The Washington Post’s recent report, Top Secret America, on the burgeoning secret government is being covered by PBS’s FRONTLINE:

FRONTLINE reveals 9/11′s unprecedented yet largely invisible legacy: the creation of a vast maze of clandestine government and private agencies designed to hunt terrorists and prevent future attacks on the U.S.

We need to keep an eye on this.

So it is interesting for me to see people so willingly give up power. One of the ways that I think power is given up is by engaging politics emotionally. And on the inauguration of Barack Obama I found it ironic to see people willingly give themselves up to a man who’s key message is of the dangers of the blind and irrational in politics.

But that is the nature of power. Power requires people to put down their guards and follow. To trust that they will not be marched off a cliff. This is an awesome tool and, I acknowledge, one that is required to accomplish great things. Humans are social creatures and in order for us to work together we must be coordinated. Skyscrapers, cities, republics and empires are envisioned by leaders and dutifully executed by the people. Nothing would ever be accomplished if every order was questioned by every person. On certain occasions we need the collective to act as one. But group-think is also responsible for the worst of humanity; ranging from riots, nationalism and stampedes at Wal-Mart.

So we should take no comfort knowing that Leaders have often used this power to send men off to die in distant lands for issues unrelated to them.

But the times are different and Obama will be a great leader, right? Well, I “believe”, but it is not whether or not we agree with the one at the helm that gives me pause. It’s simply seeing how power is so easily given up and amassed that puts me in awe; like seeing history play itself out in real time.

With that being said, I don’t think that all aspects of life should be engaged this critically. There are many things that I believe being part of the collective is great. For example, dancing is best experienced in a social environment and without thought. But politics is one of these areas in life that I think should always be engaged with a certain level of detachment. Politics is a process and it should remain as so. So when politics and emotions meet, that’s when we should be most cautious.

From the blog:

By tracking the relationships of powerful Americans – everything from campaign contributions to family ties – LittleSis opens up these networks for public inspection. “Big Brother” is commonly used to describe a situation where the electronic eyes of the powers that be are vigilantly watching citizens for misbehavior. LittleSis is a website where the electronic eyes of citizens are vigilantly watching back.

This is an exciting moment for us and we hope that people find it useful.

So I was surprised when a friend linked me to the following video, by done by one of his classmates, Lenka Chludova. Except that Lenka, an artist from the Boston area, dwells on the awkwardness of the human gait:

It is particular to the movement on all fours that it is straining from the beginning of the act and therefore does not go through a physically and visually obvious progression as, for example, running on two as fast and for as long as possible. The muscles and skeleton resist this abnormal motion in a way that makes the human body give out signals as if it is on the verge of collapsing three minutes into the act the same way it signals fifty minutes later. The sense of a pending total exhaustion therefore occurs repeatedly.

The video is a bit long, but that is what makes it amazing. Lenka runs as fast as she can on all fours, through out New York, for over 45 minutes. The scenery changes are quite spectacular and appear – possibly coincidentally – to map to her emotions. Starting out relatively fast with a backdrop of the skyline and ending exhausted in an isolated part city.

Endure:

As fast and for as long as possible from Lenka Chludova on Vimeo.

But I am reminded that it is the young, mobile, and healthy that are taking the biggest risk with not having insurance – and increasing the told cost of health care as they find themselves in the emergency rooms. And to a certain extent, I agree. But against my libertarian tendencies, I want to argue that giving people the choice to opt in and out of insurance actually creates a moral hazard, with a solution that must ignore the individual and solved only with a macro approach.

Let’s begin by looking at what insurance is: insurance is social system that distributes the financial costs of catastrophes across a population. Individuals pay a share into a system and extreme fluctuations in small segments of the population are absorbed.

In order for this system to work, a very large portion of the population must believe that they are risk and want to buy into the scheme. The reality is, though, that the risk of a catastrophe occurring to any single individual is quite small. The chances that your house will burn down: small. Getting in a serious car accident: relatively small. Being struck by some inexplicable disease and having to be hospitalized: very small. In the developed world most people live relatively long lives – and are more often set back by slow onset conditions caused by lifestyle decisions, such as heart disease and stroke. So on an individual basis, you can’t sell insurance on a catastrophe basis, without there being some level of deception.

