The Daily Singularity

הם באו למלחמה

2010-05-31T10:12:00.000-07:00

"הם באו למלחמה,"

"They came for war."

Ten Israeli soldiers were killed today in the waters off the Gaza strip, not twenty four hours ago, and already the world has disgraced their memory.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, I'll give a bit of background here. A flotilla of aid workers and Palestinian supporters was sailing to Gaza to deliver aid to the Palestinians and to protest Israel's occupation of the Gaza strip. As the flotilla continued toward Israel, its defense forces made it clear that the protesters would be treated as enemies of the state and arrested if they attempted to land. That attempt was made today, and as per their warning, the Israeli Defense Force boarded the flotilla, at which point the protesters beat the Israeli soldiers with steel clubs, stabbed at them with knives and allegedly fired at them with their own weapons and weapons taken from the Israeli soldiers. The Israelis opened fire on the protesters; killing nine and wounding an unconfirmed twenty protesters. In the violence, however, ten IDF soldiers were killed; their memories and deaths over shadowed by the death of the protesters; their actions being condemned by French president Sarkozy as a "disproportionate use of force," and by the US, when, merely speaking of the protesters "regret[s] the loss of life and injuries sustained in this incident." In addition the UN Security Council is in discussions to determine if sanctions on Israel are appropriate and Turkey has recalled its diplomatic envoy to Israel.

I have one question for you today. At what point is such force "proportionate," President Sarkozy? And to the US Deputy Press Secretary, if those were our soldiers following orders and defending our nation's sovereignty, would you merely "regret the loss of life?" This is no Tienanmen Square, this is no Kent State. These soldiers were following order and they were right in doing so. When they came under attack from people who purport to be "peaceful," they defended themselves. And the world condemns them, throws dirt on their graves, and tells their families that they were monsters. Well, world, they have more they have more courage, more strength of conviction and more gravitas than you, and they should be remembered more respectfully. Memorial Day can extend beyond our own borders.

On a different note, I want to ask another question. What would the US do if a flotilla of Al Qaeda supporters landed in Norfolk, or Baltimore, or Miami with aid for domestic terror cells who intend to destroy our country? What would we do if Mexican immigrants were launching rockets over the border in Arizona, or Texas? I submit that not the protesters, but that our own citizens would be the violent mob in such a case. When we are threatened our nation is incredibly indignant and it would take our citizens every ounce of self restraint we possess to keep from hanging our assailants from the side of the Golden Gate bridge.

Friends, ten Israeli soldiers were killed today, don't disgrace them or their memory.

My Life... In Cadence

2010-01-08T07:49:00.000-08:00

Routine is something on which most of use rely. We awake at the same time every day, eat the same thing for breakfast, and, most days, go to the same job or classes that we did the previous day. I've been thinking for awhile that routine is a thing to be avoided, that it slows the mind and dulls the wit. After all, we could complete the same routine everyday in a mildly comatose state and no one would be ever the wiser, as long as we show up on time and complete our work satisfactorily.

In this recent lack of forced routine, however, I've realized that without a routine, we become entirely unproductive. Our mind resembles a rubber ball on a trampoline; never landing in the same place twice. If we let our mind have total autonomy it will bounce from idea to idea, never settling on one to run it through its course.

Do not mistake me for saying that we need to suffocate our lives in a tedious routine, simply for productivity. The mind needs a balance of routine and spontaneity, preferably daily. Because for extended times, routine will deaden the mind and dull the wit. And we should relish the time we spend outside our routine, because this is the time during which we can live out the thoughts and desires which distract us daily.

But neither should we wear our routine with such disdain that we cannot enjoy a single moment of it. It is our routine that drives our life, that allows us to enjoy those glorious laissez faire moments of abandon. Our routine is also the engine that drives us to accomplish things, drives us to act on purpose, and drives us to succeed.

The truth is that when our routine is lost for any great period of time we lose ourselves in it, lose creativity, and succumb to simple minded entertainment. So take your routine, enjoy it, relish it, do not scorn it, because it is the thing that is helping you succeed.

