigm-2000 framework useful.  Most of this disconnect is currently the result of an ill-founded political system, one that has become increasingly problematic in our rapidly changing technical world. 

Winning political elections means convincing as many categories of voters as possible that the candidate is "on their side."  Since most organized special interest groups have a very narrow agenda, it is relatively easy for a political candidate to promise to support their agendas.  The key difference between good candidates and bad candidates is the priority that they place on their different objectives collected from these polarized parts of their constituencies. 

Professional politicians usually place a high priority on getting elected, so they generally become off-the-level candidates.  Since off-the-level candidates have an inherent advantage over on-the-level candidates, Technidigm-2000 serves to level the playing field and can even give the advantage to honest and forthright candidates. 

In the current political arena, off-the-level political promises are made to special interest groups of all kinds, with the objective of obtaining campaign donations as well as group endorsements.  It is then relatively easy for special interest groups to get their members to vote for certain candidates.  Most voters have at least one special interest group in their life, and they are satisfied to know that there is a least one "reason" to vote for a particular candidate.  Their own political and voting objectives are quite limited since it is very difficult to sort out the vague promises of off-the-level politicians. 

Technidigm-2000 provides a framework useful in filtering out vague political promises.  It also can be used to expose ill-conceived or uncertain objectives and plans.  If there is a level four plan and solution system available that supports the achievement of promised objectives, its details can be made available and reviewed by all interested parties.  If a political candidate is not addressing the issue on-the-level and at level four, any false promises are immediately exposed. 

Likewise, if a special interest group can produce a credible level four report and solution system that supports their organization's objectives, then their credibility and effectiveness are greatly enhanced.  Without Technidigm-2000 and without a level four study and plan, we can expect to remain at the mercy of the most vociferous and well-funded special interest groups and politicians.  It is easy to declare objectives that people want.  It is far more difficult to document how to achieve those objectives in a responsible manner. 

In real life, an ideal approach  to debating  is seldom achieved by political candidates.  For example, without honest debate each political party is constantly seeking to uncover and then exaggerate the other's failures, taking facts out-of-context and using them simply as a means of pursuing their own goals or purposes.  They avoid any explicit statement of their more self-serving intentions, but each party tries to convince the voters that their party is more able than the other party to do something for the voters.  An off-the-level political environment frustrates the voters since the voters' interests are not actually being pursued. 

Politicians themselves are often strongly convinced of their own sincerity and, just as strongly, of the insincerity and erroneous paths of their opponents.  As part of the process of capturing votes, facts and figures are often taken out-of-context, introducing confusion that is very difficult for the voters to sort out.  Few voters have enough time to deal with the high level of confusion, so many simply vote based on the candidates' personalities, on candidate name recognition, or based on a narrow special interest issue. 

Depending on the true objectives of a project and those of competing special interests, each fact might be used or understood differently.  Besides the political parties, there are several competing news media organizations that have objectives of their own, and may see the facts entirely differently.  It is difficult to imagine anything more out-of-context than a "ten-second sound bite" generated for the evening television news or even a more "in depth" item produced for television or for the print media by people who are competing for our limited time and attention.  The news media are systems with objectives that may or may not be consistent with impartially informing the public.  For example, gruesome events from the battlefield are often more likely to be shown on the evening news on a daily basis than are any positive developments, giving us a failure mentality both in Vietnam and in Iraq. 

There is a great need for integrity in the news media and in politics and being on-the-level in all government activities.  With Technidigm-2000 in place, everyone can start communicating within a clear and effective framework.  In addition, since the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements can be applied to many constitutional, political, and government problems, there is no shortage of application opportunities. 

 

System Components

Problem-solving systems developed at level four are not unlike engineering systems, so we can facilitate our understanding of problem solving systems by using simple engineering system terminology.  The four Technidigm-2000 system-related elements are resources, feedback, objectives, and things.  In engineering systems, we refer to these things as components. 

Every system will have at least one component.  While this is not a particularly profound statement, it leads us there.  For example, as complex as the Earth's weather system is, many people think that it only has one component, the atmosphere.  Other people would list the oceans, the sun, and even the mountains as component parts of the weather system. 

Of course, each of these components is also a system in its own right.  Thus, a component can be (and often is) a subsystem of a larger system.  For simplicity, we can use these terms interchangeably, without having to dwell on whether a component is also a system or a subsystem. 

A complete list of all such weather system components would actually be quite long and would lead to some debatable issues.  Moreover, the debatable issues for many systems are sometimes related to interfaces between components.  Importantly, interfaces are often interacted with differently from the perspectives of the components involved, so we can be talking about the same interface and still have some ambiguities. 

If there are interface-related ambiguities, it is usually helpful to model interfaces between systems as separate components.  Interfaces actually come in pairs of components, and they can be opposite in character.  Thus, for clarity, it is often useful to list a system's components, including its "opposing" interfaces with other systems.  For example, communication across an interface requires a sender and a receiver in each direction.  Thus, an interface might have has four components, any one of which might fail to perform well. 

That is, two people can talk with each other yet not be listening to each other.  Even when they are listening, they may not understand.  When they understand, they may not be able to act in a manner consistent with that understanding.  In spite of these interface-related problems and limitations, understanding them as components or systems in their own right helps us to compensate for their potential problem.  Nuclear plant engineers and managers compensate for interface problems and other reliability vulnerabilities by ensuring adequate "defense-in-depth" to protect against adverse results.  Many failures of many components are required before a nuclear plant itself fails.

Components Determine System Stability

From a systems perspective, each system component has distinct qualities or parameters, some of which are designed to change over an acceptable range of values compatible with the system's functions or objectives.  To the extent that this range of compatibility exists, the overall system can be considered to be operational and stable.  When it does not exist, the system may be inoperable, malfunctioning, or even unstable. 

If a system becomes unstable, it can even self-destruct.  The difference between inoperable and unstable is not unlike the difference between a boat running out of fuel and a boat capsizing.  If it just runs out of fuel, it can be restored to its design functions of providing safe transportation rather easily.  If it has capsized, it has failed in its function and might not ever be recovered and restored to its desired design function.  Instabilities can be disastrous. 

Considered as a whole, a system's stability is dependent on the status (including the rate of change of that status) of all of its components at a given time.  A system is stable if external forces or perturbations produce only a temporary change in the system's overall status.  The stability of the Earth's weather system is remarkable and is largely responsible for the presence of life as we know it today.  In contrast, the world economy is less stable and requires an increasing level of attention as modern technology works both against and for stability. 

However, mathematicians and engineers know that even very stable systems can be upset under certain conditions.  Instabilities can come from different components or sets of components acting together.  The symptoms of instability can be overt or subtle, and we might not be able to recognize and monitor all of them. 

Averaging some symptoms or parameters of a stable system over a period of time can be as misleading as averaging the degree of heel of a rocking rowboat.  The "average" position is always the same, so it is not as important as the rate or degree of rocking.  There may also be a leak in the bottom of the rowboat or on the sides that lets water into the boat only at higher angles of heel.  Thus, stability problems can be elusive. 

Focusing on narrow issues such as "global warming" is a fundamentally flawed activity for addressing the stability of the Earth's atmosphere.  Average temperatures could be the same, and we could still be approaching a major instability.  What mankind is doing to the Earth's atmosphere and its interdependent components or subsystems probably has not occurred before in Earth's history.  Also, much of our ability to record weather-related phenomena has been developed only recently.  For example, the curvature, total length, and other characteristics of the world’s jet streams may be more significant than global warming, but our jet stream history information is limited.  Thus, it can be misleading to make history-based assumptions regarding the stability of this complex weather without a more detailed look. 

If we allow ourselves to be misled, we can find ourselves in real danger.  The danger arises as much from ignorance as it does from inexperience.  Many people simply do not appreciate the vulnerabilities of stable systems.  Mathematicians might describe the dangers mathematically as singularities, immediately causing most of our eyes to glaze over. 

All they are saying is that we really do not know what happens at that point in the real world, although we can guess based on its neighborhood.  Importantly, once we recognize that an instability exists and that we are in its neighborhood, it may be too late to correct the problem! Prudence would have us look as far ahead as possible, making no unwarranted assumptions. 

Nuclear plant operators who think they can rely on intermittently adding water to the reactor coolant system to keep pressure up are in danger of creating an unstable condition in the pressurizer.  The momentarily increased water surface temperature created by compressing the pressurizer "bubble" during such operations can cool rapidly.  This would condense more water vapor and reduce pressurizer pressure, sucking in more cool water from the reactor coolant system, causing pressure to continue to go down faster and faster, leading to melting of the reactor. 

More specifically, during an actual plant emergency, such an unstable condition could quickly lead to an unrecoverable drop in pressure, out-gassing of hydrogen and other gasses in the coolant, collection of gas in the steam generator U-tubes, loss of natural circulation flow, and core meltdown.  The final barrier to the release of large amounts of radioactive material to the atmosphere would only be the containment building.  Just like at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl, the costs would be high. 

We can recognize the possibility of such instabilities and our proximity to them best when we, at least, first understand the entire system and its components.  Then we must lay out a level four plan that maximizes system success while avoiding its instabilities.  Interestingly enough, understanding system instabilities requires an understanding of principles and how principles interface with each other.  Technidigm-2000 helps us look for and recognize principles and develop a plan to avoid instabilities. 

Solution systems require resources, but system existence, reliability, and effectiveness are also dependent on the components that result from those resources.  System components may be physical things such as buildings, vehicles, and people; or they may be more abstract things such as plans and procedures.  System components take inputs such as resources and turn them into outputs that are related to the system objectives.  If all is working well, the components consistently perform within the constraints of the underlying principles. 

Components perform functions intended to meet the system objectives.  There are usually connections or interfaces among a system's internal components, but there may also be many interfaces with external systems.  Since external systems may be working against as well as for a system's objectives, it is important to know where the interfaces with external systems are located. 

Working together, and as influenced by interfaces with the components of other systems, internal system components perform functions that help to solve a problem or meet a need.  Components are organized, arranged, or sequenced to perform their functions based on certain principles that make the overall system as reliable as needed to meet the system objectives. 

Special interest groups can not be effective internal components of a good solution system.  At worst they will at some point during the system life cycle cause the system to fail.  At best, special interest systems present a continuous threat of solution system interference as soon as their objectives or principles conflict, so they can be involved only across insulating interfaces.  Even then everything contributed by a special interest group is inherently suspect and is initially limited under Technidigm-2000 to being no better than level one opinions.  Level 1 opinions have little impact on level 4 solution systems unless they are consistent with level 2 facts and level 3 research. 

In some cases, facts contributed by special interest groups may include some valid level 2 facts and even level 3 research information, but these contributions must be viewed as incomplete and distorted.  Also, simply obtaining input from two opposing special interest groups may not be sufficient to provide a complete set of level two facts or level three research.  Thus, solution system components that attempt to operate in such a polarized information environment are likely to fail at some point in the system life cycle. 

Level four solutions must apply available information and resources to system components.  System components are designed to function across the widest possible set of competing issues or problems.  Solution system components include only those items or entities that have a useful function in achieving the system objectives.  We should be able to state the function of every component, and that function should be accomplished as efficiently as possible.  A special interest group simply functions to promote its own objectives, so it is almost always going to be a negative if allowed to be a component in a solution system. 

Citizens as Constitutional Components

This gets us down to the fundamental components of a democratic, constitutional government.  Each citizen plays a key role as a component in democratic systems.  Thus, the identification and achievement of system objectives is dependent on the quality of the individual citizen as a constitutional system component.  Technidigm-2000 provides a framework within which all citizens can perform their citizen functions more effectively.  In providing this framework, Technidigm-2000 imposes no specific agenda other than the promotion of common sense in this increasingly technical and complex world. 

With this technical slant on common sense in mind, each citizen can participate as a component in the solution system created by Technidigm-2000.  Many of us will participate willingly in this solution system, but others have become numb to our current social and political environment.  There are also those who have failed to achieve the basic educational qualifications needed to understand Technidigm-2000, even with a "free" education that is not-so-free to taxpayers.  Even among those who are capable of understanding and applying Technidigm-2000, a clear motivation is needed to make the effort required, all of which varies from person to person. 

Component Reliability

How well a system accomplishes its input-output functions is dependent on several factors.  Components may operate reliably by themselves, but their impact on overall system reliability often depends on their relative arrangement and their interfaces with each other.  A system that depends on a long series of components that must each function successfully for the overall system to be successful will be less reliable.  A system where multiple components are operating in parallel in mutual support of each other will be more reliable since a single component failure does not result in system failure.  Nevertheless, there is also a limit to the number of parallel components that can be provided, so system failure is always a possibility. 

Moreover, the communication or connection between each component also becomes a critical factor impacting system success.  That is, it does little good to have two reliable components in series or in parallel if they are not well connected to other system components.  Moreover, in most systems it is the human communication elements that fail most frequently.  Indeed, the success of the human components of solution systems is often dependent on the clear and unambiguous flow of information, one of the results of using the four Technidigm-2000 communication levels.  Again, levels only help with communications when people are on-the-level and are trying to achieve the best results for all concerned. 

Even when each person is on-the-level, the human components in the system can fail.  We depend on the best efforts and good intentions of those people who serve as solution system components.  The integrity of each person involved with system functions directly impacts system reliability, and each person often has the ability to cause overall system failure.  To minimize unintentional human errors and failures, we often need redundant sources of information.  People interact with each other using information as their input, output, and feedback, so there are many opportunities to get information wrong. 

For example, nuclear power plant operators can be very conscientious and still do things that might result in safety problems.  Indeed, most problems at nuclear power plants are caused by human errors.  This is why the nuclear industry emphasizes "defense in depth." Each human action is double checked, recognizing that the human element as being the most likely source of problems.  Each communication is repeated back to ensure that it was received and understood.  Nuclear plant operating, test, and maintenance procedures are followed verbatim. 

While many hardware components must fail before the nuclear reactor safety envelope is penetrated, it only takes one poorly trained person or an impatient operator to defeat the safety envelope -- unless each person is well trained, closely supervised, and guided.  Personal integrity is essential in nuclear plant operators.  Consequently, a nuclear plant operator who demonstrates a negative safety attitude is very likely to be fired immediately.  Likewise, political interference with nuclear plant safety standards can not be tolerated.  Nuclear plants have a unique "safety culture" that must be constantly reinforced.  Plant managers are expected to fire any nuclear plant employee who demonstrates a negative safety attitude or who criticizes or attempts to intimidate a safety inspector.  It is beneficial to all of us to have such high safety standards at nuclear power plants, but such standards are not effective in the absence of basic human attributes such as personal integrity.  

In a complex technical society, there are many activities other than nuclear power plants that require the highest standards of integrity and circumspectness.  For example, chemical plants, the airline industry, automobile manufacturers, and food processing companies all must maintain high standards.  To the extent that such industries fail to maintain high standards, the safety of thousands or even millions of people can be compromised.  As with nuclear plants, people are often the "components" that fail in these industries, resulting in increased government regulation and, thus, increased taxes and problems for all of us. 

It is usually helpful to draw a diagram of solution systems, showing the arrangement of the system components and the system interfaces with other systems.  Engineering systems are designed based on tradeoffs between complexity and reliability, optimizing the system performance within the available resources.  Social solution systems should be designed the same way.  Every component and interface needs to be consistent with basic principles, an approach to compatibility and consistency that enables the various systems to work together efficiently.  From the opposite perspective, a solution system will fail as soon as its least reliable component fails unless there is a redundant backup component available and ready to compensate for the failed component. 

Of course, the more components that there are in a system, the more likely one or more of them will cause the system to fail.  Complex systems are hard to design, build, and maintain, motivating us to try to minimize the number of system components and to keep their interactions with each other simple.  Interactions between components and between systems occur at their interfaces with each other, so it is important to establish and maintain the right kinds of interfaces.  In engineering systems, the interfaces are usually some type of physical connection.  In social systems, the interfaces are usually some type of communication.  In good systems, each interface is designed to establish communication compatibility between the two components, even when they are bringing together components and systems that are otherwise incompatible in design and function. 

Interfaces are required between system components and between separate systems.  For conflicting social systems, the communicating interfaces can be mediators or arbitrators.  The primary function of an interface is to establish understanding, the key precursor to establishing cooperation across the interface in achieving system goals, assuming that this is possible.  In any case, the failure to establish a good communication interface can lead to serious problems.  Indeed, a communication problem can be found in most technical as well as social problems even when everyone involved is on-the-level.  Thus, anyone who is not on-the-level is automatically a potential interface problem for those who are on-the-level.  Technidigm-2000 faces the personal integrity problem directly by making non-polarized good intentions the basis for good citizenship. 

Human Components: Jury Reliability

Within limits, the larger the number of people operating or supervising a level four solution system, the less chance there is to have an information deficiency and the less likely that the system solutions will be unknowingly or improperly influenced.  Nevertheless, with too many people involved, it is quite possible to diminish system effectiveness by overly diluting individual responsibility and authority. 

The theory behind 12-person juries is that it is pretty hard for everyone on the jury to be wrong -- not impossible, just difficult.  The intent is to have 12 people from different backgrounds perform as members of the jury (a component of a level four legal solution system).  The 12 jurors assess facts and sort out all of the opinions presented to them in court.  If all 12 people have identical backgrounds, it becomes easier for the jury to be wrong.  Ideally, the 12 members of a jury should be noticeably different from each other and should include the widest range of backgrounds possible. 

Similarly, 12 parallel components performing the same function in a system can reliably ensure that the function is carried out, especially if 12 different manufacturers made the components.  When components are designed differently we can avoid what engineers refer to as common-mode failures.  It is not likely that 12 components produced differently will have the same defect and fail under the same conditions. 

The use of 12 parallel components is a standard well beyond that used even in the safety of nuclear weapons or in safety systems of nuclear power plants, where reliability is an absolute must.  The fact that we have come to believe that it takes 12 jurors for the human decision making process to be reliable speaks volumes regarding human fallibility.  People are often the weak link in any human effort, so it does not hurt to have additional backup or redundancy, depending on the consequences of failure. 

The concept of common-mode failures and the reliability comparison of juries with engineering systems reveal the importance of the process for selecting the members of 12 person juries.  As implemented today, the jury selection process has become one more problem area for us since juries are screened by the opposing lawyers in a manner deliberately intended to skew the jury one way or the other.  Prospective jurors who could conceivably be prejudiced against a defendant are easily removed, but those who may be friendly are likely to be considered "peers" of the defendant, thus more capable of "understanding" the defendant.  Fortunately, even when skewed one way or another, juries are usually reliable and fair. 

This juror selection arrangement causes the judicial system, if it is to fail, to fail more often on the side of the defendant while making the offended party's task more difficult.  This unbalance is the "design intent" of the jury system.  Thus, even if we could demonstrate frequent failures of the jury system, as long as the failures protected the accused individuals from undue punishment, the jury system is considered to be successful. 

Indeed, juries and judges are the level four components with which we are most familiar.  The lawyers representing the opposing sides in a case are polarized special interest groups, so the information provided by one or both sides is very likely to be off-the-level and incomplete.  Regardless of the solution system, the results must be consistent with its defined principles and objectives for that system to meet its design intent.  In spite of all the possible defects and examples that we can assemble, the jury system is generally considered to be one of the best systems available to protect people from other people and from the governments established by people. 

The reason that the jury system is so well established and viewed as being successful is that people have been refining it for thousands of years.  Judicial refinements are based on feedback and lessons learned from many other forms of judicial systems.  In contrast, the framers of the U. S. Constitution had a lot of historical basis for creating a new form of government rather than a refinement of previous forms.  Likewise some religions are based on thousands of years of experience regarding what works best for people and for society. 

Juries, constitutions, and religions are not perfect, but they provide people with level four starting points for avoiding or mitigating human failures, starting points that are difficult to improve upon.  From the Technidigm-2000 perspective, many of the current difficulties associated with these kinds of fundamental institutions are the result of our failure to keep up with the influences of technology.  In particular, social conditions are changing a little faster than the feedback from those changes can be identified, collected, assessed, and acted upon.  The 12 Technidigm-2000 elements provide the communication framework within which we can catch up!

As in engineering systems, every component in a social issue solution system has a function to perform, a specific function that is deliberately established in the solution system design phase.  Later, the ability of each component to perform its assigned function as intended is monitored and tested.  Each component is operated and maintained accordingly in later stages of the system's operating life. 

Where resources are not sufficient for detailed monitoring, a sampling process may be needed.  This is where the Technidigm-2000 elements of time and context are applied.  It should be apparent by now that many of the Technidigm-2000 elements work synergistically with each other.  In any case, all of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements should be reviewed or assessed at every opportunity, especially when problems arise. 

Engineering systems have a limited design life, after which the system is not intended to be capable of operating efficiently.  Upon reaching the intended end of life, the entire system should be updated, replaced, or (if no longer needed) retired.  While some social programs are modified during their life, they are seldom retired even when their primary goals have been met. 

Under Technidigm-2000, all social solution systems are closely monitored, and system retirement schedules are implemented.  System retirement planning is accomplished during the early system design stages, long before fielding the system.  If we wait for a system to fail before we address its potential problems, we may have also failed to achieve the solution system objectives.  In particular, system resources can be wasted relative to the benefits achieved, a common defect in programs that have no planned stopping point or criteria. 

The persistence of social programs to live beyond their time is due largely to the unique human aspects of social programs.  While engineering systems usually only require human operators and maintainers to oversee component hardware, the components in social solution programs themselves are often human.  Engineering components have no vote as to when the system must be retired. 

The social program human components not only have a vote, they often have a vital interest in maintaining the program forever.  These vital interests can only be dealt with effectively when the associated human expectations are consistent with the system operational goals.  This means that the human expectations must be consistent with plans for system and component retirement and consistent with the system output criteria used to provide feedback to the control system.  When the human components are not motivated in a manner consistent with the level four solution system, the system can fail simply by surviving too long. 

Said another way, a system functions most efficiently when the human components have goals consistent with the program objectives.  Anyone who has turned in an automobile to a dealer for maintenance and repairs knows that the dealer will always want to do more work than the owner.  The dealer wants to maximize the transaction, and the owner wants to minimize the transaction.  The end result may be a better automobile, but the difference in costs relative to the amount of improvement will be significantly different.  There is usually a range of diminishing returns that must be considered, but the party with the most technical information and direct experience usually prevails. 

Social programs can also be seriously impacted when perfection is pursued at the expense of efficiency and common sense.  Moreover, since the human elements of programs will fight for program survival and their own self interest, there is a tendency to create additional social programs to achieve the same result.  The old programs compete with new programs for resources.  The goal is survival and not efficiency, a condition that encourages off-the-level communication and results in an unmanageable level of confusion. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance for overlapping government-sponsored social programs is often the one that results in increased costs.  It is great to buy a new car, but we should trade in the old one. 

All social program similarities and differences need to be understood and assessed as systems, usually over the entire lives of the programs.  Systems that include people as functional components require continuous level four leadership to be successful in attaining the system goals.  Human components of systems should be viewed as special interest sub-systems.  Just like other special interest systems, their goals may not be consistent with the solution system goals and its life-cycle plans.  Nevertheless, the needs and expectations of the human sub-systems need to be addressed just as vigorously as the maintenance needs of the non-human system components.  Level four solution systems and programs address these needs through planning, training, and leadership. 

The greater the number of people involved in or impacted by the system, the more important is the role of leadership.  For leadership to be successful, it must be based on consistent, reasonable, and (to the extent feasible or practical) fair principles.  Indeed, the overall reliability of a solution system is critically dependent on the integrity of its decision-making leadership.  Fairness implies integrity. 

Integrity is to solution system leadership what component reliability is to mechanical and electrical systems.  A solution system will fail as soon as its weakest leadership component fails to maintain its integrity, unless there is a redundant leadership component in place to detect and to compensate quickly for the failed leader.  Thus, while the performance of engineered systems depends on the consistent application of the appropriate engineering design principles, the performance of social solution systems depends on the consistent application of the appropriate social system principles and leadership. 

 

 

System Resources

Clashes between principles remain academic unless resources are involved.  Resources are probably the easiest system concept to understand.  Nothing happens without an input of sufficient materials, labor, and money to get the job done.  A program can be good or bad, but without resources to implement the program, it has no impact.  Resources are required over the entire life of the program, and the true cost of a program includes the life-cycle cost of its required resources.  A social system promotes its principles through the use of resources. 

Many programs get launched based on their initial low cost, with little regard for life-cycle costs.  The nuclear power industry was launched on a much smaller budget than is needed to meet its life-cycle requirements and related considerations.  Significant upgrades were then made in safety programs and in end-of-life requirements, including the disposition of radioactive wastes.  We went from cheap nuclear power to expensive nuclear power due to unforeseen expenses or by assuming that all the problems could be worked out later with little difficulty. 

The level of resources needed by a program or system can also be dynamic.  When we make major changes to a program in an effort to meet the same objectives, the total cost of meeting those objectives is likely to increase.  Major changes are often the same as starting over and usually require increases in life-cycle costs.  When we make minor changes to a program to increase its efficiency, the overall costs could be reduced.  Minor changes are often simply ways to make the system work better, so minor changes usually pay for themselves. 

Again, none of this is a mystery.  We make resource decisions every time we pay for something.  Indeed, the application of resources over the life of a project is not a mystery to any of us who have raised children.  Parents will do what they can for their children, but major repeats or revisions are not usually undertaken when the resources are likely to be wasted for a second time.  For example, most parents who can will gladly help pay for a college education, but only once.  Likewise, society has little tolerance for financial waste.  This emphasizes the importance of planning ahead when we assign resources to major projects.  Again, this is probably the easiest part of Technidigm-2000 to understand.  Nevertheless, resource limitations emphasize the need to deal effectively with the more obscure parts before applying the bulk of those resources. 

Off-the-Level Expenditures for Special Interest Groups

One problem that is often found in special interest groups is that they have narrow agendas requiring a lot of resources.  Often, the need for resources is open-ended and never ending since the group itself becomes a living organism that wants to grow and that requires some kind of continued sustenance -- forever.  Even when the original need that motivated the group’s formation has been met, organizational survival depends on ignoring that fact. 

Also, a group that has a narrow agenda is more likely to be polarized and, thus, to have off-the-level requirements that they want to impose on others, including those who are not polarized and who may even be on-the-level.  Moreover, when they are promoting what are otherwise on-the-level, useful objectives, special interest group rhetoric can be extremely slanted as they try to promote their positions.  Whether we consider them on- or off-the-level, their rhetoric is intended to influence others so that will be given the resources needed to support its narrow agenda.  A special interest group’s rhetoric does not promote a diminishing or balanced agenda unless there is no other option. 

It is important to remember that special interest groups are often better than nothing.  The U. S. Congress depends a lot on special interest groups to supply basic information on a subject.  Without Technidigm-2000, little gets done without first being promoted by a special interest group.  However, with Technidigm-2000 it is easier to place resources where they are needed and to use them efficiently to acquire information (facts) systematically and to achieve a broader or more comprehensive set of objectives, including the objective of stopping the program when this becomes appropriate. Special interest group rhetoric is kept in its proper perspective when we apply Technidigm-2000’s 12 elements. 

Resources as Functional Incentives

Solution system components include only those items or entities that have a useful function in achieving the system objectives.  We should be able to state the function of every component, and that function should be accomplished as efficiently as possible.  A special interest group simply functions to promote its own objectives, so it is almost always going to be a negative if allowed to be a component in a Technidigm-2000 solution system.  If a special interest group is driven by objectives that are not consistent with those of the solution system, then that special interest group can not be expected to function effectively as a component of the solution system. 

This is why the federal government has to offer incentives to contractors to get them to do the work needed.  Contractors are special interests that are driven by profits.  When profit-motivated special interest groups are all we have available to get a job done, their contract incentives must be tied to the true objectives of the solution system. 

This incentive approach is sometimes better than doing nothing, and it creates at least an artificial integrity.  Incentives are also important in determining how well government internal components function.  In particular, many government employees at all levels of government enjoy civil service protections or guarantees.  While it is not fair to categorize all government employees as being dependent on such protections for their continued employment, it is difficult to find incentives sufficient to motivate government employees to perform their functions in a manner inconsistent with the office political atmosphere or the perceived best interest of the group.  Each government office is its own special interest group and is, thus, not likely to self-terminate when it has reached the end of its useful cost-effective life. 

Individuals are expected to be "team players," a code used these days to encourage blind conformity to the needs of the group.  That is, anyone who "rocks the boat" even in a level four solution system in an effort to meet legitimate system objectives is likely to get into political trouble within a government organization.  Problems are likely to be buried within an organization since they reflect someone’s bad management.  It only takes one manager in the organizational chain of command to hide an issue, but it takes all such managers to raise it to the top.  Frequently, the only way to get attention for a management issue is for someone of integrity to take the initiative and go around or outside the chain of command. 

We now refer to such people as whistle blowers, and we assume that their government career is over or sidetracked as a consequence of their attempts to identify and resolve problems, actions that are almost always the result of selfless integrity.  They may be working toward legitimate functional goals, but they are doing so in a negative incentive environment.  Whistle blowers often place their personal resources – their jobs and reputations – on the line in an effort to promote a basic principle that is important to them.  Since this represents the possible presence of a remarkable level of integrity, Technidigm-2000 solution systems can be viewed as being full of such whistle blowers. 

 

Time's Up!

The first three "dimensions" are what we use to locate ourselves relative to some frame of reference.  Two of the three dimensions are like north-south and east-west.  They are useful for things like maps.  When we add altitude, we get a third dimension.  This third dimension helps us locate things like airplanes. 

Yet we cannot find an airplane at a three-dimensional location unless we know its schedule and unless that airplane is meeting its schedule.  Thus, time is the "fourth dimension." Timing is as important as physical location, and for some situations it can be more important. 

Everything Is Relative

If we want to add a little more sophistication to dimensions, we have to consider dimensions in terms of a point of reference.  A point of reference can either be fixed or moving.  The selection of a point of reference is dependent on what we are doing.  If we pick the wrong point of reference, things can be very confusing.  Also, if we pick multiple points of reference for the same project, chaos is the likely result. 

These are somewhat obvious points, but they have profound applications.  For a given issue, reference points are initially at least as numerous as the number of people involved.  When we start reducing the number of reference points we achieve a more common frame of reference.  When this happens, it becomes increasingly possible to reach a consensus on an agreeable solution system for an issue.  Technidigm-2000 provides an approach to achieving a common frame of reference for most issues. 