Moreover, individuals have a hard time accurately gauging their own risks. People rarely have adequate information about their risks to make a rational decision – and if they did, the risks would appear small. Some risks, like getting hurt in terrorist attack or a plane crash are extremely rare, yet most effective in mobilizing fear.

So we’re presented with two basic ideas: we need insurance for known fluctuations in the population, which we would all like to be protected from. But individuals have a hard time gauging their own risks, but still are asked to predict. This asymmetry of information lends itself to abuse and, I think, resembling other morally ambiguous situations, like gambling.

While specific risks to individuals are statistically rare, we know – with certainty – that small segments of the population will be afflicted with all sorts of catastrophes. Since insurance is a tool that works best everyone participates and we cannot expect individuals to ever know their own risks, it makes sense that the industry resembles a public service as apposed to a gambling business.

Yet, we are in the midst of yet another bailout by US government – again, by institutions deemed “too big to let fail.” The auto industry is asking for $25 billion, which as of now, appears could come from the $700 billion intended (and also failing) to restore liquidity in the financial markets. The financial markets are in turmoil and it would seem like a bad time to consider letting the auto industry collapse. But, we might also want to consider this a good opportunity to do what’s been needed for a long time now – and that is restructure our economy.

Before I give my reading on the situation I want to make clear that I understand that people’s livelihoods are at stake here. Even more so, our entire economy at risk. Here is some perspective:

GM’s payroll pumps $8.7 billion a year into its assembly workers’ pockets. Directly or indirectly, it supports nearly 900,000 jobs — everyone from auto-parts workers to advertising writers, car salespeople, and office-supply vendors. When GM shut down for 54 days during a 1998 labor action, it knocked a full percentage point off the U.S. economic growth rate that quarter. So what’s bad for General Motors is still, undeniably, bad for America.

That reason alone should discourage any talks of letting these companies fail. But how long can we put off restructuring this industry? If the government had not coddled these companies for the past decades we would not be in this situation today. There is no reason to believe that in future it will be easier to restructure the industry. It will be hard no matter when it happens. The reality is that the American carmakers have been zombies – clinically dead, yet still walking around – for years now. Not only that, they have been dead weight, preventing the modernization of our entire economy.

the U.S. automotive industry has been on the wrong side of almost every environmental, social and safety issue since the 1960s. The industry objected to the Clean Air Act, publicly opposed fuel economy standards, fought against seat belt and air bag legislation, dragged its feet on alternative-fuel vehicles and lobbied against almost every socially responsible initiative. Exactly why would the public want to bail out an industry that has failed in the market and been so unresponsive to the public good?

The decisions we make right now will shape our future economy in dramatic ways. As the world economy swerves in every which way, we have to make sure that we don’t just straighten out, but also end up going in the right direction. And for that, I believe what we need is a well-managed dismembering of the auto industry. We certainly do not want a situation where the industry meets a sudden and catastrophic end. But that’s the direction we are going. Market pressures from Japan, Korea, and now, China, will only continue to squeeze the auto industry and I am not willing to bet our future economy on their resurgence.

the solutions will slip from GM’s control. At some point the laws of physics take over and, like steel-makers and airlines, GM is at the mercy of global forces. It simply cannot compete in a global economy with the enormous burden it now carries in legacy costs. It certainly cannot meet those costs for long off a shrinking sales base and negative cash flow. And distracted by those woes, it can’t begin to make the investments necessary to match the Koreans on price, the Japanese on quality, and the Europeans on performance.

So what does the future hold? Well, if we take a long-term view of the economy, it’s clear that the search for sustainable sources of energy will be key to our economic future, similar to the way transportation was an important economic struggle of the 19th and 20th centuries. The car brought mobility to the masses, but now transportation, as a problem, is for the most part solved. With planes, buses, trains, cars and boats we can reach most places of the world in a matter of hours – not months. We will continue to make improvements to transportation (coupled with telecommunications) but we need a larger economic scope if we are to lead in the new century.

