Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The director of the movie why we fight (in a Charlie Rose tv interview) connected me to the wonderful Eisenhower valediction reprinted below as well as many connective opportunities to search dialogues and networks that Eisenhower projects continue to open up

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html


Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Relating to this as Charlie Rose Community, and State of Union Speechmakers?
Who's Space Races Are They Amyway?


What interests me about CEO Raymond is that he is one of the President's 20 lynchpins at http://www.nap.edu who conceived his 2 new space races connecting (what 22 years of death of distance (DoD) debates now see as the last call of) the state of the union:
end US addiction to economics of petroleum and do all that you can to get kids to love learning and playing with exploring scince as much as they currently do sports

Now both of these missions can be interpreted in a world of different ways. Having worked in 30 countries and tried to listen to many peoples and many crises of opportunity and risk, I am pretty sure my destination would begin around a different hemisphere journey than Raymond would even dream of let alone support Friedman like collaboratiions connecting a world where we can all learn from each other's diverse immediate crisis contexts. As just one example since 1984 I have been enjoying debates on what photosynthesis energy can do, whereas Mr Raymond has seeming enjoyed banishing that freedom of speech, unless I am misconstruing his life's work for which I am happy to humbly apologise.

The average American has a very different crisis context from the average Indian, Chinese, Afican, South American, Weast Coast Americam, South Coast American, New Orlean etc. The one thing, anyone who has joined a DoD dialogue understands as connecting all us 6 billion beings: internetworking is the biggest revolution ever to hit one generation of humanity at the same time. It changes the productivity of our physical lives -some of us now earning more in learning's virtual spaces than the earth's reality spaces -strangely too much power by nations get in the way of the trading exchanges we'd love to help people open source and multiply. It changes communications so that being powerful at top down is absolutely useless to those who need you to connect with what the top does not see first. Please could we think about how we might map this. However white their house, those sitting atop one tidy bit of longitude/latitude are now conditioned by certain blindnesses to what nature and humanity is waving around 360*360 -doesn't this make exploring the www a whole new interesting game to play?... as long as eg we can develop enough collaboration, trust-flows, love of communion...

I believe we -our creeds, opur faiths, our communities, our families, our beings - could begin by assuming that we are emotionally smart enough as a species to work out a way that people can make enough momney by doing what they love serving and caring for most. That is actually where economics has always been in 200 years that entreprenurs have studied it a hugely schizophrenic subject. Do you want the maths that neables every person to multiply productivity to their heart and context's content or the maths that makes the big bigger? If you are bored stiff by maths, reframe this as which scifi or scihi do you want to connect through ever person you converse with, work with, communalise with , lead or be led by?

http://valedictions.blogspot.com
http://clubofbethesda.blogspot.com
http://openspaceraces.blogspot.com
http://entrepeneurialrevolution.blogspot.com

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Relating this at Omidyar 1 2
Who's Science Should Societies Value?

When some of us read his words, we go gee: didn't leaders in those days have deep concern for the people's future and enough systemic diversity of information to dare connect the big picture vision?

Looking at the pattern of valedictory speeches of big leaders leaving office today, we do not always see the same deep integrating quality of vision or multicultured human understanding

Over my mathematician's last 15 years of learning curves and many disagreeable experiences with Porterian strategists and global management consultants (including 5 years at Coopers & Lybrand Euro HQ and 3 years at Europe's largest global media agency) - I have decided what this means for my project interactions (in my pursuit not of excellence but hi-trust connections) is that I can look for saintly stars from history to guide me - eg Gandhi - but amongst current leaders I should be searching not for such perfection but better than we have any right to expect given the disconnecting info systems top people are in

This interconnects with the mathematics of social innovation that Harrison Owen of Open Space technology clarifies. All the world's biggest social innovations involving taking many sides simultaneously through a conflict. Every breakthrough people make to higher order system harmony involves a stage where the highest power leader is part of the problem: what rule of the environment has changed that he used to control 100% correctly but which is now disastrous. Simple story: in breaking through speed of sound barrier, pilots literally lost all crashing out until one pilot tested an intuition. As he shuddered through the barrier he turned his cockpit controls inside out

99% RIGHT & 100% Right ARE WHOLLY DIFFERENT INTELLECTUAL CAPITALS
If you have followed the mess I want to help people navigate through (and one professional firm of leaders lost tens of billions of their own money and much of everyone's new/networking economy by not beginning to try), it also explains why pursuing only scientific certainty is the most disastrous innovation policy. Innovation has no value unless societies can adopt it through time and around diverse contexts. Any peer group that is unable to search for the next wholly opposite link to what we assume is 100% correct will compound death of innovation in their space. This could be the 21st C uncertainty principle and the first idea we teach budding scientific youth not the idea we never get round to mentioning because it introduces that teaching conflict that the next big question is ultimately more valuable than the last big fact

chris macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
more of these 15-year action learning scripts at
http://entrepreneurialrevolution.blogspot.com changes for peoples economics
http://openspaceraces.blogspot.com changes uniting innovation and revolutionary vision
http://clubofbethesda.blogspot.com changes future historians can support American Colaboration networks with
http://networkeconomics.blogspot.com changes in world beliefs and valuations
http://deathofdistance.blogspot.com opening diversity of dialogues connecting all cultures and divides
http://project30000.blogspot.com co-searching 30000 ways to chnage the world through replicating answers to deep communal needs
http://www.beyond-branding.com changing media to love reality beyond image, heroines beyond celebrating junk, questioning before wanting to be soundbitten, uniting cultures instead of separating apartheids of life and styles...