Ban the Wicked

As I was driving to see Wicked the musical, I passed a car that said, "Ban idiots, not guns." And it got me thinking, I get what the person is probably saying. Except that many people who commit gun crimes in America are actually not idiots necessarily, some of them have very high IQs and are very smart, but angry. Now, he might have been talking about the people who leave their guns accessible to children, who bring them to schools. Things like that that would be idiotic, I would agree, let's ban those people. And yes, people should be more responsible with their guns. But I've been thinking a lot about the root of crime lately. Specifically, that I don't think most criminals are inherently evil; they're not committing crimes just for the sake of doing bad. I believe most criminals are probably acting out of desperation. They have a problem that they can't figure out how to solve the "right way" and the systems that we've created around them make it difficult for them to improve their situation, and so they resort to crime in order to resolve those issues. It doesn't make the crime "right;" I'm not condoning it. And obviously people are complex, and there will be some people who do have Machiavellian tendencies that are maybe lumped under the category of evil. But most people, I suspect, aren't motivated to do wrong because of a pure internal desire to hurt and destroy. 

I recently watched a 2015 documentary called, "Where to Invade Next." It was interesting! Michael Moore was traveling around Europe "taking" best practices and policies that are, honestly, pretty novel, and in some cases, rather shocking to the American mindset. I think of myself as a pretty open minded person and even I struggled with the subversion of the prison system and other concepts. Specifically, in Norway where, the people who are "locked up" for crimes have a key to their homes. It's not a cell. It's more like a neighborhood to play house in and be rehabilitated. They're allowed to have sharp knives in their kitchens to cook fresh meals. They are allowed a lot of freedom to pursue various activities. The country's prison guards treat their prisoners very well and it's more of a rehab and a place to learn, "Hey, here's how to be a good neighbor" rather than treating them like lesser than humans. And the question is, does it work? And in Norway, it does. They have less repeat offenders and they have less crime overall. So somehow the threat of having to go into a more comfortable prison system allows that country to keep their crime rates at bay. They also allow their ex-convicts to vote, which is something that we don't do in America. And that's kind of stripping the human rights, making them lesser humans in some ways. And maybe that reduces the anger for would-be repeat criminals: the culture and the politics which American ex-convicts see, specifically, difficulties in finding a job and not letting them have voting rights, is kind of reinforcing that the only thing that they can do is act out on it and commit crimes to make their voice heard and get what they need. 

Anyways, back to the main crux of my topic today. I wonder if the thought about implementing universal basic income, UBI - lifting people up using automation, using AI - is the path forward, instead of allowing people to have increasingly more menial jobs or no jobs. If we can finally use technology to make our lives happier, healthier, easier, I think there would be less crime. I don't profess that I know the answer; I don't know how to make that happen exactly. But I think what we're doing with the justice system and gun laws and the like may be attacking the wrong problem. We really need to be looking at why these people are involved in crime to begin with. What's the root cause of why they are resorting to a crime?

And I wonder if the Norway prison system would work here. And truthfully I don't think it would. I don't think we could copy it over and we instantly start getting less repeat offenders. Send our criminals to neighborly rehab and we lower crime - I don't think that's going to work in America, not by itself. So then I started thinking about why does it work in Norway and why wouldn't it be able to work here in the US. And I think the answer is, you have to look at the people of Norway or the Nordic culture more broadly. They are content in a very cold environment. The Danish have what they call Hygge which is when it's so cold outside that you just kind of bundle up and have a cozy time inside with your family and friends. Norway has a form of this called koselig. That's a form of being content in a cold climate. Living in, maybe what some might consider a miserable situation, and I don't think Americans do enough of that. I think we are raised to want more. We are raised to expect more. We are raised to challenge the norms. 

And I think that's it's a love / hate kind of thing, right? It's a two-sided sword. We're brilliant in America: Hollywood and pop culture / pop music, inventions, creativity, innovation. We brought the internet to the world. We have all these things, and I think it's because of that audacity, so it's kind of like you have to pick your poison, because the Scandinavians aren't rolling out a ton of innovations everyday. They're contentedness maybe doesn't create the same kind of drive; it doesn't fuel that spark for creativity that comes from the audacity to be discontented. So we have to ask ourselves, is this the America that we want? Though it's the America that's audacious and not satisfied with the status quo that's what's gotten us here. That's the super power of America - it makes us creative and innovative, but unhappy with the cozy mundane. Is that the America that we want in the future? Those criminals aren't necessarily innovators; they're not productively generating GDP for the country or anything like that, but they are being audacious and challenging the norms (/laws) in their own ways, right? 

So I think that's why the Norway prison system wouldn't work here, because the Norway system is built on the foundation of contentedness. So they can say, "You know man, you really messed up. We're going to take away your koselig. We're going to take away your ability to be content at home with family, and we're going to teach you how to be a better, more appreciative person in a different environment." Whereas Americans are not taught to be content to start with or expected to settle for staying indoors when it's too cold to go out. If we tried to implement the Norwegian prison system, the criminals or would-be criminals would say, "Oh yeah, cheating the system man, this is this is golden. I should commit crimes more often!" So our way of punishing instead of lifting criminals up is our reaction to people that stepped too far out of line. They were taught to be audacious but they were TOO audacious - they didn't follow the laws that we set down and that's not okay. And I think that's why we have such a big military, right? We have a huge military industrial complex and a full complement of military services. We're audacious, but you better not be more audacious than us or go against our beliefs, because we got this huge military. It's like we're policing and imprisoning the world, or at least any group that is too audacious and out of line as defined by our standards. We have to have a big military because we believe that we're right and if anybody dares to think otherwise we need to punish them. So US prisons are a microcosm of our military positioning within the world. Really, if you think about it that way, like we don't care if we're committing crimes against nations if we believe they've wronged us is the same as we don't mind locking up criminals. 

