Empathy is Not Always a Virtue

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

I’ve writ­ten a few times about the qual­i­ties of em­pa­thy and our society’s gen­eral need for more of it in the last year or so. However, em­pa­thy is not al­ways a virtue. When you em­pathize with some­one so much that you be­come emo­tion­ally in­ca­pable of meet­ing your own re­spon­si­bil­i­ties (like, say, tak­ing your fi­nal ex­ams), you have left the path of rea­son and ac­count­abil­ity, and be­come a type of fun­da­men­tal­ist.

And there is no ef­fec­tive mode of dis­course with a fun­da­men­tal­ist.

Ray Rice is just a symp­tom

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

I’m not nor­mally one to beat upon a string of ide­o­log­i­cal ad­jec­tives when mak­ing a point, but lately it seems nec­es­sary.

Racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety trains us to think that the limit of knowl­edge is ob­tain­ing max­i­mum money — the most ad­mirable goal; and then does all it can to pre­vent mi­nor­ity groups from achiev­ing it. Racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety trains us to think that we are not peo­ple, but hu­man re­sources; (celebri­ties are not even hu­man — they ex­ist only as a brand, a pro­duct) and then does all it can to make mi­nor­ity groups ap­pear generic & cheap. Racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety trains us to think that ob­jects sold in the ma­te­rial world will sat­isfy our de­sires, and, fail­ing that, ob­jects pro­vided in the vir­tual world will do the same; and mar­kets to every­one so they will be­come more racist, more pa­tri­ar­chal, and more cap­i­tal­is­tic. Racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety trains us to think that its par­a­digm is the only par­a­digm.

Ray Rice is a vic­tim of racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety. It has made Ray think he is a pro­duct shaped and re­warded for his strength and skill at vi­o­lence. It has not re­warded him for em­pa­thy, com­pas­sion, or wis­dom. It has sup­ported this train­ing by cov­er­ing up his vi­o­lent be­hav­ior out­side of the game he was paid to play. Ray Rice is a tone-deaf, un­re­pen­tant abuser — but he didn’t have to be.

Janay Rice is a vic­tim of racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety.  Orders of mag­ni­tude more a vic­tim than Ray. It has made Janay think that she should silently ac­cept and ig­nore be­ing abused by her hus­band. It has not re­warded her for au­ton­omy, as­sertive­ness, or wis­dom. It has sup­ported this train­ing by blam­ing women for every­thing that hap­pens to them: rape, vi­o­lence, stolen cell phone pho­tos. Janay Rice is blind to her op­pres­sion, but she didn’t have to be.

I am not as­sign­ing all blame for the be­hav­iors of Janay & Ray Rice to racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety. Despite what they have been trained to think, they re­main ca­pa­ble of healthy choices and healthy be­hav­iors. The tec­tonic weight of racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety has just made it much harder to be a healthy per­son and much eas­ier to be­have like a racist, pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist. That’s why it’s so eas­ier for po­lice to shoot & kill than do ac­tual po­lice work. That’s why some men think they can hit peo­ple & some women think that be­ing hit is okay.

We are an­i­mals first. We re­spond to what is in front of us. We are out­raged at Ray Rice, the NFL, Janay Rice, the po­lice of Ferguson, MO. We re­act to stim­uli as we have been trained to do. We are sapi­ent sec­ond, and rarely. Though each in­di­vid­ual is and should be called upon to be less racist, pa­tri­ar­chal or cap­i­tal­is­tic — play­ing whack-a-mole each time we see an egre­gious ex­am­ple of our racist pa­tri­ar­chal cap­i­tal­ist so­ci­ety does lit­tle to ef­fect change. Change re­quires ac­tion. Effective change re­quires know­ing where to act, and how. We can go on iden­ti­fy­ing the symp­toms, or we can try to end the dis­ease.

Quotes from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Saturday, 29 October 2011

“A ra­tio­nal an­ar­chist be­lieves that con­cepts such as ‘state’ and ‘so­ci­ety’ and ‘gov­ern­ment’ have no ex­is­tence save as phys­i­cally ex­em­pli­fied in the acts of self-re­spon­si­ble in­di­vid­u­als. He be­lieves that it is im­pos­si­ble to shift blame, share blame, dis­trib­ute blame… as blame, guilt, re­spon­si­bil­ity are mat­ters tak­ing place in­side hu­man be­ings singly and nowhere else. But be­ing ra­tio­nal, he knows that not all in­di­vid­u­als hold his eval­u­a­tions, so he tries to live per­fectly in an im­per­fect world…aware that his ef­fort will be less than per­fect yet undis­mayed by self-knowl­edge of self-fail­ure.”