Consensus Is Not Compromise

We can run out of time for achieving a common frame of reference and an agreeable consensus.  When this happens, we may end up with compromise rather than consensus.  An issue being addressed in a polarized environment is not being addressed within a common frame of reference. 

This explains the usual result of political decisions -- compromise.  We too often confuse the more elegant concept of consensus with the semi-failure state of compromise.  Compromise occurs when we are forced to make a decision in the absence of consensus.  Technidigm-2000 promotes consensus over compromise by inserting its 12 key elements into the discussion. 

When we take the time to assess an issue in terms of the Technidigm-2000 12 elements, we are taking the time needed to reach consensus.  When all of the participants in the assessment are familiar with these elements, consensus can be reached more quickly than compromise, even if some of those participants are polarized or off-the-level.  Simply asking people to discuss and agree (or disagree) with basic principles forces progress in this regard. 

Time Causes Existence

Time complements locations, allowing much more useful adventures and experience than are possible without it.  Music does not exist without the dimension of time.  An idea is of no use unless it is tried or applied in some manner over a period of time.  Goals and objectives are achieved over a period of time.  Opinions and facts also exist only in the fourth dimension, as do problems and their solutions. 

Such philosophical observations point toward what is perhaps the most significant mystery of the Universe, that of existence.  If we eventually discover how time relates to the Universe, then we will better understand why the Universe exists.  At that point we will also understand how mankind and its notion of a central Manager fit into this Universe. 

Some of the more critical issues faced by mankind may not reach resolution in time to allow the issue of existence and the exact nature of time to be resolved.  In the meantime, the nobility of our issue resolution efforts is time dependent.  Currently, however, we can just take the concept of time for granted and try to apply it in our solution systems. We need to optimize the parameter of time in dealing with both small and large issues.

Unfortunately, technology advances may continue to accelerate and may increase rather than decrease the common sense gap.  This is the gap between common sense as it currently exists and common sense as it would exist if we had sufficient time for our culture to absorb fully the effects of each technological advance and learn from the bad ones.  We seem to be increasingly interested in closing this gap, but we do not yet agree how to achieve this.  Technidigm-2000 provides a neutral framework for achieving a consensus on technical common sense and for accelerating the closure of the common sense gap. 

Timed Solutions

You have heard that "Rome was not built in a day." This thought serves as a universal key to common sense as it relates to time.  It serves to tell impatient people to accept the fact that big projects take time to accomplish.  It also tells those who dare to undertake big projects to expect to have to work hard and for a long time. 

The processes needed to solve problems are also dependent on time for their success. Yet, waiting does not always result in improvement. Without positive corrective actions along the way, problems may just languish in time and start to grow -- they can get worse. 

Solutions take time to work, so it is necessary to watch those solutions and to look for areas where improvement is needed.  Such feedback (one of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000) allows corrective actions to be defined and implemented. 

Time is needed for most projects to be successful.  Just as it takes about nine months to produce an independent human baby, some things just can not be rushed.  Also, they can not always be delayed successfully.  Also, of course, each potential mother and father has a limited "window of opportunity" for producing offspring. 

Such familiar issues as raising families are instructive in our understanding of time.  Time and timing can be critical to success, but a range of approaches and results may be described as being acceptable and even highly successful.  Some time-related constraints can not be changed, but many time-related constraints are artificial and may even be self-defeating. 

As in many modern issues, technology has increased our options in raising families, and it appears to be on the verge of making "family planning" an exact science.  The consequences of such new options afforded to us today may not be fully appreciated for several decades.  Technidigm-2000 encourages the exploration of new options within a framework of principles and objectives, compensating for our lack of experience in new arenas by maximizing our application of the experience that we do happen to have in older arenas. 

Although this seems like a tenuous adventure as we start down such a path, our readiness to look at the results and to make adjustments as we go makes the adventure less threatening.  Also, our ability to accept several versions of success and to think in terms of gradually increasing the level of success as we go make the path more agreeable. 

Instant Objectives

In this age of instant gratification, it is easy to be persuaded that a project has already failed when it has hardly begun.  To achieve a goal, an investment of resources and effort for several years may be needed.  

It is important to have objectives, but it is also important to provide time to achieve those objectives. President Kennedy set the man-on-the-moon objective, but he also suggested a reasonable but challenging amount of time to achieve it -- by the end of the decade.  Between the time that an objective is identified and the time it is actually achieved, there may be thousands of obstacles to overcome. 

Also, the timing of most efforts is best considered relative to achieving the applicable objectives.  Some are day-to-day objectives and others may take many years to achieve. Objectives and the results of our efforts toward those objectives must be considered within their context, which also changes with time. 

We do not send a child to college until that child is ready to go, but most of us realize that there is an optimal time to do so.  Yet, people successfully go to college over a wide range of ages.  Just because the timing is not optimal does not mean that the objectives will not be met or that we should not try to accomplish a task. 

Failure is always a possibility.  Setbacks are also likely.  Effort does not guarantee success, it only makes success more likely.  The wise use of time also makes success more likely.  Contrary to all of this time-dependent thinking, one of our biggest problems in solving problems is that some people think the job is done as soon as the task is approved for action.  We see presumption of accomplishment every time the president signs a bill into law. 

Enough Time?

Once a project is undertaken and financial resources expended, delays usually mean that the cost of the project will increase.  In the nuclear industry, anti-nuclear activists were often able to delay or halt nuclear plant construction by over-exercising the complex NRC licensing process.  Even after a nuclear plant was completely built and ready to go on line to provide electric power, it was possible for the operating license to be blocked on minor issues.  It only requires a few such experiences with delays in the industry to make the heavy financial investments unattractive and to create a 20-year hiatus on ordering new nuclear plants in the U. S.

It is interesting that the nuclear power plant industry has matured somewhat in design and management area during this 20-year period, making plants more safe and efficient.  If and when new plants are built in the U.  S., they will most likely be of an "inherently safe" design.  This means that no effort is required from people in ensuring that the reactor core does not melt during any conceivable accident. 

Thus, the anti-nuclear groups who stopped a lot of nuclear plant construction in the U. S. may also be credited with ensuring that better (and possibly more) nuclear plants will be built in the future as the burning of fossil fuels becomes less viable.  Since the NRC is likely to apply "one-stop" licensing in the future, nuclear utility companies will have more confidence that what they are allowed to build they will be allowed to operate. 

Objectives Promote Time-Related Efficiencies

Most problems, issues, or programs are, of course, best considered relative to the applicable objectives.  Some are day-to-day objectives, but others take many years to achieve.  Regardless of how long it takes us to reach our objectives, simply knowing what those objectives are makes the process more efficient in terms of time needed, which usually makes the project less expensive. 

Objectives and the results of our efforts toward those objectives must be considered within their context.  Context is dependent on time as well as on surroundings.  The most important aspect of the fourth dimension is that everything requires an adequate span of time to achieve efficiency and to achieve the goals intended by its design.  A nuclear plant is not only designed to operate, it is designed to operate over a specified time, perhaps 40 or more years.  It is most efficient if operated for the maximum amount of time that it can do so before degradations become too expensive to repair. 

Within the context of applicable information, facts, and time-dependent processes, a "corrective action program" or "solution system" can be judged to be either effective or ineffective in achieving its objectives depending on how efficient or optimized the system's processes are over time.  Efficiency and optimization require timely and appropriate feedback over a period of time. 

Even the amount of feedback should be optimized to improve overall efficiency.  This is why most quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC) programs in the manufacturing industries require sampling and inspection of the product at an optimized level that produces an acceptable level of success.  The least efficient QA/QC program would involve testing (not just inspecting) the entire output.  Even though perfection might be achieved by total testing, that perfection can be costly and delay or defeat achieving primary objectives.

 

System Feedback

When it becomes apparent that the system is not meeting its objectives, it is feedback that makes it possible to take corrective actions.  Feedback can be either internal to the system, or it can be external.  System internal feedback should be included in a solution system design so that the performance of the system components can be improved over time.  In some cases, the corrective action might be to cancel the program, but this kind of feedback usually represents failure, making program cancellation based on internal feedback one of the least likely courses of management action. 

Program cancellation is the type of feedback that most often comes from external sources, and it is usually directed at eliminating the resources for a program.  Political parties are notorious for canceling the programs created by opposing political parties, in some cases resulting in frequent changes and waste without meeting any program objectives along the way. 

The good kind of feedback critically important to any successful system is the kind that ensures the success of the program, including making the program efficient in its use of available resources.  Engineering systems often have continuous feedback, using highly sensitive instruments to constantly control all of the key parameters of the system.  Multiple sensors and layers of backup controls and checks are essential to ensuring the safety of nuclear plants, but they are also essential to many other safety-related industries and systems. 

It is difficult to find any human activity that does not require feedback to be successful.  We keep an eye on progress of cooking our dinner.  Athletes strive for good scores relative to the competition.  Many home electronic devices have self-tuning circuits.  In many cases, we consider feedback to be vital to what we are doing.  When feedback impacts us directly, we will take the appropriate actions to make improvements, assuming that we have the power to do so. 

For many government programs, feedback is probably the most neglected and most misused element.  Even when there is timely evidence of poor performance available, the government's path of least resistance is often either to reorganize or to spend more money.  In many cases these easy paths avoid more difficult courses of action as well as avoid assignment of responsibility for problems.

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obviously can not have enough resources to inspect everything that they would like to inspect.  Questions of the overall validity and effectiveness of the OSHA inspections that are accomplished are not seriously addressed, if at all, except by those who want to eliminate the agency.  OSHA functions primarily at level two, generating facts by the hundreds during each inspection, but seldom coming up with what it all really means in terms of worker safety.  Yet, they can drive a safe business into bankruptcy by requiring everyone to comply with the same rules. 

A facility might have been in business for 50 years and not have had any safety problems, but compliance is still required.  Often, compliance is easier than arguing the specifics of a long list of "findings." OSHA inspectors just can not be expected to understand the full context of every safety item.  Moreover, inspectors are judged more on how many findings the inspector generates, not on their quality or reasonableness.  Feedback on quality and reasonableness is often too expensive and too difficult for an oversight agency to undertake. 

For the average citizen, some feedback on a range of social problems is available from the news media, but the average citizen often has only indirect power to filter and assess this information and make the needed changes.  In our modern, more technical society, chances are that the average citizen is not capable of deciding what is working and what is not working, much less how to correct problems.  The news media should be of some help, but they are increasingly profit-and-loss special interest groups that depend on controversy rather than solutions. 

For its part, Technidigm-2000 encourages and facilitates feedback for social problems and issues, including government and media issues.  It is not likely that government and the news media will embrace Technidigm-2000 unless they are forced to do so under persistent insistence of the average citizen.  Technidigm-2000 is designed explicitly for the general good, providing the average citizen with a powerful framework within which to understand how social programs are doing.  It also affords project managers and government officials an opportunity to state their case clearly and achieve credibility as long as they address or use each of the 12 elements as part of the dialog.  

Thus, we get to the problem that user feedback on Technidigm-2000 will determine its success, just like any other solution system.  Fortunately, Technidigm-2000 implementation is based on the concept of continuous improvement.  Each reader is challenged to think, so each reader improves even when perfect agreement with the concepts presented in this fairly complex book is not reached.  The same is true of all books and all new concepts, but publishing and reading on the Internet minimize the resources invested while maximizing availability and opportunities to provide feedback.  It is thus that Technidigm-2000 uses the Internet as an efficient component for its solution system for promoting a modern version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.    

Off-the-Level, Incomplete Systems

The fact that special interest groups exist at all indicates how difficult it has become to get anything done.  Even when we assume that (for some unknown purpose) radical activists are needed on "both sides" of an issue, the best result we can hope for is a compromise.  When compromised actions are actually taken, they often turn out to be the wrong actions due to a range of other interfaces.  Even when compromises happen to result in reasonably correct actions, the results of compromises are often not worth the resources required.  It might have been more prudent to do nothing at all, especially when a new government program is involved. 

From the Technidigm-2000 perspective, special interest groups are off-the-level because they are not seeking optimal solutions relative to all other needs.  It is only because special interest groups have become so important that it is necessary for us to consider them as we learn about the Technidigm-2000 alternative approach.  Special interest groups represent and promote poorly designed solution systems that have to be redesigned or replaced with something better.  At best, special interest groups are only a potential source of some of the necessary level two facts that we must collect as we proceed toward a level four solution system. 

Thinking In Terms of Systems Is Easy

Under Technidigm-2000, a four part version of systems engineering is sufficient for most people to use effectively without being overwhelmed.  Once we start thinking in terms of systems, we can more readily identify and understand interactions between and among systems.  This systems approach seems particularly appropriate when used in the context of a rapidly developing technical society, one that has many complex agendas and interfaces that are rapidly changing. 

The four systems-specific elements of Technidigm-2000 are well connected to the first eight elements, especially when we consider the common denominator provided by principles.  One of the most important aspects of engineering systems is that they are dependent on engineering principles to perform successfully.  Likewise, Technidigm-2000 solution systems for social problems are only as effective as their underlying social principles. 

Being on-the-level and using principles are the two most important action pillars of Technidigm-2000.  Keeping things in context and understanding the uses and constraints of time are ways to keep the blinders off.  Being able to communicate in terms of the four levels ensures that we can get credit where credit is due, even in a 10-second news bite society.  Understanding systems enables us to develop and communicate a framework for a solution system. 

System feedback should be included in solution system design so that the performance of the system's components can be improved over time.  When it becomes apparent that the system is not meeting its objectives, feedback makes it possible to take corrective actions.  Timely feedback results in timely corrections.  Feedback "loops" that are designed into a system with the intention to achieve timely corrective actions provide system internal feedback. 

Technidigm-2000 helps reduce political flip-flops and extremes in external feedback, but it also emphasizes the need for good internal feedback.  System weaknesses result from unknowns, from unanticipated defects, and from deliberate defects.  Research can reduce the number of unknowns.  Experience can reduce the number of unanticipated defects.  Careful screening of personnel can reduce deliberate defects.  Nevertheless, the quality of a system's output will periodically be less than what was intended by the system designers. 

The absence of true feedback and quality control systems in government regulatory environments is a common problem.  All systems and supporting systems, such as those for quality control, require resources, sometimes costly resources.  Under tight budgets, it is often the support systems that are the first to be neglected when resources are cut back.  Thus, an expensive social or regulatory program is likely to have a poor quality control system, resulting in little feedback regarding actual goal achievement.

Even if the resources are available, it is possible to err in the other direction and give too much of the available resources to quality control, resulting in inefficiencies with regard to achieving system objectives.  Optimization of quality control systems to ensure the desired product quality with minimal quality control is the topic of J.  M.  Juran's three-inch thick Quality Control Handbook.  Unfortunately he primarily addresses industrial quality control, and even then he can only be very generic: How many widgets do I have to inspect to ensure that 99 percent of them have no defects? Importantly, he dedicates a large portion of his quality control book to people-related topics of training and management.  Overall, industrial quality control is largely industrial common sense, with a little math thrown in.  Such feedback tools are vital to management, but they are limited in their applications.

Social Program Solution Systems and Political Feedback

Quality control processes for large, complex social programs are likely to be very challenging to define and implement, especially if we are expecting perfection across a diverse group of possible system inputs and outputs.  Absent perfection, opposing systems (critics) will always have examples of failures available to them.  When systems are polarized against each other (e.g., the Democrats and the Republicans), at least 50 percent of the output-monitoring focus is on failures even though the proportion of failures to successes may be negligible.  This is because the incumbents are busy operating the social system while their polarized opponents are busy looking for its faults.  Each detected instance of failure is loaded into the next political cannon and then blown out of proportion. 

As a result of this focus on failures, polarization severely inhibits our ability to document level two, circumspect facts that might be useful in the feedback process.  Due to the polarized treatment of system output, the discussion of many social programs is reduced to level one opinions or (even further down the scale), to off-the-level distortions and (for zealots) outright lies.  Both sides of an issue can look at the same system output facts and use them to try to achieve their opposite system objectives.  Thus, perfectly reasonable social programs can be destroyed along with those that are not reasonable. 

Unconstrained polarization leads to waste, making it far more difficult to optimize a level four solution system.  Discouraging or preventing a level four consideration of an issue and all of its ramifications relegates the issue to ineffective and unnecessarily expensive programs.  However, once a level four solution system is in place, the polarized systems (special interest groups) are far more constrained to being on-the-level and to participating in a more balanced manner. 

The key to resolving most complex issues is getting them to level four and keeping them there, while understanding and managing the various system interfaces, polarized or not.  Getting to level four is a difficult task, but it is an impossible task if the main players in the issue do not understand what level four is or if they do not understand systems and the importance of the interfaces among systems.  Interestingly, I have found that the representatives of special interest groups, especially the anti-this and anti-that crowd, are simply unable to perform effectively at level 4.  On one occasion, I was on a team of nuclear inspectors doing an inspection at the Hanford site, sitting alongside invited team members from an anti-Hanford group.  They were quickly overwhelmed by the detail and vigor applied by the rest of the team (presumably pro-nuclear team members).  They could not keep up and left after a couple of days.

Thus, it is important for everyone to understand and use the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements, but not everyone will be able to perform effectively at level 4.  Level 4 is reserved for the most capable and experienced participants.  I provide my general approach to deciding who is most capable and experienced in Appendix A at the end of this book. 

 

 

Part II
Technidigm-2000 Applications

 

As the word itself implies, systems provide a systematic approach to organizing and applying facts.  Levels provide some assurance that those facts are accurate and complete.  When systems and levels are taken together to form Technidigm-2000, we have a powerful framework within which to understand and manage a range of human affairs. 

As discussed in the previous sections, we can also use the concept of levels to separate opinions from facts.  Thus, levels may be considered to be fact filters and organizers.  Levels also provide a means for understanding and communicating the completeness of facts.  Until we have a fairly complete inventory of the facts related to an issue, we cannot presume to be done with developing the level four solutions system, but this has to be decided by the level four leader or decision maker. 

Once the leader is confident that the relevant facts have been found, the leader can proceed with developing the level four solution system.  The solution system must deal with all the interfaces that exist among the competing interests, which are also best described in terms of systems.  Thus, the systems concept is an important part of technical common sense, providing a means for understanding the context of a problem as well as the solution to the problem. 

Nevertheless, there is much to be gained simply discussing many of our problems and issues at level one.  As previously noted, level one provides a starting point for developing and implementing level four solutions.  Also, the results of a level four process are dependent on when we start.  Time changes all things.  In addition, since level four solutions require an investment of significant resources and time, it is not possible to get much farther than providing level one starting points on most issues. 

As an expert on nuclear plant safety, I can provide reasonably complete discussions at all four levels, but most of the application examples provided here are simply level one discussions that are on-the-level and that attempt to draw in the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.  If you want to go into the nuclear safety arena for a quick example of what it means to be at levels above level one, you can select nuclear safety here. 

The next few chapters provide level one discussions of a range of topics.  Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements could write their own level one opinions on these subjects addressed, so please take these discussions as examples of level one opinions and not as valid notions of what needs to be done.  To the extent that the examples make sense to you, perhaps you will be kind enough to conclude that there is some validity to being on-the-level and in applying the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. 

The Technidigm-2000 model can be beneficially applied in almost every conceivable situation.  Thus, there are thousands of topics one might decide to use to demonstrate Technidigm-2000 applications.  To establish some order among all the possible topics, it is convenient to select a few broad topical areas that are familiar and important to everyone.  These areas are the U.S.  Constitution, the political arena, and government.

The three areas of Constitution, politics, and government are also so interrelated that it is often a challenge to keep them separate.  One of the benefits of viewing issues in terms of the Technidigm-2000 12 elements is that we can more readily meet this challenge.  If we can simply separate our Constitution from politics and politics from government, many of our more popular debate topics can be addressed more honestly and with more common sense.  If we can teach these skills to our children, they will be better prepared for their future. 

As systematic and effective as Technidigm-2000 is, perhaps its greatest defect is that it is not limited to a particular topical area.  If it were limited topically, we could write one book and be done with it.  We could teach it one time and never have to do any retraining.  But even as one of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements is time, the results of an analysis can change over time.  Thus, the best we can do is decide how to apply the process.  We can only describe "current answers" to issues, answers that may apply as a "best fit" today but which may change with time.

To organize the Technidigm-2000 education and training universe, it is convenient to start with these government-related topics since they are what might be called "universal educational applications." Thus, constitutional government is an example of a Technidigm-2000 universal application.  It was the core concern addressed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense, and it lays a reasonably firm foundation from which most issues can be viewed, even though this view has changed over the last two centuries. 

Moreover, the United States Constitution originally established a specific governmental paradigm based on historical feedback from many centuries of experiments in government.  The unique Constitution describes and codifies the key constraints of a special but less-unique entity that we call government.  The government is less unique than the Constitution primarily because, as Thomas Paine pointed out, all government is basically evil.  Some governments are less evil than others, but we would all be better off if we could get along without any societal supervision. 

One reason that government is evil is that politics are often involved.  Even the word politics implies polarization.  Technidigm-2000 recognizes politics as likely to be off-the-level, so one way of looking at the "big three" topics is that politics degrade the government intended by the Constitution down to the level of government that we have to tolerate, evil of not.  We must suffer under the usual polarized political paradigms found in most democracies.  It is up to us to decide how much bad government we can tolerate.  Technidigm-2000 helps us decide and helps us to make reasoned changes where needed.

Links to the short discussion on many social issues and other applications of the Constitution, politics, and government make it easy for you to select a topic of interest to you.  To start the process for each topic, I have provided some basic, level one thoughts.  In each case, I attempt to orient the reader to thinking of the topic from the Technidigm-2000 perspective. 

In terms of Technidigm-2000, the Constitution focuses on principles and objectives; government provides the structural systems within which Constitutional principles and objectives are applied; and politics provide the communications environment within which the government operates (or does not operate).  Similar discussions apply to each subtopic and issue.  Technidigm-2000 provides a consistent approach to integrating, understanding, and improving these broad areas as well as a great many of their underlying topical areas.

Again, Technidigm-2000 can be applied to almost any topic.  The examples provided here involve the Constitution, government, and politics.  They are only that -- examples.  There is no intent to arbitrate or impose my opinion on any topic.  The intent is to express an opinion, but an opinion that is on-the-level.  You may or may not agree with the level one Technidigm-2000 discussion provided on a given topic, but you can use the discussion to sharpen your understanding of how the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements can be applied to topics that are of interest to you.  You can even write your own book on those topics, if you have the energy.

You are also, of course, free to develop your own level one statement on the topics offered here.  After all, level one is where we provide our on-the-level, non-polarized opinions on an issue.  At level one, we all learn from each other and start to stumble across a few facts that can eventually get us thinking about elevating the discussion to, at least, level two (available facts).  Levels three and four take significant effort and time, and they often require special skills and applicable experience.  You can see this simply by wading through some of the level three and level four documentation that I provide in my area of expertise, nuclear safety.

More importantly, these Technidigm-2000 levels provide all of us with a means of communicating our sharpened understanding of what we know and what we do not know with less ambiguity and less confusion.  A reduction in ambiguity and confusion promotes integrity, leaving less room for being off-the-level. 

One additional comment is in order with regard to applying Technidigm-2000: "knowing" is not the same as "applying." We can be blessed with an abundant amount of common sense, but it is useless unless it is applied frequently and consistently.  Likewise, there is no point in developing our common sense skills unless we intend to apply them.  Regardless of the sub-topic or application, Technidigm-2000 reinforces or clarifies our notions of common sense, a powerful tool in most effective deliberations.

Technidigm-2000 is, in its simplest definition, "Common Sense, Technically Speaking." In contrast to relatively complicated engineering design principles, there are many social system principles that are easily recognized as common sense principles.  Nevertheless, even with our inherent ability to distinguish between social common sense and nonsense, we are constantly being influenced by social nonsense. 

For example, in courses on communications, high school students learn about advertising strategies, such as including pretty faces in automobile advertisements and associating cowboy ruggedness and independence with smoking cigarettes.  Common sense tells us that this is nonsense, but human emotions are difficult to ignore.  Teaching basic common sense concepts to high school students is a good start, but more can be done. 

Technidigm-2000 makes it possible for teachers to do more for high school students.  While it promotes common sense, it also promotes integrity and logical thinking that applicable to modern society.  Technidigm-2000 does not require one to ignore emotions, but it does suggest that things such as emotion-based advertising can be considered to be off-the-level.  As with anything that is off-the-level, emotion-based advertising should be discouraged by making it a litmus test. 

As suggested by enlightened high school teachers, the consumer response or feedback for emotional advertising should be caution and, perhaps, should result in a drop in sales rather than an increase.  A key benefit of Technidigm-2000 is that it helps to filter out emotional nonsense; yet it does not require us to apply our new level of understanding -- it only enables us.  Chances are that, even with the nonsense exposed, the emotional impact of the nonsense will still prevail in terms of what we actually do about off-the-level advertising.  Having common sense is not the same as having the conviction and motivation to apply that common sense!

If all we had to worry about were emotion-based advertising, it would not be worth developing tools such as Technidigm-2000.  The need for such a tool is far more profound and sometimes even more evident in the arenas of government and politics.  Thus, many popular Technidigm-2000 applications involve these subjects.  For example, the voter feedback for off-the-level politics and government operations should be in the form of a litmus test - one time and you are out. 

Under such a strict criterion, many people believe that most current politicians would be out.  It is important for high school students and new voters to prepare to make wise decisions at election time.  With the insights of Technidigm-2000 at their disposal, every student and voter can readily understand and challenge a politician's positions on issues from 12 different perspectives.

However, until we have a few more on-the-level political candidates on the ballots, we are forced to continue to select the least of the political evils presented to us.  Even with better candidates on the ballots, the practical psychological realities of modern politics tell us that elections will continue to be popularity contests for the foreseeable future.  Thus, to the extent that Technidigm-2000 applies to politics, this new paradigm must be viewed as a long-term educational process.

Until the voters make it happen, integrity will not be required of political candidates.  Properly understood and applied, Technidigm-2000 facilitates the elevation of integrity in all matters, even in politics.  There just happens to be an obvious need for it in modern politics and, consequently, in modern governments.  It is my contention that high school and college students are the most likely participants in a future grassroots movement to change politics.  They are the most idealistic and optimistic among us, and it is in their best interests to seek political and governmental excellence.  Thus, I use these government-related topics both to mimic Thomas Paine and to encourage good citizenship.

Political and government problems were anticipated by the Founding Fathers in the U. S. Constitution.  These problems are not new; they just reflect the modern condition.  To deal with these problems systematically, the "Applications" presented within this Internet site are divided into these three closely related categories: U. S. Constitution, politics, and government.

The final related application addresses going forward from the current political situation.  In each of the four categories, Technidigm-2000 provides new insights that each of us should not only try to understand but, also, apply.  Other applications of Technidigm-2000 may also be addressed in the listings, indicating the broad range of topics that fall within the scope government-related issues.  Again, keep in mind that the discussions are level one, providing food for thought and, thus, a place to start. 

High school and other teachers can become Technidigm-2000 mentors (see links at bottom of pages), teaching the 12 elements and using the examples provided here as the basis for seminar sessions and essays.  If each student simply wrote one paragraph for each of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements as the elements apply to a single topic, the result would be a pretty good essay!

Putting Technidigm-2000 to Work

At this point it is useful to indicate an interesting aspect of Technidigm-2000.  Almost any topic can be addressed systematically from the perspective of Technidigm-2000.  With a little practice, you will find yourself applying the 12 different pieces of Technidigm-2000 daily. 

When someone asks whether you have any questions, you will be able to come up with at least 12 questions very easily:

1.       Is this on-the-level or are there hidden agendas involved?

2.       What are the objectives?

3.       What are the underlying principles associated with each objective?

4.       In what context does this apply?

5.       What time factors are involved?

6.       How much of it is based on opinions?

7.       What are the validated facts that support this?

8.       What additional research is needed?

9.       Who is going to make (and take responsibility for) the key decisions?

10.     What resources are required?

11.     What are the component parts of the program?

12.     How is feedback going to be used to improve efficiency?

You can readily exercise these 12 questions by applying them to any issue discussed in the news media.  A good discussion or news article will address all 12 elements.

 

 

Chapter 5 
Level one Constitutional Examples

 

The U. S. Constitutional System Is Born

One of the permanent legacies of the American colonists and the U. S. Founding Fathers is the U. S. Constitution, as amended.  I am sure that they had no idea what the world would be like at the end of the twentieth century, but they made a major effort to provide a long-lived form of government.  Would they be surprised if they time warped to the present and inspected modern society?  Not at all.  They would, however, be astounded at modern technology. 

The Constitution grants 18 specific powers to Congress.  Also, in Article I, Section 9, are a number of things that Congress is not allowed to do.  Some powers are, indeed, specifically denied to Congress.  This means that the federal government can legislate in some areas but not in others.  Most of us would find it difficult to list any significant areas in which the U. S. government has no influence.  Indeed, the federal government is viewed as having preemptive control at a level never intended by the Founding Fathers. 

While the Founding Fathers would probably be offended by the modern level of sexual provocation and immodesty, they would wonder at the ability of a federal agency to tell the Hooters restaurant chain that they had to hire men to wait on tables, with additional intrusive and irrelevant controls.  It is no wonder that attitudes are starting to shift away from federal invasiveness-in-the-name-of-equality. 

The common sense and realism that promoted independence and that remained at the end of the seven year Revolutionary War provided the focused energy and noble intentions needed to proceed with the creation of a new country.  The historical knowledge of the day revealed what types of government worked and what did not work, what was good for people and what was not good for people.  Assembled in one place, these historical principles provided the raw materials for composing the formal constitutional system verbiage needed to move forward. 

A governmental constitution is primarily a system of guidelines and limitations that operate to generate, implement, and enforce laws.  It is meant to provide functional guidelines under which everything that is done within the governmental entity that it establishes (constitutes) systematically supports the goals and principles that underlie that constitution.  Every modern country has some type of constitution, and each represents a system under which everything in the country is supposed to function.  As with anything created by mankind, there are good constitutions and bad constitutions.  There are those that mean something and those that are ignored.  Even good constitutions can be misunderstood and, thus, poorly implemented. 