So what do we do differently? And again, this is where I do not have all the answers. There's probably research that a lot of thoughts you know that I'm missing on here, but I think we really need to be focusing our attention, not on the punishment of the crime but on the root cause of the desperation. And again, there's going to be a subset of people that are just going to choose to hurt just for the sake of hurting or they're choosing to hurt because it makes them happier. But the vast majority of criminals, I think, are acting out because they're angry. They're desperate. They're not finding their way in life. They're not doing well in life, and so they're acting in a way that they think will get them what they want. If we want to address that, it's not about gun regulation. It's not about stricter punishments or even about our prison system and making it a happier place. I think it's about making our society more aligned with how we can help the people that are at the bottom, or at the most desperate places and I think it's about how we need to align on common goals and values. I know that's tough because we have a freedom of religion and a lot of diverse people that live here in the US and that's part of the goodness in some sense. But on the other hand, we don't have the common value of koselig like the Norwegians and we can't operate from a place of, "Well, I have different values than you so therefore I can choose to break the law." We have to find some way to get behind one set of values and laws, and make the laws align with the values and then enable people to be able to live those ways.

The irony of having these thoughts right now as I'm on my way to see the musical, Wicked, is that Wicked, is at its core, about a "criminal" who was misunderstood. And on that note, "Ahhh AHHH AHHH ahhhhh!"

America: A Reinvention

It's taken me some time to process this week's election results, and I'm not sure I've fully processed everything, but I want to share what I hope to be a unique and helpful perspective.  Just to be clear, I fall on the republican side of many issues, but also believe strongly in the need for sustainability, and therefore am often turned off by republicans' love affair with oil; I did not vote for Trump or Hillary, and I am not here to debate the merits of voting for a third party.  My reasons to not vote for my party's candidate are many, but racism and brash, thoughtless commentary top the list.  I count myself among the many Americans who expected Hillary to win, if by default only, and went to bed Tuesday night very surprised and disappointed by what we were seeing on TV.  But, I think I was among a much smaller population who preferred a clear winner over a tie or even a narrow margin.  I don't think there is any question that, had Trump lost, especially if by a small margin, he would have fought it and the election news coverage would have continued dragging on and on.  If it was a tie, which was a real possibility by my calculations, I worried that the bottom would fall out of the stock market and we'd enter another awful recession, or perhaps an even more sudden, violent recession, leading to rioting and raiding and chaos and anarchy.  Call me dramatic, but I am a forecaster by profession now, so it is my job to anticipate the future. 
So here we are, a terribly divided country, who have elected a President with implications that scare so many.  Scare!  Not annoy, not piss off (although both of those apply as well), but SCARE!  I mean, there is legitimate fear because of who we elected.  And don't give me that "Not my President" crap; we were appalled when Trump wouldn't agree to peacefully accept the results of the election, so if you don't accept the results, you are just as bad as he is.  Indeed, this country, with the electoral college that we invented, put into place and have been using, we elected Trump.  I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect, far from it actually, but until we can design and agree upon a better way to handle fair and equal representation in the voting process, that's all we've got.  It doesn't matter if you didn't vote for Trump, he is the President-elect.  Hillary acknowledged it, Obama acknowledged it, and I assure you its not because they think he's a great guy.
  

It's because we as a country believe in a peaceful transition to the elected President.  And we all know the popular vote isn't what matters, so don't whine about that either.  You can move to Canada (if their immigration website comes back online), but that won't change the fact that Trump is the next President of the United States.  In fact, I wouldn't advise moving to Canada because if he has his way, business is going to get bad in Canada.  Anyways, while Wall Street rallied back up after the pro-business nominee was elected, there is still a lot of uncertainty, anger and fear around Trump's victory.  But here's the thing: it isn't actually that bad.  Let me tell you why. 

Shortly before election day, there was a number of articles posted about this professor who predicted that Trump would win based on what he calls "The Keys to the White House."  I read one such article (and am considering reading the book now, especially considering the results), intrigued from both the analytical perspective on forecasting and from the perspective of emotional disbelief.  Surely, I thought after the reading article, his prediction model probably works well for typical elections, but Trump would certainly be the exception to this "science."  Right?  I mean, nobody would have believed Trump would even be a candidate two years ago, and especially not if you told them the things he's said and done through this election.  This can't be a typical election, therefore, the rules outline in the professor's forecasting model don't apply, I thought.  Forecasting, afterall, is not a perfect science; as a rule, numerical forecasts are always wrong, the goal is simply to get as close as possible and correct the reasons for missing to improve the forecasting model going forward.  But the election really only had two highly probable outcomes, and the professor, against many readers' intuitions, effectively nailed it.  What this tells me is that Trump, with all his belligerent Tweet-rants, ignorant racist and sexist outbursts and overall childish demeanor were not enough to stop the course of history.  That is to say that the professor's model didn't predict Trump particularly, his model said that the Republican candidate would win, or more accurately, that the party of the current President would lose.  So it was always going to be a Republican win.  We may say that it's unfortunate then, that the Republican candidate is Trump, but technically the Republican voters put him there, so that's also a senseless debate.  If the keys to the White House had broken because of Trump, Republicans, or at least I myself, would have been outraged: "This was the year for Republicans to take back power, and we blew it!"  But somehow, despite everything, Trump didn't blow it. 