[…]

“My point is that one per­son is re­spon­si­ble. Always. […] In terms of morals there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each re­spon­si­ble for his own acts.”

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein pp 84 – 85

I’m struck at how very ex­is­ten­tial­ist that quote is. Just as I’m struck at how very apro­pos the fol­low­ing quote is to the #oc­cupy move­ment.

“A man­aged democ­racy is a won­der­ful thing […] for the managers…and its great­est strength is a ‘free press’ when ‘free’ is de­fined as ‘re­spon­si­ble’ and the man­agers de­fine what is ‘ir­re­spon­si­ble.’”

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein pg 256

Stop, Collaborate and Listen: EfficientGovNetwork Regional Collaboration Conference

Saturday, 15 October 2011

On Thursday 13 October 2011, I used a va­ca­tion day to at­tend the EfficientGovNetwork Regional Collaboration Conference on be­half of the Cleveland Coalition/​Transparency Action Plan Summit. I met up with Pepper Pike coun­cil­woman Jill Miller Zimon and we car­pooled down to Akron. Jill was there on be­half of The Civic Commons; they are help­ing with outreach/​education for #EGNetwork.

This con­fer­ence was de­signed to help lo­cal gov­ern­ments learn how they can work to­gether to save money. If you need more back­ground or con­text, click the links. A bit of note tran­scrip­tion with eli­sions and par­tially pol­ished spots is what you get next, with a bit of com­men­tary at the end.

Notes

Brad Whitehead from the Fund for Our Economic Future had the open­ing re­marks. He said that the Fund’s pur­pose for spon­sor­ing this con­fer­ence is to help the eco­nomic health of the re­gion. His main points were:

  1. Regional Government col­lab­o­ra­tion is im­por­tant;
  2. Successes will be cu­mu­la­tive (no such thing as a big fix), and;
  3. It’s go­ing to be hard work.

He men­tioned that the com­bined eco­nomic power of our gov­ern­ments is around $20 bil­lion, which trans­lates to 10% of the region’s to­tal econ­omy. He con­ceded that this kind of col­lab­o­ra­tion & ef­fi­ciency is harder for gov­ern­ments to ac­com­plish than it is for busi­nesses, and men­tioned that it takes a com­bi­na­tion of will and skill to be suc­cess­ful in these types of en­deav­ors. He tasked the at­ten­dees to learn from each other.

His re­marks were fol­lowed by a ple­nary ses­sion that pro­vided the con­fer­ence at­ten­dees with some food for thought re­gard­ing col­lab­o­ra­tion.

Tom Pascarella, the Administrative Director of Tallmadge, OH spoke about how his town dealt with a 10% drop in their rev­enue by con­sol­i­dat­ing their dis­patch­ers with Stow and by join­ing the Regional Income Tax Authority. This saves them $880,000 per year.

John Hoornbeek, Director of Kent State’s Center for Public Administration and Public Policy told us about 4 good things and two chal­lenges about re­gional col­lab­o­ra­tion.

  1. This con­fer­ence and other con­ver­sa­tions are good, as are;
  2. The ap­plic­a­bil­ity of col­lab­o­ra­tion across many dif­fer­ent pol­icy ar­eas;
  3. The statewide at­ten­tion the col­lab­o­ra­tion is gar­ner­ing, and;
  4. The de­vel­op­ment of net­works for col­lab­o­ra­tion.

This re­mains chal­leng­ing, how­ever, be­cause col­lab­o­ra­tion is hard and the re­gion isn’t well or­ga­nized right now.

Ed Jerse, Regional Collaboration Director for Cuyahoga County, spoke about the ways to get com­mu­ni­ties to work to­gether, specif­i­cally, by do­ing what we al­ready know works. He spoke of the need to rec­og­nize that col­lab­o­ra­tion is an evo­lu­tion­ary process, and there will be dead ends as a re­sult of this. He said that it is very easy to have an idea, but it is even eas­ier to kill one, and that it takes courage to try new things in the face of that chal­lenge.

Dave Kaminski from the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce spoke briefly re­gard­ing the dif­fer­ences be­tween gov­ern­ment and busi­ness ef­fi­ciency. His main points were that busi­nesses think that gov­ern­ment should be run like a busi­ness, but they need to un­der­stand that gov­ern­ments are re­quired to provide ser­vices, even if they im­pact the bot­tom line. He got a lot of laughs with his on-point line that you can’t lay­off  the 3rd grade.