The Greener Grass

2010-01-05T21:11:00.000-08:00

So it's been awhile since I've sat down at this keyboard and written some of my thoughts down here. The keyboard in front of me has changed as has the world around me, and I can only but hope that the eyes with which I look upon the world around me have not changed in sequence.

But the very fact that I haven't sat down to share my thoughts is intriguing and a bit disturbing in itself. Rarely in my life have I had such an abundance of time and rarely in my life have I had such little will to capitalize on it. Now make no mistake I have not abandoned my life of discipline for a life of slovenliness; my tasks still get accomplished on time, but my will to exceed those has vanished in these days and weeks of this intellectual repose. Shortly I will be returning to training and to education and I would consider it a grave loss of time if I did not express myself at least once.

It is a curious thought, however, that we humans, given the opportunity to capitalize on time, will often choose to abandon our desires. This is a testament to how truly faint of heart we all are. We can spend countless hours pursuing a person or an ideal and when the moment of truth comes and we have our desire within our grasp we back out; we choose the status quo. We convince ourselves that a change wouldn't be worth it, or that we were mistaken; that there's something better for us waiting down life's road, and we plod on.

So one questions this; "Are we simply meant to plod on?" Is the purpose of our life to delude ourselves into seeing some mirage in front of us, and racing to it, only to see a bigger one further off in the distance? I think this is what the American ideal has become. We're in search of just a little more, and we never stop to enjoy what we have. The grass may be greener on the other side, but the fact remains that by the time we get there we'll need more of it simply to survive.

The truth is that in all areas of our life we have safety nets; our own little pouch full of grass, so to speak. And this safety net is meant to catch us, it's why we built it. If we keep moving forward we just have to keep building bigger and bigger safety nets. And in the end, what's the point of it all, we work our whole life to retire in the worst health of our life, not to die, but to simply fade away.

Why can't we use the safety net from time to time? Test its weight. Didn't we built it for that? So jump. See what happens. I won't tell you what to do; I don't need to. You know exactly where the net is, exactly where the jump is, and exactly where you backed away. Jump. If you make it, look at all you've gained, and if you fall, well... enjoy the way down, because you can feel more passion on the way down than the whole world could feel in a lifetime of plodding on to the next mirage. I don't want to be called faint of heart, do you?

C'est la vie, c'est la vie

As I sit watching

2009-08-25T14:52:00.000-07:00

So this will be my first attempt at writing during my academic endeavor, for lack of a better word. And so I sit here on the so called "Dean's Patio," as though a dean would sit here in the midst of the sweltering heat and incorrigible lack of correct grammar. I have just finished my first lecture in a class titled "Western Civilization," in which my professor asserted that history cannot repeat itself identically in the future and obviously we can agree that this is true, as time is a linear progression. He also asserted however that there are trends in history, things that are not necessarily identical to the past, but are certainly similar. This we can also agree on without debate, but a question arises from this ascertation, and that question is from where do these trends come?

This is the same question posed by my professor to the class with the obvious answer to follow; human ignorance. So human ignorance is the reason why humanity continues to pursue the same tragic goals and fall into the same vindictive traps as all of humanity has in the past. We need to be more educated about the past so we can change the future.

Plausible enough, right? At least until one considers that as we approach the year 2010, the base of human knowledge will be doubling every 72 hours; quite an impressive function. So it would follow that the number of these trends would be diminishing as the base of our knowledge increases but this seems not to be the case. The same nations are fighting the same wars, and the same people are shouting the same things, only in different places, under different flags.

So is ignorance truly the cause of the world's ills? Or at least, should I say, the ills in the world which we as humanity are cursed to repeat. Is there another solution? Is there another condition; another pretense to humanity, which, if realized and altered, could avoid these pointless charades for our future audience of one? I do not sit here with the answers, I just sit here with the questions in hopes that someone else has the answers.