What this means is, change (in party) was inevitable, and this is simply history repeating itself.  That alone might be a more positive spin on the doomsday dystopian fears of some.  We've gone through party changes in contested, emotional, and controversial elections before, and there will be an America not too much different than the America we know today, after Trump's presidency.  More significant, though, is that not only was change inevitable, but roughly half of our country was basically asking for this kind of extreme change.  We were divided before the election, let's not forget that.  In fact, we were more than divided.  All the shootings that led to the Black Lives Matter movement happened while we had our first black President.  I remember being so proud that our country could overcome racism enough to elect a black President 8 years ago, but clearly, there is still a significant amount of racism in this country 8 years after that historical election.  This demonstrates, among some very sad realities, that there is no reason to believe the country as a whole will

reflect the beliefs and characteristics of the man in the Oval Office.  It sucks that we still have a racist country despite having elected a black President, and it sucks that our President-elect also appears to not only be racist, but sexist and xenophobic, too.  But it serves to show that no matter what Trump says, his words do not reflect the beliefs of America as a whole, anymore than Obama's election obliterated racism. 

Furthermore, as many reassuring articles can more eloquently and specifically describe, our country has a system of checks and balances, and Trump cannot do all the most insane things he promised to do on his campaign trail, and many of those things can only be done with an approval from Congress.  "But, Laura," I hear you say, "Congress is mostly Republican, too, so Trump can push anything through, right?"  No, I don't think so.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but what we saw in the weeks and months leading up to the election was that many Republicans had a hard time backing Trump, and some went so far as withdrawing support.  I believe that the other Republicans we put in office, at least as a whole, will do what they can to prevent Trump from instigating World War III.  Here I am not an expert, as I did not research all the Republicans on every state's ballot, only my own ballot, but I hope my logic holds true.  The fact that we have a Republican-dominated Congress also speaks to the fact that this country demanded change.  And it could be a very productive four years, in all actuality, because so many acts of Congress have been held up by basically an endless game of tug-of-war.  With Trump supposedly supporting Republican policies, Republicans could actually get

things done, like revisit Social Security, a hot-button issue in George W.'s election that never was addressed due greatly to the 9/11 attacks.  Guys, we could balance the budget!  We could do the things we're supposed to do as a country.  Our leaders might actually lead us forward, and not just collect salaries from our tax dollars. 

I've been thinking a lot about the idea that we can reinvent ourselves lately.  It first came up in a reflection of my life as I wrote a very personal narrative.  I realized that, at certain milestones in life, I've seized the opportunity to reinvent myself; moving to a new state with a new school and new friends to make, starting college, changing jobs, shedding bad relationships.  I've drastically reinvented myself at least a half a dozen times, and my boyfriend and I are now facing another huge opportunity to reinvent ourselves and our way of life as we look towards our move from Arizona to Connecticut.  If you grow up and live your whole life in a small town where everybody knows you and remembers when you popped out of your mother's womb, you can't really do those kinds of drastic makeovers to reinvent who you are, because people's perceptions of you are harder to change when they've been ingrained.  But when you face a whole new audience of people who don't know you, you can practically reinvent yourself in just the first impressions; then you just have to maintain some semblance of the person they think you are, and you effectively become that person.  In the same way, Trump could take this grand opportunity to reinvent himself as an American leader, a hero, an advocate for minorities, an economically-proficient superpower.  In just a couple days after the election, there are no indications he will do so, but one can hope.  With or without Trump, America can reinvent itself.  We already have, in a sense; we are now a country where really, truly, anyone can become President, whether you're a woman no prior political experience required.  The Govenator, I think, may have paved the way for celebrities to get into pretty substantial political offices, and I think most people are impressed with what he's done there.  The fact that Hillary got so close I think already has proven that a woman can become President, we just didn't elect a woman this time around. 
When I reinvent myself, I usually fall short of being perfect, but I strive to become a better version of myself; ridding the things I don't like and keeping or expanding upon the things I do like about myself.  In the same way, our country is far from perfect, but it's pretty damn good to be an American, and this election shows both that we have work to do but that this is a place where anything is possible.  For that reason and the one stated earlier, I am not moving to Canada.  Everyone can reinvent themselves and reinvent and reshape America.  We don't need to scrap the whole thing or bail altogether; we just need to do our part to make America a better version of itself.  Spread love and humor and education and good work, squash hate and anger and drama and judgment, and let's reinvent this great country of ours and make it a better America. 

The Car of the Future

You probably don't know me well if you don't realize that I was one of the first to put money down on a car that didn't exist yet - the Chevy Volt - and have since trumpeted both the praise I have for the car, as well as some of the "opportunities" we'll call them.  It is a point of pride to me to be a part of pioneering EV technology; it was not an economical decision by any means, it was 100% the draw of a cool technology that could change the world.  I fell in love the minute I first saw the concept car, and even though the real thing would not be rolled out in my state until years later, I had to get one.    

I've received tons of compliments and questions about the car, especially in the first couple years; people in the cars next to me at a stop light would signal for me to roll down my window to interview me, and I'd get stopped in parking lots all the time.  I'll never forget one taxi driver who asked me, "Does it really get awesome mpg?  How can you trust the numbers the computer gives you?"  I took a peek at my dashboard and retorted, "Well, it's been over 1400 miles since I last filled my tank, and it only holds about 9 gallons.  You do the math."  The taxi driver was so delighted, he screamed gleefully, "That's my next car!" as the light turned green and we drove off.  Sometimes people complimented me on the styling of the car, not even recognizing that it was electric.  When I told them that, they were dumbfounded!  Most EVs at the time looked like dinky capsules with googly alien eyes for headlights.  