In the United States, the 1787 Constitutional Convention was called to deal with the new government’s cash flow problems by revising the earlier Articles of Confederation constitutional system.  The convention delegates quickly decided that an entirely new document was needed, so they spent the summer being creative.  After the delegates were done writing it, the U. S. Constitution had to be understood by the citizens and approved by the states. 

To explain the finer points of its rationale and to facilitate its approval, additional documents, such as The Federalist Papers, were generated.  These additional documents detailed the logic behind the U. S. Constitution, joining many different historical and common sense components into the complex systems and subsystems of a democratic, representative government.  From a systems perspective, we have not only the constitutional structure of the system (the final design documents, as built and as modified), we also have the documented design studies that reflect the functional intent (design basis) of the original system architects for each component, subsystem, and system.  Such backup documents are often referred to for clarification of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, although differing interpretations still result.  It is in the area of different interpretations that the U. S. Constitution digresses somewhat from a well-defined, reproducible system.  Engineers like to remove all ambiguity from their designs.  Words like “assume” and “interpret” are red flags that indicate to engineers that their formal documentation is inadequate.  That is, any engineering document that has to be interpreted is not adequate. 

Would you like to have to “interpret” a nuclear power plant safety requirement?  The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had the managers of all the licensed nuclear power plants in the country go back and redevelop their design documentation, some of which had not been maintained or had been destroyed.  NRC experience with emergent nuclear power plant design problems indicated that nuclear power plant safety could not be ensured without a clear design basis in place for every safety related system.  Even with a completely documented safety basis, we still hear nuclear engineers and managers using the word “interpret.”  The point is that ambiguity is much like cancer.  It can show up in many forms, it is often life threatening, and it does not go away just because we want it to go away.  See Chapter 11, Your Safety System. 

 

 

Speaking of Principles

In the Technidigm-2000 introductory chapters, you were exposed to the 12 Technidigm-2000 pieces required to simplify complex problems.  If you were diligent, you also became familiar with the three synergistic subsets of those 12 pieces - the four key concepts, the four key elements of systems, and the four levels for dealing with problems. 

In the remaining pages, we explore how Technidigm-2000 applies to a range of general interest topics, mostly controversial topics.  What better sources of controversial topics are there than politics and government? Political topics are important due to their nearly universal involvement in everything that goes on in our complex, multi-layered government system.  Also, many of us consider politics and politicians to be in need of significant adjustment, so we might as well get into it.  Technidigm 2000 provides a powerful tool with which to make such adjustments. 

After exploring how politics impact government in general and how Technidigm-2000 can be used to make both politics and government significantly better, we may have a better appreciation of how to apply Technidigm-2000's framework in other areas.  If the framework can be used to deal effectively with the complexities of politics and government, it is hard to imagine any area in which it would not be useful. 

Democracies encourage the creation of at least two strong political parties.  The parties are almost by definition polarized and, thus, they will tend to confront each other over every issue in which an advantage with the voters might be gained.  The energy that major political parties apply to their continuous confrontations makes them difficult to predict and control, and we can only generalize what their long-term plans or approach to government might be.  Thus, the U. S. political system is a relatively volatile subsystem of the U. S. Constitution, which is fortunately a very stable system. 

Politicians may be honorable statesmen, or they may be less than honorable.  To avoid ambiguity, we use the word integrity when referring to anyone who has demonstrated a consistently honorable approach in dealing with others.  In the case of politicians who claim to have integrity, the litmus test is also whether they consistently deal fairly and openly with their political opponents and with the citizens whom they seek to represent.  If a politician has enough integrity to do that, we may be willing to give him or her the benefit of the doubt.  Otherwise, we must conclude that a politician's integrity is a matter of convenience rather than principle. 

Unfortunately, the term "politician" is frequently used today to refer to people who are without integrity, honor, and virtue.  We automatically assume that candidates and elected officials are primarily seeking to advance themselves and their narrow agendas.  They are often presumed to be off-the-level.  When they are periodically on-the-level, it is often just happenstance to enhance their own situation.  We recognize these and other negative factors in most candidates, so we often find ourselves voting for the least offensive candidate. 

Essentially, instead of voting for candidates, we tend to vote against candidates, political parties, or other special interest groups represented by the candidates or political parties.  We then try to justify why we voted for someone and are generally able to come up with some ability or quality that is relatively better than the opposing candidate. 

Voting that is based on selecting the least offensive option and then justifying ourselves is less than an ideal situation, but it supports the claim of the founding fathers that government is a necessary evil.  They established a system of checks and balances that minimizes the chance that power hungry politicians and political parties will take over all the powers of government before the people have a chance to vote them out again.  Again, such a stable system of government is dependent on constitutional stability relative to political volatility. 

Constitutional System Design Principles

Although not as complicated as today’s high-tech engineering, understanding the intent of our colonial forefathers in their relatively simple times is probably the key to understanding their words.  Their intent is expressed in simple enough words that indicate a desire to prevent government from telling people how to be properly religious.  The application of that intent is the issue. 

Samuel Adams warned that public officials often seek more power than the people intended to give them.  He was right, so we are fortunate that we have as many constitutional safeguards as we do.  It is no mystery these days that there is public discontent because federal government leaders have lost touch with the people and do not respect the citizenry.  Government officials are smart enough to display a politically correct level of respect for citizens, but little value is placed on citizen views that conflict with the views of the officials. 

The original constitutional design process is viewed as successful by most of us, especially since it allowed for its own amendment to meet changing needs.  It is viewed as unsuccessful by some people, especially those who have had to struggle to achieve its benefits and to demand fair application to them.  While it was intended to protect the rights of the individual, the functions of the U. S. Constitution were defined and carried out primarily by white European males who were focused on avoiding European types of governmental defects for themselves and for their own posterity.  Moreover, this focus precluded the consideration of the full range of human rights for groups such as women and racial minorities.  The application of constitutional common sense to non-Europeans who increasingly found themselves part of the country’s physical constitution proved to be quite difficult, and much of it is still in progress. 

Engineered systems that perform mechanical and electrical functions are dependent on good engineering principles.  Government constitutional systems are dependent on good governmental principles.  Some of those good governmental principles were documented by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet on Common Sense.  Others were identified during the Constitutional Convention and were incorporated directly or indirectly into the U. S. Constitution.  Others were added later as amendments to that document. 

After all, they studied the ups and downs and ins and outs of all of that before they wrote the U. S. Constitution.  Although they could dream about modern society (air conditioned automobiles, jet airplanes with hundreds of passengers 7 miles in the air moving 500+ miles per hour, spaceship shuttles cycling into space routinely, instant worldwide news available to everyone, and all-purpose laptop computers solving as well as creating problems), none of this could meet the notions of common sense prevalent in the eighteenth century. 

The Constitution incorporates a relatively complex set of checks and balances that are intended to minimize the kinds of problems found in other governments around the world.  We think of the checks and balances as being among the executive, legislative, and judicial subsystems of government, but they include additional subsystem-specific limits and controls of equal importance.  As operators and maintainers of those controls, we should understand them in terms of modern society and technology. 

We frequently hear about the good old days and how bad modern society has become.  Since the U. S. Constitution has not changed much, perhaps additional principles are needed or the application of the original principles contained in the U. S. Constitution should be improved.  Since we hate to try to fix things that might not be broken, let us hope first that improved application of the current guidance in the U. S. Constitution is adequate for our needs. 

As mentioned above, one of Thomas Paine’s key fundamental principles is that government is a necessary evil.  We would rather not have a government at all, but one is necessary if we are to have any hope of achieving order out of the chaos created by an increasing population.  Unfortunately, this necessary-evil principle is more cute than useful. 

Perhaps the most useful principle relied on in the U. S. Constitution is that government exists to help people freely exercise their fundamental human rights, at least if exercising such freedoms does not interfere with the similar freedoms of other individuals.  The original goal of the colonists in seeking independence was to achieve freedom from tyranny, first from the tyranny of government entities and, then, from the lawless tyranny of other citizens.  Many modern issues could be resolved with the application of this single principle. 

Not all things that are viewed as a problem in modern society were considered such in colonial days.  The colonists and frontiersmen were particularly accustomed to the principle of rugged individualism.  Life was supposed to be hard; thus, people were also supposed to be hard.  The modern version of rugged individualism is embodied in people sleeping in the parks (summer) and on the ventilation grates (winter).  The U. S. Constitution did not guarantee every citizen a good living, just the opportunity to pursue achieving one.  Colonial homelessness was countered by hospitality, with the expectation that guests in one’s home would, if needed, help with chores and quickly move on and manage for themselves.  In recent times, rugged individualism and living off the land has been replaced with rugged dependency and living off the handout. 

The federal judicial, legislative, and executive powers are defined such that actions by two of these three functional organizations must cooperate to do business, in a manner that prevents any one of the three from acting alone.  Key to the intent of the U. S. Constitution is that no one person or group of persons would be entrusted with all the power.  These constitutional subsystem control mechanisms ensure that subsystem responses to short-term fluctuations or special interests are dampened. 

Indeed, what the Framers dreaded most was the concentration of power in one person's hands.  Thus, they provided for (at least) a three-way separation of powers and a rather complex system of checks and balances.  The separation of powers principle is compromised a bit through the checks and balances aspects.  For example, the President can veto legislation that he does not want to execute.  Then, Congress can override the veto.  From a systems perspective, these elements introduce dampening feedback and functional thresholds intended to manage and control the legislative process output. 

Justices of the Supreme Court, although initially appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, may serve for life.  The President, besides being elected under a somewhat complex elector process, must meet additional qualifications of citizenship by birth and experience by age. 

Congress consists of two bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives, that are equal in some ways and unequal in others.  Each of the many constitutional requirements has a well-considered purpose, even as each component in an engineered system has a well-considered purpose. 

While it would be educational and instructive to list the underlying purpose or principle embodied in each constitutional control, the list would be subject to argument.  Besides, the U. S. Constitution is a fait accompli.  In this book we may assume that, although not perfect, it reflects a complex array of common-sense-based requirements discussed and approved by the Founding Fathers.  It also represents an established and proven governmental system that operates under specific design constraints that are intended to ensure the effective performance of the intended (allowed) functions of an enlightened government of free people. 

That enlightened government system is operated and maintained by citizen systems, either directly or indirectly.  Thus, for the overall government system to be optimized and most effective, each citizen system needs to understand the system and operate it efficiently and appropriately.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers did not assume that the citizens of subsequent centuries would continue to have the common sense that apparently made so much difference in the minds of the colonists.  They only assumed (hoped) that their electoral processes would result in statesman-like wisdom in two out of the three. 

They could not anticipate the rapidity of technological change and the influences of technology on society and on the governmental systems represented in the U. S. Constitution.  They could not anticipate a country of superficial citizen participation and one where politicians were elected based on impressions made during shallow and repetitive 60 second television productions.  They never imagined that a president could send military forces into action anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. 

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers would be pleased (if not surprised) that they were so successful in framing a long-lived constitution.  After more than two hundred years, we still proudly reference the work of the Founding Fathers as the rationale for what we do (and don’t do).  Their constitutional framework has been tested repeatedly, and it has held up rather well, although it may be a little frayed around the common sense parts.  The deterioration of common sense in government is simply another problem that could not be anticipated two hundred years ago.  Even if it could be anticipated, there is little that could have been done about it.  Even today, while we see governmental common sense failures all the time, we have been unable to come up with viable corrective measures to remedy the situation.  See Chapter 2, Your Government System. 

Constitutional Perfection

The U. S. Constitution is one of the most elegant systems ever devised by man in that it integrates and balances many diverse subsystems while remaining focused on two primary principles or objectives.  The first of these is that the individual is superior to the government.  The second principle is that government is basically evil and must be under the control of the people and their elected representatives.  When these principles are not maintained, the people have the power to take appropriate action.  Thus, we constantly hear American politicians refer to what is good for the American people rather than what is good for the American government. 

While the U. S. Constitution was created in the wake of the Declaration of Independence and the (failed) short-lived Articles of Confederation, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were not involved.  Nevertheless, the revolutionary spirit of reason and reliance on fundamental common sense are present in the U. S. Constitution and its amendments. 

The U. S. Constitution is not perfect, but it created a new form of government that was and is better than most.  Also, it is not the constitutional system itself that causes many of its problems.  Many problems are caused by the operation of that system in a polarized political environment.  The defenders of this polarized political environment may tout the need for such a process, but the process performs in a manner that is less than optimal and in a manner that is often contrary to the general welfare.  Political polarity breeds compromise rather than correct answers. 

The operators of the U. S. Constitution include elected and appointed officials, but they also include all the states, a myriad of lesser organizations, and the citizens themselves.  If every citizen were exactly like every other citizen, the country could be easily defined and (most likely) readily governed.  Technically speaking, we could also claim that a country’s constitution includes not only the fundamental citizen as a component, it also includes each individual’s component parts, mental condition, state of health, and basic attitudes.  In fact, each citizen is a component of larger systems, yet each citizen is also a highly complex subsystem, with many interfaces.  With this in mind, it is easy to appreciate the difficult of bringing the full range of constitutional systems into harmony.  Unless everyone is cloned from the same source, it is not possible to make every citizen happy.  The constitutional system is only as good as the collective goodness of its diverse citizen components.  Thus, all we can hope for is system optimization, not perfection. 

Constitutional System Upgrades

There are several changes that could be made to the U. S. Constitution.  Each change proposed will cause many advocates and opponents to come out of the woodwork, resulting in the usual, highly polarized arguments to which we have become accustomed.  Nevertheless, each citizen should thoughtfully consider each possibility and should add his or her own proposed amendments, hopefully from a systematic perspective. 

The first hurdle to changing the U. S. Constitution is well known and is often the first response heard.  This first reaction is that we would go too far.  With the recent experience with cultural deterioration, there is no doubt in the minds of many people that evil would overwhelm good.  However, we should note that restraint is already built into the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers intended that changes to the U. S. Constitution would be difficult to achieve.  The proof of the amendment is whether it would be repealed after being implemented.  For example, it took 72 years of debate for women to get the vote nationwide.  Now that people are used to the idea, it seems reasonable to let women vote, especially in a country that supports basic human rights. 

Of the 27 amendments approved so far, most are related to providing fundamental human rights and controlling the powers of the federal government, consistent with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  The majority of these amendments are legitimate refinements that could easily have been included in the original document.  Thus, human-rights and limited-government amendments are entirely within the system of constitutional guidelines for which the document was intended.  At least we readily understand that such amendments were intended to lead to better government and to establishing or confirming citizen freedoms. 

In contrast to the majority of amendments, the experiment with prohibiting intoxicating liquors (18th Amendment) did not serve to enhance the government or to ensure citizen freedoms.  Indeed, although intended as a social improvement, this was a failed exercise in limiting freedom.  Its objectives were more relevant to systems of morality, religion, and social issues.  Prohibition was repealed (21st Amendment) after 13 years, with the authority for addressing such matters returned to the states and local jurisdictions.  From a systems perspective, the failure of this intended improvement was due to its failure to conform with basic constitutional objectives of freedom and limited government powers.  It was an attempt to make up for social system weaknesses by using government system powers.  Interestingly, when considered together, the 18th and 21st amendments validated the freedom of citizens to be self destructive and clearly limited the federal government’s authority over how people choose to live. 

Much more complex is the 16th Amendment, which allowed the federal government to collect individual income taxes without regard to the original constitutional constraints related to tax apportionment by population.  As the country matured, taxes based on population became less attractive.  Also, the size of the federal government grew, requiring new revenue to feed its increased appetite for resources.  We are now so accustomed to the federal income tax, we have forgotten that it was not in the original U. S. Constitution and that we were promised that the 16th amendment would only affect the top five percent of wealthiest citizens. 

There are several possible amendments that could be offered for the U. S. Constitution.  Some have been around for a while.  Others are new. 

New Amendments

The Equal Rights Amendment (making men and women equal in all respects, including the obligation to participate in combat roles during warfare) and the District of Columbia Amendment (making it more like a state) have been around for years.  Each of these proposed amendments superficially complies with but fails to support the key objectives of the U. S. Constitution as a system, which include individual freedoms and a controlled government. 

Of the two proposals, the Equal Rights Amendment was the only one that was almost approved.  It failed approval largely because it proposed that males and females should be treated alike, even in warfare.  Not only did this notion involve potential conflicts in the optimization of the military system (see Chapter 7, Your Military System), it contradicted basic assumptions of societal and religious systems.  Whatever benefits might be achieved in the name of equal rights and equal opportunity under the U. S. Constitution system were directly negated under these other systems and their subsystems. 

The land for the District of Columbia was donated by Maryland and Virginia as a separate geographical entity containing the federal government and governed by the U. S. Congress.  With an increased population, the D. C. community is much different from that existing two hundred years ago.  Nevertheless, its primary objective, business, or commerce continues to be to support the federal government, including the associated tourist trade.  Few of its transient private and government-support corporate citizens have much interest in assessing and improving D. C. as a local government of choice.  If the nongovernment parts of D. C. were returned to Maryland and Virginia, at least county and state systems would be involved. 

D. C. remains quite dependent on oversight by Congress.  As a city, it does not enjoy the support of either a county or a state government.  As a state, it would have no county and city governments to which it could delegate local responsibilities.  Thus, D. C. will never truly be like the other states, it was not intended to be a separate state, and it was not intended to be a state-like governmental entity at all.  Nevertheless, we now have a separate D. C. government, organized as an independently functioning city but still at the mercy of the federal government.  The federal government oversight system mostly reacts to problems after they become severe. 

In the process of establishing a federal government, the U. S. Constitution did not address what to do with the excess District of Columbia land it did not need.  The excess land is a nonfunctional appendix as far as the federal government is concerned.  One of the underlying problems is that the land ceded to and reserved for the federal government has become inhabited by many people and companies that are not there just to support the federal government.  The federal government need only cede back to the respective states jurisdiction over such properties that are now under private ownership.  Certainly any community in D. C. that requires public schools should be returned to the original state.  If the federal government grows (even more than it has?), then let the Congress reclaim the necessary land from the two states. 

Constitutional System Design Principles

Although not as complicated as today’s high-tech engineering, understanding the intent of our colonial forefathers in their relatively simple times is probably the key to understanding their words.  Their intent is expressed in simple enough words that indicate a desire to prevent government from telling people how to be properly religious.  The application of that intent is the issue. 

Samuel Adams warned that public officials often seek more power than the people intended to give them.  He was right, so we are fortunate that we have as many constitutional safeguards as we do.  It is no mystery these days that there is public discontent because federal government leaders have lost touch with the people and do not respect the citizenry.  Government officials are smart enough to display a politically correct level of respect for citizens, but little value is placed on citizen views that conflict with the views of the officials. 

The original constitutional design process is viewed as successful by most of us, especially since it allowed for its own amendment to meet changing needs.  It is viewed as unsuccessful by some people, especially those who have had to struggle to achieve its benefits and to demand fair application to them.  While it was intended to protect the rights of the individual, the functions of the U. S. Constitution were defined and carried out primarily by white European males who were focused on avoiding European types of governmental defects for themselves and for their own posterity.  Moreover, this focus precluded the consideration of the full range of human rights for groups such as women and racial minorities.  The application of constitutional common sense to non-Europeans who increasingly found themselves part of the country’s physical constitution proved to be quite difficult, and much of it is still in progress. 

Engineered systems that perform mechanical and electrical functions are dependent on good engineering principles.  Government constitutional systems are dependent on good governmental principles.  Some of those good governmental principles were documented by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet on Common Sense.  Others were identified during the Constitutional Convention and were incorporated directly or indirectly into the U. S. Constitution.  Others were added later as amendments to that document. 

After all, they studied the ups and downs and ins and outs of all of that before they wrote the U. S. Constitution.  Although they could dream about modern society (air conditioned automobiles, jet airplanes with hundreds of passengers 7 miles in the air moving 500+ miles per hour, spaceship shuttles cycling into space routinely, instant worldwide news available to everyone, and all-purpose laptop computers solving as well as creating problems), none of this could meet the notions of common sense prevalent in the eighteenth century. 

The Constitution incorporates a relatively complex set of checks and balances that are intended to minimize the kinds of problems found in other governments around the world.  We think of the checks and balances as being among the executive, legislative, and judicial subsystems of government, but they include additional subsystem-specific limits and controls of equal importance.  As operators and maintainers of those controls, we should understand them in terms of modern society and technology. 

We frequently hear about the good old days and how bad modern society has become.  Since the U. S. Constitution has not changed much, perhaps additional principles are needed or the application of the original principles contained in the U. S. Constitution should be improved.  Since we hate to try to fix things that might not be broken, let us hope first that improved application of the current guidance in the U. S. Constitution is adequate for our needs. 

As mentioned above, one of Thomas Paine’s key fundamental principles is that government is a necessary evil.  We would rather not have a government at all, but one is necessary if we are to have any hope of achieving order out of the chaos created by an increasing population.  Unfortunately, this necessary-evil principle is more cute than useful. 

Perhaps the most useful principle relied on in the U. S. Constitution is that government exists to help people freely exercise their fundamental human rights, at least if exercising such freedoms does not interfere with the similar freedoms of other individuals.  The original goal of the colonists in seeking independence was to achieve freedom from tyranny, first from the tyranny of government entities and, then, from the lawless tyranny of other citizens.  Many modern issues could be resolved with the application of this single principle. 

Not all things that are viewed as a problem in modern society were considered such in colonial days.  The colonists and frontiersmen were particularly accustomed to the principle of rugged individualism.  Life was supposed to be hard; thus, people were also supposed to be hard.  The modern version of rugged individualism is embodied in people sleeping in the parks (summer) and on the ventilation grates (winter).  The U. S. Constitution did not guarantee every citizen a good living, just the opportunity to pursue achieving one.  Colonial homelessness was countered by hospitality, with the expectation that guests in one’s home would, if needed, help with chores and quickly move on and manage for themselves.  In recent times, rugged individualism and living off the land has been replaced with rugged dependency and living off the handout. 

The federal judicial, legislative, and executive powers are defined such that actions by two of these three functional organizations must cooperate to do business, in a manner that prevents any one of the three from acting alone.  Key to the intent of the U. S. Constitution is that no one person or group of persons would be entrusted with all the power.  These constitutional subsystem control mechanisms ensure that subsystem responses to short-term fluctuations or special interests are dampened. 

Indeed, what the Framers dreaded most was the concentration of power in one person's hands.  Thus, they provided for (at least) a three-way separation of powers and a rather complex system of checks and balances.  The separation of powers principle is compromised a bit through the checks and balances aspects.  For example, the President can veto legislation that he does not want to execute.  Then, Congress can override the veto.  From a systems perspective, these elements introduce dampening feedback and functional thresholds intended to manage and control the legislative process output. 

Justices of the Supreme Court, although initially appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, may serve for life.  The President, besides being elected under a somewhat complex elector process, must meet additional qualifications of citizenship by birth and experience by age. 

Congress consists of two bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives, that are equal in some ways and unequal in others.  Each of the many constitutional requirements has a well-considered purpose, even as each component in an engineered system has a well-considered purpose. 

While it would be educational and instructive to list the underlying purpose or principle embodied in each constitutional control, the list would be subject to argument.  Besides, the U. S. Constitution is a fait accompli.  In this book we may assume that, although not perfect, it reflects a complex array of common-sense-based requirements discussed and approved by the Founding Fathers.  It also represents an established and proven governmental system that operates under specific design constraints that are intended to ensure the effective performance of the intended (allowed) functions of an enlightened government of free people. 

That enlightened government system is operated and maintained by citizen systems, either directly or indirectly.  Thus, for the overall government system to be optimized and most effective, each citizen system needs to understand the system and operate it efficiently and appropriately.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers did not assume that the citizens of subsequent centuries would continue to have the common sense that apparently made so much difference in the minds of the colonists.  They only assumed (hoped) that their electoral processes would result in statesman-like wisdom in two out of the three. 

They could not anticipate the rapidity of technological change and the influences of technology on society and on the governmental systems represented in the U. S. Constitution.  They could not anticipate a country of superficial citizen participation and one where politicians were elected based on impressions made during shallow and repetitive 60 second television productions.  They never imagined that a president could send military forces into action anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. 

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers would be pleased (if not surprised) that they were so successful in framing a long-lived constitution.  After more than two hundred years, we still proudly reference the work of the Founding Fathers as the rationale for what we do (and don’t do).  Their constitutional framework has been tested repeatedly, and it has held up rather well, although it may be a little frayed around the common sense parts.  The deterioration of common sense in government is simply another problem that could not be anticipated two hundred years ago.  Even if it could be anticipated, there is little that could have been done about it.  Even today, while we see governmental common sense failures all the time, we have been unable to come up with viable corrective measures to remedy the situation.  See Chapter 2, Your Government System. 

Going Forward with the U. S. Constitution

Besides these two questionable amendments on women’s rights and D. C. statehood, there are several amendments that ought to be discussed.  Closing our eyes in the name of Pandora’s Box negates the intent of the Founding Fathers.  They provided a strict process for changes, but they did provide one that is reasonably controlled.  As already noted above, it took about 70 years just to get an amendment to allow women to vote. 

Technology advances could not have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers.  There may be adjustments needed to the U. S. Constitution to deal with technology changes that impact constitutional objectives.  Technology has made it possible to know a lot more about the unborn child, certainly much more than what was possible two centuries ago.  The previous assumption was that a pregnancy would result in a baby being born, unless natural abortion processes intervened or unless a death was anticipated.  Forced abortions were dangerous not only to the baby but to the mother. 

With technology came an ability to see into the womb and an increased frequency of abortion-on-demand.  The basis for the demand became less important than the demand itself.  Thus, a major technical capability affecting individual human rights has developed, but the U. S. Constitution does not address the issue.  The result is a continuing public argument that shifts with the political and judicial winds.  Technology has not only enabled and prompted baby abortions, it has also resulted in a capability to prevent pregnancies in the first place.  Thus, if a right-to-life amendment were passed, it would focus a lot more attention on pregnancy avoidance.  The issue of baby abortion remains one of the most polarized topics of modern society. 

Another area for amendment consideration addresses another right-to-life issue.  Many people die each year due to defective organs, although modern medicine is fully capable of reliably transplanting organs.  The problem is that many people (or their families) fail to donate organs for such use.  This is obviously another area in which modern medical capabilities have quickly exceeded societal progress. 

Does it make sense to argue for an unborn baby’s right-to-life while failing to support saving lives by organ donorship and transplantation?  Even if one assumes the right of families to decide whether to donate the organs of a loved one at the time of death, such decisions should be active (before-the-fact) actions rather than waiting until after a fatal accident occurs or until after death.  At what point does an individual’s right (if there is such a right) to be saved by transplantation give way to a family’s right to send functional organs into a grave or to cremation?

Why do we believe it proper to struggle to keep dying people alive in even the most terminal and painful cases, forcing them to painfully accept their very last possible breath?  Upon death, failure to transplant vital organs then effectively sweeps several other people into their graves as well.  If we can keep organs alive, what allows us to let these other people die?  Is there an applicable religious or social principle or objective that causes us to throw away life so easily?  Where is the legal system on this issue, one which is much more important than most modern legal actions?  Is it only for lack of precedent that the family of a person who has effectively been killed can not sue a family preventing an appropriate organ donation?  Would a family or individual who prevented transplantation from their own family member then have a legitimate expectation to receive an organ donation from another family in the future?

We have seldom entertained such radical thoughts, but perhaps we should.  We have simply not addressed the transplantation topic as comprehensively as it would be discussed if an amendment were to be proposed.  Difficult as it might be to achieve, an amendment to the Constitution to require transplantation of healthy human organs to those who need them should be entertained. 

Other rights-based amendments that might be considered include those that provide for:

•        The right to a smoke-free environment. 

•        A flat income tax rate, or repeal the sixteenth amendment (which allowed a federal income tax) entirely. 

•        Morality-based and socially-based education, as distinguished from religion-based education, putting the notions of separation of church and state into perspective. 

•        Property Taxes:  No tax or other confiscation by the several states or by the federal government shall be placed on personal or real property except upon a change of ownership by commercial sale or as determined judicially under due legal processes. 

•        Repealing and preventing any laws or regulations impeding citizen ownership, bearing, and display of weapons (publicly or privately) and removing these privileges permanently from mentally ill citizens and from convicted felons. 

Other amendments that are not related to individual rights and that should be argued include:

•        No U. S. military forces shall be made subject to foreign command or control without the specific two-thirds legislative authorization of Congress and approval by the President. 

•        Organized crime (two or more people committing two or more crimes) are subversive to freedom and society and shall be treated as federal crimes and capital crimes (subject to the death penalty). 

•        Citizens of foreign countries may not own real property in the United States or its territories.  Companies controlled by foreign citizens or companies may not own real property within the United States or its territories. 

•        Paternity and maternity of all minor persons shall be legally and permanently established at birth in the United States, upon immigration and naturalization as United States citizens, or upon judicial need, whichever occurs first. 

•        Parents are legally bound to provide support for their children until they are 18 years of age unless excused by a court of law.  Children are bound to provide support for their parents under all conditions unless excused by a court of law. 

•        Persons born in the United States to parents both of whom are noncitizen aliens or either of which is present illegally shall not be afforded United States citizenship except through established naturalization processes, as applicable to all noncitizens not born in the United States. 

•        Contributions to political campaigns for federal office may be made only by individual citizens of the United States. 

•        Candidates for federal office shall not spend from their personal or family funds an amount that exceeds one year’s salary of the office to which they are seeking election. 

•        The annual total compensation of each member of Congress and the President shall not exceed the average salary of secondary school principals in the United States. 

All of these possible amendments respond to situations not anticipated by the Founding Fathers.  Each situation reflects either a technological change or a significant social problem. 

Suggestions for Level One Discussions

Constitutional Applications:  Level One Opinions

•        The U. S. Constitutional System is Born - Interpreted to death. 

•        Constitutional Perfection - Full of principles. 

•        Constitutional Design Principles - People power. 

•        New Amendments - Equal rights for women but not DC?

•        DC Statehood Amendment - What should really happen to DC?

•        Constitutional System Upgrades - Laborious mending. 

•        Going Forward with the U. S. Constitution - Keep it up to date!

•        Rights-Based Amendments - How far should we go?

•        Other Potential Laws and Amendments - The people empower the Constitution. 