Bourgeoisie Taste

2009-08-11T10:09:00.000-07:00

I haven't been writing much lately, it seems as though the banal triviality of summer life outside the academic forum stunts my creative talents, although the availability of free time would seem to make opposite true. This may very well be my last chance to write before I return to such forums, whose impositions on my schedule may make such intellectual escapades such as these inconvenient, but time will show us both whether or not this is true.

I have, however, in my grand availability of time, given much thought to many things, and as an aficionado of all things cognitive, I feel an obligation to express myself at least once. I have recalled, in my pondering, a conversation I had with a friend of mine several months ago, almost a year actually, with the national election soon to follow. He is a bartender, recently married for the second time, with a newborn baby and a child from his previous marriage. We were discussing the health care crisis and the proposed solutions, one of which has entered the national stage very recently as our President tries to a nationalized health care program available to the general public. At the time of the conversation this was not such an important and vocalized controversy, but nonetheless I stated that making a national plan available to the public strongly resembled and in fact, provided an incentive for socialized medicine, and by such, provided incentive for socialism in general. My friend responded something surprising and altogether appalling, "Perhaps America needs a bit of socialism right now."

Now, I have no intention of insulting my friend with the title bourgeois, but that is what he, and most other bartenders, newlyweds and new parents are nationwide, and if this is the opinion of the middle class collectively, America and the entire West collectively has lost some of the basic and vital tenants of what make America America. We are, as a nation, and as a hemisphere, the sole opponent of the great evil that is socialism. We fought it in Korea, we fought it in Vietnam, and we fought it to our own detriment in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan during the 1980s. We did not always succeed, but neither did they, we did not advance on them, but they could not advance on us. We succeeded in halting the spread of an addictive and destructive theory that could have stagnated the world. Socialism, for the last fifty years, has been our nation's nemesis, and we emerged from the quagmire of the Cold War victorious.

Today, however, our country stands itself divided on whether to accept a small portion of this theory which we have stood so resolutely to defeat. If our own middle class is not behind their leaders to stand more firm then ever, and if our leaders are not steadfast in their devotion to American ideals, we may very soon see others standing firm and steadfast against us. America was once the source of innovation and education, the harbinger of freedom and justice, and the protector of the weak and the oppressed. Now, in our own inner turmoil, we have failed to turn to that source of innovation and that reserve of world class education. We have succumbed to the same laziness to which our enemies have succumbed before us, and we have failed our very own futures by turning to the past for answers to our questions.

The curse of the middle class has been before that it is too rich to get help from the rich but too poor to have all of its needs met. This is untrue. The true curse of the middle class too educated to be apathetic, but not educated enough to make decisions. If the middle class wants America to have "a little bit of socialism," then the middle class is only going to grow, because they are by far the largest demographic in the electorate. And if the middle class continues to grow the disparity between the well educated and the under educated will continue to grow until those educated in mediocrity will be making the decisions for us all, as is shown by the recent elections. The curse of the middle class is not poverty, it is not disparity in taxation, and it is not unfair representation. The curse of the middle class is under education, and until this is remedied the fate of the country may well be in the hands of those who have no business holding it.

Altruism and Human Behavior

2009-07-20T09:20:00.000-07:00

I had been asked recently by a close friend of mine to explore the possibilities of altruism and its reality in everyday life. Granted, it would have been much simpler for me to respond to his question in a conversation, but sometimes, and I have found in the past, writing to oneself offers the mind a different sort of efficiency in communication. One can better express oneself alone than in the company of many people, mostly because the pressure to make oneself heard immediately is lifted. So it becomes easier and more beneficial for both of us that I express my opinions here.

The important part of the paragraph above is the sentence easier and beneficial, because these two words will guide the rest of this essay. Millions of dollars are spent on psychologists and arcane "seers" and clairvoyants in the attempt of determining either the behavior of oneself or the behavior of others. Human behavior can really be defined in the most simple of economic terms, and that is utility. Humans respond to stimuli and make decisions based on relative utility and the opportunity cost of each decision. In layman terms, people make decisions based on ease and benefit. Every decision is a balance between cost and reward, ease and benefit. Par example, one desires a comfortable midsized sedan but at the same time it is vital that one replace the AC unit in one's house, so the settlement becomes a Toyota Corolla instead of a Toyota Camry; a balance between cost and utility.