A lot of people didn't understand the difference between the Volt's hybrid technology, or range-extended EV technology as GM tried to sell it, and that of a common Prius.  The difference, I'd have to explain over and over again, is that you can hardly ever drive a Prius for any useful distance at any reasonable speed, without the gas engine kicking on.  With the Volt, I get through most weekdays without ever using gas; the gas is there only as a backup if I run out of electricity, and for longer trips.  While many of my eco-friendly technophile friends were gunning for the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric car with a lower price-point, I knew that wouldn't do it for me because my family lives a little over 100 miles away, and the charging station at the midpoint was not installed yet (although I knew it was coming... some day).  To me, the Leaf was a great commuter car, but could not suffice as the only car of a household.  I faced a lot of criticism from the EV-purests; GM was, after all, the company reputed for killing the EV1 in the 90's, so who's to say the Volt would ever even come to fruition?  Plus, the Volt didn't qualify yet for HOV lane access, a privilege granted to the Prius and two other inferior hybrids, and all electric vehicles.  My commute at the time didn't benefit from HOV lane access much, and I stood firm on patriotic and technologically sound principles that the Volt was the way to go.  I got the last laugh, of course, as Nissan Leafs failed to hold up in the scorching heat of Phoenix summers, and all my Leaf-fanatic friends lemon-lawed or ditched their cars at a huge loss very quickly, while I am still thrilled with the performance and battery life of my Volt.

I had done all the negotiations upfront through email with the dealer in California, and he even friended me on facebook.  It was nothing like a "normal" car buying experience.  I had customized what little options there were to choose from, and the Volt Advisor assigned to me provided updates on where it was in the process and shipping.  When I arrived at the dealership, I was greeted with familiarity and hugs, even though I had never met a soul there.  I signed all the paperwork to purchase the car, and hadn't even seen it (except in passing, it was being taken to fill up as we were pulling in, and I caught just a glimpse of it).  When I finally got in the car, before I could even drive it, someone on the lot offered me $60,000 for it, almost 150% of the price I just agreed to pay through financing.  Since then, the car has been great to me, albeit some hickups along the way, but overall I am still thrilled to own Volt #492.

All that being said, the passion for EVs has faded a bit; I think the world has come to accept them more (there are 3 Volts and 2 Teslas at my work, all of which plug in, and Arizona now allows Volts to get HOV lane access which is great because my new commute practically requires it), and I think they are definitely an embedded part of the inevitable future.  It's not that I don't love my EV as much, it's just that with lower resistance comes a reduced passion to fight the good fight for EVs.  I no longer get surprised looks in parking lots, or badgering questions, and people have even stopped sending me news clips of Volts catching on fire (all of which were terribly inaccurate).  I look now to the future, which I am even more anxious and excited about.  I think the next step is autonomous vehicles, and I don't think they can come soon enough. If EVs scared the general public, self-driving technology has the potential to drive people out of the country in sheer terror.  But at the same time, I reason that the most dangerous thing you can do any day of the week is get into a vehicle.  Whether you're driving or not, you have a higher potential of dying in a car wreck than any other activity most people encounter in a year, with obvious exceptions. 

I saw a lot of irony in the fear of EVs for two reasons.  One, every person who feared the technology also owned multiple devices that employed that exact technology.  In fact, if you read between the lines in the crazy blown-out-of-proportion articles, the only ways to make a Volt catch on fire, it seemed, was to either set the whole damn place on fire, and the car would eventually catch on too, or severely damage the battery multiple times, turn it on its side, let fluids leak out for weeks, and then it might ignite itself.  So, my conclusions were, if your garage is on fire, don't get into the Volt that's in the garage, and don't stay in a Volt for weeks on end after a severe collision.  Following these two rules would prevent any death "caused" by the oh-so-dangerous Volt.  Nevermind, that it exceeded the safety regulations, it was an EV and therefore its scary!  Give me a break!  Meanwhile, iPhone batteries were burning up and endangering hundreds of people at a time on airplanes, but nobody got up in arms about those.  You know why?  Because iPhones are familiar, and Volts are not.  Second, people were perfectly comfortable driving around "internal combustion engines" - it has the word combustion right in there!  Gas is flammable, did people forget that?  Cars catch on fire from time to time, and they are not EVs.  So even if EVs were as dangerous, the worst that could happen is status quo. 

Similarly, I hear fears that I find irrational when casually discussing the potential of autonomous vehicles.  The most predominantly irritating question to me is, "What happens if the car fails to respond appropriately?"  My response is usually, "What if you fail to respond appropriately?  Or what if the car behind you fails to respond appropriately?"  Every day people die because humans fail to respond appropriately, so this fear is irrational to me.  Then again, I've been programming macros for years, and have always faced fears that the macros are doing something they aren't supposed to do.  When dealing with my macros, I reassure people that it is programmed to take the same steps you would take, it just does it a lot faster.  My experience in programming gives me faith in the potential for autonomous vehicles, because of just that. An autonomous vehicle, programmed well, would react the same way I would or should react, but much faster, and without distraction.  Whereas I may miss something while looking in a mirror, the autonomous vehicles effectively has eyes in all directions, and the logic would kick in much faster than human reaction time even without distraction.  I just finished reading, "The Great Race" by Levi Tillemann, which was primarily about the history of the EV, with an Afterword focused on autonomous vehicles.  The book cites one NHTSA study that showed "human error caused or contributed to 99 percent of incidents," translating to "tens of thousands of lives a year in America" that could be saved with appropriate automation.  I think the fear of automation is more of a control issue - if you feel like you are in control, then you have a false sense of security.  Handing that control over to a computer, even if its a more capable driver than you are, is what leads to this fear.  As for me, as long as I trust the programming and sensors, I will have no problem relinquishing control, because I believe computers are more capable already, and will only get better with time.  Even if my car's computer fails, it is likely going to do a better job handling a given situation than I would, and that's less of a risk than the risk we take every day driving ourselves to and from work. 

