Life and security lessons from the Beats

I was listening to a review of a new book about leisure and was amazed to hear that an author was trying to characterize the Beat generation as “lazy” by modern standards. Lazy? Unwilling to work? That’s a total misunderstanding of the social and economic situation in the post-Eisenhower north-eastern US.

Incidentally, this misunderstanding reminds me of the typical mistake made by dominant (conservative) groups when judging counter-culture movements.

Disenfranchisement and disappointment often turns young groups into non-believers. In other words, if you look carefully at Kerouac’s relationship with his family and his neighborhood, let alone the ethnic discrimination they experienced as French Canadians, you might just understand what it was like to take a walk in his shoes. Frustrated by a failure of your parents to improve their living after decades of back-breaking labor, and facing a lack of attractive opportunities, it seems a natural path to “drop-out” and seek experimentation/entrepreneurship/invention.

If you see a dead-end are you really going to charge forward with gusto? Even suicide bombers apparently have to believe in a rewarding afterlife to perform their illogical acts of self-destruction. Hope is a powerful thing, and prematurely or incorrectly judging someone lazy seriously undermine our ability to understand their hopelessness, or their hope to evade controls and achieve “unpredictability”.

The original punk movement had a similar economic theory, coupled with the more infamous social issues. They not only felt it was unreasonable to give in to a system that demanded their input but gave little or no reward, but they also rejected the notion that the individual should succumb to the predominant dress-code and behavior. The mohawk epitomizes the “you can try to ignore me and pretend that I don’t deserve your respect as a person if I look like the normal down-and-out kid, but this two foot pink mohawk demands your attention, no?”

So what can we take away from these movements? Certainly not that there are generations of kids who are “lazy” but rather that some amazing forms of innovation come from barriers to entry. More importantly, perhaps, is that if you do not anticipate the innovation (like a spillway supports a dam) you should not be surprised to see things spin “out of control”. Just because you don’t see/feel the barriers doesn’t mean they’re all around you, and so it’s best to find them, understand them, and help people prepare for them in a beneficial/supportive fashion.

Beat, but not down. For comparison, I often ponder another form of innovation in the late 1950s (finding self-awareness as opposed to challenging others’) epitomized by the Confessionals, like Sylvia Plath:

Daddy, I have had to kill you.
You died before I had time–
Marble-heavy, a bag full of God,
Ghastly statue with one gray toe
Big as a Frisco seal

Markets and Security Infrastructure

The Council on Foreign Relations has issued a report that has a stark warning for the White House. The authors say a dangerous precedent was set in the 2002 administration strategy, and it has therefore failed to establish a viable domestic (Homeland) security infrastructure:

The White House and Congress wrongly presume that market mechanisms on their own will provide sufficient incentives to provide the necessary level of security in the absence of decisive federal leadership and involvement. Security and safety are public goods whose provision is a core responsibility of government at all levels.

The report’s suggestion for a better path forward seem to be fairly straightforward. I mean when you include the phrase “as required by law” in your recommendations, you can hardly say anyone in government will be surprised to hear them:

  • Quickly complete, as required by law, a national list of priorities for critical infrastructure. It is simply unacceptable that a list to guide federal spending and agency efforts does not yet exist.
  • The White House and Congress need to stop talking about improving information sharing and hold government officials accountable for actually doing so. There is legitimate frustration among corporate security officers that talking with federal agencies is always a one-way street—companies generously give and barely receive.
  • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must strengthen the quality and experience of its personnel. One solution is for Congress to authorize the creation of a personnel exchange program that would allow industry experts and managers to take a leave of absence from their companies to serve in government while DHS employees work for companies in critical sectors.
  • Congress and the administration should work closely with the private sector to establish security standards and implement and enforce regulations, especially in the chemical and transportation sectors where industry is seeking standards and regulations.
  • Congress should establish targeted tax incentives to promote investments and rapid adoption of measures that will improve the resiliency of the highest risk industries.