It is useful then, to touch on the idea of altruism here. Altruism is the deliberate pursuit of the interests of others or of the interests of civilization itself. The idea then, is that one sacrifices one's own interests, or at least the pursuit thereof, to allocate resources to the pursuit of helping others. However, there is no person who knowingly sacrifices his own interests for those of another, there is always some benefit that one derives out of sacrifice. An argument might arise, what about someone who sacrifices his life for another? Which is a reasonable argument. A person who sacrifices his life for another does so because he reveres and adores such a person, and he goes to his death knowing that such a person will continue to live a successful life because of his death; there is a moral satisfaction gained from his death.

Some others will argue, what about philanthropist such as Rockefeller and Gates? Another decent, if predictable argument. Philanthropy, however, is not altruism, because men such as Rockefeller and Gates did not amass their wealth by pursuing the interests of others and giving their wealth to the poor. Only after they have achieved their aims is it possible and permissible for them to give some of their wealth away. Even after they have achieved their wealth there is significant benefit to be gained from giving some of that wealth away, not the least of which are tax deductions and moral adulation.

The truth is, then, that altruism is only existent in cooperation with behavioral economics. In that, the giving of one's resources or the sacrifice of one's possessions is only permissible when one has something greater to gain from such a sacrifice. The opportunity cost of keeping oneself isolated from the problems of the world must be higher than the cost of giving some of one's resources away for altruism to be considered by the even smallest of minds.

On Subsidies

2009-07-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

I have been reading recently, along with all the other members of the W.P. Carey Academy, Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded. While I by no means agree with him on most issues, his opinion, is, at least for the time being, worth my time. In his book, however, Mr. Friedman makes references to the exponential economic growth of formerly lagging countries namely India and China. He states that one of the reasons for this growth is the extensive efforts of these governments to target inflation in their economies.

This inflation is mostly seen by the bourgeois consumer in the form of fuel and appliances, both of which have been heavily subsidized by these governments. Both India and China have been spending large portions of their respective national budgets to purchase fuel and middle class appliances at market prices and then sell it to their respective citizens at lower prices. The intent of this is to protect consumers from rising commodity prices that accompany significant economic growth while still reaping the benefits of economic growth in other market sectors.

The idea of government subsidizing any x good was something which occupied my mind for most of the day after reading that. Why is it wrong for government to subsidize a good? The good is still being purchased in the market, so the demand remains constant, and the consumer avoids taxes on a federal product. Isn't this a logical solution to a common problem?

No. Because, as I realized upon further thought, the governments main source of income is my tax dollar. So, those subsidized commodities are being purchased with my tax dollars at market price and then being sold back to me at a lower price. Aren't I essentially losing money if I drive more that the average American does? And even if I don't drive more than the average American, I am paying taxes for those that do. In addition to this, as the market price rises, the government will require more and more money to maintain these subsidies, to the extent that it will require a tax increase. So, the consumer pays extra taxes as well as a discount price for a commodity he could have purchased in the market himself for perhaps two thirds of the price.

This led me to contemplate whether any government subsidies are effective. In light of the impending health care package this seems to be a worthy topic. To find a solution it is necessary to first find the purpose of a subsidy. The purpose then, or at least one sufficient for our goal is one of two things; either to provide the citizen with a good not otherwise available or to provide an incentive for the citizen to purchase a particular good. The subsidy is not a tool to be used to fight inflation. So to answer the question, there are effective subsidies, but, as we live in a capitalist nation, those effective subsidies lie only in the domain of incentives.