Suggested Opinion Topics for You to Submit Your Thoughts to Technidigm.org or to create on your own Web site:

•        Constitutional System Operations

•        Constitutional Powers Today

•        The Constitution and General Welfare

•        The Constitution and Political Correctness

•        Proposed Amendments

•        Flag Desecration Amendment

•        Balanced Budget Amendment

•        Rights of Life and Choice

•        Constitutional Rights and Organ Donations

 

 

Chapter 6 
Level one Political Examples

 

In politics, voter manipulations are often more subtle than those found in commercial advertising, but the current political paradigm takes advantage of the voters' human weaknesses.  For example, some voters will vote for candidates whose name they recognize, even if they are totally ignorant of the candidates' qualifications.  Thus, we get a lot of roadside political signs that only make sense in terms of this human weakness.  A truly honorable candidate with loads of integrity would not try to take advantage of this human weakness.  Thus, in the Technidigm-2000 world, there will be no political roadside signs.  They will be a "kiss of death" for any political campaign.  Candidates for office will have to carefully guard their integrity just to get elected, and the integrity-based scrutiny will continue while they are in elective office. 

Being on-the-level is fundamental to achieving realistic and effective social solution systems.  This fundamental principle must be enforced routinely through information validation.  Validation of key system information is most credibly accomplished when it is independent of the source of that information.  Nevertheless, sometimes we have to depend initially on non-independent information, especially for political candidates.  There are some logical tricks that could be used to keep political candidates on a straight and narrow path and discourage on-the-level behavior, and these are discussed under "Applications".  Nevertheless, the primary objective of Technidigm-2000 is to eliminate all off-the-level behavior, not just produce logical tricks and litmus tests. 

The pursuit of such idealism is far more efficient when sources of information are inherently credible.  That is, the integrity of individuals providing information is fundamental to the efficient operation of social systems.  In an age when some people suspect the President of the United States of being a good liar (and even commend this ability as a political asset), it is not surprising that we are surrounded by inefficient social solution programs.  Such programs are difficult and expensive enough even when every leader is on-the-level, and the range of consequences for failed integrity and leadership is broad.  Integrity in welfare programs is one thing; integrity in warfare is something else.  One primarily costs money, the other costs money and lives.  We should pursue idealism in all things and hope to achieve it in some things. 

We all have a gut feeling that tells us that integrity-related principles are important when lives are at stake.  Yet, many professional politicians of questionable integrity do hold lives in their hands.  Few of us would follow them into combat even if they were disposed to lead us themselves.  Yet we elect them so that they can send our youth into harm's way.  Without a systematic political solution system that isolates and eliminates candidates of low integrity, we can expect continued participation in conflicts that serve political purposes more than they serve our national interests.  This political situation changes significantly under Technidigm-2000. 

 As in politics, individuals with less integrity often have an advantage in the news media world, and (somewhat incredibly) we have even experienced unprincipled religious leaders.  In each case, the basic principles that shape these systems and their interfaces with governmental systems are viewed as fundamentally more important in achieving constitutional objectives than the consequences of the associated system outputs, principled or unprincipled.  Thus, we have freedom of the press and freedom of religion. 

 

Political Topics

Each of the political topics listed below is discussed as it relates to Technidigm-2000, but the discussions are only at level one.  Some of the discussions provide the basis for applications and others provide explicit applications, using Technidigm-2000 levels and systems terminology.  You are invited to consider these level one opinions and to submit your own. 

If you have a Web site, you might also establish On-the-Level pages where you express your own level one opinions, where you list your level two facts, show your level three research methods, and provide examples of your level four solutions.  You should link to <http://Technidigm.org> to allow your readers to understand the four levels and Technidigm-2000.  You may want to use the Technidigm.org example page (level one to level four links) as an example or template for such pages that you might create on your own website.  All we ask is that you are "on-the-level" and, if you like, let us know the URLs for your primary Technidigm-2000 related pages.  If we agree that that understand Technidigm-2000 and are trying to maintain high standards of integrity, we will link back to your pages. 

•        Political Party Systems - An Introduction from a Technidigm-2000 Perspective

•        Steps for Political Candidates - How political candidates can use Technidigm-2000 effectively. 

•        Limbaugh: A Modern Paine - Is Rush Limbaugh on-the-level?

•        News Media and the Social Pendulum - A mixture of Technidigm-2000 levels. 

•        Senator McCain's Principle-Based Vote - There is still hope for America. 

•        Campaign Financing - Creative ways to make it work. 

•        Political Basis in the Constitution - The Founding Fathers would gag. 

•        The Guru of Common Sense - Remember Thomas Paine?

•        Thomas Paine, the Colonial Rush Limbaugh - Without the exageration. 

•        Beyond Limbaugh - Getting to higher ground. 

•        Political System Operations - Departure from common sense. 

•        Political Polarization - Extremism without virtue

•        Political System Interfaces with Other Systems - Contagious effects. 

•        Politics Inside the Beltway - No wonder it is not a state. 

•        The Iraq War  -  A Technidigm-2000 Perspective

•        Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction  -  How can this be questioned?

•        Liberals and Conservatives

•        Sameness at the Poles

•        Political Candidate Assessment Scores

•        Political Appointments

•        Political Systems and Extremism

•        Competence and Integrity

•        State of the Union

•        Government Intrusiveness

•        The Future of Our Political System

•        Raising the Political Standard

Political Party Systems from a Technidigm-2000 Perspective

 

 

The current political paradigm results in recurring political "gridlock." In some ways gridlock is useful.  Gridlock forces each side to appeal its case to the people, hoping that the other side will get some kind of negative message from the voters.  The paradigm must occasionally incorporate and woo the voters, so the political paradigm produces very creative (i.e., manipulative) political planning and tactics intended to influence the voters. 

Due to the increased technical complexity of modern society and the day-to-day stresses faced by the voters, experience has taught many politicians that lies, half truths, and shallow debate are effective in influencing the voters.  Elections continue to be popularity contests, often among nice looking and well spoken individuals whose most significant credential is being able to get elected.  Personal attractiveness became more important to winning elections when television was invented.  Smooth talking became important when political debates were televised, again making superficial appearance rather than substance important in winning votes. 

Once elected, politicians are at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups for the information needed to make decisions.  As a result, they are easily swayed by these external systems to support the outside agendas.  Nontechnical politicians find it difficult to sort out the two sides of a debate on most matters, especially those involving technology.  Many votes on legislative bills in Congress are close, often turning on a minor point, making external inputs from lobbyists and interested voters important. 

It is hard for elected officials to tell who is a voter spurred on by a lobbyist for a special interest and who is a voter with well-considered and independent views.  Lobbyists get voters having peripheral connections to the special interest to call or write their congressmen on just about every issue, leaving non-special interest voters out of the process much of the time.  This and other exclusionary effects create a group of voters that is often referred to as the "silent majority."

For example, many people will not participate in any political "demonstration," but they still have firm convictions regarding most of the subjects in the political arena.  Yet, politically oriented demonstrations make news stories that are broadcast everywhere on radio and television.  Substance is replaced with placards, slogans, chants, polls, and ten-second "sound bites."

Modern communication technology makes it easier than it used to be for voters to be manipulated.  Nevertheless, there is one incontrovertible truth -- the voters get what they deserve.  They have gotten higher taxes, lower take-home pay, more unemployment, and a lot more crime and social disorder.  Yes, we have earned many of our problems. 

Modern communications also make it easier for the voters to see what is going on inside the Washington, D.C.  beltway.  Radio and television entertain us with talk-show hosts that thrive by ridiculing politicians and exposing political hypocrisy.  The voters have "sent messages" to the political paradigm in recent elections, in the public opinion polls, in letters, and in telephone calls, which now include faxes and electronic mail.  Hitting the political paradigm with political redirections is increasingly popular.  Under Technidigm-2000, those redirections can be more measured, thoughtful, and systematic. 

A political party is a system.  Each political party system has its own resources, components, feedback, and objectives.  Since the two dominant political parties are in competition for a limited set of government powers, they necessarily and constantly engage their resources in political warfare with each other. 

When the two opposing political systems approach an election, each searches desperately for any tactic that will give it an edge in capturing the approval of the voters.  This results in political party manipulation of the voters from the incumbents as well as those wannabees who are not in office.  Nothing the other side says or does is right; nothing that our side says or does is wrong.  The news media are intent on finding "good stories," so they focus on problems and discrepancies.  Since reporters are just trying to report the available information, some credibility is generated even for the wildest claims. 

As if the production of misleading news stories is acceptable, the practice of politically "spinning" a story in a favorable direction is now so common that we now have large groups of representatives from both sides assigned this task as followup to presidential political debates.  The bulk of the information available to the voter is polarized, leaving the voter in a state of confusion.  The voter is immersed in information confusion until election day.  In the absence of an appropriate frame of reference within which to apply principles, the voter is likely to support a candidate based on shallow thinking, helping to perpetuate rather than inhibit the objectionable political process. 

Thus, the current political process does not cultivate integrity, although everyone claims to be full of it when asked.  According to my dictionary, integrity is:

INTEGRITY -- The entire, unimpaired state of anything, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty.  It comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property, and agencies for others.  (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged)

In fact, reaching the ultimate objective of the political system (i.e., getting elected) has become so independent of integrity that the process feedback discourages the development of integrity and frustrates those who have integrity.  Only the voters can require integrity in a candidate.  Only the voters can require evidence of sufficient capability in a candidate to do the job. 

However, politicians only have to pass through the integrity election screen during election years.  While politicians try to present a good image all the time, their efforts become extreme as the elections approach.  Voters are subjected to a lot of level one input (i.e., opinions) and off-the-level information during elections .  The election process is very volatile, with voters being swayed daily by one side or the other.  The net result is that many voters are turned off by the process and tune out anything political until they walk into the voting booth. 

For many voters, just getting a polling location and casting a ballot at all is enough of an accomplishment.  The result is that they end up giving their vote to the last candidate that happened to get their attention, for reasons that they may not remember or may not be able to justify very clearly. 

Candidates that lose the battle of confusion in state caucuses or primary elections start losing support and drop out of the race.  Historically, the final nominee has been the one that was most effective in playing the political game, and no integrity or demonstrated experience in solving difficult problems was required.  Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the voters can be manipulated into voting for someone with no recognizable integrity or problem solving (i.e., leadership) experience other than that associated with getting elected. 

To rationalize this process, claims are made that the election process is a "test" of the candidates' perseverance.  The election process, if it is to be a test, should be a test of a person's character.  To the extent that elections test perseverance rather than character, people of integrity will avoid running for public office.  The positive perseverance required to achieve good character is far superior to the type of perseverance required to get elected.  It just goes unrewarded, so fewer politicians pursue it.  The voters can only blame themselves for this sad state of affairs. 

 Although muckraking politics nauseates many voters, the democratic process requires the voters to decide which candidates should have power.  Many voters are ill prepared for this decision, so candidates often win elections because of how they look or because of personality differences.  Name recognition can be bought by advertising or "marketing" candidate names.  Promises made to special interest groups can get votes.  Sadly, issues concerning knowledge, experience, and character have historically played a secondary role in the decision making process of many voters. 

 Successful politicians know these simple truths and take full advantage of them.  More qualified candidates who would be better able to serve the interests of the country and the people also know the ropes, but their integrity often gets in the way.  Some ask, "Who needs this?"

 Scoundrels and unethical politicians can capture governmental power in a level one democracy.  As a result of voter default, the essential qualifications for office are simply too low to ensure the election of capable and honorable people.  Voters repeatedly find out that they voted for a personality that was not real. 

Voters, in effect, default to scoundrels because of a lack of time to collect, understand, and weigh each candidate's credentials and his or her true views on key issues.  In an increasingly technical society, voter limitations and the resulting defaults are likely to become more prevalent.  Whereas information is so important to informed decisionmaking, voters have been confused by too much information -- with no way of verifying its accuracy.  They can not tell whether information is on-th-level or off-the-level because they have not required politicians and political parties to be on-the-level. 

Rather than proactively selecting the right people for office in the first place, the voters are likely to do what they have done in the past and elect the most persuasive professional politician.  They then will wait for adverse consequences that affect them personally, voting in the next election against the incumbent that they elected previously. 

This reactive approach to voting usually results in putting another professional politician in power, qualified or not.  This causes large swings in who controls government programs and, thus, dramatic cancellations of the outgoing party's programs and redirections along the paths preferred by the incoming political party.  Such "mandates" for change are expensive when the incoming group has to start new programs have similar objectives so that the other party gets no credit when and if the objectives are finally reached.  Level four solution system optimization is not possible under this approach. 

The political process has deteriorated to such an extent that many capable, respected, and honest people will not even seek office, as evidenced by retired General Colin Powell decision not to run for president.  He said he had inadequate "fire in the stomach," an internal fortification needed to maneuver the political election gauntlet.  This kind of decision by such a popular and capable individual says a lot about the current nature of the U. S. political system.  Voters long for people of demonstrated integrity, but the political process tends to offer up people of questionable integrity. 

When Technidigm-2000 is understood and applied by an increasing number of voters, not only will the political process become more civil, integrity will become a necessary quality in each candidate.  Would the Founding Fathers have wanted it to be otherwise? 

 

Effective Political Action through Technidigm-2000

Once a larger percentage of citizens achieve a level of rage needed to suppress immoral television programming and the sale of illegal drugs, we can expect improvements in those areas in proportion to that rage.  The path from rage to improvement is obvious in such social problems.  It is relatively easy to agree on and pursue improvements in these obvious areas.  Rage, if it exists, is likely to be sufficient to succeed in causing proportional changes in these arenas with or without the creation of new laws.  Nevertheless, it is far more difficult for us to find ways to apply our rage when we deal with the political arena. 

Rage is less effective in the political arena.  Few of us will vote for political leaders who appear to be driven primarily by anger.  Government is too complex an undertaking in our modern technological world to be dealt with in anger.  It is just too easy to create more problems than we fix, and everything touched by government is likely to become a financial drain on the taxpayers.  Government agencies routinely spend millions of dollars to achieve minor objectives that are ill-considered or never attained.  The colonists, especially men like Thomas Paine, rightly asserted that government is a necessary evil that needs to be minimized and to be controlled by the people. 

With Technidigm-2000 in place, politics (if not also government) becomes a relatively simple problem with which to deal.  Perhaps more difficult to unravel are the mysteries of the government programs themselves as well as the mysteries of non-governmental social institutions.  Our political framework is in itself less important than other parts of society.  More important are our general moral framework, management of the environment, our approach to military involvement, improvements in our educational system, and provision for the vital interests of the generations to come.  Politics are important to us primarily due to their influence on how we address other, far more important parts of society. 

Technidigm-2000 provides us with a common framework within which to apply our seemingly modest levels of rage, allowing us to influence activities in the political arena.  Fixing the political arena is a prerequisite to fixing things in government, including fixing the size, authority, and nature of government itself.  The 12 Technidigm-2000 elements are designed to be used effectively in all arenas, especially in the political arena. 

Simply defining what it means to be on-the-level is a major step.  Even if we are fooled in this regard, the application of Technidigm-2000's four levels can quickly separate fact from fiction.  Even if the four levels are corrupted, the application of the four systems elements of Technidigm-2000 will reveal the key parts of solution programs.  Thus, while we must continue to solicit and encourage integrity if we are to be efficient in dealing with today's technological society, Technidigm-2000 exposes integrity shortfalls by making it possible to state complex and confused matters in terms that everyone can understand. 

Anchoring Politics to Technidigm-2000 Common Sense

Like common sense in moral issues, common sense in the key institutions that define a society's basic characteristics can be set adrift.  Technology can be one of the root causes of this drifting.  Technology can also contribute to solutions, but the problems first must be understood in a way that makes solutions possible.  Just like assembling a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, everyone sees the problem and knows the objective, but each of us may have a different solution. 

To some, the solution is to give up and leave all of this to others.  Unfortunately, giving up on society's institutions has far more profound consequences than giving up on a jigsaw puzzle! When the number of people who have given up exceeds the number of people who are still trying, the consequences for a democratic society can be profound.  Giving up is not a respectable option!

Fortunately, Technidigm-2000 provides a tool that makes the other option -- of working on our problems -- much more feasible for each of us, regardless of our individual education and experience.  Technidigm-2000 brings to bear technological thinking as an antidote to technology.  Anyone who is qualified to vote can easily learn the basics of Technidigm-2000 and apply them. 

Interestingly, it is the political candidates themselves who will soon want to learn everything about Technidigm-2000, even though politics is only a minor institution among the many.  After describing the essentials of Technidigm-2000, the rest of this online book is devoted to sorting out the issues that many political candidates and politically influential special interest groups wish we would just leave up to them.  The range of issues addressed is broad, so there is likely to be something of special interest to each reader, even to those who may claim to have no special interests. 

It is important to point out that the topically specific discussions in this online book are merely level one opinions.  You can appreciate the level of difficulty in achieving level four solutions by looking at the nuclear safety example provided as a link.  That example from the author's area of professional expertise demonstrates the level of effort appropriate to ensuring the proper management of nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon production facilities.  It takes a 300 page guide to describe the level two and level three research needed just to assemble the facts and information needed by level four decision makers to assess whether management is adequate. 

With that level of effort in mind, it is easier to appreciate the need for integrity in the nuclear industry.  This integrity is fundamental to the creation and effectiveness of a nuclear plant's nuclear safety culture.  This culture is unique to nuclear plants, but all of us can understand its essence without knowing its details.  Understanding the essence of a good nuclear safety culture should be sufficient for most fair-minded citizens to make a decision regarding nuclear safety, but this depends on whether those citizens are confident in the integrity of the plant's managers.  Technidigm-2000 facilitates this understanding, but it does not promote any particular decision option. 

Principles in Politics

Most often, ill-formed principles and inefficient compromises in politics result from polarity derived from self interest.  After all, the words polarity and politics have a lot in common.  A great deal of confusion could be avoided if the first draft of each piece of legislation consisted of only a statement of the underlying principles.  The same is true of the other 11 elements of Technidigm-2000.  Each element removes some of the confusion as to what we need to do, how we will do it, when we will do it (and stop doing it), and why. 

Forcing each issue to be discussed at a more fundamental level would establish a parallel with the fundamental approaches taken in science and engineering.  The U. S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights may be considered the first principles of politics, government, and many social situations.  All issue-specific principles must be consistent with those first principles. 

When we either fail to state the issue-specific principles or fail to ensure that they are consistent with constitutional principles, we can not claim to be on the right track.  Connecting our thinking with our principles is the first step toward a successful and appropriate conclusion.  Subsequent steps may include additional elements of Technidigm-2000, depending on the issue and proposed actions. 

Indeed, under Technidigm-2000, each bill placed before Congress might have 12 parts and require 12 votes simply to define the issue being addressed and lay out a possible solution system in the form of a law.  Over time, the solution system uses the available resources to achieve the desired goals.  The solution system can be changed, but its underlying principles and ultimate goals remain constant.  With principles and goals in mind, a government employee or a citizen could be free to take creative initiatives without being considered to be violating the law. 

In essence, we should conclude that there is no point passing new laws when there is no agreement as to the underlying principles and goals.  Since achieving perfect agreement is not realistic, it may be necessary to vote on those principles and goals.  Thus, one of our first tasks in any decision-making or problem-solving effort is to identify the principles that apply, even if the different parties involved would like to apply different principles. 

Systems and Politics

Different systems can reach the same objectives based on different principles or using different components, but the difference in cost and wasted resources can be significant.  When programs are politicized by special interests that are polarized in their principles, conflicting objectives are likely.  When this happens, programs start to cancel each other completely, resulting in either a maximum level of waste or in gridlock - nothing constructive happens, although a lot of money can be spent.  Such polarization defines modern politics. 

Most of us have a rather wide range of things that are important to us, even when we are trying to do something that is relatively simple.  Knowing this range of important things is not sufficient for us come up with a reasonable solution to a problem.  If all you want to do is get from point A to point B efficiently, then you might as well get a motorcycle.  If you also want to get there safely, the agenda doubles.  The safest vehicle might be an army tank. 

The number of possible transportation solutions, however, more than doubles simply because of the many possible tradeoffs between efficiency and safety and the many options that exist between motorcycles and tanks.  There are many other possible factors to consider, so we are seldom able to address even simple problems without a systematic approach. 

The difficulty has been the lack of a systematic process and framework within which to filter out the confusion arising from the folks who have a limited agenda.  Somewhere within the extreme positions of special interest groups we may find the optimal answers to many problems.  Sometimes we think that those long-sought optimal positions are simply a compromise between the two extremes.  If compromises between extremes were good ideas, we would have a lot of two-wheeled tanks on the road.  Likewise, when two political parties compromise their extreme positions, the result is seldom optimal. 

Technidigm-2000 provides a synergistic means of arriving at better solutions, first by avoiding input from people who are not on-the-level and, second, by filtering some of the confusing information provided by those who are on-the-level.  Technidigm-2000 makes it possible for well-meaning political entities to achieve such solution systems.  It is just harder for politicians to be on-the-level long enough to do so. 

By now the reader realizes that the four Technidigm-2000 levels provide confusion filters, allowing each of us to communicate what is on our mind without having to take opinions and incomplete facts too seriously.  By the time a problem gets to level four, most of us are on the sidelines and waiting for an optimal solution. 

Nevertheless, simply clearing the spectators off the playing field does not result in a score.  There must be rules, goals, officials, coaches, and qualified players before a game can be played that is worth playing.  In conjunction with the first four elements (integrity, principles, context, and time), levels provide a reasonable playing field for producing the expected results, but a systematic approach or "game plan" is still needed.  Thus, all 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 are needed.

In the case of sports, we expect a fair contest, the results of which can be accepted by everyone.  Nevertheless, every score achieved in a competitive game is a struggle simply because there are two opposing teams on the field.  But what if both teams were on the same side?

If all the players are on the same team, the scoring can be dramatic, and the results are even more acceptable since everyone wins.  The solution process becomes less like a game and more like a cooperative endeavor.  Just like climbing a mountain is best undertaken cooperatively, most difficult social problems are best addressed when we all have the same objectives and the same principles.  Technidigm-2000 facilitates such cooperation. 

Politics Inside the Beltway

The federal political paradigm is found mostly within the Washington, D. C. beltway.  It is a highly polarized, political paradigm.  How do we get something in between political extremes that we can live with?  The answer in the political paradigm has been to let the opposing extremes cancel each other, pitting Congress against the opposing political party in the White House.  The Congress represents a large mass with a lot of inertia.  The president can be replaced much faster by the voters, either helping or hendering Congress by accelerating its programs or putting on the brakes. 

This political paradigm and approach results in periodic political gridlock, which is a good thing to have when professional politicians are running things.  Gridlock forces each side to appeal its case to the people, hoping that the other side will get some kind of message from the voters.  Unfortunately, the paradigm must grow to incorporate the voters, bringing new political planning, strategies, and tactics intended to influence the voters.  Due to the increased technical complexity of modern society and the day-to-day stresses faced by the voting public, experience has caused the the political paradigm to conclude that lies, half truths, and shallow debate is effective in influencing the voters.  Elections continue to be popularity contests, often among nice looking and well spoken individuals whose most significant credential is being able to get elected.  Once elected, they are at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups for the information needed to make decisions.  They find it difficult to sort out the two sides of a debate, hard as they try.  Votes on legislative bills in Congress are often close, often turning on a minor point, making external inputs from the voters important. 

Modern communication technology makes it easier than it used to be to manipulate the voters, but we can always fall back on the final truth -- the voters get what they deserve.  They have gotten higher taxes, lower pay checks, more unemployment, and a lot more crime and social disorder.  Yes, we have earned our problems nobly. 

Modern communications also make it easier for the voters to see what is going on inside the beltway.  Radio and television entertain us with talk-show hosts that thrive on ridicule and exposing political hypocracy.  Recently, segments of the voters have been sending lots of messages to the political paradigm in recent elections, in the public opinion polls, in letters, and in telephone calls.  Hitting the political paradigm with political redirections is increasingly popular.

Political System Operations

Most of us suspect that the common sense approaches of the colonists might not be adequate to deal with many of today’s problems that we take for granted.  It is doubtful that any colonist would be able figure out how to pay taxes (fill out a tax return) or how to get permission to build a log cabin on his waterfront property (overcome environmental laws and regulations).  We know this because we are not so sure we can do it even after living with such obstacles for decades.  Modern problems are increasingly devoid (or caused by a lack) of common sense.  We have gradually become so accustomed to nonsense that it seems normal. 

Likewise, our version of common sense might not suffice for dealing with many colonial problems, many of which have now been taken over by specialized providers.  While we could probably figure out how to pay taxes in bales of tobacco, few of us could build our own home under any conditions, especially in a wilderness (no power tools, no pre-cut lumber, no steel nails, and no prefabricated shingles) and concurrently produce enough food for our families to survive, even with a group effort.  It was tough on the colonists, too. 

From the technological abstractness of the global nuclear war and the Unabomber’s manifesto, to the communication realities of the Internet and the O.  J.  Simpson television trial, the Founding Fathers were totally clueless.  Yet, they gave us a good form of government that is reasonably able to accommodate and respond effectively to such emerging realities.  Like every other complex system, the Constitution can be upgraded and improved to address new purposes, but its effectiveness remains subject to its operation and maintenance in a rapidly changing world.  As its operators and maintainers, we need to stay abreast of that rapidly changing world as that world produces new social and technical problems for us. 

Whether we have kept up and are keeping up with social and technical changes and problems is increasingly dependent on whether we have been and are able  to keep up.  We are all aware that technology has grown so rapidly that we as individuals are coming to know more and more about less and less.  So it is with our elected officials.  Some (probably most) elected officials’ only true expertise is in the area of how to get elected.  Once elected, they face a complex array of decisions, many of which are affected by technology and matters in which they have little of no significant experience.  With advanced technology comes higher prices, so each decision can involve several billions of dollars. 

The result is that many important decisions depend on staff work and on inputs from lobbyists.  Lobbyists for technical projects naturally have more influence when elected officials have limited technical understanding.  Without any technical input or relevant experience of their own, professional politicians can make rather whimsical decisions.  Which aircraft is better?  Do we need breeder reactors?

Often, politicians from one political party will oppose important legislation or funding simply because it is supported by the other party.  Operating a democracy in a technical era under such superficial conditions results in a new form of anarchy, one that wastes billions of dollars for no logical or technical reason.  Even increased emphasis on the collective wisdom of popular opinion is of little help in many instances.  Unfortunately, the collective wisdom of the citizenry also has gradually eroded, making it difficult to perceive how we are supposed to meld modern society and technology to function effectively under the U. S. Constitution. 

The wisdom degradation is, in part, relativistic.  Technology has advanced to levels well beyond what was previously considered to be subject to conventional wisdom.  It has in many areas advanced beyond the level of political parties and elected officials, even with a sophisticated and difficult electoral process.  The Founding Fathers placed their faith in the wisdom of the people to select good leaders, and they trusted that those leaders would collectively be able to operate a federal government successfully. 

As one step forward in redeveloping our basis for conventional wisdom, I believe that we must redefine our notions of common sense in terms of our societal and technical changes.  If these notions can be constituted systematically and applied realistically, then we can maintain the intent of the Founding Fathers that the Constitution should be enduring.  From the opposite perspective, it is increasingly clear that failure to apply common sense with a technical perspective will be hazardous.  At best we will be reduced to muddling along on a trial and error basis, reacting to crises rather than avoiding them.  At worst we will be responsible for allowing the United States (and, possibly, mankind) to back into adverse, irreversible situations. 

There are many voters who believe the federal government is out of control.  They are trying to vote for good leaders to get control, but they are still mostly offered candidates who are professional politicians.  Voters vote increasingly against incumbents, but the newly elected politicians are often not any better than the old ones.  They are just different, often too different. 

Political Polarization

As with most battles, extremist or polarized perspectives and actions are likely to be promoted simply to achieve effectiveness in countering the opposing camp.  Extreme polarization results in underhanded political tactics and strategies that ignore logic and defeat objectivity.  Even when both sides want the same thing, they have to find ways of claiming credit and defaming the opposition simply to promote the survival of their own political subsystem.  Bipartisan cooperation is most likely when the country as a whole is threatened and the individual political subsystems are not at risk. 

To find remedies, we are prone to indulge in battles between conservative and liberal philosophies.  These opposing philosophies can be viewed as opposing systems, each with its own components, objectives, principles, and feedback mechanisms.  While these specific polar philosophies have become identified in the United States with the current Republican Party (conservative) and the Democratic Party (liberal), the most important result is very fundamental:  Each of these politically oriented combatants vigorously uses all of its resources (usually just within the law and within the constraints of the U. S. Constitution, sometimes beyond) primarily to promote itself rather than to place priority on the principles of that constitution and the general interests of the people.  To the extent that each political philosophy interfaces with other systems (e.g., religious and economic), each is modified either by amplifying or dampening forces (i.e., positive and negative feedback). 

For example, there may be many more qualified people for a federal appointment, but such appointments go primarily to people who not only support the controlling political party and its polarized system, they are used to reward those people who most vehemently denounced the opposition and who did the most to raise funds for the very expensive election campaigns.  From those candidates meeting these specific prequalifications, if additional support is needed for official confirmation, a Sunday school teacher or a former chief executive officer might be put forth. 

These are considered legitimate political appointments, but it is easy to understand that, in today’s increasingly complex world, qualifications for political appointments are generally too low to ensure that government entities are able to function efficiently.  Everything changes with new appointments, replacing the old and inadequate approach with a new and inadequate approach.  It is easy to come up with reasons to replace the old and inadequate approach.  The hard part is to identify and install a new and adequate approach, something that is increasingly less possible using the old politically oriented spoils system of appointments. 

Said another way, neither political party would support a more qualified candidate to a government position if the individual could possibly promote anything that might adversely affect the existence of that party’s system.  Issues of right or wrong and that person’s demonstrated conformance with ideals such as the fundamental constitutional principles are of secondary importance.  The same is true for political ideas and positions in general.  The party as a system takes priority over the interests of the people and the principles contained in the constitution.  When principles conflict, they must be worked around. 