The ques­tion & an­swer pe­riod re­sulted in the fol­low­ing points:

  1. Top-down pres­sure (or buy-in) is needed to force col­lab­o­ra­tion & good net­work­ing.
  2. It’s eas­ier to col­lab­o­rate if you’re not an elected of­fi­cial.
  3. Building trust be­fore col­lab­o­rat­ing is im­per­a­tive.
  4. Collaboration should be re­de­fined to ex­tend be­yond work­ing with “whomever looks like us.”
  5. Forming a col­lab­o­ra­tion habit makes fur­ther col­lab­o­ra­tion eas­ier.

Breakout ses­sions fol­lowed. I at­tended the IT col­lab­o­ra­tion break­out. Much of the dis­cus­sion cen­tered around col­lab­o­ra­tion that had al­ready been im­ple­mented and the lessons learned dur­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tions. Let me know if you’d like fur­ther de­tails. For the most part, the break­out ses­sions were some­what in­side baseball/​hyper-​specific, so I’m not go­ing to say much about them here.

During lunch a fist­fight broke out and while every­one was dis­tracted at my ta­ble, I ate their desserts. Paying at­ten­tion again? Good. Actually, dur­ing lunch Randy Cole from the State of Ohio spoke about the ways that the Kasich ad­min­is­tra­tion has made it eas­ier for lo­cal gov­ern­ments to deal with the huge cuts in State fund­ing. Afterwards, I got the sense from a few dif­fer­ent peo­ple that it seemed more like a press con­fer­ence than any­thing par­tic­u­larly use­ful for the gov­ern­ment folks there. There’s a $45 mil­lion state fund for col­lab­o­ra­tive projects, but the com­mit­tee isn’t fully as­signed and they haven’t met yet, so there are no de­tails re­gard­ing what would qual­ify for the fund­ing. Mr. Cole men­tioned the State Auditor’s Shared Services por­tal, which is some­thing I hadn’t been pre­vi­ously aware of.

After lunch I di­vided my time be­tween the Economic Development break­out and the Mergers break­out. In the eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment ses­sion I learned a bit about Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDDs) but, as im­por­tant as Economic Development is, I still find it hard to keep at­ten­tion fo­cused when they get to the nitty-gritty. Dan Mamula spoke about his work with the Mahoning River Corridor Initiative and how they’ve man­aged to get com­mu­ni­ties 40+ miles apart to col­lab­o­rate on eco­nomic de­vel­op­ment is­sues. I re­ally en­joyed lis­ten­ing to him speak about the work they’ve done.

By the time I got to the Mergers break­out ses­sion, they were deep into the de­tails about the pro­posed #burb­merger of 4 com­mu­ni­ties in the east­ern part of Cuyahoga County. This seemed like the per­fect ex­am­ple of what the theme for the day was: “Collaboration is Hard”.

Commentary

I thought this con­fer­ence was a de­cent start. I think there needs to be a well-turned-out fol­low-up meet­ing (The fol­low-up meet­ing is on November 10th at 9am at the Richfield Town Hall) and some sort of tech­ni­cal sup­port per­sons to wran­gle and fa­cil­i­tate con­tin­u­ing con­ver­sa­tion about col­lab­o­ra­tion be­tween the col­lab­o­ra­tors. I didn’t get the sense that any of that was in place.

While there were many great ex­am­ples of money-sav­ing col­lab­o­ra­tion op­por­tu­ni­ties, most of them were fairly an­ti­quated. I don’t know how many ex­am­ples I heard about com­mu­ni­ties who had com­bined their dis­patch­ers. Both of the IT ini­tia­tives that I heard about were a decade old, and it ap­pears that there aren’t any par­tic­u­lar lead­ers push­ing for new and in­no­v­a­tive col­lab­o­ra­tion op­por­tu­ni­ties. To re­frame us­ing the watch-phrases from the con­fer­ence: “Collaboration is hard, so do what al­ready works first.” I agree with this. However, it needed an ad­di­tion that wasn’t present. The theme should have been more like: “Collaboration is hard. Do what al­ready works first, but make sure you seek out other op­por­tu­ni­ties at the same time.”  As some­one com­mented in the IT ses­sion, all of the col­lab­o­ra­tion men­tioned was at the net­work layer, and noth­ing at the ap­pli­ca­tion layer.

Three fi­nal thoughts:

  • I felt that lunch would have been bet­ter if there hadn’t been a speaker. Quite a few fruit­ful net­work­ing dis­cus­sions were cut short.
  • I thought there should have been a dis­cus­sion or some speak­ers specif­i­cally ad­dress­ing the rea­sons these com­mu­ni­ties haven’t felt the need to col­lab­o­rate un­til now. The rea­son they are col­lab­o­rat­ing now is ob­vi­ous. The money ran out. If they’d been col­lab­o­rat­ing be­fore­hand, this pickle wouldn’t be such a big dill. (NO APOLOGIES).
  • I thought there should have been some sort of ac­tion item or um­brella goal for the par­tic­i­pants to leave with other than the su­per vague “col­lab­o­rate”. Is the Fund for our Economic Future go­ing to act as a li­aison or net­work­ing and tech­ni­cal sup­port source for this ini­tia­tive, or is the ex­pec­ta­tion that ad hoc col­lab­o­ra­tions will be the norm. I feel that if there is an ex­pec­ta­tion for re­gional col­lab­o­ra­tion, there should be a group wholly ded­i­cated  to pro­mot­ing that.