Yet autonomous vehicles, for all the promises they carry, do have some legitimate safety concerns.  Cyberattacks, to me, seem to be the most threatening.  There will have to be significant momentum around autonomous vehicles before hackers will bother to attempt such hacks, but as long as the cars are somehow connected to the internet, there will probably be a way to hack into them.  This is the most troubling aspect to me; because it is terribly sexy to think of being dropped off at the front door, and letting my car park itself, or better yet, generate some income for me by enlisting itself on an Uber-like service for the day, then being recalled to my location with an app on my SmartPhone.  But in order for it to be recalled back to us, and in order for it to play on car-sharing services, it has to be connected.  And that connection point is a threat.  No amount of cyber-security will ever assure me that a connected car cannot be hacked.  So, I try to play out the scenario of a completely self-sufficient autonomous car that is not actively connected to the Internet.  Maybe we plug it in at home for a limited amount of time to get the latest map and construction updates, but once unplugged, it operates in an airplane-mode-like status.  This still poses a small threat of downloading, but at least its not an "always on" connection.  I'd imagine there could be encrypted packages coming directly from whatever authority we trust, that we put on a flashdrive and install on the cars.  We can still get traffic and weather updates on our phones live during the drive, so if something severe did come up, we could still manually tell the cars how to respond without them being connected themselves.  But this means the cars will sit, like they do today, in the parking lot and we have to go out to it to tell it where to go next.  Maybe that's the sacrifice we'd make for assured or enhanced security.  I also imagine that cars could communicate among themselves with something less than full connectivity but more than sensors; maybe a hybrid technology lovechild between Bluetooth (localized) and EDI (standardized, plain-text) so that no viruses or hacking mechanisms could attach themselves. 

The biggest barrier, as far as I can see, for autonomous vehicles is not the technology, not the consumer demand and not the infrastructure.  To me, the biggest hindrance is going to be the laws and government policies which also currently seem to be rooted in fear.  Even liability will work itself out, I think, but if autonomous cars are not allowed to drive without an alert driver, then the technology is worse than pointless.  In fact, that makes it almost more dangerous: requiring an alert driver in an autonomous vehicle means a driver who is primarily not occupied with driving and yet vehicle manufacturers hold no liability because the driver is supposed to be alert.  If "The Great Race" teaches us anything, its that government needs to promote new and socially beneficial technologies with supportive policies, incentives and grants.  Putting up roadblocks does not deter the cars from coming into being, and it does not protect the government from being liable.  Government roadblocks will cause the host country to fall behind the technology race, and leaves the government open to lawsuits and criticism, at best.  Imagine if Canada, Europe, China and Japan all had networks of primarily autonomous vehicles racing at high speeds with fewer accidents combined than that in the state of Illinois, and the US laws prevented the technology from growing and prospering in this country.  People would be dying, becoming paralyzed or seriously injured every day, for no other reason than because of those laws.  How long would it take for victims and their families to build a class action lawsuit to remove the barriers to autonomous vehicles?  When they win, which they would, then the US would have to play catch up in the technology, maybe paying royalties to Japan and elsewhere, while the rest of the world has already benefited from years of experience and advancements.  The technology seems to be pretty robust, and America has the opportunity right now to get ahead and stay ahead in this technology. 

My Dad commuted further than the average American for a good part of my early childhood, and regularly got speeding tickets.  He always dreamed of a way to get between Phoenix and Tucson, two hours away by today's speed limits, in which cars would hook into a chain and be stacked up inches away from the next car and fly at incredible speeds of over 100 mph to shorten this well-traveled and congested route.  While I never thought it would be practical to install such a chain, I do foresee a future in which cars could travel at otherwise dangerous speeds, but being autonomous and (at least slightly) connected, would not be dangerous.  This is possible with autonomous cars. On a freeway with four or more lanes, one could be dedicated to autonomous cars, much like today's HOV lane.  The autonomous cars could have an increased speed limit, maybe 100 mph, and even draft off each other which increases fuel efficiency in addition to reducing time traveled.  The idea of an autonomous vehicle lane, to me, may even reduce the anxiety and fears of both government and the general public.  The laws could be altered to say that alert drivers are required to enter and exit the autonomous vehicle lane, but once in that lane, the car would be allowed to take over, and the driver is freed to read the news or check facebook.  This would mean that any accidents in that lane would not impact non-autonomous traffic, and could allow for a proving ground until acceptance has broadened.

Unfortunately, if EV fears is any indication, and I believe it is, I presume that fully autonomous vehicles will not be widely adopted for a long time.  I'd like to believe that they're just around the corner, but I just think there are too many hurdles, not in technology but in regulation and consumer trust.  Instead, I think we'll see autonomous features sneak their way into luxury cars, and then trickle down to their economy counterparts.  Lane keeping, park assist and automatic braking are evidence, as these features are already present in some cars.  I don't believe autonomous cars are science fiction, I think they are inevitable.  The questions will be, how long does it take to get there, and who will lead us into this inevitable future?

A close relative was walking down the street last Halloween, hand-in-hand with her husband.  They had just moved to their dream retirement house in Florida, and they walked every morning.  A presumed distracted driver veered to the side of the road, hit her and killed her almost instantly.  To me, whenever autonomous vehicles are rolled out on a mass scale, they will be too late.  But, better late than never.  

Let's get to work America, and make our roads safer for all the lives that can still be saved. 

 

Utopia

I've been fascinated by the idea of utopias I think since around 4th grade when

I read The Giver (and btw, I'm soooo excited about it becoming a movie soon).  I loved books like Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and Brave New World that show an alternative view of what life could be like.  Maybe that's why, as an adult, I was so drawn to the Hunger Games series and really relate to the people of the Capital in those books, as well as the Divergent series.  I loved The Great Gatsby in high school and was thrilled with the recent movie adaptation, because the parties were just as over-the-top and out-of-control as I imagined them to be.  The current TV show by the name of Utopia I think is anything but that; it's more of a Real Life show meets Survivor.  The fact that the producers intentionally put people with very opposite extremist views is just the first hint that this mini society was meant to be a complete failure.  It's a little obnoxious how bad it is.  But there are some tidbits of interest that come out of it; Hex is by far my favorite character, alcoholism aside, because she can be level headed and talk to anyone, even if she disagrees with him or her, and ask them what their utopia is.  I think I also like her because she naturally looks like a real-life Katniss from Hunger Games, complete with being handy with a bow and arrow.  All literature, cinematography and bad reality TV aside, I still love the idea of a utopia and wondered what my utopia would be like.  

