Chinese state media says China makes American Christmas possible « China Daily Mail

The article argues that the West could not celebrate Christmas without China’s exports and that we should spend the holiday expressing gratitude for Chinese manufacturing.

Well at least not if you use a Apple, but then India pretty much owns Microsoft  so it just depends on which side your junk falls on, the left or right.

So is Microsoft dead?

I don’t know. Some of my friends on Facebook would strongly disagree.

via Chinese state media says China makes American Christmas possible « China Daily Mail.

The Flag

A General on a mission is called a flag-general. In today’s world, of video games and simulations, it is important for a flag-general, especially with a Red team under his/her flag, to understand not just when he loses, but that when he wins is also an important event to note.

Because it is harder to prove a negative than a positive, the flag-general may not remember whose side he is on, and, because all flag-generals are winners, it is doubly hard to prove, by their Red team, that they are losers.

As an example, if you are a flag-general and just bought a house and,  if you are on your hands and knees, crawling around under that house looking for only God  knows what, then, perhaps, you haven’t really won.

If this is true that you didn’t actually win, it is because you didn’t know your enemy. The reason you didn’t know your enemy is because the Red team hid the enemy from you. That is what Red teams do, they hide things from you.

But what we do know is that a flag-general would do only what his God knows, to complete his mission. This is because his God is under his flag, and, of course, because the reverse of that is true, they are both positives.

Boyd and the U.S. Navy’s Return to History

For him the likely victor was the competitor who best adapted to change while keeping his opponent off-balance. That meant swiftly observing how conditions have changed, orienting to change, deciding how to adapt, and acting on that decision.

via Boyd and the U.S. Navy’s Return to History | The Naval Diplomat.

One problem I have with this quote’s description of the victor’s OODA loop is that you don’t orient to change; “...observing how conditions have changed, orienting to change, deciding how to adapt, and acting on that decision.”

The victor orients towards an advantage in the environment observed.

When the environment changes and you lose or gain an advantage, your orientation destructs and then constructs a new structure that takes advantage of that new environment. Boyd was a genius, because he could destruct and construct a new orientation faster than anyone; they need to re define genius.

The victor’s decision then is not on how to adapt, because both Orientations has changed and to the victor will go the spoils of that adaptation. But the victor does need to decide on Acting according to the victor’s new advantage, or disadvantage. The victor does not always have the advantage in the environment, as Boyd later learned, but, to win, the victor needs to make it his advantage.

The Orientation of both the victor and loser has to change, because of the feed-ahead they are getting from the past environment, of relationships and connections, mixed with the feed-back they are getting from the future environment, of  judgments and potentials, creates a new leaver that either the loser or victor can take advantage of. That leaver is reliant on the momentum at the full-come-point at the moment of inertia.

I mean, one may have more  advantage, in any particular environment than another, but each “others” has momentum that can be used to change the direction of both. Grabbing the momentum first can even change the direction of the one with the most advantage. And, as the one who can take advantage of the momentum first is able to possibly change the directions of both, the one who is able to make Decisions, to Act on the momentum, faster, has a chance of winning.

As most of the time in a OODA loop is spent between Orientation and Decision (building an Orientation and Deciding how to use it) the person who is able to make those decisions (or any decision) quicker has a great advantage, as The Act has already been judged by the orientation an advantage before the Decision to use it is given (OOAD).

Most of the time it is a great enough advantage that it can even make the loser the victor, and to the victor an IQ of 90.

Obama’s Strategic Shift: Is Storytelling the Secret Weapon of the 2012 Race?

Obama’s Strategic shift did not just occur in the South China Sea, it also has apparently begun in his attack to keep his job.

.” But it got really interesting when the conversation turned to what the president considers the biggest mistake of his first term. It was, he said, “thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right.”

If you replace the word “policy” with process, then what this statement is saying is: “I have gone strategic.”

Policy builds and maintains the process inside a OODA loop. Strategy creates a moment of inertia to by-pass the policy.