Consider the case of mixing the religious system with the political system.  A little religiousness by a political candidate or appointee might be consistent with the political system’s objectives.  A lot of religiousness would result in overlaying a religious system on a political system.  Likewise, zero religiousness is not likely to be successful.  Neither preacher or atheist is likely to succeed in a broad political system, assuming those characteristics were known within the political system.  Similarly, there are a number of other “problems” (systems and their symptoms) that would work against a political candidate or appointee.  They are mostly related to the individual as a system, and their discovery and exploitation feed the political and news media systems.  See Chapter 10, Your News System. 

When a politician actually sacrifices politics and makes decisions purely based on right and wrong, that politician is so unique that he or she is labeled as a statesman, a term generally reserved for the more capable and selfless politicians.  Even without statesmen, each party is forced by the opposing party and by the constitution itself to stay within obvious legal and constitutional bounds, at least in the public arena.  Yet, neither party will voluntarily support a law nor a constitutional principle if it works against the party or if it adds support or credibility to the opposing party’s position. 

Thus, we have a polarized political system that is continually bouncing off the walls of our legal and constitutional framework, resulting in more hysteria and confusion than is really necessary.  This political system thrives on superficialities and alienates the people it is supposed to serve. 

Today, for various reasons, governmental tyranny and criminal tyranny seem to be thriving.  Tyranny is the function of muggers, the Internal Revenue Service, local home owners associations, politicians, 18 wheelers going 80 mph in a 55 mph zone, and automobile repair shops.  If we were to apply the freedom-from-tyranny principle more often, a lot more people would find themselves severely sanctioned under the law, including common law.  Under common law, muggers would be shot by their victims without fear of legal reprisals, the IRS would never have been created, home owners associations would function (if at all) on an exception basis rather than an inception basis, politicians would be required to have redeeming qualities and useful talents to get into office, speeding truck drivers would lose their trucks permanently, and automobile repair shops would have lie detectors permanently connected to their service representatives and mechanics. 

Regarding this last item, did you know that automobile service technicians can get paid much more that the posted hourly rate simply by working much faster (at your expense, in more ways than one)?  If it only takes a mechanic one hour to do a two hour job, the mechanic gets paid for two hours, and the repair shop makes a bigger profit at the same time.  If it takes a slower mechanic three hours to do a two hour job, it is likely to be defined as a three hour job.  Combined with the so-called policy of the shop’s liability insurance company that prevents you from watching the work actually being done, you are constructively being subjected to tyranny, and it is all legal.  The average citizen simply does not have the ability or the resources to fight such forms of business-related tyranny. 

The U. S. Constitution requires that:  “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”  The federal income tax system required an amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and that amendment was approved with the understanding that it would only apply to the most wealthy few percent of the people. 

This new individual inequality under the law has mushroomed out of control, but in a gradual manner.  It has been so gradual that the encroachment of the IRS on individuals and their property has yet to be viewed as a form of tyranny much like that which provoked the Declaration of Independence from England.  It is increasingly likely that severe legislative or constitutional steps will need to be taken to either eliminate income taxes altogether or (more likely) change to a flat tax rate for all citizens.  In the religious culture of many citizens, God asks for only ten percent, regardless of amount of a person’s income. 

Likewise, annual taxes on property (real estate and personal property) provide a means for local governments to take away a citizen’s property.  Paying the property tax on an annual basis is like paying rent or paying for the privilege of ownership.  If a citizen fails to pay taxes on the property, that citizen can lose the property, go to jail, or both.  Thus, the right to property under the U. S. Constitution needs to be reinforced by an amendment that ensures static ownership of property is not taxed.  For example, “No tax or other confiscation by the several states or by the federal government shall be placed on personal or real property except upon a change of ownership by commercial sale or as determined judicially under due legal processes.”

Within our local communities are many additional governmental and community organizations that form systems in which the individual is a basic component, such as tax and voting districts, school boards, home owner associations, service clubs, religious organizations, block-watch (anti-criminal) organizations, and the basic family unit.  Most family units have informal community systems with their next-door neighbors, their religious organizations, and their extended families. 

Going one step farther, each person is a component of multiple systems but each human component is also a system, distinct from all other people.  In American society, the distinctions of the individual are considered to be good and are encouraged; however, in many Asian societies, individualism is discouraged.  Rugged individualism has been considered essential to settling the Americas, but it can be a problem in densely populated areas.  Thus, we would worry about a China full of Rambos more than a modern America full of Rambos, except in the inner cities.  We also would not be surprised if many Rambos existed in the Old West; however, most of the American settlers were quite shy and polite. 

Each governmental organization, from the federal level to the block-watch organization, has its own constitution or guidelines.  When all of these governmental organizations are well balanced relative to each other, when each is working within reasonable guidelines to promote its limited social responsibilities, and when reasonable citizens believe that it all makes sense, then the constitutional system can be said to be operating well.  Extended, satisfactory operation creates a notion of what makes sense in different situations.  In the aggregate, such notions become common sense, and it is deviations from that common sense that get our attention and that are most likely to get opposed and corrected. 

The problem that we face in a technical age is that things get changed so fast that it is difficult to put out finger on what makes sense anymore.  We are likely to do things because we can do them rather than because they make sense.  For example, Medicare as we know it could not exist without being enabled by the wealth of the population, but it is now also dependent on computer networks and high speed printers to generate benefit checks everyday.  We can do it, but it is out of control and subject to fraud by some of those rugged individualists.  It has been a Level One system on which many Americans have come to depend financially, but the we-can-do-it part is being overwhelmed by failure to control costs and to punish greed, both of which require continuous system feedback and corrective actions. 

Americans are used to a lot of things that are questionable in terms of common sense.  Can you imagine the scream that would result today if voting were limited to those people who actually pay income taxes or property taxes?  This type of voting limitation was a common part of early colonial and state governmental processes.  While such an indication of competency still makes a lot of common sense, it conflicts directly with the current social notions of fairness and equality. 

In fact, the notion of citizen competency has been turned upside down.  Not only do productive and self sufficient people get ignored as a group, they also have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do less productive and nonproductive people.  Indeed, national lobbying organizations thrive on advocating the rights-to-a-safety-net of nonproductive citizens.  They even hire willing-to-work citizens to create public-outrage demonstrations and to solicit additional charity funds to supplement the poorly conceived, poorly managed, and corrupt welfare programs. 

Not only is the notion of citizen competency turned upside down, there is now another major haven for inefficiency and for incompetent workers and managers.  The hundreds of thousands of federal workers include those people trapped in inefficient organizations, those people sidetracked into nonpositions for not being team players, those people who have incompetent people working for them, and the actual incompetent people themselves.  With the aid of civil service protection legislation, federal organization inefficiency (i.e., waste) is an economic albatross that would have killed any commercial profit-and-loss company long ago.  Federal workers get paid even when the federal government is shut down for lack of funds in the national treasury.  Such is the impact of political power and political systems, allowing bad government to persist. 

Can you imagine a commercial enterprise laying off workers and still paying them?  The difference is, of course, that company chief executive officers do not depend on votes of the employees for their jobs while elected officials are totally dependent.  Technically speaking, we want the most productive elements of the work force to be encouraged rather than discouraged.  While there are undoubtedly some very hard working people in government, their efforts are wasted relative to the productivity expected and achieved in the private sector.  See Chapter 5, Your Business System. 

We now encourage people to be nonproductive and to avoid hard work and difficulty.  Similar to the fall of the Roman Empire, an increasing segment of the population is not willing to expose themselves to real work and hardship.  We get the impression that some people would rather starve to death than dig a ditch or sell apples on the corner.  Able bodied panhandlers now walk up to total strangers and ask for money for doing nothing.  They stand at busy intersections with signs that say “Will work for food,” tugging for sympathy but accepting only cash.  Even in the Great Depression, bums would perform a modest amount of work for a modest amount of food and shelter.  Now they can make a decent “living” just asking for money, while leaving manual labor to others.  Indeed, in modern America many legal and illegal immigrants seek any employment regardless of difficult, resulting in minorities cleaning the outside of windows on skyscrapers. 

As espoused by Thomas Paine, government is simply the lesser of two evils, the other being no government at all (anarchy).  Of course, government could and should be constrained to be as good as possible.  The problem is that most people have trouble determining what is good and what is bad simply because of the conflicting systems and the natural polarization of most arguments.  Determining good and bad is made easier through technical common sense, which is facilitated by systematic thinking or a systems approach.  If governmental systems are viewed as beyond the understanding and control of the citizens, they become increasingly disconnected and unaccountable.  In the absence of interfaces and feedback, the government can become worse than anarchy simply because of the inability of the bureaucratic management system within government to understand and control the details of situations.  In particular, worse-than-anarchy decisions can be made “in the field” because of misguided notions of authority and responsibility, such as the overt acts committed at Waco and Ruby Ridge. 

A system can be designed to meet or satisfy principles, which then becomes the system’s purpose.  All the system components should serve that purpose.  For example, one purpose of the U. S. Constitution is to protect the individual while avoiding the tyranny of any individual, especially government officials.  This individual-protection-from-government-tyranny is, perhaps, the key purpose of the U. S. Constitution, a purpose that has been largely achieved (although certainly debatably) for two centuries. 

However defined and argued, the U. S. Constitution, as a system, must have and has at least one purpose.  Certainly, it has many other purposes and objectives.  Just as it has many subsystems that (presumably) support it, all the way to the individual citizen.  To understand the purpose of the U. S. Constitution best, it is necessary to modify the presumption that everything supports the Constitution.  Actually, it is the Constitution that supports the interests of the individual. 

The power of reliance on the collective power of well motivated individuals over the organization becomes most evident in technical areas.  This is how modern computer software is generated.  Each individual does his or her part in a tedious process, but each is respected and depended on for good performance of the overall product.  It is mostly when we get away from respecting motivated individuals that we get into trouble.  This is what happened when the Challenger shuttle exploded.  The responsible technical individual was not respected.  The management organization’s public relations and political funding interfaces superseded the technical decisionmaking processes. 

Thus, nontechnical forces can exist in the government, in pseudo-government projects, and even in commercial businesses.  These forces encourage managers to make technical decisions based on nontechnical interfaces, overriding the judgment of the technical personnel who are most able to make the technical decision.  From the perspective of the individual, this organizational smothering is contrary to individual rights, but it is most apparent in a highly technical society in which managers are not able to make technical decisions. 

It is important to understand that the new Constitution created a new system.  In the process, it forcibly removed components and resources from another system, the British Empire.  Likewise, the Founding Fathers sought to disconnect the United States from the broader context of European system embroilments, many of which had gone on for centuries (and which continue today).  For a variety of reasons that include technology advances, a long succession of statesmen and politicians were not successful in keeping the United States isolated from Europe or from the rest of the world.  There are more than 180 independent systems of government in the world, each with its own constitutional basis and self-serving objectives.  The United States as a system interacts with all of them at various levels of effectiveness. 

From an internal perspective, the U. S. Constitution failed to deal effectively with some of the closer human and territorial systems that might have been incorporated.  Ignored were the Native Americans and their individual rights, as well as those of the African American slaves that resulted from the ongoing business of slavery.  These de facto internal systems were essentially left outside the new Constitution’s system and subsystems.  Thus, they were outside the individual protections afforded by the Constitution.  Indeed, the U. S. Constitution can be viewed as a system that extracted resources from such internal (but essentially ignored) systems. 

Whether this resource extraction was right or wrong, avoidable or unavoidable, or beneficial or self defeating is debatable, but the basic system concepts underlying the potential arguments are instructive.  Specifically, a system that ignores its own component parts or the interacting systems can not realistically be optimized.  It will probably continue to have problems with those components and systems.  While this is no big surprise, this way of thinking helps to bring order out of chaos, or makes it possible to do a job right in the first place. 

One wonders what the U. S. Constitution might have looked like if it had gone through a modern total quality management (TQM) process in which all of its “customers” would be identified early.  While this author does not worship TQM, some of its basic ideas are useful when properly applied as part of a system development process.  The proper functioning of a governmental system depends on leadership as well as management and principles as well as requirements. 

The unfortunate consequence of failing to incorporate all the logical systems and subsystems into the newly formed constitutional system eventually resulted in severe problems, some of which have threatened that constitutional system.  The Civil War is the obvious result.  The gradual demise of the Native American nations and the relegation of the Native Americans to reservations is also apparent, but it does not appear to be viewed with significant concern within the encroaching constitutional system.  The constitutional system was almost destroyed from within by its slavery management subsystem, even as  the government resulting from the U. S. Constitution itself overwhelmed many Native American sovereign systems. 

Perhaps the reason for ignoring or neglecting such interfacing systems is that, while neither the African Americans nor the Native Americans and their systems were integrated into the newly formed constitutional system and the resulting new social identify, the interfaces with the Native American systems were significantly fewer than those with the African American systems.  The relatively independent Native American societal systems were gradually sent to reservations and were expected to fend for themselves -- out of sight, out of mind.  The more physically integrated African American societal systems were far more visible and had a far greater systemic impact at the interface with the new constitutionally formed American society.  One societal system was viewed as an obstacle (Native Americans) and the other as a resource (African American slaves).  Of course, the Native American obstacle was related to the acquisition of desirable territory and natural resources.  Technically speaking, a system’s resources are more significant to the system than obstacles, since obstacles are temporary and can be moved or worked around.  Resources have to be created continuously. 

Also technically speaking, it is interesting that the colonial settlers chose to transport slaves from Africa rather than make slaves out of the much closer Native Americans.  There are several subjective as well as practical reasons for this apparent inefficiency, but they are only academic at this point in history.  The bottom line of this train of thought is that the U. S. Founding Fathers may have created an excellent governmental system, but even they had their limitations.  They were adequate in some respects, but they did not even deal perfectly with the new system’s 18th century interfaces.  Thus, we should not rely on them too heavily as a source of wisdom in the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Of more practical value today is the issue of how the modern United States treats other societal systems (internal and external) that are of a different culture and, in many cases, at a different level of technological development.  Our collective thinking has certainly matured, but we still have trouble dealing with these other systems.  We are internally perplexed by continuing issues associated with the African American and Native American systems, but we are also confounded by external interfaces with countries such as Mexico, Japan, and China.  These external interfaces have resulted in the development of new internal cultural systems that are more difficult to deal with because of language and cultural systems. 

Of all of these factors, the most subjective one is “What needs to be done to make it a better system?”  Such a question implies that system is not already perfect, but it also is based on the assumption that it is not already adequate as a system.  An adequate system often simply needs to be operated and maintained well, possibly avoiding the problems that suggest imperfection.  Thus, it may not be necessary to pass a law or constitutional amendment to force everyone to use a single language, especially if the intent is to discourage the use of other languages, which are important to international trade and effectiveness in many world arenas.  The purpose of focusing on one language would be to maximize each citizen’s ability to understand and express complex issues or shades of subtle thoughts.  This need for understanding is as true within the federal constitutional system as it is of the local block-watch organizations in our communities.  Importantly, it is the health of the discourse-related factors that most directly contribute to human system effectiveness.  Properly operating and maintaining the existing governmental systems as intended in their design basis makes common sense as well as technical sense. 

Unfortunately, we spend most of our time fussing with where we are going (i.e., the next election of governmental managers) rather than focusing on making sure that what we have now performs efficiently.  It is like spending most of our time speculating on the new automobile that we will buy next year, while turning our current automobile over to an unlicensed teenager eager to go joyriding to impress young friends.  It may be the path of least resistance and may result in some short-term thrills, but common sense tells us that it is a foolish path to take.  We must focus as much on how we are operating today as we do on changes for tomorrow. 

Nevertheless, as soon as we start talking about the government, our eyes glaze over with awe and wonderment, and we assume that we are not able to understand and affect its ongoing functions.  We focus on tomorrow’s changes as if whatever problems may exist now will somehow be fixed by getting new officials at the next election.  Of course, as soon as new elected officials get into office, they assume they have a mandate to change everything to suit themselves.  In reality, the voters may believe that the current programs are clunkers, but they are not able to tell whether this is due to fundamental design or improper operation and maintenance.  It is ineffective to rotate the tires if the problem is that one of the tires is flat.  One of the “flat tires” of previous administrations was the lack of true citizen involvement in federal decisions that affect local communities. 

Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for newly elected officials is to start over with new programs, regardless of what problems exist and without worrying too much about the cost inefficiencies inherent to taking that new approach.  After all, they have a mandate for change, provided by the unhappy voters.  If the unhappy voters and taxpayers truly wanted to get their money’s worth and minimize the cost of government, they would keep the same people in office and ensure that the programs were operated and maintained in a manner that promoted meeting their design intent.  If programs are not working, waiting until the next election to do something about it is ineffective and costly. 

Moreover, the process of achieving broad-based understanding on difficult issues and self confidence in the resultant personal conclusions was probably less complicated for the colonists than it is today.  We not only have additional sources of information, more topics to consider, and a world-wide (and galactic?) sphere of interest, we also have more ready access to information and a higher rate of presentation.  Also, in a world increasingly driven by technology and technical issues, it has become more difficult for individuals to bring issues into adequate focus. 

Even Rush Limbaugh, with his “talent on loan from God,” can not confidently address and correct today’s range of problems and issues.  His common sense, fundamental approach may often result in more accurate analysis of what is going on, allowing a little better focus on some problems and issues.  Solutions are more difficult, but his emphasis on basic principles at least causes other people to look for basic principles among the chaotic clamor that comes from all sides.  With a more systematic approach to common sense (exceeding Rush Limbaugh’s), we should be able to get closer to “the truth,” closer to valid answers. 

Being bombarded constantly with information on each of many important matters, we do not have the luxury of hunger for information enjoyed by Tom Paine’s readers.  The key defect in the information bombardment is that it is often polarized, so we get two radically opposite views.  Even the special interest groups of colonial days eventually had to “put it in writing” to get the message across to the voters.  The rationale and validity of the differing colonial viewpoints were generally self evident once they were reduced to written form, but colonists depended on that form so it had a greater relative impact than modern books and newspapers. 

Today, we often get superficial information on radio and television, and many newspapers reflect underlying support for one side or the other.  Reporters are also less able to sort out the different views, so they are likely to give equal weight to experts and to novices on any given subject.  If reporters have no basis for assessing the information that they put in their articles, the readers probably do not either. 

Modern news information is assimilated and presented by professional news media organizations and individuals who also have little or no perspective on the topic at hand.  They believe that simply presenting two sides (regardless of the validity of each side) of an issue is adequate presentation, especially if it has to be ready for the six o’clock news.  Even if a news item is presented truthfully, accurately, and completely, it is still only level one information (superficial).  In seeking balance within a superficial flow of information, news reporting organizations are subject to manipulation by both sides of an issue.  One side can “leak” information, requiring the other side to “respond.”  The results are often so polarized with self interest that the truth is seldom stated or identified with any credibility. 

As educated, self-supporting citizens, we are probably still reasonably well aware of important current issues, but we might not have the time to sort out the details to arrive at educated opinions on many of our modern and often technically complex issues.  Even if the time were available, our individual, life-long focus on one primary (and often relatively narrow) area of self support (work) might make us quite dependent on what others have to say on many issues.  This makes us very vulnerable to opinion manipulation, an important component of power in modern society. 

In the period of time since the American Revolution and constitutional forefathers declared the independence of the 13 colonies from England, the continuing political process has been largely successful in fulfilling the dream for a better form of government than previously established in the world.  At least through the 1940s and (possibly) into the 1950s, the United States demonstrated reasonably continuous economic improvement and started taking on world-leadership roles in a manner that seemed to prove the viability of individual-freedom-based democracies and the check-and-balance approach to government.  Although the Revolutionary War foundation for political common sense had its ups and downs along the way, that is now water under the bridge. 

The October 1995 Million Man March on Washington, D.  C., provided us with a reality check in this regard.  The gathering’s leaders still acknowledged that the United States is one of the limited number of countries in the world where black men could assemble to express their frustration with the government, their frustration with the practice of white supremacy, and their frustration with themselves.  Yet, Colin Powell’s rejection-of-candidacy speech in November 1995 made it clear that much has been accomplished in one generation. 

There are many opportunities for the average citizen to influence positively the performance of the government established by the U. S. Constitution.  Since the government system is operated by elected politicians who appoint additional officials, elections are important.  More than ever before competent citizens are needed and should be encouraged to provide reactions and ideas regarding the many ongoing government programs and decisions that influence their lives and communities.  Complex systems work best when there is strong and appropriate feedback.  If the results of a program are not as good as what was intended, and (especially) if a program produces negative results, ongoing and persistent citizen input is needed. 

This input must be measured and balanced.  Promoting the interests of some groups over the general public interest is not balanced feedback.  Emphasizing special interests is no more appropriate than taking your automobile into the dealer’s service center and letting them decide what maintenance needs to be done.  Thus, when writing letters and when speaking at public meetings, those people who try to understand and discuss multiple perspectives provide the best feedback.  Polarized advocates are easily recognized, and their ideas are easily dismissed as not important. 

If good feedback is there and the government officials and organizational entities fail to be responsive to pleas for reasonable program development, operation, and maintenance, it may be that adjustments are needed to the legal or even the constitutional guidelines that form the government system.  We have a good constitutional framework, but if the constitution is not being operated and maintained properly to meet modern governmental needs, then it makes sense to adjust the constitution to make it better, as was intended by the Founding Fathers. 

The problem is that many people jump right to the part about amending the constitution and skip the part about providing balanced and persistent feedback within the current constitutional framework.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers made changes to the U. S. Constitution so difficult that the desires of many (or even most) people are not sufficient to change it. 

Changes to the Constitution were reluctantly allowed by its framers.  Proposing amendments requires a two-thirds vote by Congress or the state legislatures.  Amendment approvals require concurrence by three-fourths of the states.  These hurtles make constitutional amendments difficult.  It took women 72 years of effort to get the 19th Amendment passed, allowing women to vote.  Fortunately, proper maintenance of the governmental system established by the U. S. Constitution does not require frequent amendments.  Proper maintenance does  require an understanding of modern government problems, an understanding that is increasingly difficult to achieve in a complex, technological world that has new and radical levels of risk. 

The differences between the colonial forefathers’ level of risk and ours are apparent.  Few of the major risks to the colonists are present today, and few of the risks to which we are routinely exposed were possible in colonial days.  They worried about falling off horses and small pox.  We worry about falling out of the sky and acquired immune deficiencies.  They had a higher risk of death by disease, wild animals, and cannonballs.  We are at risk due to highway traffic, nuclear weapons, pollution, and drive-by shootings. 

Given the right experience and support, most problems should be amenable to resolution through a reasonable application of common sense, either through prevention, defense, or corrective actions.  These three basic steps are typically applied in the technical world.  Depending on the issue, problem, or area of risk, the three risk reduction levels of prevention, defense, and correction can be applied in different ways.  The range or number of risk-related applications changes over time and increases or decreases with advances in technology. 

Political System Interfaces with Other Systems

Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of technology and the associated impacts on today’s critical decisions for tomorrow require that we expand on Thomas Paine’s foundation.  If we can build a better understanding of what constitutes common sense in today’s complex society, perhaps we can more confidently and competently participate in the democratic process, causing the government processes to improve. 

As in the colonial days, citizens today still demonstrate an amazing capacity for self sacrifice and patience.  Over the past four decades, they have endured the Vietnam War, a range of social experiments, the resultant high taxes, increased Federal interference with commerce through regulatory absurdities, an out of touch and manipulative media, and a legal system that is upside down. 

Thomas Paine noted that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.  Are the citizens of the United States not increasingly caused to bow in the direction of Washington, D.C.?  The colonists and the Founding Fathers advocated a simple but controlled government, one that is close to and in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.  The federal government was to be structurally simple and was to be responsive to popular sovereignty.  Currently, neither of these objectives is being met. 

Recent history is full of examples in which the functional health of the United States is not evident.  Our news media provide these examples daily, reporting a full spectrum ill health while itself being part of the problem. 

There is also really bad government, which for the colonists included the one that no longer made any sense.  England is too far away to manage the affairs of the New World.  England was looking out for its own interests, not those of the colonists.  Subjugation to England was a convenient habit, but it was not practical.  It took months to communicate by messengers and slow sailing ships.  Decisions were not timely.  We have our own governmental problems

. 

The focus on subcultures and foreign cultural origins, while injecting awareness and a favorable cultural identity, established isolated political and social subsystems that are ill-prepared to enhance the economic condition of their constituents within the framework of a representative and democratic constitution.  Thus, racial and ethnic differences have been enhanced rather than minimized while exercising constitutional and legal guarantees of functional fairness and human equality. 

Political Parties and the U.S.  Budget Process

The following email and statement by Senator McCain reflect one of the few times that a politician has done something unpopular based on principles.  This makes Senator McCain "On-the-Level" and within the possibilities of Technidigm-2000in this instance.  This is not a Technidigm.org endorsement of his campaign for resident, but it is a statement of hope for America.  - Charles R.  Jones

A Sample Level One Opinion: Political Party Basics

The U. S. Constitution as a system recognizes the limits of the federal government and the rights of the states, which have their own constitutional systems.  Within each of the states are many counties, cities, and townships that are formally organized to provide more detailed local government.  All of these governmental systems are tied together by a political system, embodied primarily in two dominate political parties. 

Each political party also constitutes a system.  Each political party system has its exclusive objectives, components, culture, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, sensors, control systems, feedback mechanisms, and criteria for success.  Since the two dominant political parties are in competition for governmental powers, they necessarily and constantly engage their resources in political warfare with each other.  When the two opposing political systems approach an election, each searches desperately for any tactic that will give it an edge.  Nothing the other side says or does is right; nothing that our side says or does is wrong. 

Although the political process nauseates the voters, the democratic process requires the voters to decide which party should have power.  Many voters are ill prepared for this decision, so candidates can win (or lose) elections because of how they look or because of personality differences.  Photogenic handsomeness or beauty can get extra votes.  Name recognition and advertising money can get extra votes.  False promises to special interest groups and even blatant lies can get votes.  Knowledge, experience, and fundamental character issues play a secondary role in the decision making process for many voters. 

Successful politicians know these simple truths and take full advantage of them.  More qualified (i.e., probably better for the interests of the country and the people) but unsuccessful politicians may also know the ropes, but their integrity often gets in the way.  Thus, scoundrels or professional politicians can easily capture governmental power in a democracy.  As a result of voter default, the essential qualifications for office are simply too low to ensure the election of capable and honorable people. 

Voters default to scoundrels often because of a lack of time to collect, understand, and weigh each candidate’s credentials and his or her true views on key issues.  In an increasingly technical society, voter limitations and the resulting defaults are likely to get worse.  Rather than proactively selecting the right people for office in the first place, the voters will do what they have done in the past.  They will wait for adverse feedback to develop (consequences) that affects them personally, and then they will vote against the incumbent.  This reactive approach to voting often results in putting another professional politician in power, qualified or not. 

The political process has gotten so bad that capable, respected, and honest people will not even seek office, as evidenced by General Colin Powell’s decision not to run for president.  He said he had inadequate “fire in the stomach,” needed to maneuver the political election gauntlet.  This decision, by someone who might already have a majority of the voters in his pocket, says a lot about the current nature of the U. S. political system. 

To facilitate voter ability to choose good people, and to encourage good people to seek elective office, the time has come to raise the standard for political office.  To raise the political standard properly, we must first understand where our political system comes from and what its functional objectives ought to be.  If we do this review in a semi-technical context, the review will result in a better understanding of how the modern technological environment should interface with the political system.  With this better understanding comes a natural approach to raising voter and political standards. 

To make sense out of any political system, especially democracies such as the United States, we must first establish a frame of reference from which to inspect and assess that political system.  Even if we can make sense out of it, we may not like it as it operates currently.  We also may not be able to fix what we do not like about it, but we should keep trying to do so.  The U. S. political system touches everything, so it is appropriate to begin with it. 

Democracies encourage the creation of at least two strong political parties that are almost guaranteed to be polarized and, thus, squabble over every issue in which an advantage with the voters might be gained.  The U. S. political system is a relatively volatile subsystem of the U. S. Constitution, which is (fortunately) a very stable system.  As a shorthand in this first chapter, I apply the word “politics” (and its variations) when I am referring to the more controversial and rapidly changing aspects of the U. S. government and the associated constitutional processes.  I use the “constitution” (and its variations) when referring to the more stable and documented underpinnings of those governmental operations. 

After dealing with the political and constitutional issues and their relationships, it will be a lot easier to go on to government issues.  The actual performance of governmental institutions is not the same as its underlying politics and its constitutional framework, although they all have many connecting interfaces and operational similarities.  Government results from constitutional guidelines and from politics, but they are three different systems.  Before addressing modern governmental issues in terms of systems and common sense, it is useful to review their constitutional and political framework. 

Thus, we turn first to the basis for the current U. S. political system, the U. S. Constitution.  It is useful to start a book that focuses on common sense by reviewing colonial and Founding Father perspectives because they used the need for common sense in government to promote support for the Declaration of Independence.  Thus, they created an atmosphere of common sense that was important in the statesman-like creation of the U. S. Constitution and, also, contributed to the environment in which the U. S. political system was born.  Also, there is nothing like placing one’s life on the line to promote clear thinking, so most people consider this creative process to have produced a good constitutional environment for that operation. 

It was their objective to lay the foundation for a new type of government.  It was their hope that we would be able to continue to build on that foundation in a manner that would sustain the highly respected concepts of human rights, self determination, and freedom.  From our perspective, we ascribe significant respect to our constitutional forefathers for their wisdom in laying the foundation, although we argue quite a bit about what their original intentions were and were not.  Their intentions are most often brought out to make a point in modern arguments, supposing that our highly revered predecessors would have known what to do in today’s circumstances.  We suppose that they are somehow conveying their all-knowing guidance to us through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.  If things had not changed so much in the last two hundred years, our suppositions about their forward-looking sagacity would be more valid. 

While we might muse over what the great revolutionary leaders would think about some of our current government problems, we will never know.  It is also clear that we should solve our own problems, without unduly burdening the Founding Fathers’ spirits with the responsibility of contributing to the answers.  They provided us the necessary constitutional tools to find our own answers, something that requires an increasingly complex process to be successful. 

The Guru of Common Sense

Most of us learned about Thomas Paine while we were in school.  Unfortunately, these days his contributions are passed over very lightly, such that we barely are able to connect his name with the concept of common sense.  Thomas Paine was one of the key heroes from the American Revolution.  Tom became famous as a result of writing Common Sense, which was a bold precursor to the development of the Declaration of Independence.  Common Sense was originally published in January of 1776, about six months before the Declaration of Independence.  Tom had an ability to describe the different sides of controversial issues in a manner that exposed nonsense. 