“Stop talking about improving information sharing” is a funny and ironic point that belies a larger problem with the Bush administration. With a reputation for acting as though they are above or just craftily rewriting the laws to suit their purposes (e.g. Guantanamo) does Bush’s inner-circle of advisors think that their “free-market” approach to security has been effective anywhere in the world? Here is the write-up in the Wall Street Journal from 2003 regarding Iraq:

The Bush administration has drafted sweeping plans to remake Iraq’s economy in the U.S. image. Hoping to establish a free-market economy in Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. is calling for the privatization of state-owned industries such as parts of the oil sector, forming a stock market complete with electronic trading and fundamental tax reform.

Execution of the plan — which is expected to be complicated and possibly contentious — will fall largely to private American contractors working alongside a smaller team of U.S. officials. The initial plans are laid out in a confidential 100-page U.S. contracting document titled “Moving The Iraqi Economy From Recovery to Sustainable Growth.” The consulting work could be valued at as much as $70 million for the first year.

[…]

For many conservatives, Iraq is now the test case for whether the U.S. can engender American-style free-market capitalism within the Arab world. In a February address, President Bush spoke of “a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade.” A new regime in Iraq, he said, “would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.”

Test case? It’s interesting to note that the article concludes with a warning from experts with real-world experience rebuilding Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR: “rapid privatization of state-run enterprises led to sharp disruptions in jobs and services, as well as rampant corruption”.

More riots in Mumbai

With all the news of instability and conflict in Iraq and Afganistan I haven’t heard much in the news about the ongoing riots in Mumbai, but here was the situation in March:

Trouble broke out last Wednesday, when some labourers are alleged to have molested a girl in Ghansoli village during Holi celebrations. The villagers retaliated the next day, killing two port labourers, and attacking police vehicles. The police had to resort to firing, killing two people. The official who ordered the firing has been transferred, and the government has ordered an inquiry into the firing.

Seems like the place is ready to burst into riots at any time. Indeed, Mumbai has been a hot spot since the 1970s, and perhaps most noted for the 1984 Bhiwandi riots when nearly 150 people were killed. Most recently (three days ago) reports say citizens objected to a police station being built:

Trouble broke out at Bhiwandi after the authorities began constructing a police station on a plot of land adjacent to a mosque and a graveyard. Muslim organisations objected to the construction of a police station next to the graveyard, and demanded that the work be halted.

When the police refused, a mob of nearly a thousand marched on to the site on Wednesday, planning to demolish the police station. In the ensuing clash, stones were lobbed, injuring about 25 policemen. The police retaliated and fired on the crowd, killing two persons.

Later, two policemen were allegedly lynched by a mob. About 3,000 security personnel have been posted in the city. Security has also been stepped up in the communally sensitive town — which has seen horrific riots several times in the past — and Rapid Action Force troops have been deployed there.

Apparently the source of riots and conflict is rooted in deep mistrust between citizens and their police in a sprawling and densely populated urban area. That tension is now coupled with recent charges against one of the local police “celebrities”:

A warrant had been issued for the arrest of Daya Nayak after the Supreme Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail last week.

He is accused of involvement in killing more than 80 people in so-called “encounters” with alleged criminals.

Daya Nayak, who has been suspended, denies the charges.

Before surrendering, Mr Nayak made allegations of corruption and intimidation against senior colleagues past and present.

[…]

Until recently Mr Nayak was part of a five-member group of policemen in the elite crime intelligence unit, with a brief to take on Mumbai crime syndicates.

He and his colleagues are alleged to have killed hundreds of suspected criminals in shootouts.

The problem, apparently, is that many innocent people were being killed by this sharp-shooter. The charges threaten to undermine his own credibility as a crime-fighter, but it will be interesting to see if he is also able to implicate senior management in the process. Will justice stop the riots, or are the riots to stop justice?

Livewrong

We all know that Lance Armstrong dopes. Rules in sports (e.g. even anti-doping) can be a good thing and even if they can’t catch him yet, some seem to have a dark sense of humor about it already.

Imagine if you see this armband showing up at work, especially in a “trusted” or authorization-only environment:

Livewrong

Funny, snarky free-speech or inappropriate and in poor taste?

Here’s the explanation from the designer:

Today was the first day of the Tour de France. Many of the top riders got kicked out of the Tour yesterday on allegations of doping….I wear my bracelet to commemorate the event.