Strategy is, as diagrammed, by the way of the Double Freytag Triangle, in the book Tempo, by Venkatesh Rao, narrative decision-making.

 “The nature of this office,” he said, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Obama has “found” strategy and he is using it to continue the narrative (“story”-telling) that is the USA.

I wish him luck on this, because all strategy is flawed, and the worst environment to try and maintain strategy is one in which everyone puts the “bad breath” on you and your narrative. Ill-will puts the focus on your flaws, which is a distraction that keeps your “story” from becoming transparent.

The good news is: it does’t take much to hide/expose the narrative, because of the nature of complexity.

The environment that strategy runs in is so complex, in its policy, that the “tipping point” between a successful and failed strategy is very close in either direction. Policy is created to make sure the process is both accurate and precise, it is both of these (accuracy and precision) that “target” the “tipping point”, in any process.

In other words, strategy has just as much chance of success as failure despite the complexity, but it demands that you get the “story” out, which is an uncertain process.

The only thing that is certain, when using strategy instead of process, all strategy is flawed, in at least one point in the narrative. As Venkatesh Rao shows in the Double Freytag Triangle, all strategy starts out as a “Cheap Trick”, but, before the story ends, it changes into a more powerful form of the “Cheap Trick”. If it doesn’t change, then the “flaw” absorbs the strategy into the “story”, and the narrative continues, or not.

I think it is getting close to the time when we will be able to tell if Obama has found that flaw and is able to take advantage of the situation. Perhaps the “Cheap Trick” can be found inside the Constitution, and the story will move on to another “peak”.

As this article leads me to believe that Obama has bet his presidency on strategy, one has to admit that it took some guts and a whole lot of faith, in the process, which he built his strategy on, to change.

via Arianna Huffington: Is Storytelling the Secret Weapon of the 2012 Race?.

The Romney-Cheney Doctrine

Out of Romney’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it’s likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity — a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.

via The Romney-Cheney Doctrine – By Representative Adam Smith | Foreign Policy.

Maybe disastrous, but at least they didn’t put 30 million children on heath insurance.

The generational shift emerging in Chinese society

You know the old bit (repeated by me) where Chinese activists said, “Before Tiananmen, we thought freedom was 90% political and 10% economic.  After Tiananmen, we decided that freedom was 90% economic and 10% political.”

via Thomas P.M. Barnett’s Globlogization – Blog – The generational shift emerging in Chinese society.

I have said in the past that I thought all war was about economic considerations, fought by people with little economic considerations. The Doctor makes this more clear.

I think the ratios are about right. 90% economic–10% political. It is the political people who are without economic considerations.

Because politicians are supported by economic consideration, they don’t have to think about economic considerations.

The problem with Barnett’s analyses: the 10% really matter, 90% of the time, when it comes down to war. In China the 10% have an army to control the 90%. This control is mostly over feet, not minds.

If you have control over a persons feet–you don’t need control over the mind, so much.

In analyses, the better question might asked: where are those feet going, as we know who controls them?

Winning

I think the verdict

Image

is out that winning

Image

is more important than any calculation that can be made.

Unfortunately, winning requires a calculation of any kind. So I guess this is one bridge too far.

Just for you interested, my posting for my busiest day was called The Human Condition.

 Not sure what the Human Condition was about, , probably something about Jesus of Nazareth, because I am speaking from a Christian nation, but just giving some context.

The General’s Dystopia

 “As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life. And that’s the security paradox.”

via This Week at War: The General’s Dystopia – By Robert Haddick | Foreign Policy.

I think in context of his quote, he has framed this in reverse order.

“…and they’re proliferating vertically, down to non-state actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. 

means that the lethal and destructive technologies are able to harm us physically by pounding on our structure, while

They’re proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world,…

means that the lethal and destructive technologies are getting inside our OODA loop and, culturally, preventing us from Acting.

It is a subtle difference, but I think one worth noting, as the General is noting two different forms of lethal and destructive technologies. One form can be thought of as weapon systems, while the other is represented by the different forms of social media taking shape.