As I said before, there needs to be a well managed dismembering of the industry. First, the companies need to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The government can then move in and – and as was the case with the FDIC-managed dismembering of Washington Mutual and Wachovia – assets can be sold to highest bidder. The government can then invest in and encourage Toyota, Honda and Nissan to take over as much of manufacturing as they can. The government can assume responsibility for the pensions of the oldest employees and focus on retraining and job placement programs for the youngest.

We’d rather the government spend billions on retraining and job placement than on propping up perpetually weak companies that can’t fix themselves. We also don’t buy the argument that bankruptcy would be a deathblow for GM. The only folks it would be a death-blow for would be shareholders and many bondholders.

Will it be expensive? Yes. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

Retraining should focus on manufacturing and retrofitting our existing infrastructure with “green technologies.” When we reach an acceptable level of stability, we should consider taxing inefficient and wasteful sources of energy to increase market pressure and encourage innovation. This way we can solve the short-term economic problem of keeping people employed and the long term problem of promoting sustainability.

Obviously there will many more issues that need to be considered in this transition and there will be seen and unforeseen problems that will pop up. But if we don’t keep a long-term view when solving these issues, we are surely to find ourselves here again in the not too distant future – having accomplished little.

I first encountered this idea in Ray Kurzweil’s book The Singularity is Near a few years ago (given as a gift by my good friend David Macaluso), and fell in love with the topic. The book discussed mind-digitization, human fusion with technology, nano technology, and raised interesting thoughts about genetics, evolution and death. I read this book at a time when I was also researching topics like quantum computing, teleportation and dabbling in the philosophy of human nature, evolution and consciousness. Needless to say, the book played a role in shaping many of my views today and how to look into the future.

But as with any new and fascinating topic, the novelty wore off and time brought perspective and a critical eye. And that’s where I have been for the past few years. Fascinated, but critical. Yet, I find myself defending the ideas of the Singularity quite vigorously. Not because I am fully convinced of their validity. But because the issues that they raise seem to be playing an ever increasing role into our lives.

In defending Singularity research, I find myself answering the following the points.

• The Singularity is not possible. The premise assumes that we will be able to understand everything about the human brain and human biology and the universe. History shows that whenever we think we have a holistic view of the universe, science reshuffles everything again.

Even if the singularity is not possible, it is an interesting topic to discuss for the questions that it raises about philosophy and technology. We are shaped by technology every day. Technological advances have spread across the world and have influenced every significant culture in the world. There have been few things throughout history that transcended and influenced all cultures of the world as rapidly as recent technological advancements have – take for example, the cellphone. If for no other reason, that seems to be a good reason to think long term of what we, as a species, seem to be building.

• Even if it’s possible, I disagree with the overall vision and don’t want to support it. (i.e it feels like a new religion with technology at it’s center)

There are many things I don’t like about the Singularity. It raises very uncomfortable questions about humans, nature and our place in the universe. One thing that it does not do is dictating the direction of where technology is taking us. We are all part of a system that is taking us in the direction that the Singularity is pointing us towards. It is our modern economy in finance and technology research that is powering this machine.

• Even if it’s correct, I don’t want to support these ideas. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We would have to change more than just wacky futurist ideas to prevent us going down this path. The institutions and research powering our world are based on the belief that “progress” must continue to sustain our way of living. If we are concerned of possibly “losing our humanity” then we need to be willing to give up many of our modern niceties – which is a topic that also interests me and enjoy entertaining. But I believe that it is not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It a building of foresight. And it’s best to have thought about the complications of these issues before we have to deal with them directly.

Another book, which I just recently acquired – and recommend for pragmatic view of technogical change – is Francis Fuyikayama’s Our Post-Human Future, where he addresses specific political ramifications of the change we are experiencing.

And in comments to reporters at the White House, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., said that consumers should remain confident about the soundness of the American financial system.

They say that chocolate rations have risen again.