The problem with trying to create a utopia is that we're so used to what our norm is that there is a hesitation, if not outright resistance, to try anything or imagine anything different.  For example, the utopians in the TV show naturally formed a democracy without officially declaring it, and only a couple weeks in decided to formalize and modify the political structure.  One person on the show said that their utopia was one without money, but the economist in me likes the way money rewards efforts and can be spent on (somewhat) fairly equitable goods or services; an efficient market is the cleanest and best way to trade goods and services, keep costs down and drive innovation - not bartering or equal distribution.  So rather than trying to start with a blank slate and recreate a society from nothing, my utopia realization would come from removing the things I don't like and adding things I want.  

First to go: chores.  In my utopia, I don't have to clean dishes, mow the lawn, wash the windows, do laundry, sweep the floors, pull weeds, water plants, vacuum, feed the dog or even pick up after myself (let alone picking up after my roommates).  I have always related to the main character of Pippin, who believes he is just too extraordinary to be bothered by these types of everyday things.  I have these big ideas and crazy aspirations, but I have a pile of dishes in the sink that I have to attend to from time to time.  I know there are maids and landscapers available, but with three perfectly capable people living under my roof, I just have a hard time justifying spending money on simple activities that we could do on our own.  Still, chores bring me down; I like a clean house but I never enjoy cleaning.  Usually wine is the only way to get myself to clean.  If I could, like, dance and my house cleaned itself with the same effort that I put into my dancing, I think I would dance every day and never have a messy house.  That leads me to...

First to add: a better place to dance.  I have trained briefly in ballet and jazz dance, as well as performed in musicals in junior high, high school and college.  In college I also took hip hop and swing dance, and since then, I have been swing dancing on and off (with a stint of hip hop again when I went back to school for my MBA).  I love our swing dance community, but the venues never have the air conditioning capacity to support the hoards of people who come to dance.  It's a good problem to have, I suppose, but still, I think I would dance more if I didn't dread sweating in front of everyone so much.  The other issue is that I often want to dance at home to practice, and I just don't have my house arranged in a way that really supports that.  But I do like how my house is furnished, so I don't want to change it; I just want to add a huge room to the back with wooden floors and its own amazing A/C and mirrors and cameras so I can review my dance and improve myself, and a large screen (or four) to watch videos from the greats.  

Next to remove: human-driven transportation.  I know autonomous cars on a mass scale are still in the future, and it's going to be a long, long time before everyone adopts them or they are legally the only option.  But people are stupid, and driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do in our lifetimes, and we do it every day.  I personally despise driving, although I think I'm good at it (when I'm awake), and I have a problem staying awake behind the wheel at times.  Life would be so much better if I could get in a vehicle and use my laptop or watch a show while the vehicle transports me to where I need to go.  Some utopias are so small that they don't require powered transportation at all, one could easily walk or ride a bike to where they are going on a regular basis, but I don't think that's realistic, especially because I like to travel.  I don't think a small distance utopia could ever include everything I would want to do.  If we could just eliminate all bad drivers, that might make a big enough difference, but unfortunately, we all have dumb moments and I will still fall asleep.  So autonomous vehicles can't come soon enough.  Come on, Elon, I know you can do it!!  I'll be your first volunteer to test it, or your first customer, if you let me!  

Next to add: food that tastes delicious and is super healthy and exactly what I need.  This is one area where 3D printing has some potential, but its even further in the future than autonomous cars, and I'm not sure that 3D printing is really practical as the means of achieving this.  I think its a lot more of formulation and finding ways to flavor that won't cause cancer; I could care less about the shape. If I had a cheese-flavored shake that gave me all the nutrients I needed, I could switch between that and a chocolate-flavored protein shake and be pretty dang happy without solid food at all.  Ideally, certain tasteless substances could be made into several formats and textures, infused with the nutrients we need, and then flavored based on our tastes.  Imagine going to a party, having custom food made to meet your nutritional needs, but getting to try new textures and flavors that you've never tried before.  But alas, cheese is high in fat, along with pepperoni (even turkeroni, which I often eat in lieu of the real thing), and Ben and Jerry's just cannot be made healthy without taking away what makes it so amazing.  At least not yet, but I think maybe there's hope for some day.  

A big picture removal: political parties.  Okay, a lot of my items so far have been somewhat minor, personal preference type things.  But if I was designing a utopia, I would upheave the entire political system and replace it with an even more democratic process.  I wrote a whole post about this previously, so I'll only summarize it here: we would essentially vote for issues we are concerned about, establishing both the solutions and the priorities, and then voting for the people whom we think are most capable of making those things happen.  So instead of voting for a person because he is of a specific party or because she promises to do such-and-such, we vote for people based on our belief in their ability to make things happen, and we vote for the issues we care about, and we vote for what we want out of the political system.  Then its the politicians' jobs simply to execute on what the public voted for.  If they do a good job, they may get re-elected.  If they sucked a big one, we'll find someone else to lead the way.  Read more about this idea here.  