Thomas Paine was a good writer, and his logic was unfettered by any significant issues related to technology.  He lived in relatively simple times.  Tom’s ideas and passion inspired many colonists to support the movement for independence from Britain.  He stimulated the population to support independence from England and set the tone for the Declaration of Independence.  Due to style similarities between that document and Tom’s pamphlet Common Sense, there are some scholars who believe Tom penned the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, providing the style and key phrases to Thomas Jefferson. 

His ideas are further embodied in the U. S. Constitution, although he did not help to write that document.  His ideas on the fundamental rights of man and the need for subservience of government provided a broad foundation for a democratic, yet representative constitutional approach to resolving disputes and managing an independent country.  The intervening reinforcement afforded by the Revolutionary War, firmly connected the Declaration of Independence to the U. S. Constitution.  Thus, the U. S. Constitution was created in an atmosphere charged with the principles of common sense, ensuring close attention to human rights and to ensuring that the federal government is responsive to representatives from the states and, thus, to the citizens’ interests as expressed through those representatives. 

Although possibly deserving more recognition than he received, Thomas Paine held the respect of many of his contemporaries as a powerful influencer of the colonial decision to choose independence from (rather than reconciliation with) England.  In achieving this respect and influence, Tom began his Common Sense logic with the fundamentals of nature.  Thus, his logic was difficult to attack. 

The colonists that formed Thomas Paine’s audience did have a significant advantage over their modern counterparts.  The colonists’ advantage over us was that they not only had more common sense, they had to exercise it frequently simply to survive.  Those that didn’t, didn’t.  Colonial leaders were quickly challenged and ridiculed when they displayed a lack of common sense. 

Modern leaders can more easily rely on emotion overwhelming common sense.  Reliance on emotion allows modern leaders to ignore the fundamentals that formed Thomas Paine’s notions of individual human rights and common sense in government.  Thus, modern dialog on right-and-wrong often involves emotion at the expense of common sense.  Yet, without a foundation in common sense, emotion seldom becomes passion. 

The content and tone of the Declaration of Independence were largely derived from Thomas Paine’s writings in Common Sense.  Tom had a talent for reducing the complex issues and passions of the American colonists to their fundamentals, describing the root causes of problems and putting things into perspective.  He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. 

Thomas Paine, the Colonial Rush Limbaugh

Tom’s clarity and no-nonsense approach to issues galvanized each reader’s self-confidence and increased reliance on common sense.  Common sense was an essential element needed to motivate the colonists to seek independence from the King of England and from the English Parliament.  People realized that they could think for themselves.  They did not have to rely on others to support them, so they certainly did not have to rely on others to think for them. 

Thomas Paine was the Rush Limbaugh of the American Colonies, although he did not have to resort to extreme modes of entertainment and to exaggeration to captivate an audience and to make his points.  Tom did have an ability to identify and express what many colonists felt, and his approach and style were unprecedented.  Like Rush, Tom had faith in the people and their ability to sort things out logically when presented with the relevant information.  Such logic attacks unwarranted assumptions and changes how people view the fundamental characteristics of their society. 

There are other interesting similarities between Tom and Rush.  Urged on by Tom, colonists viewed the 18th century European forms of government as often allowing robbers and murderers to go unpunished.  Justice was frequently not served well under kings, queens, and dictators.  Oppressive governments were the problem, not the solution.  With a few changes in terminology, Tom’s writings could be Rush’s.  Rush goes into a lot more detail in his books about the early settlers of this country, supporting his fundamental and constant adherence to the principle of individual responsibility and the need to control the federal government. 

Similar to Rush Limbaugh’s current attacks on big government, Thomas Paine complained of the royal appointment of a multitude of bureaucrats to harass the colonists and take away their wealth.  He coaxed the colonists to take the action needed to fix government problems, pointing out that failure to do so would mean that they deserved the harassment and loss of wealth.  Unlike today, the citizens of the colonists were communication starved and hungry for information.  They had enough common sense of their own to read, sort out, and understand the facts of a situation even without a persistent, persuasive, and clever spokesman. 

Would Thomas Paine agree with and be proud of Rush Limbaugh?  Probably.  After all, common sense is a proven, effective tool for tearing down modern forms of governmental nonsense, the stuff of the last 30 or so years.  Tom had the advantage over Rush because he only had to promote independence to get all or most of his concerns resolved.  Rush, in contrast, is faced with much more complex issues.  He is fortunate because he is not really expected to provide any details about how to  improve things, although he is quick to assert the need for common sense and reliance on fundamental principles.  Thomas Paine also focused on fundamental principles, but he lived in simpler times. 

Tom and Rush must be classified as a form of whistleblower, those that are able to be effective even without inside knowledge.  Their effectiveness springs from common sense, as enhanced by their communication clarity gifts.  Paine’s relatively direct approach was adequate to help light the fire of independence.  A keen focus on common sense helped spur the colonists to support the type of self government reflected in the Constitution.  Perhaps Rush Limbaugh’s modern efforts to do the same will help return the United States to common sense fundamentals and a feeling of self confidence in the validity of those fundamentals. 

Rush Limbaugh:  A Modern Thomas Paine

We can only speculate whether the Paine/Limbaugh approach also resulted in motivating the colonial citizenry to a heightened level of self confidence in their own abilities, but this approach seems to be very effective today, as used by Rush Limbaugh.  People are starting to think more critically, but they continue to flock to their modern common sense guru for guidance on which way to go.  Rush constantly generates different perspectives than those presented in the news media, providing his polarized (and thus balancing) arguments for his audience’s consumption. 

Rush has the resources needed to produce a weekday television and radio barrage that conforms to modern communication techniques and the average citizen’s need to be entertained while being enlightened.  The need for entertainment complements the need for thematic repetition of conservative principles, countering the more liberal assumptions and themes expressed daily by his opponents.  Rush is placing a system of constitutional principles and Founding Father intent up against political and social systems that have neglected those principles and that intent except when they serve to promote their own systems of power control and wealth redistribution. 

Rush pontificates on fundamental ideas in a relatively superficial manner, although not unlike the approach taken by Thomas Paine.  In contrast to colonial days, Rush is providing his views in a more challenging era of significant social, political, and technical complexity.  Yet, criticisms that are based even superficially on common sense are superior to those that have no common sense basis at all.  Stated from a broader perspective, whatever motivates a modern political or government decision, if common sense is not part of that motivation, the decision is vulnerable even to superficial attacks.  No detailed knowledge of a subject is needed to attack a decision if it fails to meet common sense tests.  However, fixing it or addressing the original problem that motivated the decision is much more difficult. 

While Rush Limbaugh also is creating a common sense framework for future action, it is relatively easy to carp at others from the sidelines, albeit with biting and accurate common sense.  It is quite another matter to come up with the details of the future actions needed to make significant improvements, organizing those actions into a plan such that they are not subject to common sense carping from the sidelines.  The ongoing need to apply common sense in today’s world is certainly still there, just as it was in colonial days.  It is now much more difficult. 

Applying common sense within the framework of a systematic approach seems like an obvious concept, but it is probably a lot more difficult than might be inferred by Rush Limbaugh’s merciless ridicule of liberals.  The problem is that polarized thinking (i.e., right and wrong, up and down, or left and right) attempts to deal with issues on an all-or-nothing basis.  Polarized advocates can increase confusion and can produce disorderly and inaccurate results.  Polarized advocates can be viewed as components in opposing systems, each having different principles and objectives.  The two polarized systems can exist without creating or being part of a system capable of solving the problem. 

When faced with opposing, polarized advocate systems, we often need a jury to decide guilt or innocence, based on what are often radically polarized approaches of the prosecuting and defending attorneys.  Although prosecutors are supposed to seek the truth, they are at a disadvantage relative to defense attorneys, who need not seek the truth and who are free to polarize their side of a trial in any manner that works with the jury.  The jury selection process polarizes the jury, allowing jurors to be screened by polarized attorneys. 

Political Conclusions

The U. S. Constitution is one of the most effective governmental systems ever devised by man.  Great and noble sacrifices were made by determined men during the Revolutionary War as well as over these two intervening centuries, bringing us to this period of relative confusion, doubt, and vacillation.  We need not assume our inherited form of government to be perfect, nor should we cling blindly to all of its features and component parts without understanding them and without continually improving how we operate and maintain them. 

Clinging blindly to the practices of two centuries is probably better than rushing blindly into the future, reinventing government reactively as we go.  Here we suggest that it is useful to view the U. S. Constitution as a system, identifying its interfaces with other human systems and dealing with issues in an organized and balanced manner.  A systems view of the U. S. Constitution can assist in understanding how the current federal government functions, what the problems are, and how to proceed in the improvement process.  It is not enough to change how the government operates reactively, whenever the issues finally get so bad that they overwhelm the incumbent officials.  It is not enough to blame the incumbents for our problems and then have the elected officials changed out by the voters. 

Before we find ourselves blinded by overconfidence in the U. S. Constitution and by our ability to elect a different set of public officials whenever we are not happy, we should reflect on how well the federal government is performing as a system today.  While no one can provide an all-inclusive discussion of such a huge and complicated government, there are a number of basic system principles that can be identified (good and bad) and which are likely to be found throughout most of the government.  None of the principles suggested here is mysterious or unexpected, but many reflect new possibilities and, to the extent that they are now becoming more important, support the notion that the federal government is too big and is not under control.  Reducing it and controlling it requires understanding it as a system. 

Level One Opinions on Political Parties as Systems

The U. S. Constitution as a system recognizes the limits of the federal government and the rights of the states, which have their own constitutional systems.  Within each of the states are many counties, cities, and townships that are formally organized to provide more detailed local government.  All of these governmental systems are tied together by a political system, embodied primarily in two dominant political parties. 

Each political party also constitutes a system.  Each political party system has its exclusive objectives, components, culture, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, sensors, control systems, feedback mechanisms, and criteria for success.  Since the two dominant political parties are in competition for governmental powers, they necessarily and constantly engage their resources in political warfare with each other.  When the two opposing political systems approach an election, each searches desperately for any tactic that will give it an edge.  Nothing the other side says or does is right; nothing that our side says or does is wrong. 

Although the political process nauseates the voters, the democratic process requires the voters to decide which party should have power.  Many voters are ill prepared for this decision, so candidates can win (or lose) elections because of how they look or because of personality differences.  Photogenic handsomeness or beauty can get extra votes.  Name recognition and advertising money can get extra votes.  False promises to special interest groups and even blatant lies can get votes.  Knowledge, experience, and fundamental character issues play a secondary role in the decision making process for many voters. 

Successful politicians know these simple truths and take full advantage of them.  More qualified (i.e., probably better for the interests of the country and the people) but unsuccessful politicians may also know the ropes, but their integrity often gets in the way.  Thus, scoundrels or professional politicians can easily capture governmental power in a democracy.  As a result of voter default, the essential qualifications for office are simply too low to ensure the election of capable and honorable people. 

Voters default to scoundrels often because of a lack of time to collect, understand, and weigh each candidate’s credentials and his or her true views on key issues.  In an increasingly technical society, voter limitations and the resulting defaults are likely to get worse.  Rather than proactively selecting the right people for office in the first place, the voters will do what they have done in the past.  They will wait for adverse feedback to develop (consequences) that affects them personally, and then they will vote against the incumbent.  This reactive approach to voting often results in putting another professional politician in power, qualified or not. 

The political process has gotten so bad that capable, respected, and honest people will not even seek office, as evidenced by General Colin Powell’s decision not to run for president.  He said he had inadequate “fire in the stomach,” needed to maneuver the political election gauntlet.  This decision, by someone who might already have a majority of the voters in his pocket, says a lot about the current nature of the U. S. political system. 

To facilitate voter ability to choose good people, and to encourage good people to seek elective office, the time has come to raise the standard for political office.  To raise the political standard properly, we must first understand where our political system comes from and what its functional objectives ought to be.  If we do this review in a semi-technical context, the review will result in a better understanding of how the modern technological environment should interface with the political system.  With this better understanding comes a natural approach to raising voter and political standards. 

To make sense out of any political system, especially democracies such as the United States, we must first establish a frame of reference from which to inspect and assess that political system.  Even if we can make sense out of it, we may not like it as it operates currently.  We also may not be able to fix what we do not like about it, but we should keep trying to do so.  The U. S. political system touches everything, so it is appropriate to begin with it. 

Democracies encourage the creation of at least two strong political parties that are almost guaranteed to be polarized and, thus, squabble over every issue in which an advantage with the voters might be gained.  The U. S. political system is a relatively volatile subsystem of the U. S. Constitution, which is (fortunately) a very stable system.  As a shorthand in this first chapter, I apply the word “politics” (and its variations) when I am referring to the more controversial and rapidly changing aspects of the U. S. government and the associated constitutional processes.  I use the “constitution” (and its variations) when referring to the more stable and documented underpinnings of those governmental operations. 

After dealing with the political and constitutional issues and their relationships, it will be a lot easier to go on to government issues.  The actual performance of governmental institutions is not the same as its underlying politics and its constitutional framework, although they all have many connecting interfaces and operational similarities.  Government results from constitutional guidelines and from politics, but they are three different systems.  Before addressing modern governmental issues in terms of systems and common sense, it is useful to review their constitutional and political framework. 

Thus, we turn first to the basis for the current U. S. political system, the U. S. Constitution.  It is useful to start a book that focuses on common sense by reviewing colonial and Founding Father perspectives because they used the need for common sense in government to promote support for the Declaration of Independence.  Thus, they created an atmosphere of common sense that was important in the statesman-like creation of the U. S. Constitution and, also, contributed to the environment in which the U. S. political system was born.  Also, there is nothing like placing one’s life on the line to promote clear thinking, so most people consider this creative process to have produced a good constitutional environment for that operation. 

It was their objective to lay the foundation for a new type of government.  It was their hope that we would be able to continue to build on that foundation in a manner that would sustain the highly respected concepts of human rights, self determination, and freedom.  From our perspective, we ascribe significant respect to our constitutional forefathers for their wisdom in laying the foundation, although we argue quite a bit about what their original intentions were and were not.  Their intentions are most often brought out to make a point in modern arguments, supposing that our highly revered predecessors would have known what to do in today’s circumstances.  We suppose that they are somehow conveying their all-knowing guidance to us through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.  If things had not changed so much in the last two hundred years, our suppositions about their forward-looking sagacity would be more valid. 

While we might muse over what the great revolutionary leaders would think about some of our current government problems, we will never know.  It is also clear that we should solve our own problems, without unduly burdening the Founding Fathers’ spirits with the responsibility of contributing to the answers.  They provided us the necessary constitutional tools to find our own answers, something that requires an increasingly complex process to be successful. 

Campaign Financing

Modern technology has brought us mass communications, but at a price.  Political campaigns go through millions of dollars just to produce and run television "spots" of less than one minute.  These brief messages are intended to sway voters with the candidate's enlightened views as well as what are purported to be the flawed views of the competing candidates.  The views of the opposition are placed in the worst possible light, often out-of-context, while the candidate's views are placed in the most favorable light. 

Several "takes" are needed for the candidate to achieve an acceptable television advertisement.  Candidates must look good and look like they are sincere, mature, and able.  Many candidates get professional help just to develop and to maintain their preferred image. 

While such make-believe imaging and false advertising falls under freedom of speech, the net effect is that political campaigns have become far too expensive relative to the social benefits achieved.  Wealthy candidates have an advantage since they do not have to spend time raising money, and the entire political system is skewed by the constant need to raise money. 

Analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has verified that the candidate who raises and spends the most money is likely to win, although this is not guaranteed.  Incumbents have too spend much of their terms raising money to get reelected. 

This campaign financing feedback is interesting, but it easily leads us astray.  Based on such feedback, the most popular answers to the campaign spending problem simply involve limiting spending.  There are well-meaning people thoughtfully developing various financial incentives and specifying maximum contribution amounts.  They want to have new campaign financial rules, making things more equal through legislation. 

The objective of these campaign spending schemes and the associated legislation is "to level the playing field." While well intentioned, they are overly complex and artificial.  For example, Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold recently introduced campaign finance "true reforms" bill.  They want to have free broadcast time, to reduce political mailings, to specify special advertising broadcast rates, and to define other financial limits for candidates.  Keeping track of and enforcing all of the related details that accompany such legislation might be possible for some campaigns, but there are many campaigns in which it would not be practical.  Such legislation also expands government and regulations unnecessarily, especially when there is a more efficient way to do the job. 

From a technical systems perspective, the approach of applying legislation to respond to the feedback signal (i.e., well-financed candidates win) is an erroneous approach.  The financial management legislative approach ignores the important underlying principles of representative government.  In particular, it does nothing to promote personal integrity and basic advertising fairness.  If legislation needs to be passed to improve the campaign funding problem, it should be directed at encouraging a better campaign process, rather than artificially constraining the distasteful results of the process. 

Encouraging a better process is not only more effective, it is less expensive.  Most conscientious voters try to watch the political debates and read whatever information is available on the candidates.  While televised debates and news media documentation of debates have their problems and limitations, they produce valuable information for the voters on a comparatively level playing field.  These forums are often not especially financially challenging to the candidates. 

Debates are able to achieve level four status when properly led by a moderator and when candidates are required to have validated facts.  However, too often we have level one and off-the-level debates that are not much better than the fabricated advertising campaigns.  It is the debate process that needs to be refined and encouraged.  This is where the system feedback is needed.  The voters and the news media merely have to focus on which candidates are attempting to debate at level four.  Compare those candidates and ignore the others.  Under Technidigm-2000, political debate and the associated feedback is encouraged because everyone will want to be viewed as a level four leader.  It will not be legislated - it will be expected. 

Since one-sided campaign advertising is not consistent with level four debate, under Technidigm-2000, candidates who use one-sided advertising place their candidacy in jeopardy.  If a candidate wants to produce and pay for a 60-second television advertisement, that candidate should invite at least one of the competing candidates to share that time equally, if necessary at no cost to the other candidate.  With 30 seconds each and sitting next to each other, both candidates could be represented much more fairly, and neither candidate would have an advantage caused by financing.  Again, this would not be legislated - it would be expected. 

Of course, such an approach is the same as campaign fund sharing, a concept that is so different from the current paradigm that many people will consider it impractical.  However, if we really want a political culture change, new concepts will have to be explored.  We should not keep asking for level four changes and then casually turn them down at level one.  Our "level one reactions" to level four changes are predictable.  One effect of level four solutions is to produce changes in level one opinions through success, which requires implementation and feedback just like any other program.  This is deep thinking, but Technidigm-2000 makes it rather obvious and readily understood. 

As in longer debates, fairness in television advertising would be ensured by an independent moderator.  Each candidate would have to work with the other to develop what each is going to say during the recording session.  They need not agree, but they need not have any surprises.  If the paying candidate invited two other candidates to such a mini-debate, each of the three candidates would have 20 seconds, each statement would be shared in advance, and the order of candidate presentations would be determined by the moderator. 

The moderator is expected to be a level four leader and may decide to seek the advice of a fairness jury.  Multiple "takes" on the advertising would be discouraged since all of the candidates would be bound by the moderator's decision.  With such a process, we would have significant improvements in television advertising as well as in campaign financing.  From a systems perspective, we would be focusing on the true objectives of the political system and the election process rather than artificially manipulating its output.  Whatever the source of campaign money, it should be spent on getting to level four decisions, not stirring up level one opinions. 

Even this approach to reducing the campaign financing problem would not be without its problems, but these problems would be what engineers refer to as "second-order effects".  Second-order effects are results that are unimportant relative to the primary results.  When we make important decisions based on minor issues, we are "letting the tail wag the dog" or "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

We can always state level one opinions that detract from level four solution systems.  For example, it is easy to come up with the level one opinion that speculates, "If candidates share the costs of the 60-second television mini-debates, it will be more likely that only the richest candidates or the best financed campaigns would be represented." Based on this possibility, the entire concept might be dropped even though it has potential to provide a vast improvement over the current approach. 

It is at level four that all concerns can be placed into their proper context.  Also, it is at level four that we can create solution systems that are based on the right principles, that have the best possible objectives, and that have the necessary time to work out the initial problems. 

Changes always bring problems, many of which are caused by a failure to change rather than by the change itself.  In the television debate example, there are probably more than just two highly candidates who must be debated.  If the shared cost approach were implemented, a rich candidate might try to achieve an advantage by only debating noncompetitive candidates rather than the most competitive.  Under the Technidigm-2000 approach, a candidate who consistently avoids debating other candidates will experience a credibility problem.  If a candidate is off-the-level, it will be apparent. 

Another compensating fact in this second-order arena is that there are only two major political parties.  After the primary elections and party conventions, one-on-one is usually the most appropriate debate format.  Again, such concerns are of less consequence than the basic objective of getting the candidates to debate at level three, displaying their leadership and knowledge regarding real issues. 

Addressing issues such as campaign financing is only one example of how powerful an on-the- level systems approach can be in resolving fundamental problems.  Each member of the Technidigm-2000 community can easily enforce high standards of integrity in politics.  No legislation is required.  When we focus on our principles and identify our true objectives, it is much easier to establish systematic processes that lead us toward those objectives efficiently. 

When a political campaign activity has no redeeming principles or objectives, it should not be done.  If unfair, distorted, or wasteful political activities are identified, the responsible people are automatically discredited under Technidigm-2000.  Once discredited, it is very difficult to recover one's level four leadership position. 

It is worth repeating a key benefit of how Technidigm-2000 impacts problems such as campaign reform.  No legislation is required.  When principles are involved, enforcement flows from the people as soon as those principles are stated and applied publicly by a single candidate.  Other candidates are forced to catch up with the leader or be left behind. 

Politics Inside the Beltway

The federal political paradigm is found mostly within the Washington, D. C. beltway.  It is a highly polarized, political paradigm.  How do we get something in between political extremes that we can live with?  The answer in the political paradigm has been to let the opposing extremes cancel each other, pitting Congress against the opposing political party in the White House.  The Congress represents a large mass with a lot of inertia.  The president can be replaced much faster by the voters, either helping or hendering Congress by accelerating its programs or putting on the brakes. 

This political paradigm and approach results in periodic political gridlock, which is a good thing to have when professional politicians are running things.  Gridlock forces each side to appeal its case to the people, hoping that the other side will get some kind of message from the voters.  Unfortunately, the paradigm must grow to incorporate the voters, bringing new political planning, strategies, and tactics intended to influence the voters.  Due to the increased technical complexity of modern society and the day-to-day stresses faced by the voting public, experience has caused the the political paradigm to conclude that lies, half truths, and shallow debate is effective in influencing the voters.  Elections continue to be popularity contests, often among nice looking and well spoken individuals whose most significant credential is being able to get elected.  Once elected, they are at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups for the information needed to make decisions.  They find it difficult to sort out the two sides of a debate, hard as they try.  Votes on legislative bills in Congress are often close, often turning on a minor point, making external inputs from the voters important. 

Modern communication technology makes it easier than it used to be to manipulate the voters, but we can always fall back on the final truth -- the voters get what they deserve.  They have gotten higher taxes, lower pay checks, more unemployment, and a lot more crime and social disorder.  Yes, we have earned our problems nobly. 

Modern communications also make it easier for the voters to see what is going on inside the beltway.  Radio and television entertain us with talk-show hosts that thrive on ridicule and exposing political hypocrisy.  Recently, segments of the voters have been sending lots of messages to the political paradigm in recent elections, in the public opinion polls, in letters, and in telephone calls.  Hitting the political paradigm with political redirections is increasingly popular.

Political Conclusions

The U. S. Constitution is one of the most effective governmental systems ever devised by man.  Great and noble sacrifices were made by determined men during the Revolutionary War as well as over these two intervening centuries, bringing us to this period of relative confusion, doubt, and vacillation.  We need not assume our inherited form of government to be perfect, nor should we cling blindly to all of its features and component parts without understanding them and without continually improving how we operate and maintain them. 

Clinging blindly to the practices of two centuries is probably better than rushing blindly into the future, reinventing government reactively as we go.  Here we suggest that it is useful to view the U. S. Constitution as a system, identifying its interfaces with other human systems and dealing with issues in an organized and balanced manner.  A systems view of the U. S. Constitution can assist in understanding how the current federal government functions, what the problems are, and how to proceed in the improvement process.  It is not enough to change how the government operates reactively, whenever the issues finally get so bad that they overwhelm the incumbent officials.  It is not enough to blame the incumbents for our problems and then have the elected officials changed out by the voters. 

Before we find ourselves blinded by overconfidence in the U. S. Constitution and by our ability to elect a different set of public officials whenever we are not happy, we should reflect on how well the federal government is performing as a system today.  While no one can provide an all-inclusive discussion of such a huge and complicated government, there are a number of basic system principles that can be identified (good and bad) and which are likely to be found throughout most of the government.  None of the principles suggested here is mysterious or unexpected, but many reflect new possibilities and, to the extent that they are now becoming more important, support the notion that the federal government is too big and is not under control.  Reducing it and controlling it requires understanding it as a system. 

 

Chapter 7
Technidigm Applications in Government

The U. S. Founding Fathers could never have anticipated today's technological complexities such as global nuclear war, the Unabomber’s manifesto, the communication capabilities of the Internet, or the O.  J.  Simpson television trial.  Yet, they established a remarkable form of government, one that can accommodate and respond effectively to changes, even to rapidly emerging technical and social changes.  Changes over a few decades may not seem very rapid, but most of us recognize that the current rate of change is quite astounding, especially in the technology arena. 

The U. S. Constitution includes an amendment process for keeping up with changes, but this requires timely use of that process.  It took women 72 years of effort to get the 19th Amendment passed, allowing women to vote.  If we need new amendments to keep government on track to serve the interests of the people, the sooner we get to it the better.  The question that we have to ask is "How?"

Most of us suspect that the common sense approaches of the colonists might not be adequate to deal with many of today's problems, even somewhat routine problems.  Most colonists would have difficulty trying to figure out how to pay income taxes or, because of environmental laws and regulations.  how to get permission to build a log cabin on their waterfront property.  Indeed, we find such tasks frustrating as well, and we avoid confrontations with the complexities and mandates of environmental laws, and many of us hire tax professionals to do our income taxes. 

Taxpayers do not just pay income taxes, they have to do them.  It is now a major undertaking just to calculate how much is to be paid, and many people and companies have to do the calculations several times each year.  Government has gotten so large that paying for it is a major problem, a problem that would probably surprise and confound the Founding Fathers. 

Likewise, our modern version of common sense might not suffice for dealing with many routine colonial problems.  While we could probably figure out how to pay taxes in bales of tobacco, few of us could build our own home, especially in a wilderness, with no power tools, pre-cut lumber, steel nails, and no prefabricated shingles.  They also had to concurrently produce enough food for their families to survive, often requiring a group effort.  It was tough on the colonists, and many of them starved to death or died of diseases.  Those who survived did so because of hard work and a constant application of common sense.

Technidigm-2000 concepts help us to understand the rather obvious differences between our capabilities and those of the Founding Fathers.  Human experience and education are not very effective when used out-of-context.  Yet, our eighteenth century counterparts and we operate under the same constitutional framework with the same basic principles and personal objectives.

The differences are simply in the social system contexts within which those principles and goals exist.  Just as automobiles wear out and have to be repaired or replaced, we have to keep adjusting our social systems to deal concurrently with degradations and with advances in knowledge.  These are largely cyclic changes in system performance and context.  They occur over time, requiring us to assess system output, apply the needed feedback, and get back on track relative to our less volatile principles and goals. 

Moreover, we have a continuing stream of new government programs, new systems that require more resources, piled on top of previously implemented programs that are already exceeding available funds.  Indeed, many new government systems are legislated into existence every year, supposedly addressing our needs but violating fundamental principles. 

If we are willing to ignore the need for government efficiency and to go further into debt every year, we can satisfy our immediate need for resources for the array of old and new government programs by legislating the earnings of our children into our pockets today.  Besides issues of principles and resources, going into debt in this manner raises additional Technidigm-2000 concerns for context and timing.  Thus, even if we assume that every government program is on-the-level, there are several Technidigm-2000 issues that need to be addressed by applying level four leadership.  Such complex problems can not be solved at level one.

When the United States was smaller and less populated, government programs and their systems were easier to start up, fund, and manage.  A larger, more populous nation naturally required a larger government.  Each government program likewise became larger, more expensive, and more difficult to manage. 

Computers facilitate program growth more readily than they encourage better program management.  By the time a new government program is defined, approved, funded, staffed, proceduralized, equipped, and started up, a lot can change.  Without a foundation in basic principles, clear objectives, and adequate feedback mechanisms, a government program can grow out of control and fail, wasting the resources committed to it.

The program's context can also change if a new administration is elected.  When elections change context, the new management team is likely to start making radical changes, believing that the voters have provided the necessary feedback in the form of a mandate for change.  This is not an efficient form of feedback, but it is the kind of feedback that results when government programs are so out of control that the voters decide to make a major change in the country's direction.

Voter-mandated changes in direction is a little more complicated than simply changing the control of Congress or the presidency from one political party to the other.  The government program objectives often remain the same, but the desired approach to achieving those objective changes.  Perhaps the underlying principles and feedback mechanisms change with the new government leadership. 

The difficulty arises when the defeated politicians try to persuade the voters that the new principles include new objectives as well.  It is difficult enough for most people to understand the differences between principles and objectives.  Off-the-level politicians can take advantage of this by creating an impression that both are changing.  Without a Technidigm-2000 frame of reference to separate objectives from principles, it is easy to persuade people that the new approach "goes too far."

The point of this discussion is that the proper creation and efficient management of government systems is a daunting task, especially in a political arena that has no constraints or rules.  The entire process needs to be better understood by everyone concerned.  Technidigm-2000 promotes that understanding.

We can not rely on anyone but ourselves to undertake the task of creating a better government, and we had better get on with it -- the sooner the better!

The First Principle of Government

The need for and power of principles is evident in everything of importance.  As described later under Technidigm-2000 applications, the U. S. Constitution is based on specific principles, including the first principle that all forms of government are bad.  Some are just not as bad as others.  Thus, even if we have the best form of government, it should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary.  Unfortunately, identifying what is absolutely necessary is not an easy task. 