An education subsidy, perhaps. A subsidized undergraduate degree would not only significantly increase the number of graduate and doctoral degree holders, but would also allow the government a medium through which it could educate the citizen on the most pressing issues of the national agenda. Subsidized health center membership and personal training. Efficient energy subsidies of even greater magnitude than the ones being implemented now. But government subsidized fuel hardly fits into either of these categories.

Nationalized Healthcare

2009-06-15T11:34:00.000-07:00

With the auto crisis diminishing, President Obama has recently turned his attention to the national healthcare crisis. "Healthcare crisis" is a term acknowledged by both the left and the right to be a inherent fact in the US, so let me clarify the problem so that we may more clearly find the solution.

44,000,000 Americans are without healthcare coverage, or, close to one of every six Americans is without coverage. "Okay," you say, "but I do, so what do I care?" A reasonable question, given that we do live in a capitalist society. The answer is less reasonable. The answer is that every medical practitioner is bound by law to provide medical services to every patient, regardless of their insurance policy. So, when one of those 44,000,000 Americans has a child that falls off the playground and breaks his leg, the hospital is obligated to provide services, but without reimbursement, and so, the hospital loses money. The healthcare provider, then, in order to cover the loss that they just took, are obliged to raise the costs for the other 254,000,000 insurance owning, due paying Americans. As the prices go up, more people are unable to pay, and the cycle continues.

The solution chosen by the Obama administration is one step toward the nationalized healthcare programs of Canada and Britain. It involves making the government employee insurance plan available to the general public. It is significantly cheaper than competitive insurance rates because the government takes responsibility for a large portion of the bill.

There are two major problems with this solution, problems which are seeming to be ignored by many policy makers.

The first is that the US is 9 trillion dollars in debt, soon to be 12 trillion and will be 19 trillion by the year 2012. That this policy will be significantly cheaper will encourage many people to purchase such a plan and the US simply does not have the money to be paying for the healthcare of all its citizens. This is not to mention the fact that such a large increase of government expenditure would significantly decrease the value of the dollar on the international market.

Secondly, as I said before, this is one step closer to the single payer national healthcare systems of Canada and Britain, a system which President Obama has said he supports. It has been largely ignored, however, that wealthy citizens of both Canada and Britain come to the US for our outstanding healthcare. The quality of US healthcare is unrivaled and the reason for that is that our healthcare providers are in a competitive market which is constantly driving them to be better. The closer we come to nationalized healthcare, whether the approach is asymptotic or linear, the quality of such healthcare will decrease in kind.

Basic economics states that if the aggregate demand for a product decreases, the price will also decrease. Suppose, then, that the government in essence, subsidized being healthy. If the government offered health education programs, provided health training, to include, but not limited to; personal weight training, nutritionists and health specialists, made available to the public through local gyms and recreational centers, would this not reduce the aggregate demand for healthcare coverage? And for a portion of the price of nationalized healthcare.

Secondly, the government could subsidize emergency care, so that emergency care would be provided as a right of citizenship, but additional care would be provided at market rates. This would significantly reduce the need for providers to raise their rates because of losses taken on uninsured patients.

Not that these are the only possible solutions, just ones preferably to nationalized healthcare, or any resemblance of it.

Simply my own thoughts, tell me yours...

B

"The Republic"

2009-06-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

Those of you overly zealous political theorists will probably have cringed in reading my title today, thinking of long dead philosophers, ostracized soldiers and mandated public education. Fortunately for both you and I, I have no intention of paraphrasing a dead man's philosophy. Instead I will attempt to vocalize my very disorganized musing on the merits of a republic, most of which are the result of far too much unoccupied time and far too many cups of coffee.

We will begin then, with the most obvious and logical commencement: the Republic of the United States of America. Yes, it is true, it's actually the Democratic Republic of the United States of America. But that, we shall soon see, is irrelevant. The nature our republic is that each body of persons will select and commission several representatives from within itself to advocate the needs of that group to its ruling body. This representation was put in place by our constitution's framers to protect the rights of landowners against the louder and more populated voice of the poor lower class. It was also instituted because the logistics of running a pure democracy are staggering.