A big picture addition: more technology in schools.  I think it's a crime for people to graduate high school and college and not know more than the very basics of Microsoft Excel.  Most people don't know how to program.  With technology being so prevalent these days, I just don't think people should become professionals or go into the workforce and not understand how computer logic works.  I see people that are completely baffled by the computer programs they use every day, and that scares me.  I understand that college is more generally about learning and theories and not so much practical technical instruction, but a person with a college degree should be able to comprehend and repeat a simple Excel formula.  Kids, learn how to program; learn it early and do it often.  That will set you apart instantly, even if you don't go into programming (or I should say, ESPECIALLY if you don't go into programming), because technology is just not taught at a competency level required to be awesome in the real world.  Learning how to type should be mandatory in elementary school just like learning how to write.  Learning spreadsheets and presentations should be mandatory in junior high, just like history or science.  Learning programming, battery technology and computer maintenance should be mandatory in high school.  College should include photo and video editing, CAD or other 3D modeling, and more programming.

And more: more life skills in schools.  I consider myself lucky to have fallen into a musically inclined family, and have taken that into theater, as well as on the completely opposite end of the spectrum having a good understanding of finance and economics.  The idea of arts being pulled out of schools is appalling to me.  Even though I've never aspired to be an actress, the spacial awareness I learned in theater has had so many applications in my regular life, and I can tell instantly when a person does not have that skill.  How much better would this world be if everyone had spacial awareness, understood the financial impact of their money spending decisions, and learned not to be afraid of speaking in public?  School should not just be about memorizing dates and definitions, it should be about learning how to live life fully.  When I tell people what I do, there are a lot of people who didn't even imagine my career path existed, and I see people who fall into careers (I think) because they saw options that they were aware of included: doctor, architect, lawyer, musician, teacher.  There are so many more career paths, and people don't know about them.  Engineering is shrinking, and it needs to be expanding.  

Let's also take out: the legal system.  I'm sorry, it's crap.  Every time I've had to interact with it, I've felt burned.  I'm a good person, I shouldn't have to prove it.  We pay lip service to "innocent until proven guilty" but the legal system assumes guilt until proven innocence.  Meanwhile, I see people driving illegally all the time and not getting caught.  I know men paying child support to ex-wives who aren't doing a damn thing to improve themselves because then their child support would get reduced.  I've seen someone unable to perform his professional obligations because a nasty, bickering woman put a completely BS restraining order on him.  And I've been part of a jury that convicted a man of a crime for which the only evidence was technically "thrown out".  If it's going to be garbage, than let's call it what it is, and not pretend that "innocent until proven guilty" has anything to do with it.  In the case of having a restraining order on someone, I think if the complaintant knowingly puts herself in a place where the accused is going to be, the restraining order should be null and void; as it stands, if she shows up on his doorstep, he's breaking the law.  Better yet, let's let common sense prevail, and not evidence that is thrown out or assuming a woman is telling the truth because she's a woman, or assuming a cop is telling the truth because he's a cop.  I love the idea in Divergent with the people having aptitudes for selfless leading the government.  Let's have the justice system be filled with people who have the aptitude to read people and apply common sense, and not have to worry about covering their butts.  Today's judges don't actually judge anything, they're not allowed to, they just apply legal procedures and ensure those procedures are being followed through.  Let's have judges who are really strong moral judges, and make the case to the judge who is not incentived to rule one way or another, only to make the best judgment, and leave the peanut gallery of uneducated hicks and racists and prejudiced people out of it.  Maybe a panel of judges for each case, just to be sure the decision doesn't weigh on one individual.  Think of the case scene in Patch Adams, where a moral appeal can win.  Judges, like the politicians in my utopia, would be voted on based on their ability to make good calls.  In my utopia, people would take responsibility for their actions, and suffer the consequences, but they would understand the consequences going into it.  Better education and no way to cheat the system.  

Add to that: a more self-policing society.  Let's imagine that, without autonomous vehicles that obey the laws to the tee, our vehicles are equipped with cameras that watch around us in four or more angles.  If we see someone breaking the law, i.e. unsafe lane change or what have you, we simply hit a "report" button and the last 30 seconds of footage gets sent to a center of workers who decide if that footage is sufficient evidence to convict the driver, and then send a ticket in the mail similar to how they handle red light camera tickets today.  I've always wanted this.  I'm not sure where else it would apply other than on the road, because I don't witness law breaking in any other aspects of my life on a regular basis, but it could be applied to solicitors on door steps or other like cases.  Imagine how few people would drive recklessly and cut you off if they knew that anyone around them could report them and cause a financial burden for them?  

Another removal: the hidden sales tax and semi- and fully- mandatory tipping.  What I mean by this, is a menu or a price tag should have the price that it will cost.  It should include the tax, so there is no guessing.  When we have to split the bill, its clear exactly what we owe, because we don't have to add in the tax.  Along with that, we should not feel obligated to leave a tip.  A tip should be 100% discretionary based on extraordinary service, and not expected, and certainly not added to bills for groups of 8 or more.  It's hard to deal with a group of 8?  Tough, that's called your job.  I don't get tips at work when I have to go to a meeting with 30 people.  But I'm paid fairly.  So our wait staff should also be paid fairly to do their jobs, and not expect the customers to shell out the rest of their pay on top of the price of the food we're paying over priced amounts for.  Some other countries do this, so there is no reason we need to continue in this awful tradition.

Plus add: waterproof electronics.  It's a niche need, but do you know how many times I've carefully wiped my hands off while in the bathtub in order to access my laptop or phone?  It's a lot.  And I'm sure I'm not completely alone on this.  I just want electronics to be sealed up and safe from water damage so that I can comfortably use them in the bath or shower or pool without covers that inhibit the ability to hear or use the devices.  

Remove too: welfare and any type of government handouts.  This is the economist in me, and maybe the general population in my utopia would disagree and institute them through our superior voting system, and I'd have to live with it.  But how many stories have you heard of someone living in a nice house driving nicer cars than you, and not making a contribution to society?  I would vote for any movement that would bring us closer to the efficient economy that rewards effort and results, and that means not giving anyone a free ride.  