Moreover, not everyone agrees that minimum government is a desirable goal.  When the people of democracies find out that they can shift the wealth of others into their own pockets, voting becomes a popularity contest based on how many goodies each candidate promises to deliver.  Extreme versions of wealth shifting can result in economic collapse by discouraging industrious people, as evidenced by the results of communism, the ultimate in big governments. 

Big government facilitates wealth shifting by demanding that more and more resources be turned over to it by the most industrious people.  More and more types of taxes are developed.  Paying the same percentage of income in taxes is characterized as unfair, allowing us to tax the most industrious and successful people at a higher percentage.  Not only do they have to pay more absolute dollars for the same "services" simply due to the effects of percentage taxing, they have to pay a higher percentage as their "fair share."

There is nothing fair about percentage taxing.  It is simply a convenient way of paying for the burden of big government.  If we required someone to pay more for a television or a hamburger based on their wealth, most of us would consider that to be unfair.  If they paid more voluntarily, such that the prices for others would be less, then we would consider them to be altruistic or philanthropic.  We certainly would not demean them or criticize them. 

Under the current tax system, we force wealthy people to pay more for government services, and we demean and criticize them as being cheap if they object.  When taxes are raised, politicians make it clear that rich people will be taxed more than the rest of us, making it more palatable to us.  When taxes are reduced, politicians often strive to find a way to turn the action into the most votes, again tending to penalize rich people. 

When someone says that a tax is fair, it is almost always because it is unfair.  If it were fair, it would be intuitively obvious and would not have to be stated.  It just depends upon what the motivation is behind the statement and how much explanation is needed to make the tax appear to be fair, under the assumption that we can not think for ourselves.  The rich and well to do got that way by methods that seem to escape the rest of us, and they are usually the most productive members of society, making jobs for the rest of us. 

We also hear the argument that many people who are rich inherited the money or came by it in some other way that required little effort on their part, or that they are simply beneficiaries of an economy created by the politicians.  Even if some are truly undeserving, it is not "fair" for the government to take away their property and give it to others, or to make them pay more for the same government benefits (or problems) that the rest of us are financing.  It just does not sound correct to say that we intend to tax the rich unfairly so that big government can prosper and so that most of the voters can be convinced that taxes are good for them. 

The rich may prosper in spite of our unfair tax rules, but many more of us would also prosper with a smaller government.  Our money would also be spent on more appropriate community needs rather than for pork barrel projects that make no sense but that make a politician seem more worthy in the eyes of his own constituents. 

Small government makes wealth shifting less necessary, so small government in itself promotes prosperity by motivating and enabling people to become successful.  On the other hand, we might also conclude that the larger our government systems, the more likely we will experience economic collapse.  We should also conclude that this basic principle has not changed in the past 200 years.  Again, the U. S. Constitution is based on specific principles, including the first principle that all forms of government are bad.  Some are just not as bad as others.  Thus, even if we have the best form of government, it should be minimized to what is absolutely necessary.  Not only is this the first principle of government, it is arguably the simplest and most elegant. 

Government Employees as Solution System Components

Incentives are also important in determining how well government internal components function.  In particular, many government employees at all levels of government enjoy civil service protections or guarantees.  While it is not fair to categorize all government employees as being dependent on such protections for their continued employment, it is difficult to find incentives sufficient to motivate government employees to perform their functions in a manner inconsistent with the office political atmosphere. 

The political atmosphere often imposes special interest group objectives on government employees.  That is, anyone who "rocks the boat" even in a level four solution system in an effort to meet system objectives is likely to get into political trouble within a government organization if the system objectives are not consistent with the current political objectives.  We now refer to such people as "whistleblowers," a word that is now so common that it need not be hyphenated.  We even have come to assume that a whistleblower's government career is over or sidetracked even without knowing anything about the issue that they raised. 

Whistleblowers exist primarily in top-down organizations.  Government offices are more often top-down organizations rather than the bottom-up systems needed to achieve the best technical results.  Government projects are usually organized along the same lines as the government itself, so the human components of those projects may adversely affect level four solution systems.  This condition will exist as long as polarized politics exist in government. 

Technidigm-2000 discourages political polarization by encouraging a common sense approach to politics at the grass-roots level, as intended by the framers of the U. S. Constitution.  The bottom-up approach turns the organizational pyramid upside down, making it more apparent who supports whom in getting things done.  Efficiency in government would improve significantly if government agencies simply issued their organizational charts with the elected and appointed officials at the bottom. 

Government Contractors as Components

If a special interest group is driven by objectives that are not consistent with those of the solution system, then that special interest group can not be expected to function effectively as a component of the solution system.  Contractors are special interests that are driven by profits.  Government agencies must offer financial incentives to contractors to get them to do the work needed.  When profit-motivated special interest groups are all we have available to get a job done, their contract incentives must be tied with great care to the true objectives of the solution system. 

This approach of using contractor resources as solution system components is better than doing nothing, and it creates at least an artificial integrity.  Keep in mind that if we are to meet solution system objectives using contractors as system components, then it is necessary to ensure that the contractor objectives are met as well.  While it is possible to force a contractor to complete the agreed-to tasks even at a financial loss, it is not likely that the contractor will be motivated to raise emergent considerations in an adversarial environment. 

Time and context impact a project over its life, so at least some of the details of the original contract will usually have to be adjusted if the intended objectives are to be achieved.  Contractors often make most or their profits on change orders that become necessary over the project life-cycle.  Thus, it is important to pick contractors that have real integrity as well as profit-driven integrity.  The low bidder may not be the least expensive option. 

Government Social Programs Are Not Systematic

In stark contrast to such complex engineering projects as nuclear power plants, social systems are far less organized and far less compatible with each other at their interfaces.  Indeed, the U. S. Constitution essentially guarantees that social systems can be independent and even incompatible with each other.  However, when the government creates social systems that are also government dependent, then we can have additional problems with resources and how those resources are applied to differing government goals.  Such government social programs can benefit from a systematic approach. 

For example, welfare programs compete with military programs for funding.  Yet, from a government perspective, these are independent programs, and little is done to promote cooperation at the program interfaces with each other.  The fact that some military personnel are paid at levels that qualify them for welfare payments is treated as a curiosity by most people.  Yet, it is treated as an opportunity by military special interest groups to get military raises.  Such "revelations" should not be surprises.  They should simply be controlled and intended conditions that result from systematic programs that are well thought out and integrated. 

When integration and cooperation are not promoted at the interface between two programs, then a special interest group mentality develops as the default relationship.  The arguments become less logical and more emotional.  Since each program can have many such defaulted interfaces with other programs, it is easy to see how social confusion can be the result. 

In the worst case, every social program can have a special interest group mentality at every interface.  This is the exact opposite of what is needed, contrasting sharply with what is required for technology-oriented projects such as nuclear power plants and the space shuttle program.  As society becomes more complex or when it changes at a faster pace, it becomes more difficult to address the issues that arise from the non-systematic, special interest group mentality. 

Increasingly, special interest groups have become the province of those who are the most radical special interest promoters.  The "silent majority" grows as the more radical groups shrink down to their most radical elements.  Rather than organized cooperation, we get communication chaos in the form of one-sided attacks and, to get anything done at all, we often are asked to accept compromises between extreme positions.  Nevertheless, we would be wise to keep in mind that compromise is not the same as optimize. 

Government Systems

Under Technidigm-2000, systems are used to carry out solutions.  Level four solutions must be designed to apply available resources to system components, which are designed to function across the widest possible set of competing issues or problems.  One of the key problems experienced by the U. S. Department of Energy in upgrading the nuclear safety programs at its nuclear weapons program facilities between 1988 and 1993 was the failure to provide sufficient funds to do so.  Even the highest of principles and the most competent organization are impotent without resources. 

Also, the many inspectors sent to the DOE facilities during this period did little to provide guidance on priorities because they were not familiar with the plant-specific context of the problems that they found.  They were not even sure that real problems existed.  It is a lot easier to list problems and potential problems than it is to assess and correct them.  The net result was that most of the DOE nuclear facilities were either shut down or they operated under a staggering list of poorly organized suggestions for nuclear safety upgrades. 

When the Executive Branch administration changed political parties in 1993, the frustrations in the nuclear safety programs led to a major shift of responsibilities.  Program responsibilities were shifted from Washington, D. C. to managers in the field.  The list of organization components remained essentially the same, but their roles were changed.  The DOE organizational philosophy changed in mid-stream from centralized to decentralized, resulting in a significant shift in the location where the available human resources were needed. 

As is the case for any major change in a program, this change resulted in additional expenses.  Interestingly, the change placed the DOE organization back to where it was in the early 1980s in terms of its management style.  Thus, we have an example where resources and roles were shifted around full circle in the search for an effective nuclear safety oversight and upgrade program.  Such sweeping shifts are typical in polarized (e.g., political) situations. 

Level one Opinions on Government

Each of the government topics listed below is discussed as it relates to Technidigm-2000, but the discussions are only at level one.  Some of the discussions provide the basis for applications and others provide explicit applications, using Technidigm-2000 levels and systems terminology.  You are invited to consider these level one opinions and to submit your own. 

If you have a Web site, you might also establish On-the-Level pages where you express your own level one opinions, where you list your level two facts, show your level three research methods, and provide examples of your level four solutions.  You should link to <http://Technidigm.org> to allow your readers to understand the four levels and Technidigm-2000.  You may want to use the Technidigm.org example page (level one to level four links) as an example or template for such pages that you might create on your own website.  All we ask is that you are "on-the-level" and, if you like, let us know the URLs for your primary Technidigm-2000 related pages.  If we agree that that understand Technidigm-2000 and are trying to maintain high standards of integrity, we will link back to your pages. 

•        Government Operations - An Introduction from a Technidigm-2000 Perspective

•        Education and Tax Systems

•        Government Resources

•        Getting Back to Government Basics

•        The Military Interface with Government

•        The Military Interface with Itself

•        Government Protection from Modern Tyranny

•        Government System Workers

•        Customary Forms of Government Tyranny

•        Back to Taxes

•        Property and Taxes

•        Voids Created by Layers of Government

•        Big Government Operations

•        Official Deniability

•        Regulatory Excess

•        Inter-Discipline Respect

•        Improving Government Processes

•        Government Officials: Authority and Responsibility

•        A Total Quality Government - TQM is level two and 3. 

•        A Quality Constitution

•        National and International Systems

•        Focusing on Today

•        Property Ownership vs.  Income Taxes

•        Paying for the Military-Industrial Complex

•        Generic Government Waste

Each of the topics listed below is discussed as a level one opinion, which means that it springs from an honest attempt to avoid polarizing politics and any organizational agendas that might be promoted.  The objective here is to educate the reader to understand that even opinions can be thoughtful, and that thoughtful opinions are worth reading as long as they are "on-the-level."

Some of the discussions provide the basis for applications and others provide explicit applications, sometimes even using Technidigm-2000 levels and systems terminology.  In each case, the reader is free to elevate the details to level two by collecting additional relevant facts, or the level three by conducting relevant research.  Of course, if a level four panel is convened, then that panel might ask for more level three research as well. 

To achieve the luxury of convening a level four panel, at lot has to happen.  For example, in an ideal world, deliberative bodies such as the U. S. Congress might provide level four legislation based on level three research and level two facts, applying their great knowledge and wisdom.  Unfortunately, such deliberative bodies are primarily political and, thus, polarized and off-the-level.  They compromise on everything as if compromise is a good thing.  They are "bipartisan" on few issues, but even then they are still in the world of compromise. 

So what?  Well, until we start electing level four, on-the-level people, there will be few opportunities for most social ills to be resolved or even properly defined.  Even the facts and research goals are changing with time, so it is probably best to spend our time developing level one opinions.  In do so, we are practicing being on-the-level, at least, until the seemingly impossible arrival of the time when politicians are persuaded to be on-the-level, or we elect those who are and continue to be. 

 

IRAQ WAR POLICIES AND SOLUTIONS

What About Government?

Another distinction needs to be made: Government is the result of constitutional guidelines and politics.  Governments, constitutions, and politics are three different but interdependent systems.  Before addressing modern governmental problems and issues in terms of systems and common sense, we will review their constitutional and political origins or "root causes." After dealing with constitutional, political, governmental issues, we conclude with a chapter on how to apply Technidigm-2000 in the future to make the necessary improvements. 

Our objective is better government, which is dependent on our ability to improve politics and, indeed, on our ability to "operate" the U. S. Constitution level four solution system as intended by its designers.  Yes, the U. S. Constitution is a level four solution system and has principles, components, feedback, and objectives.  It is up to us to achieve its primary objective - better government. 

The objective of applying the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements is just as you would suspect.  An understanding of the U. S. Constitution, politics, and government in terms of systems and levels will provide us with a common basis for regaining our collective common sense in this age of technology.  We may then be able to start to turn things around, perhaps dramatically improving the functioning of social solution systems, especially those that take the form of government programs. 

Moreover, Technidigm 2000 helps us determine which government programs have a logical, systematic basis and which do not.  The Technidigm-2000 life-cycle approach includes support for government program retirements.  Although most of us would agree with Thomas Paine's observation that government is a continuing evil, many government programs need only be temporary. 

Under the current "sunset" approach, some government programs die automatically unless they are specifically authorized by Congress to continue.  The key criterion for program continuation is whether or not it is needed.  Matters of cost and efficiency relative to other programs and options are often too difficult for Congress to address, except at funding time.  Then, they are addressed superficially without consideration of their continuing relevance to fundamental principles. 

It is difficult to cancel even a poorly run, wasteful program when there is a voting constituency benefiting from it.  Also, under the "spoils system" of government, program creation and continuation are used to "reward" special interest groups for their political support.  We intuitively know that the best government requires the best elected officials, and the best elected officials are those who place the interest of the people over their own interests.  Technidigm-2000 promotes this kind of integrity, but it also promotes the notion that we have to elect able people as well as honorable people.  Currently, the most capable people we have are found in industry, not in politics. 

But Technidigm-2000 addresses how to enhance programs as well as the people who run the programs.  Under Technidigm-2000, the performance of each government program is treated comprehensively, so there may be many possible criteria for change or termination.  A good government program or effort that is based on bad principles is actually a bad program. 

The U. S. military is viewed as a good part of government.  Yet, every time we send military forces into non-emergency combat situations without a declaration of war by Congress, we are ignoring fundamental constitutional principles.  The U. S. military is now used as much for political reasons as for constitutional reasons.  Although everyone in the military has sworn to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution, they are constantly reminded that the president is the commander-in-chief and that the military must always be subservient to its civilian leaders.  Thus, it is relatively easy for politicians to wield military power in ways inconsistent with the principles of the U. S. Constitution level four solution system. 

Strict observance of the principles of the U. S. Constitution would limit the power of politicians.  Also, when the particulars of the Constitution become outdated, failure of the people to make amendments to it leaves the principles open to interpretation by the courts.  When the Constitution or any document requires interpretation, the document is no longer serving its purpose.  At that point, the people have lost the power of the constitutional framework that was erected specifically on their behalf.  This power was lost several decades ago, and the consequences of that loss are becoming more apparent every year. 

Moreover, with the federal government intimately involved in defining what constitutes acceptable educational programs, politics are increasingly impacting our knowledge of history and our collective understanding of basic constitutional principles.  Too many government mandates or decisions serve a special interest agenda rather than the overall interests of the country.  It is no wonder that some people on the fringes of society have started to revert to colonial-style militias as a means of dissent.  They can see the problem, but they can not see the solution.  Technidigm-2000 provides the solution. 

The United States Constitution established a specific governmental paradigm based on historical feedback from many centuries of experiments in government.  The unique Constitution produced a special but less-unique government, which in turn resulted in the usual polarized political paradigm found in most democracies.  In terms of Technidigm-2000, the Constitution focuses on principles and objectives; government provides the structure within which Constitutional principles and objectives are applied; and politics provide the communication system environment within which the government operates (or does not operate). 

Each of the Constitutional topics listed below is discussed as it relates to Technidigm-2000, but the discussions are only at level one.  Some of the discussions provide the basis for applications and others provide explicit applications, using Technidigm-2000 levels and systems terminology.  You are invited to consider these level one opinions and to submit your own. 

If you have a Web site, you might also establish On-the-Level pages where you express your own level one opinions, where you list your level two facts, show your level three research methods, and provide examples of your level four solutions.  You should link to <http://Technidigm.org> to allow your readers to understand the four levels and Technidigm-2000.  You may want to use the Technidigm.org example page (level one to level four links) as an example or template for such pages that you might create on your own website.  All we ask is that you are "on-the-level" and, if you like, let us know the URLs for your primary Technidigm-2000 related pages.  If we agree that that understand Technidigm-2000 and are trying to maintain high standards of integrity, we will link back to your pages. 

Principles, Objectives, Timing, and Context

The United States was founded and constituted over time within a framework of basic principles.  These principles were and are largely based on human rights, basic freedoms, and the rule of law.  It is these same principles that we seek to make the foundation for the people and government institutions in the new Iraq.  Thus, one objective of the United States is to establish conditions for and promote an understanding of these fundamental freedoms and rights that we ourselves so often take for granted.

Nevertheless, to be successful in winning such a principle-based government infrastructure for the people of Iraq, we need to recognize that the Middle East cultural context for this transition is far different than the trans-Atlantic, anti-English-rule of our Founding Fathers.  A full description of these differences in revolutionary context would be a daunting undertaking, but for most Americans the basic differences are fairly apparent.  In the Iraq-United States relationship, the differences include political contrasts (on their part an extreme dictatorial level of violence) and the differences in religion, which are concurrently minor and profound.  We can also appreciate that fear still grips many hearts in Iraq, making it difficult for Iraqis to join in the fight for their own freedom, an attitude of passive acceptance that we find hard to understand.  Also, of course, the power of religion in their daily lives and the power of religious leaders is significant, leaving little room for individualism, a contrast that may be even less understood by many Americans and other westerners.

Taken together, consideration of these obvious principle, objective, and context basics suggests that timing and completion of the fighting and transitional processes are also important.  That is, if the wartime struggles are seen as costly and unending, then the Iraqi people may conclude that the United States version of freedom is not worth the sacrifices involved.  After all, even under the outrageously suppressive and terror-based Saddam regime, the Iraqi people did not spontaneously rise up on their own to get rid of this burden.  The war of liberation for Iraq was initiated from within the context of increased levels of terror and resulting sense of outrage in the United States.  We should keep this in mind as we seek to understand the ambivalence of the Iraqi people in striving for their own freedoms and for a change in their political environment. 

Moreover, none of this suggests that the Iraqi people are inclined to reject their long established cultural practices and religious beliefs.  If anything, their cultural practices and religious beliefs will become more vital to their ability to cope with their daily challenges.  The differences in Islamic and Christian teachings could make it difficult for the United States leadership to appreciate the basis for any growing resistance to the war on the part of the Iraqi people.  Part of that is likely the cultural notion that family obligations and even tribal relationships emphasize taking revenge for perceived wrongs, not turning the other cheek.  Thus, more self-education is probably needed on the part of our leaders as to the differences in religious attitudes and mandates in the areas of personal self-sacrifice and strong individualism as distinguished from personal revenge and strong sense of group.

Politics, Opinion, Facts and Solutions

Overlaying these somewhat complex cultural issues of freedom and related idealistic notions related to the individual citizens, both Americans and Iraqis, are the political power struggles faced in both countries.  It is a bit easier in the United States since the political struggle at least does not include majority-driving religious zealotry, whereas the Iraqi people must also cope with the more direct involvement of their religious leaders and principles in politics. 

Likewise, of course, the United States military and Iraqi transitional government must also deal with the powerful religious forces that are a fact of life in Iraq.  Indeed, without the ongoing repression of religion by a dictatorial state, the religious groups in Iraq are likely to grow in power and to dominate the emergent political environment in Iraq.  This likelihood significantly increases the probability that, whatever government is established in Iraq as a result of the war, that government will not be pro-western, much less a reliable friend of the United States.

As is often demonstrated in the United States, politics and elections are driven by opinions rather than facts.  Even when the facts are self-evident, public opinion is based on just that - opinion.  Real solutions to real problems may eventually evolve from public opinion, but that is mostly accidental or "in spite of" the unnecessary obstacles created when facts are ignored or not complete and not adequately circumspect.  Just as in other areas such as space shuttle safety and nuclear power plant safety, solutions must be based on facts and not opinion. 

Good governmental solutions to problems result from the discovery and due consideration of the applicable facts by experienced, knowledgeable, and well-intentioned government leaders.  Once the facts are understood, it is usually useful to extract expert opinions to lay out the path forward.  Even then, solutions must be reconsidered and continuously improved based on emerging new facts and factors as progress is made toward the objective.  Such changes should not be attacked as evidence of weakness or failure on the part of the leadership.  Indeed, the absence of changes or "course corrections" during a long and complex project is more likely to indicate the presence of a fundamental problem. 

The Real Objective

Our real objective in the Iraq war effort is to reduce and eliminate terrorism in the world, with particular emphasis perhaps on terrorism directed at American interests.  It is perhaps no more relevant to insist that Iraq be converted to western style democracy than to insist that the Iraqi people all become Christians (or Jews, if you like).  Nevertheless, from the perspective of making available the opportunity for the Iraqi people to "be free" as we perceive freedom, it is perhaps more likely that the new government will be less likely to support terrorist organizations. 

Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear that extreme religious factions would not continue to support terrorism even under a democratic society.  With this in mind, it is likely that a more intrusive look at extreme religious views and factions will be required if the United States is to achieve (or at least make progress toward) the real objective of ridding the world of terrorism.

Feedback, Components, and Resources

Any systematic approach to solving a problem is likely to include collecting and addressing the associated "feedback" that emerges over time.  Increased civilian casualties in Iraq may be an indication that the solution is not working, but it can also be considered to be an unavoidable consequence of the path required to reach the objective in the context of the war.  More non-combatants may become combative as a result of their revenge-oriented culture. 

We either have to accept this fact and press on toward the objective, or back off from the conflict and let this anti-terrorist objective slip away.  Backing off, of course, leads to or constitutes failure unless some other process takes its place, a process that leads toward the desired objective.  Such a process, for example, might be based on turning the revenge-based anger of the Iraqi people in the direction it ought to go, which is toward the insurgents and the remnants of the previous regime.  That is, if the Iraqi people want to get the United States out of their country, then all they have to do is get rid of the insurgents and remnants first.  This would be as valid an objective as the overall objective of ridding the world of terrorists.

Likewise, all non-Iraqi peoples around the world who want the United States out of Iraq need only support the process to end terrorism there and elsewhere.  The apparent fact that it is easier to complain about what the United States is doing in Iraq rather than complain about what terrorist do everywhere simply reflects the fear instilled by terrorism.  It just happens that the United States has the resources to oppose terrorism more effectively than most other countries, so the United States is left largely on its own, supported by only a handful of other relatively capable and high-principled countries.  Most countries are not so capable and, thus, are more likely to be victimized by and fear terrorism.  They may privately want us to succeed, but public opinion and, thus, votes make direct and continuing support of the war effort in Iraq and around the world less inviting than it should be, at least from our American perspective. 

With so many countries unable to participate in the war effort, for whatever reasons, there are less than an ideal number of components in the solution system or process, and the required resources are also less available.  Indeed, the United States component is strained to provide the required resources for the war in Iraq, which makes it increasingly unlikely that the war will succeed as time drags on.  Time is money, time is lives, and time does not stop just because we have a temporary truce. 

Overall, fewer lives and resources will be lost if time is not wasted.  Once any war is undertaken, it should best be pursued as expeditiously as the rules of war allow and should not be encumbered with political niceties that detract from reaching the objective.

History Is and Will Be

Past performance is indicative of future performance.  History can not be ignored, which is why the United States is so determined not to create another Vietnam War.  It is also why the enemy is so intent on dragging things out and creating a Vietnam-like situation that will tend to cause the American people to look for new leadership.  Even if such a result in American politics becomes a reality, no candidate really wants to be elected under such circumstances. 

The appropriate path forward for the American people could well be a change in administrations, but it should be based more on improving the leadership needed to reach the required anti-terrorism objective rather than condemning the present leadership for what it has accomplished so far.  Thus, it is important for all Americans to support the war effort vigorously, and for all politicians to either support the solution process or suggest ways to improve it.  If we are about to enter into an era requiring a more sophisticated approach to the war, perhaps a new set of leaders can be elected into power, but this should be with the intention of carrying on more boldly and artfully rather than regressing and condemning.

Just as when President Ronald Reagan came into office in a manner that caused positive movement on the Iran hostage crisis, it is a possibility that a new administration could come into office in 2005 in a manner that causes positive movement in the Iraq war effort.  A perception that the new administration will be far more vigorous and deliberate in dealing with terrorism and the Iraq situation could be highly effective in achieving the overall goal of world peace.

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Perhaps the most important and clearest example of "off-the-level" nonsense is the currently popular notion that somehow the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its coalition partners was not legitimate since weapons of mass destruction "were not found."  Many polarized politicians and their supporters have argued both sides of this issue at some length.  Thus, it seems that Technidigm-2000 types of analysis using the 12 elements would be useful in trying to sort some of this out.

Keep in mind that the many or the polarized opinions that we have heard for many months do not qualify for "on-the-level" opinions, what I refer to as Level One Opinions under the 12-element paradigm.  It is apparent that at least three of the remaining elements are self evident, specifically Principles, Objectives, and Context.  Any high school student could do a little research and come up with reasons WMD are bad and should be kept from the hands of irresponsible dictators, and certainly the context of the last thirty years of Iraq expending tremendous resources and demonstrating exhaustive tenacity in pursuing WMD is easily described with a little help from the Internet.

My own introduction to such matters was circa-1980 as a Navy Nuclear Propulsion officer in San Diego, when I got a call from someone vaguely describing himself as associated with Israel.  He asked me what would be the best way to destroy a nuclear power plant.  I told him that, assuming it was the usual type of concrete containment, a thousand pound bomb would be needed to open up the dome, followed by another one to go through the hole created by the first one.  I based this on my significant knowledge and experience with nuclear technology, on having seen a cross-sectional cut out of a commercial nuclear containment structure, and on what I saw a thousand pound bomb do to the armored flight deck of the USS ENTERPRISE nuclear powered aircraft carrier in 1969.  As I recall, I also noted that one could expect a lot of radioactivity to come back out if the reactor were operational (nuclear fuel loaded). 

Having given those insights to the mysterious caller, the subject did not come up again until after I had heard the Israeli Air Force had destroyed an Iraqi reactor plant that would otherwise have been used for producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.  That was 1981, and the Iraq WMD program apparently did not go away until the 2003 invasion.  Again, a simple Internet search provides more than enough information (Technidigm-2000 Level Two Facts, if you will) on this, mostly undisputed facts that include significant WMD-related assistance to Iraq from countries such as France, Germany, and Russia.  So the Technidigm-2000 element of Context is easy to assemble based on historical Level Two Facts. 

The Technidigm-2000 element that I refer to as Level three Research seems a bit unnecessary, but the various reports from the inspection teams over the years lends credibility that makes further development of facts somewhat unnecessary.  Nevertheless, since I have additional insights at least on the topic of nuclear weapons, it occurs to me that most nuclear weapons knowledgeable engineers would support the notion that about 99 percent of the work in designing and building a nuclear weapon can be done without having the fissile material in hand.  While it is fortunate that actually making or enriching the fissile materials is  costly, difficult, and time consuming, one never knows whether the fissile materials might have been ordered ahead of time from North Korea, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, or France and delivered just a few days before weapon use.

As for the Technidigm Level Four Solution element, the best solution turned out to be an invasion of Iraq.  After about 30 years of trying to get WMD's, including nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein finally positioned himself such that most on-the-level thinkers would have to agree that an invasion was justified.  Continuing to drag out inspections to achieve additional worldwide consensus on the invasion would have risked failure since once a country has a nuclear weapon, it is a lot harder to reduce the risk that it will be used.  This fact, for example, makes the North Korea issue more difficult.  Ownership of a nuclear weapon may also make the Iran issue more difficult.  Hoping for spontaneous regime change does not represent a solution equal to the problem.

Any high school student could also lay out the other Technidigm-2000 elements of Resources, Components, Time, and Feedback needed to close in on the Objective of ensuring Iraq does not use WMD.  While any fair description the ongoing efforts in Iraq would easily fill these in, it is particularly important to notice the need for Feedback.  The expectation that such an effort could be planned in advance and executed perfectly without the passage of Time and the necessary Feedback is not a realistic expectation.  This is true for any complex undertaking, whether it be in warfare, engineering, research, medicine, teaching, or any other demanding discipline. 

Was the "mission accomplished"?  Certainly the WMD nuclear weapon related Objectives have been met, at least from the perspective of whether a nation called Iraq will make and use them.  Chemical and biological agents are a lot easier to make and hide, so time will tell, but it still will not likely be those who are in charge of the new government that will make and use them. 

Is the mission not accomplished because of the need to keep military forces on the ground in Iraq or because of the continued loss of life on all sides?  I do not see how that erase the WMD successes, but certainly leaving the country prematurely would risk doing so.  In view of how polarized politics can get things changed and even reversed, the greatest danger of failure seems to be doing anything that would change out the ongoing Solution currently in place simply to satisfy the demands of politics. 

Fortunately, as for the current elections, both candidates for president are vying for the position of continuing and strengthening the Level Four Solution already in place.  Until the United States is in a position to withdraw its military forces from Iraq, an election in the United States that appeared to chastise those responsible for implementing this Level Four Solution would be counterproductive, even if superficially satisfying to some.  Again, the mandate to take timely action was created by the Level Two Facts and the Context presented by Saddam himself as he continued to frustrate international inspections year after year.  Indeed, even in face of the frustrations, there was enough evidence to convict many times over.

 

 

Chapter 8
Improving Our Culture with "Future" Common Sense.

Level One Opinions for Today and Tomorrow

To achieve the luxury of convening a level four panel, at lot has to happen.  For example, in an ideal world, deliberative bodies such as the U. S. Congress might provide level four legislation based on level three research and level two facts, applying their great knowledge and wisdom.  Unfortunately, such deliberative bodies are primarily political and, thus, polarized and off-the-level.  They compromise on everything as if compromise is a good thing.  They are "bipartisan" on few issues, but even then they are still in the world of compromise. 