The means-to-an-end is always in resources, so I think what the General is saying that lethal and destructive technologies give more people the resources towards an end.

The job of social media is to make sure it is a good end, as it is, because of lobbies, almost impossible to control weapon systems.

Q=mA=E=mc^2 (a post in the making)

Recognizing the core dimensions of market stability–and understanding their critical nexus–is central to the conversation and narrative of current Honduras, a culture and country in transition. The confluence and collaboration within the dimensions of Security, Rules Sets, Investment, Infrastructure, and Resources work together to generate market stability. Thus, the ability to assess the variable dynamics of the Honduras market nexus–situation awareness (e.g., the nature and relative importance of each dimension, the relationship between the dimensions and their strategic environment, and the recognition of systemic “choke points”, “tipping points” and feedback loops.)–becomes paramount to the successful pursuit of opportunity in Honduras.

via Critt Jarvis.

The above quote is as close of a description of a quantum (Q) unit of energy that I could come by. If you substitute “a quantum unit of energy” for “market stability” in the sentence “Recognizing the core dimensions of market stability…” then the understanding of a quantum becomes clear.

As the above quote suggests, a quantum is a unit of energy without time, only dimensions. Recognizing the core dimensions is very important in understanding quantum physics, but it is not all that is important. “The nature and relative importance of each dimension, the relationship between the dimensions and their strategic environment, and the recognition of systemic “choke points”, “tipping points” and feedback loops.” is also important.

“the nature and relative importance of each dimension” is a judgement call that a quantum makes, through the use of feedback loops at tipping points while navigating “choke points” within the culture of its structure.

“The relationship between the dimensions and their strategic environment” is a feeling of either good or being satisfied (or not on either points) that develops inside the culture and creates the outside structure of a quantum. The structure of a quantum resides within the area of its velocity.

With the judgement that a quantum makes, as to its nature and relative importance, and the feelings it develops, as to its spatial position, the quantum is able to recognize its “”choke points, “tipping points” and feedback loops” in its relationship between its culture and structure, as it spins inward and outward.

A quantum has no velocity, because it has no time. Velocity is a change in distance over a change in time, and without time velocity can’t exist. Velocity squared (c^2) then becomes an area (A) of velocity.

A quantum does have velocity’s cousin acceleration, which is the change of velocity over a change in time. Acceleration exists, because acceleration is based more on feelings and judgement than time. Acceleration is also at its maximum when velocity is at zero, so perhaps time is not completely eliminated, but velocity is.

The feelings of a quantum are probably locked inside the relationships of its mass (culture). However, mass doesn’t exist without the relationship that develop because of those feeling, as to its spatial relationship (structure).

The judgment of a quantum is between its mass and area of velocity. The judgment, and the feelings behind it, produces a spin. A judgment represents acceleration at the moment of inertia of its z-axis as it spins to find its way within the area of velocity.

Time is then created by the spin, as the quantum accelerate towards another dimension, in the area of velocity, by the judgment of the quantum and how it feels as to its spatial relationships, inward and outward.

The direction of the other dimension (the dimension of time) is in the direction of the quantum’s z-axis, and the direction of the spin is probably a judgment call, based on how good it feels as it moves or if those feeling are one of being satisfied spatially.

The way Honduras will spin (inward or outward) is probably based on those same feelings (good and satisfied).

If the judgment is cultural, between like people, who move north and south because they want to, Honduras may become satisfied, in the relationship with like people, and spin “inward”.

If the judgment is structural, between un-like people, who move east and west because of some technology need, then Honduras may feel good, about where they are in the world (location), and the spin will be “outward”, fulfilling the need of new relationships (a new market).

Perhaps what Honduras needs is technology from the north and south that makes them feel good, about their ability to move north and south, and satisfied about where they are at in their relationships with the east and west.

A good start would be for Obama to build the power grid north and south, to include Honduras, instead of east and west across the USA. The direction east and west will never be completed, because it represents no-growth. Growth for the USA is represented by the directions north and south, and is the direction this new grid-technology should take.