In one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books he talked about how respect for authority has caused a massive number of plane crashes over time. Basically, the relationship between a senior and junior pilot was so severe in many countries that the co-pilot (junior) knew that his effective boss could bury him in an instant, and so he walked extremely delicately around him.

Unfortunately, this translated to not telling him when he was making a safety mistake, such as an incorrect fuel or course estimation. As a result, this fear-based hesitation essentially nullified the entire purpose of having two people in the cockpit, i.e. to serve as a check against one-another.

The same thing seems to have happened in a recent child-rape case at Penn State. Story after story I hear about, “Delicate situations”, and so and so being, “a very senior coach”.

Fuck that. That’s how plane crashes happen. It’s also how priests get away with child rape. Their positions are so respected that you basically need something on video before you’ll push beyond that sacred stiff-arm.

These are all the same problem: co-pilots respecting pilots too much, junior coaches worrying about the anger and legacy of a senior coach, or priests getting moved to another Parish instead of being fired. In all cases it’s a force of authority that suppresses an acolyte’s sense of conviction — whether that be morality or security-related.

This has to stop. The airline industry stopped it by giving very strict training on how there is no rank in an airplane. When people are there to check one another, rank means fear, and fear means holding your tongue, and holding your tongue means a chance of people dying.

We need the same sort of anti-authority training for any other arena where powerful people are not reported for crimes because the juniors are in awe of them, or because they think it’ll hurt their careers in the future.

If you find yourself in such a situation, step away from it. Look at it from the perspective of someone outside the system. You’ll see instantly what should happen, and don’t be afraid to take action. Rank and authority be damned.

::

This will be rough.

I’ve always been attracted to the idea of identifying unifying characteristics of desired society, and defining those ideals as sacred to the group that embraces them. The Constitution does this, of course, but it deals with principals where I aim to talk about behaviors. I come to this from decades of observing dissimilar people living with each other. I’m struck by how different they are, and most importantly, how much they dislike one another.

I’ve always wondered if there was a way to insist that people be nice to each other. A way of building unity and pleasantness into a society through a philosophy, or a set of ideals that everyone is pounded in by parents, taught in every grade of school, pushed through public service announcements, etc. Here’s a first attempt at capturing ideas that will go into such rules (which I’ll create properly later):

1. You should be pleasant to those who pass you on the street. Smile, give a greeting. Nod. Whatever. Do not ignore someone unless there is a reason (you’re on the phone, talking to someone else, etc.)

2. Speak quietly while in public. Whether on the phone or speaking with others, attempt to use a volume that will reach your audience and nobody else.

3. Smoking in public is extraordinarily rude. Smoke can be detected and cause annoyance hundreds of feet away, and going to the entrance of a building to do so will not help, as that’s the door for non-smokers as well.

4. Assume the best of others at all times.

5. A standard language.

6. Give people ample personal space in public. Do not crowd or rush them to gain advantage in some way. We are not competing here. We are cooperating.

7. When in public, be aware of those around you, and be willing to engage them in eye-contact, polite conversation, or a simple smile. Do not tune out to those around you because you consider them different than you or somehow unimportant.

8. The tenets above are behavior-based, and these metrics, i.e. how people treat each other, are the only grounds on which someone can be judged. Membership in our country/city/whatever is based on these concepts alone, and judging others negatively based on any other criteria will not be tolerated by our society.

9. A belief in education. Work is not enough. You must be educated in order to participate as a full citizen of an advanced society. The nuances of building a society, and the ability to filter bad information and avoid being manipulated all depend on education. The question is not whether you will do well in school, it’s which school you’ll do well in.

10. Others…

[ Not really sure about a couple of these... ]

Finally, and most importantly, the purpose of the charter is to say that if you can’t embrace these ideas you’re simply not welcome here (wherever the place is that embraces this). If you wish to be rude to others, think yourself separate and above interacting with those around you, or better than someone because of their race, religion, etc. — you simply can’t play in our sandbox.

And our sandbox will be the best one, because we’ll have the best people here from everywhere in the world. The only thing we’ll have in common is an agreement on the Constitution (think U.S.) and these core behavioral beliefs. These combined make us the most pleasant place to live, with the smartest people in the world clamoring to join the community.

We must end the Balkanization of our largest cities and countries. This is how to do it. Insist on cohesion and unity. Make it part of the identity of society.

::

Go to http://americancensorship.org/ or contact your representative directly.

People are asking why Ron Paul continues to be ignored despite his winning multiple straw polls. It’s simple, really.

The GOP and the mainstream conservative media know that he can’t win a contest with Obama, and, even worse, they think he’d be a disaster even if he did win.

That’s not the funny part. The amusing bit is that they’re exactly correct.

Ron Paul is a lot like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman: the idea of them is much better than they actually are, and if you give them a microphone enough times with freedom to speak, they’ll say things that will disqualify them from most any kind of office.

The GOP elite know this, so they’re hoping he’ll just go away.

What’s interesting is that Cain is the same exact way. And Perry and Santorum aren’t far off.

There are few candidates on the GOP side that could speak at length, in an open way, without saying something so stupid that they have a double-digit ratings collapse within a week.

Romney, Gingrich, and perhaps that nice fellow from Utah. That’s about it.

The GOP leadership have to be secretly freaking out. They can hardly scare up anyone that believes in evolution. They’ve got a lot of escaped mental patients to choose from, and Obama is going to make the vast majority of them look silly just by sounding like a normal human being in contrast.

Romney really is their only option. Nobody else can beat Obama — especially not Paul.

::