There is a major glaring problem with such a system, whether such a republic be democratic or socialist. This problem is the disproportionate accumulation of power by the aforementioned representatives. His or her one vote has now been inflated artificially to a number of votes equal to his or her number of constituents. At first glance this may not seem to be a major issue, after all, the United States of America has existed in relative stability for three centuries. However, we would all acknowledge that the general opinion of politicians is poor, and the general expectation of their accomplishments is low.

This general dissatisfaction stems from the fact that once a person's power is inflated beyond its actual value, that person becomes quite loath to return that power to the people, or to willingly transfer that power to another contender. The result is that the occupation of governing becomes an exercise in self sustainability and the good of the whole is sacrificed for the good of a few. This is the status of the United States at the present. The governing power of the Congress of the United States has disintegrated into a kind of sick joke, the laughingstock of the entire country, while the people themselves, in their amusement, are continually abused and mishandled by the very people they put into power.

I would offer here my opinion on what I think could and should be done about the plight of our leadership, but this is not the place nor do I think I could yet sufficiently express myself. What I am offering here is simply a definition of the problem that we all face, an escape from the denial to which many Americans succumb. A denial that says that our government is inherently good, that our government is working hard for us and our own good, and that our government is superior to any government that may be. To think such is arrogant and foolish, and only fools would ignore the basic facts relevant to their own survival and existence.

One Nation Under God

2009-06-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

Over the past years, more noticeably after 1960, there has been a continuous uproar about the separation of church and state. At the forefront of these discussions has been the evangelical Judeo-Christians. It has been, and is currently the position of these groups that the United States of America is, very literally, one nation under God, with God being unequivocably the God of the Bible. Let us digress here for a moment and discuss a literal nation under a Biblical God.

The purpose of such a nation, then, is to encourage Judeo-Christian beliefs within its borders. This would be accomplished through incontestable legislation approached from a Judeo-Christian perspective as well as through the permeation of the entire government with Judeo-Christian values, ethics and beliefs. This legislation would manifest itself boldly in such issues as the recent debate on homosexual rights and marriage. As the Bible does state that homosexuality is a sin, there would be no room for debate; homosexual rights and marriage would be disregarded, and homosexuality itself illegalized, the Biblical punishment being death.

Such an integration of church and state would also be objectified in foreign policy. As Proverbs 22 says "Make friends not with a man given to anger," and such is to apply to nations as well. The United States of America then, would be unwilling to associate or negotiate with aggressor nations such as Iran, North Korea or the Russian Republic. This is a moral decision on the part of the United States government so that we might not also "learn his ways and find a snare for ourselves."

Let us then, also, discuss the difficulties with such an integration of church and state, as the list is certainly longer and more distinguished than the list of merits. We shall begin, then, with fact, as the "truth will always set us free." The fact is that Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Explain to me then, how a nation which respects no religion can unapologetically call itself a Judeo-Christian nation. Is it necessary that we recognize homosexuality as a religion so that it might enjoy the benefits and protection and freedom from federal persecution extended by the same government to persons of religions such as Scientology, Wiccan or the newly founded Jedism. If we are to make laws based on Biblical perspective then tell me; when I take my neighbor's son to the city hall to be stoned by the city council for being disobedient, as stated in Deuteronomy 21, who will join me in his execution? When my own mother wears clothing woven from two cloths, should it be I who execute her, or should I turn her over to the town authorities, as it is stated in Leviticus 19? And if we are not to associate with "men given to anger," who would have mediated the recent conflict in Georgia, saving countless lives from the greedy, angry hands of the Russian Republic, or was it that this was a sinful action on the part of our secular, corrupt and amoral government?

The truth is that the United States of America is one nation under any god, and that no matter what god one worships, one has the right, the priviledge and the duty to worship that god, and that as long as your worship does not violate any other law of the United States of America, its government should and will extend its protection over all of one's practices. Secondly, it is the Constitution of the United States of America which is the ruling document on the actions taken by its government, not the Bible. As long as the United States government will recognize the equality of men of all races, it is mandated that it recognize the equality of all men, under pretense of hypocrisy and under penalty of the Preamble.