Another addition: Streaming of important athletic events.  Back to the nit-picking personal preference stuff.  If I graduated from ASU, I should be granted lifetime access to high-def, legal streaming of all football and basketball games for ASU.  At a minimum.  I think its despicable that we would need cable and a special channel to watch half the games.  Few of the bars locally have that channel, and when traveling, its impossible to find a bar with that channel.  I should be able to type in a code and wherever I'm at can have the game.  At a minimum.  I would much rather be able to watch all major games on regular cable or Hulu or whatever.  Make it accessible to everyone, and we will get more excited to go!  Make it less accessible, you might just start losing fans, or income because we'll figure out a way to stream it illegally.  

Another removal: 40 - 60 hour workweeks.  Companies should pay a person to do a job, not spend a certain number of hours in the office.  I truly believe that some people are better than others at their jobs, and yet we do this weird equalizing thing to require efficient workers to stay so many hours, while inefficient workers may not even get their jobs done but they put in their hours so they're good to go.  The reason we do this, I'm sure, is because it's far too difficult to quantify what the job should be in any other manner, so its simplest to just assume it should take about 40 - 45 hours per week.  There's also discrimination that might play in, presuming that most women can't physically lift and load as much as most of their male counterparts, and you don't want to be accused of paying women less in a discriminatory manner.  Then again, maybe a physical job isn't good for women who can't keep up with the boys, why is that wrong?  Maybe those women who can't keep up should go do a job better suited for their brilliant minds or physically less demanding.  Regardless, in my utopia, we would figure out how to quantify work effort and results, and allow efficient workers the freedom to leave after the equivalent of 40 hours of work, even if that's 32 hours for them, and they get Friday off, but they are paid as if they were there for 40 hours because that's how much work they did.

And add: more positive news journalism.  I know, they're based on ratings and the violence and awful stories get more attention than the positive stuff.  But kind of like in Divergent where people with a certain aptitude go into certain fields, I would mandate journalists to want to report on the positive stuff, and downplay the violent stories that lead to copycats.  Celebrate the heroes and the victories over disease.  Don't name the name of the killer in the mass shootings - don't give them any credit or attention whatsoever.   Also, let's not make stories about race if they aren't about race; hell even if they are, let's not focus on that because that only raises more racial tensions - a crime is a crime no matter what the (ignorant) motive may be.

Going back to my first point about chores,  I suppose if the help was cheap enough, it could be worth it to pay, but then there's trust issues and the weirdness of a random person coming into your residence.  I would prefer to just find a way to eliminate the need for chores altogether, like having a goat that eats the grass, or maybe just have robots do them.  A lot of these wishes require future technology or a full re-vamping of a country, and obviously I'm not single-handedly capable of doing all those things.  This is also why the TV show Utopia will fail, because they made those people become farmers and live off the land and removed much of the technology; without technology, you're not really allowing them the full utopian-creating potential.  Also, they're just a few people, not a whole society of hundreds of thousands.  It's more like a make-your-own summer camp than the building of a new society.  For me, there are a few things I can do in my own little world to make a partial utopia for myself, and that is what I will strive to do.  I've already made my house quite comfortable with excessively nice luxuries in some places (like my amazing bathtub).  There's always more to do, of course, but that's what it's all about for me.

A New Voting System: Issues, Not Parties

What was hardest for me in last election was that there was hardly any meat to chew.  Very few issues were addressed by the campaigns and in the debates, and those that were addressed were not addressed directly or properly.  I used to vote based on the issues I'm most concerned about, and where each candidate stood on those issues.  I had next to nothing to go on this time around.  Instead of having to pick from the lesser of two (or more) evils, I think we should do away with the party system entirely.  Instead, Americans should be presented a list of issues, and the voting would have three parts: (1) rank the issues that are most important to each person, (2) vote what action or direction should be taken on each issue, and (3) decide who you want to put in charge.  Then the leaders would be tasked with executing America's decisions, based on the most highly ranked issues, regardless of their own personal beliefs or partisan stances.  The politicians can be graded on whether or not they accomplished the goals America asked them to work on, and thus potentially earn re-election if successful.  That would be a true Democracy!

Every election year, there's talk of whether or not the electoral college is still relevant.  On the one hand, it is an antiquated system created when we just didn't have the ability to get accurate information to all parts of the country.  On the other hand, a popular vote alone might lead to under-representation.  I think this debate hints at something much greater and deeper: that the voting scheme we use today was made for the days when people were uneducated and uninformed.  Now, many more Americans have access to decent education and higher education, and we have information overload through the Internet and other media.  If a business model was made for the 18th century and isn't working today, you'd do away with it.  Why would we run our country any different? 

So often, I find that I full-heartedly agree with a candidate on several issues, but am completely disgusted with their stances on others.  Do I vote for that candidate, or find someone more palatable overall?  We should not have to make these kinds of split-hair decisions.  It gets worse, too.  Often, the candidates I could agree with most easily overall have weaker stances on each issue, and are third party candidates.   So then I have to decide if I want to vote for a candidate not all that likely to win, because he/she does not have an R or a D after his/her name.  On the off chance he/she does win, we will have to deal with the consequences of a perhaps less-experienced politician with inadequate defenses.

Maybe now is not the right time to completely revamp our political system, with the fiscal cliff looming and unemployment painfully high.  But if and when we get out of this financial mess, I'd like to see a group of politicians from both sides get together to develop and propose how a government in the 21st century could run.  We need fresh ideas to change the course of this country, not infighting and bazillion dollar campaigns.  Scrap tradition and disregard the nuances and tactics our founders established; imagine how a newly founded country in these times could be built and structured.  I'm not saying do away with the values or our rights, just think out of the box to look for new ways to preserve and protect our values and rights.  The good news is, creativity is a strength of America, and we have a wealth of intelligent people that could envision a new democratic process and make it happen.