So what?  Well, until we start electing level four, on-the-level people, there will be few opportunities for most social ills to be resolved or even properly defined.  Even the facts and research goals are changing with time, so it is probably best to spend our time developing level one opinions.  In do so, we are practicing being on-the-level, at least, until the seemingly impossible arrival of the time when politicians are persuaded to be on-the-level, or we elect those who are and continue to be. 

Going Forward Level One Opinions

•        The Future - Going Forward with Technidigm-2000

•        Nuclear Safety Culture - The author's level four example

•        Beyond Rush Limbaugh

•        Parenting - Modern Parenting and Technidigm-2000

•        The Future of Education

•        Welfare and Happiness

•        Religion and Welfare

•        Men and Women as Equals - Better or Worse?

•        Fairness Juries

•        People of Principle and Integrity

•        Risking It

•        Meeting Today's Challenges

 

 

Going Forward with Technidigm-2000

 

 

Those readers who studied the details of Technidigm-2000 understand that mankind's "evolution" is compatible with "creationism." This single understanding illustrates the power of the Technidigm-2000 problem solving process.  It is wise to trust in facts, but it is also wise to address issues synergistically at level four.  Using Technidigm-2000, the rest of mankind's problems can be greatly simplified.  Politics and government are at the core of many of mankind's problems.  The U. S. Founding Fathers recognized human deficiencies and the corruption that invariably emerges in government and politics.  They dealt with these human problems within a context that was valid 200 years ago.  They recognized that dictators can control government system resources to suit their own system's principles and objectives.  This is why the U. S. Constitution solution system provides for separation of the basic governmental powers among the three branches -- the legislature, the executive, and the judicial. 

The future of the United States and other developed countries is dependent on how well the constitutional solution system performs in the future.  This performance can be significantly improved through Technidigm-2000.  The legislative branch provides resources, the executive branch provides the components that implement the programs, and the judicial branch provides feedback.  The feedback is supposed to ensure that government programs conform with the intent of Congress by requiring the executive branch to recognize the legislative objectives and principles.

All three branches must conform with constitutional principles, but this must be enforced by well-informed and conscientious voters.  The U. S. Constitution's checks and balances are intended to provide government controls not government direction.  The controls are simply constraints that keep one branch from having too much influence on system functions.  While these checks and balances are good controls, the government still needs to have a basic sense of direction if it is to achieve its objectives efficiently.  It is principles that provide that basic sense of direction. 

The Founding Fathers, based on overwhelming historical evidence, realized that some people are motivated by greed and power and, thus, can be neutralized somewhat by a government system that limits the control of individuals.  Even if nobody in the federal government had any integrity, the constitutional separations and controls serve to neutralize self-serving objectives and to minimize the amount of damage that can be inflicted before the next election. 

Under Technidigm-2000, all successful candidates for government positions must have basic redeeming qualities, including an identifiable level of integrity.  If the voters merely focus on voting for candidates having integrity (i.e., those who are on-the-level), most of the task will be accomplished.  The immediate problem is that the current political paradigms have not emphasized integrity, so there are minimal expectations in this area and, thus, few candidates for office who have an identifiable level of integrity.  The best that can be done initially is to assess integrity on a comparative basis.

If all the candidates in a political race are viewed by the voters as being off-the-level, the key question is what evidence exists that at least one of the candidates has at least a bit more integrity relative to the others.  If that approach does not result in a distinctive difference, or if all of the candidates are believed to be on-the-level, we can go into their relative experience and their level four leadership effectiveness.  Those readers who studied the details of Technidigm-2000 are invited to submit their candidate evaluations to Technidigm using the form provided under Political Applications.

The U. S. Constitution relies heavily on the integrity, common sense, and good faith of average, hardworking citizens for solution system leadership through the ballot box.  Elected officials are expected to reflect grassroots leadership in a sophisticated but selfless manner.  As such, it is more important for candidates to ask the people what they want done than to simply tell the people what they will do if elected.  If the candidate has integrity and adequate experience, the candidate can be expected to do whatever is in the best interest of the people, even when this is not clear to the voters.  Without integrity and experience, the candidate may not want to do what is best for the people or may not be able to do what is best.  It is not enough just to have good intentions.

Using the integrity approach to get politicians to be on-the-level is only the first step.  Once we overcome the integrity deficit, we can raise the standard.  Even when political party systems manage to make it to level one, they seldom elevate themselves to level two status (a complete set of relevant facts) and almost never achieve level four (i.e., informed leadership) status needed to produce good decisions and valid solution systems.

One reason for this is that political parties have found level one (and incomplete level two) arenas to be adequate battlegrounds to achieve their objectives, and they can still resort to off- the-level arenas when they are needed.  The presence of opposing candidates of integrity and voters who insist on integrity reduce their options since going off-the-level is no longer acceptable.

Nevertheless, many voters still prefer to vote for business as usual, not wanting to take a chance on integrity.  They will vote for a political candidate who has a nice smile, effectively relying on appearances to decide how to spend their tax dollars.  If they had to personally hand over their tax contribution (nearly half their salary) to one of the candidates to invest, they might decide differently.

Political party systems have an extraordinarily important position of trust in a representative government system, a position that increasingly requires candidates for political office to have advanced education and broad experience.  Such candidates do not want the job or, under the current political paradigm, they can not compete with professional politicians.  The voters are still struggling with the basic issue of integrity, wanting it but not voting for it.

Prospective employees, employers, bidders, or business clients provide a Technidigm Community membership statement as part of their résumés, on their business cards, or other promotional material.  A prospective employee or contact who is a community member readily communicates using Technidigm-2000 terminology. 

Also, each member can easily achieve Technidigm-2000 consultant status.  Claiming to be a Technidigm-2000 consultant implies a notable familiarity with and expertise in using its 12 elements.  Such an expert need only, at the most, present a portfolio that supports this claim.  Potential clients assess Technidigm-2000 qualifications much as they would assess other parts of a résumé.

Each Technidigm-2000 consultant's portfolio may be hyperlinked on the Internet from Technidigm to the consultant's homepage or to a home page provided and maintained by Technidigm.  Such links can be refused, dropped, and reinstated for individuals as deemed appropriate by Technidigm.  Links to pages that are not Technidigm-2000 based are not accepted. 

Being a Technidigm-2000 consultant is not constrained by one's self assessment score.  A high school student with a self-assessment score of only 30 can be an effective Technidigm-2000 consultant and can apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements to many topics, issues, and situations.  Specifically, this person might be effective in minimizing unsubstantiated opinions (level one), developing facts (level two), and supporting research (level three).  Final solutions (level four) might require using people with more experience.  Even then, a consultant with a score of only 30 is still able to plan the level four activities needed to achieve good solutions to problems.  The value added by this Technidigm consultant is that the consulting activities are being accomplished within a comprehensive context, applying an understandable framework of principles, objectives, timing, and feedback.

Just as anyone can be an effective Technidigm-2000 consultant, each member of the Technidigm-2000 community, regardless of his or her self score, is continually challenged to strive for a higher score, particularly by developing a higher level of integrity, either as perceived by the member or as perceived by others.  This singular, positive societal influence makes Technidigm-2000 worth supporting.  Of course, there are many other personal and societal benefits beyond simply encouraging the development of integrity.

Also, anyone can easily be assessed to be off-the-level and not eligible for Technidigm-2000 membership, or they could be dropped out of the Technidigm-2000 community.  For example, if a candidate for political office (member or not) does not choose to follow Technidigm-2000 oriented campaign financing guidance enthusiastically, the community members have a reason to vote for the opposition, assuming that the other candidate supports the guidance.  Similarly, political candidates who are observed by Technidigm-2000 voters to be less polarized are also more likely to be supported by the community.  While such voter criteria have always been available to voters, under Technidigm-2000 they are key issues.

Importantly, Technidigm-2000 guidance simply provides one of many possible creative ways to address an issue, stimulating the thought process and encouraging principled debate among people of integrity.  In the political campaign financing example, each community member could personally apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements as needed to understand and assess proposed campaign finance guidance in terms of their own personal values and interests.  The need for such an arduous undertaking is reduced when the candidates themselves either demonstrate conformance or debate the nature of their conformance in terms of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.

Political candidates from different political parties might be Technidigm-2000 community members, but any important differences in integrity are clear during debates.  If integrity is absent in all the candidates, new challengers will be motivated to participate.  Only people of integrity should enter politics.  Since integrity is a lot easier to lose than to find, the polarity of politics will shift to those who have integrity and those who do not rather than the vague polarity of party politics!

Modern Parenting and Technidigm-2000

The young farm boys and girls who went into the military over the past three decades had an advantage over their city-raised counterparts.  They understood hard work and that life is not as easy as it is portrayed on television.  The best jet pilots during the Vietnam War were apt to be farm boys.  They were more likely to stay up late to study the details of the terrain and enemy defenses to and from tomorrow's target, making sure that they could find the right target without being shot down. 

They knew that even the world's most advanced aircraft were simply tools for doing a job.  Technology does not replace common sense, and it does little to reduce the need for hard work.  The farm kids had been raised right, unspoiled and unassuming, just like the thousands of generations of farm kids before them. 

Parenting is just easier in farm families.  Besides, the farmers were the last to get television and were the farthest from the movie theaters and other sources of moral and ethical confusion.  Farm families always had both parents working, but it was mostly in and around the home.  They passed on the values that included morality, respect for others, and sense of duty, and even patriotism. 

The kids of the non-farmers from the cities and their suburbs were more likely to look for ways to avoid going to Vietnam, and many ended up in Canada or in extended college programs.  They were accustomed to doing as they pleased, which seldom included their school homework and always included lots of television and every good movie that came along.  Their parents were increasingly both working outside the home, leaving much to the discretion (or lack of discretion) of the children. 

Over these thirty years, the family situation has continued to deteriorate.  This parenting challenge is just one of the many results of rapid changes in technology.  What we learn or do not learn from our parents forms the foundation from which we deal with all of life's problems.  Although the age of technology started more than a hundred years ago, it is only in the past few decades that its progress has exceeded our ability to deal with it at the fundamental level of the family. 

How does this difference between farm families and urban families relate to Technidigm-2000? Technology makes things easier, so the demanding farm life environment is becoming less common as a source of hardworking citizens.  Moreover, with satellite communications, urban culture is is more readily available to everyone, on the farm or not. 

If television shows portray increasingly immoral or violent family and cultural situations, then they become more acceptable as the norm.  The financially driven, competitive television networks only recently and reluctantly started rating their shows, within an atmosphere of increasing dismay regarding their irresponsible programming. 

Technology increases competition.  A modest Internet web site created on a shoe string is almost as likely to be meaningful and effective as a site produced with essentially unlimited resources.  A religious organization can be effective in countering the worst television network, at least on the Internet.  Congressmen and Congresswomen are less able to avoid public scrutiny, now that their official proceedings are covered in detail on television, at least to the extent that the viewing audience watches such programming. 

Thus, some of the things that are made easier by technology are good and some are less than good.  Without a framework within which to actively understand and manage change toward the good, the change is more likely to result in adverse consequences.  After the adverse consequences become too adverse, society eventually provides feedback.  Since improvements often depend on feedback, delayed feedback is better than no feedback, but delayed feedback often means that the adverse consequences have been tolerated longer than necessary and have resulted in avoidable problems. 

Technidigm-2000 encourages active and timely feedback, with objectives being identified and worked toward at a pace limited only by prudence and valid information.  If your child is physically sick with a potentially permanent affliction, you want the doctor to proceed with prudence and with valid information.  You would not tolerate a medical treatment that depended on waiting until your child is so sick that death was imminent. 

Yet, this is exactly what we all did with regard to the mental health of our children over the past few decades.  We tolerated the loose social and moral standards of television and even the real life lowering of these standards, which eventually became so outrageous that more and more people reached their limits.  The result, at least with regard to television, is a modest program evaluation scheme intended to avoid stronger measures. 

Stronger measures would naturally flow from Technidigm-2000.  The primary principle observed in television programming is freedom of speech and expression.  The confusion of principles involving separation of church and state with principles important to parents has obscured the perspective and sense of responsibility of parents.  Just because religion suggests standards and moral commandments does not mean that the standards and moral commandments are not appropriate social guidelines that need to be observed and enforced. 

If there is an underlying principle that, when applied, leads to a legitimate objective, then that principle should be stated and applied.  In a good-principle vacuum, the bad-principle fillers are always available and ready to take over.  Often, the adverse principle fillers are commercial and are not openly stated. 

For example, tobacco companies do not recognize what is obvious to everyone -- that tobacco is addictive and harmful.  If we were each asked to identify and state the currently unstated principles implied by our acceptance of advertising directed at hooking teenagers on nicotine, we would each quickly be embarrassed.  We have accepted a principle that states "Society is better served when commercial interests are allowed to make a profit degrading the health of its citizens as long as each individual has freedom of choice and as long as health insurance is available to allow everyone to pay for the consequences of that freedom."

If you do not care for that principle, as stated, then please state the one that you believe is more accurate.  Send it out to your friends in your next Christmas letter or birthday card.  Include examples of how much more sophisticated your children look now that they smoke cigarettes, and tell your friends about the bank account you have set up to pay for their lung transplants when the time comes. 

Based on this simple example, we can conclude that identifying and stating the principles behind each issue are very positive steps in understanding the issue and how to address it.  It is a particularly powerful approach when we are dealing with issues close to home, such as the health of our children.  All you have to do to motivate yourself to take a stand is to state the underlying principles, state the relevant objectives that those principles are serving, and decide whether the adverse consequences make any sense relative to the expected benefits. 

Once the problem is identified as a system-like entity, the next step is to try to understand the issue at the right Technidigm-2000 level.  The difference between an activist and a problem solver is often that the activist never gets above levels one (opinions) and two (some facts).  The additional research and effort required at level three to support a level four decision is seldom undertaken by activists because they are "active" on only one side of the issue. 

The circumspectness that comes with experience and education is applied at Technidigm's level four.  It is here that the various principles, objectives, resources, feedback, and interfaces are considered.  If an issue is being considered within the Technidigm-2000 framework, the facts being addressed are already "on-the-level" and the people dealing with the issue are so honest and fair that this may even be a notable part of their reputation.  Would you like it to be otherwise?

Family life will improve over time once we decide that the most desirable context within which to raise children is the one that has a framework of good principles, clear objectives, and encourages hard work and integrity.  With the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements in place and understood, active citizen participation becomes a high priority, and that participation is responsible and effective.  It is also timelier. 

 

Appendix A
Political Candidate Assessments

One of the central problems that needs to be fixed is that the process for electing people to responsible government or political positions does not ensure that the best people are selected, even among those who seek to be selected.  Others do not seek to be elected simply because of the onerous process, which includes a lot of distasteful but supposedly mandatory elements. 

There is no need to expand on the problems of modern political campaigns since anyone can come up with a list of their own.  The purpose of the following assessment process is to suggest a way of evaluating politicians such that many of the current problems in the political process are sidestepped.  It would be nice to be able to avoid negative ads, avoid having political posters on every corner, avoid being limited to voting for career politicians, and at the same time encourage other, more capable and experienced people to seek to lead?

Well, you can make up your own parameters and evaluation scheme, but mine is provided below.  Mine emphasizes age, education, non-political experience, health, military experience, and integrity.  If two politicians running for the same office have significantly different scores, the election process is made easier.  They can even argue over each other’s score and still provide the voter with more information than we usually get from campaign ads and slick slogans.

Step One: Self Assessments and Self Scores

The first step is to do a self-assessment and an assessment of the opposition.  Are you the better candidate or not? Are you better educated, more experienced, more ethical?  If you can quantify this assessment, you have a quick way to show superiority.  You would be able to say something like, "My Technidigm-2000 self assessment score is 85 out of a hundred.  Using the same criteria, my opponent is only scoring at 55."  Further, you could say, "Even if each of us is given the maximum points for integrity, my real-life experience and education still result in a significantly higher score for me."

Scoring forces the opposition to argue directly for more points and allows you to be gracious and dignified.  If true, the opposition candidate who argues will appear to be petty and juvenile.  The best many can do is claim more experience points based on a career of politics.  One retort here is that the founding fathers were wary of career politicians. 

Self Assessments and Leadership Evaluations:
Evaluation Maximum Points = 100

Please enter below the number of points that you believe you deserve for each trait, achievement, or experience.  I suggest that you consider the following guidelines in your assessment. 

•        For the education category, the full number of points may be awarded if a diploma was received.  Partial points for education are not appropriate.  For example, an individual who drops out of high school a month before graduation should receive no points for a having a high school education, even if it is "not their fault."  There are ways to complete one's high school education, and they should be used.  Rationalizations are not acceptable. 

•        For the industry and military experience categories, please use zero points for none and ten for those having a full career, normally at least 20 years.  It is not likely that a person would have completed two such diverse careers unless they were in their late 50s or 60s.  Political and government experience should not be included except to the extent that it was nonpartisan.  We are interested in promoting "real life" experience in which a person is expected to have and to apply honorable traits such as integrity, hard work, and selflessness.  While one can learn a lot in partisan politics, nonpartisan politics are much more difficult and statesmanlike.  This is consistent with the best intentions of the most honorable among the U. S. founding fathers and with the needs of the constitutional framework. 

•        The age related assessment points start at age 30, allowing for the over confidence of youth to subside.  Score one point for each year over 30 up to the age of 55 (up to 25 points).  This acknowledges the wisdom that comes purely from the general experience that each person accumulates during a lifetime.  Obviously, age-related wisdom is accumulated before and after this span of years, but the goal is to achieve a reasonable point balance relative to the other assessment parameters. 

•        The health category reflects the need for leaders to be able to handle the stress of decision making and leadership.  Health includes physical as well as mental condition.  Unless evidence is available to the contrary, ten points should be assigned to the health category.  The health category is not intended to reflect physical disabilities, except that someone who has overcome a physical handicap is probably quite healthy. 

Technidigm-2000 Self Assessment Worksheet

Education (maximum 25 points):

Completed High School (10 points): _____

Obtained a Four Year College Degree (10 points): _____

Obtained a Graduate or Professional Degree (5 points): _____

Experience (up to 40 points):

Take credit only for experience that is other than polarized advocacy work such as partisan government and political activities.  If you have always just been a career politician, you get no points here.  Any full-time service or employment that put your life on the line can be defined as military service, such as being a police officer or even a fireman.  Expect to get arguments from opponents on anything that you cannot defend.  Apply one point for each 2 years, up 20 years and 10 points for each area:

Career Oriented Industry Experience (to 10 points for 20 years): _____

Military Service Experience (to 10 points for 20 years): ______

Age Over 30 (up to 25 points):

Your age minus 30 (but not more than 25): ______

Good Health/Fitness (up to 10 points):

Start with 5 points as “average.”  If you run marathons or can swim for a mile, take 10 points.  If you have any life threatening debilitation that would compromise your ability to work 20-hour days effectively (if you had to), take no points:  _____

The final category is INTEGRITY (up to 20 points)

One approach to determining the points for integrity is to start at 10 points and try to think of strengths and weaknesses, adding and subtracting a point accordingly.  You should document your approach and rationale.  If you have a prison record or cheated on your taxes, I would not take any points here.  If you have won the Medal of Honor, you might be able to defend 20 points on this.  All others need to do some soul searching, perhaps by reading the extensive discussions on this in my book On-the-Level.

INTEGRITY -- DEFINITION: The entire, unimpaired state of anything, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty.  It comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property, and agencies for others.  (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged)

In the political and government arena, a zero for integrity means that the person is off-the-level consistently.  This may occur due to personal ambition or due to being paid by a special interest group to promote a limited view or agenda. 

We all would prefer that everyone have 20 points for integrity, but realistically this can only be an achievement objective for most of us.  If you claim 20 points for integrity, you might have been an Eagle Scout, but you will also have anecdotes or other evidence that describes selflessness, attention to helping others, paying your taxes on time, staying our of jail, and having no DUI’s on your record.  Keep in mind that it is easy to be generous if you are rich.  We are looking for character traits more than mere actions of generosity. 

Factors to consider in determining points for integrity are those that are important to you.  Discussions with others on integrity provide you only with general information as to what integrity means to them, perhaps allowing you to adjust you own thinking.  You can define integrity in your own terms.  Just be prepared to defend your thinking on this.

If you are a candidate for political office, you may need to explain how you arrived at your final overall score either for yourself or (if you do an assessment on your opponent) relative to your opponent.

Points for integrity (to 20 points): _____

Total Score (to 100 points): _____

Comments on the scoring (explain anything that might not be obvious based on general information about you already available to others):

Scoring the Opposition

Now score your opponents against the same criteria.  In the interest of being forthright, you could even make an appointment with them to discuss your criteria and perceptions, soliciting theirs as well.  It is difficult to lose since you can take advantage of any response given by your opponents, especially a refusal to talk about it.  Nevertheless, it is important to maintain your integrity and your sense of fair play. 

Being able to quantify one’s qualifications relative to the opposition is fundamental to being concise and effective in sound-bite politics.  The people understand numbers better than they understand opinions.  With a little imagination, you can extrapolate this short discussion to various situations that a candidate might face.  It is important to remember that, whatever the final result of such an exchange, you have established the importance of having experience and education (wisdom) as well as integrity. 

 

Appendix B
About the Author

Charles R.  Jones

Biographical Summary

Born June 23, 1944, in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, Charles Ray “Charlie” Jones was nine years old when his family moved from Chicago, Illinois to Tucson, Arizona, where his father became a police officer.  He learned how to play a cornet in the Tucson Boys’ Band and played trumpet solos in high school as a member of the concert band.  He graduated from Amphitheater High School in 1962, voted by his classmates as the “brainiest male.” 

Having received multiple congressional nominations to all the service academies as a high school junior, he was accepted as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy (USNA) in Annapolis, Maryland.  Not assigned any leadership positions within the brigade of midshipmen during the four years, he focused on preparing himself for assignments in the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program.  He graduated in 1966, having taken all the advanced engineering courses he could fit into his schedule.  From USNA he went directly into the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, where he served on various nuclear powered surface ships, including two deployments in the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN65) to Vietnam’s Tonkin Gulf, earning the right to be called a Vietnam Veteran. 

He was one of the handful of officers to qualify to operate Enterprise’s eight nuclear reactors as well as qualify as Officer of the Deck Underway.  In that latter capacity, he was the captain’s engineering advisor on the bridge during General Quarters, including providing key advice for fighting the ship’s 1969 flight deck fire, minimizing casualties during that unfortunate fire at sea.  He later served as the refueling and overhaul officer for two of eight reactor plants, supervising around-the-clock work for one year at the age of 25.

In 1970, the Navy sent him to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a three year graduate course, where he again took all the advanced engineering courses he could fit into his schedule.  This overloading was fortunate since the Navy changed its mind after a year and a half, giving him six months to finish up before reassignment at the two-year point.  The overloading resulted in him being able to finish the three year Naval Architecture Department curriculum in these two years.  and, thus, obtain both an Ocean Engineer Professional Degree and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering.  Upon awarding these degrees, the naval officer in charge of the 3-year graduate program claimed that the course was not really completed and that the third year would still be needed.  He did not want a precedent set that a 3-year course at MIT could be completed in only 2 years.

This three year graduate program had been cut short by the Navy so that he could help man the first of the new advanced class of two-reactor nuclear powered aircraft carriers, the USS Nimitz (CVN68), a ship and class of ships that over thirty years later still provide an important worldwide US presence and military capability.  While assigned to the Nimitz Precommissioning Crew, he served in the reactor controls and reactor mechanical areas, and was in charge of most of the key evolutions and testing required during the three years leading up to the Nimitz commissioning, which was achieved on time in 1975. 

As a 31 year old navy officer at the time of commissioning, he had personally inspected, tested, and signed for the Navy’s acceptance from Newport News Shipbuilding all the reactor and propulsion plant systems and ensured the correction of all deficiencies.  He was the first engineering watch officer to take a Nimitz reactor critical and test the reactor and propulsion plants and the first junior officer to qualify formally as Nuclear Chief Engineer on a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier, culminating with successfully completing a 2-day examination by Admiral Rickover’s staff.

He then went to the USS Bainbridge (CGN25), a guided missile, nuclear powered cruiser and served two years as operations officer.  He also completed qualifications as engineering officer of the watch on that ship’s reactors.  In his “topside” operations role from 1976 to 1978, besides normal underway operations, he served as the air-war (AW, pronounced “Alpha Whiskey”) Tactical Action Officer for Carrier Battle Group training exercises in the Western Pacific, ensuring that US naval forces in the Pacific could and would deal effectively with the Soviet Union’s forces if needed.  In this unique AW role, if the US and the Soviet Union would have gone to war during this period, he would likely have had to manage the destruction of hundreds of incoming Soviet aircraft and missiles by the carrier battle group.  He became and expert on the top secret “rules of engagement” that apply to potential conflicts and even had to disobey direct orders from his overbearing commanding officer, orders that would have led to the violation of those rules, if only during training, and an overt failure of the exercise.  The admiral in charge of that exercise later stated that it was the best one he had even witnessed.

Following this operations officer job on Bainbridge, Lieutenant Commander Jones was assigned to the staff of the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, Pacific Fleet in San Diego, where he served as the Nuclear Power Mobile Training Team chemistry and radiological controls officer for all Pacific Fleet nuclear surface ships.  He also organized and taught a one-on-one technical training course for Nuclear Chief Engineer candidates, preparing other experienced nuclear propulsion officers to pass Admiral Rickover’s advanced engineering technical and management examination.  Normally only 2/3rd of the advanced students taking Rickover’s nuclear engineer test would pass, but Mr. Jones achieved an unprecedented 100 percent success for those officers taking his course, 20 students in sequence.  He also revamped the San Diego emergency nuclear response plan for the Navy (in case of a nuclear reactor accident or a nuclear attack); he helped elevate nuclear weapons program radiological controls (personnel radiation exposure monitoring) to the level of those in the nuclear propulsion program; and he ensured that nuclear propulsion capable port facilities would be available in the Western Pacific area, specifically in the event of a future conflict with North Korea.  That was 1980, and the relevance is now apparent as North Korea has in 2006 joined the nuclear weapon family of states. 

Not all the ships Mr. Jones helped were nuclear propelled.  When a conventionally powered guided missile cruiser (USS Horne, CG30) had engineering problems and could not get underway for deployment, he was called upon to intervene, expediting the resolution of many engineering issues that appeared unsolvable within the required deadlines, at least to all the Navy’s engineering duty officers in San Diego.  There were only 30 days before scheduled deployment, and the required repair work was estimated to require 6 months.  Mr. Jones’ intervention and expediting allowed the ship to get underway for deployment to the Indian Ocean on time, meeting a critical commitment during the Iran Hostage Crisis.  From a Horne website: “On January 21, 1981, Horne was on station in the Persian Gulf when Iran freed 52 American Hostages held captive for 444 days in Tehran.  Horne tracked the progress of the Airliner that carried the hostages to freedom and had "birds on the rails" to be used in the event any aircraft in the region threatened the Americans.”

 

His personnel rating (fitness report) during this period showed that he was the top lieutenant commander out of the 13 lieutenant commanders assigned to his command.  Curiously, the Navy chose not to promote him to full commander and would not even allow him to convert from being an unrestricted line officer to engineering duty only.  He received no formal recognition for any of his achievements, yet was then assigned to brief the Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific on a daily basis regarding the maintenance and engineering status of all Pacific Fleet surface ships, replacing a full commander who had not been able to do this job in a satisfactory manner.  Based on his “failure to select,” even Rickover decided to shun him, which was probably a pragmatic thing to do from the admiral’s perspective.  Such are the peculiarities of advancement in the military.

Overall, while in the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, he qualified five times on various nuclear power plants as Engineering Officer of the Watch (more than any other officer), and was certified as a Nuclear Chief Engineer while serving on the USS Nimitz Precommissioning crew, and solving technical problems beyond the abilities of even Rickover’s technical staff.  Yet, failing to be selected for full commander, he had no future in the Rickover Nuclear Propulsion Program, even if he had mastered its requirements. 

In 1981, he became the Navy’s technical advisor to the Department of Energy’s Defense Programs Nuclear Weapons Safety Branch, where he served for five years, primarily monitoring and upgrading the safety of the US nuclear weapon stockpile and preparing the associated annual reports to the President.  He also organized the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Weapon Safety, Security and Control Committee and served as the Executive Secretary for three years, filling an urgent need to keep the President informed directly of the nuclear weapon system problems that could not make it through the long bureaucratic chain of command in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.  He left this thankless job and the Navy in 1986, having served 20 years as a naval officer and taking his retirement as a lieutenant commander.

Following “retirement” in 1986, he initially worked for various consulting companies in the Washington, DC area, primarily TENERA, LLP and SCIENTECH, Inc.  as a senior nuclear engineering consultant.  He was able to help several commercial nuclear power plants overcome critical engineering problems simply by applying his extensive knowledge and experience, and he wrote several engineering articles on these technical matters, which he considered to be fundamental.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he helped the Department of Energy elevate nuclear safety at its nuclear weapons facilities, becoming their expert on nuclear related maintenance programs and developing safety guidance for the planned new production reactors.  By 1994, much of that work had been completed and government contracts to support such work started to disappear.

In 1995, he decided to leave Scientech, Inc.  and became an independent consultant on nuclear safety to the commercial nuclear power industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as the Department of Energy.  For these three nuclear clients, he participated in numerous nuclear safety related inspections of commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon production facilities and also provided leadership in several key projects for commercial.  He made suggestions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2001 as to how best to improve their oversight of commercial nuclear plants, suggestions that the regulators were reluctant to take at the time but which have after 5 years become essential to oversight of commercial nuclear plant regulatory oversight.

As of 2004 and to the present, he has continued to do contract work for the Department of Energy, teaching several nuclear-related topics in support of national security and nuclear non-proliferation goals.

 

Since 1996 Mr. Jones has also maintained an Internet web site, http://technidigm.org, on which he placed this book as an “online book” that was offered free of charge.  The “other projects” include a wide range of nuclear related information, reunion information for his high school and college classmates, and even an innovative database useful in maintaining contact with anyone, such as the displaced persons from Hurricane Katrina and other such natural disasters. 

In addition to extensive practical training on nuclear power plants operations that he received while serving the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, he holds the following formal education degrees:

M.S., Information and Telecommunications Systems for Business, Johns Hopkins University, 2002

M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972

O.E., Ocean Engineering Professional Degree, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, U.S.  Naval Academy, 1966