I do not write here to condemn or endorse any particular religions, nor to bring reproach against my own beliefs, but simply to make my readers aware of the devisive and humiliating effect that evangelical elitists have had upon American politics and American government. The same government which exists to provide them with the right to scream at the top of their lungs about what offends them, but as long as they have that right, the opponents should and will have the right to scream at the tops of their own lungs back, because America is not only an equal opportunity employer, it is an equal opportunity residence.

A Proportional Response

2009-05-29T10:17:00.000-07:00

As this is my first writing here, I suppose a bit of an introduction to myself and my purpose is necessary and proper.

First off, I do not claim to be an expert on any one thing, nor do I intend to impose my ideas, opinions or beliefs upon any of my readers here. I intend this simply to be a forum for the exchange of ideas and the sharpening of minds; both minds which think alike, and minds which think apart.

Given my interests in political theory and economics, most of my writings will center around such, but those of you familiar with the history of quantum mechanics would have noticed the title "Daily Singularity" and realized the allusion to Einstein's singularity, or the unknown variable in his work on relativity. So while my work may center here on political and economic theory, it is truly a place for me to express my opinions and beliefs on an unknown variable, so to speak, in my daily thoughts.

A proportional response is something which has been debated by military and political strategists for centuries. The principle behind a proportional response is caution. To grossly abbreviate the idea, it states that given any x preemptive assault, either militarily or politically, that the victim will respond with any y counter assault of equal value, either military or political, respectively.

The main point of opposition for this idea of proportional response lies in its mathematical respresentation. If the aggressor commits to a preemptive strike of value x, and the resulting counter attack is of equal value y, then the resultant is a digression of linear proportion. This linear digression continues infinitely, because after the counter assault y the aggressor has no choice but to launch a second assault, chosen arbitrarily in relation to x, but greater in value, to which the victim will respond in kind.

This linear digression will continue indefinitely as long as both parties have allocated resources. There is no logical resolution to such a conflict then, if both parties have equal and replenishing resources. The other conclusion one can reach is that any victim entering into a proportional conflict with an aggressor of greater resources will always fail, as the victims resources will be diminished far sooner than those of the aggressor.

What then, is the reasoning behind proportional response, if the end result is always in favor of the agent possessing greater resources? In theory, proportional response is supposed to demonstrate to the aggressor that it is not the victim's desire to enter conflict, and through a counter assault of direct proportion, avoid provoking a more grave conflict. This demonstration is negated, however, by the very action which is intended to be the demonstration.

This all being said, the victim then has only two options. Thie victim agent can either decide to offer no response, and in so doing, hope to avoid further conflict, or the victim agent can commit the entirety of its allocated resources to the total and unequivocal destruction of the aggressor at a single point in time. Political theorists and moralists such as John Locke and Henry Kissinger have favored the former approach, relying on the goodness of mankind and the sweetness of his tongue in negotiation and appeasement. Theorists such as Machiavelli and von Clausewitz, however, favor the latter approach, arguing that the very existence of a preemptive strike negates the possibility of a desire for negotiation, and must be dealt with accordingly.

My purpose here is not to decide between these two options, for there truly is a time for both. My purpose, instead, is to offer a cognitive and succinct argument against proponents of such a "proportional response," and to show that it is a theory which amounts to nothing more assertive than the actions of a parent docking a child's allowance for a week. Our enemies have seen proportional response fail in the past, are watching it fail in the present and will continue to plan for its failure in the future, and as long as our policies continue to be that of proportion, our enemies will continue to work to minimize the efficiency of such policies. Although our resources are inifinitely greater, our resolve is infinitely smaller and there is no reason to continue to subject our own to the rigors, ills and obscenities of such a long, elongated and largely unsuccessful conflict for fear of public response. The time for negotiation is over.