Someone at the con­fer­ence said that col­lab­o­ra­tion isn’t some­thing you can do part time. I com­pletely agree and think that ap­plies to trans­parency as well. These are the hot new par­a­digms, and if you can’t give them the ef­fort they de­serve, you shouldn’t try them at all.

Let Him Die

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

I’m up a bit ear­lier than usual be­cause I’m train­ing Abraham to wake him­self up when he needs to pee dur­ing the night. So, of course, I de­cide to cog­i­tate upon the re­cent CNN/​Tea Party de­bate, and in par­tic­u­lar the part where Tea Partiers choose to let some­one my age, who chooses to be unin­sured and then in­jured, die. The clip:

And here’s what I’ve thought:

The free­dom of Ron Paul, cur­rent lib­er­tar­i­ans, and the Tea Party is the free­dom of choice. They want the abil­ity to not par­tic­i­pate in ex­ist­ing gov­ern­ment for a va­ri­ety of rea­sons mostly boil­ing down to the fact that the gov­ern­ment spends their money in ways they don’t ap­prove of. They don’t re­ally claim this as their goal, in­stead they just call it “small-gov­ern­ment”, but that’s the out­come they’re aim­ing for. They’ve come to the con­clu­sion that the only way to ac­com­plish this non-par­tic­i­pa­tion is to get elected and change the stuff they don’t like about gov­ern­ment. It’s a fun­da­men­tal­ist po­si­tion. The ma­jor log­i­cal hole in this ar­gu­ment is that they want to en­force their choice upon every­one. That’s not lib­er­tar­ian. Another log­i­cal hole in the ar­gu­ment is that they’re not do­ing any­thing on their end to opt-out of the sys­tem right now. The ma­jor irony of this ar­gu­ment is that the Tea Party, who doesn’t want to be forced to pur­chase health care, is say­ing “let me die if I get sick or in­jured and can’t af­ford to pay.” Another ma­jor irony of this ar­gu­ment is that the choices they are fight­ing over are first world prob­lems. The fact that choices are even pos­si­ble in these sit­u­a­tions is a re­flec­tion of the qual­ity of life that has been cre­ated by the fact that we live in an America that has been gov­erned by peo­ple who have con­structed a so­cial con­tract that makes our way of life pos­si­ble.

Hole 1: Some peo­ple want to live in a so­ci­ety that cares for oth­ers. Some peo­ple want to cre­ate in­sti­tu­tions and mech­a­nisms that en­sure that care is pro­vided for the so­ci­ety and the in­di­vid­u­als within it. The ap­plause & out­bursts in that clip show that there is no con­cept of “love thy neigh­bor” and, in fact, no con­cep­tion of even “who is my neigh­bor?” or even “neigh­bor” go­ing on here. This isn’t a po­lit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy of au­ton­omy & per­sonal re­spon­si­bil­ity, it is a po­lit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy of self­ish­ness, borne out of ig­no­rance. If it were borne out of knowl­edge you wouldn’t have peo­ple cheer­ing or call­ing for death. (This space re­served for tan­gen­tial dis­cus­sion of the epis­te­mol­ogy of psy­chol­ogy, so­ci­ol­ogy & an­thro­pol­ogy as it re­lates to so­ci­ety & lib­er­tar­i­an­ism).

I’m all for au­ton­omy & per­sonal re­spon­si­bil­ity. I’m also all for so­cial re­spon­si­bil­ity, be­cause I know that or­ga­niz­ing, pool­ing re­sources, and work­ing to­gether for a com­mon goal (build­ing a road, pro­vid­ing health care for all cit­i­zens, lob­by­ing the GOP to change it’s pol­icy po­si­tions (look­ing at you here, Tea Party)) is more ef­fec­tive than act­ing au­tonomously. I also know that, as au­tonomous and per­son­ally re­spon­si­ble as I am, and can be, at some point, I’m not go­ing to be able to get by with­out some help from my friends, the gov­ern­ment, or other so­cial in­sti­tu­tions.

Hole 2: Opt-out. If these peo­ple don’t want to par­tic­i­pate in the cur­rent so­cial con­tracts, they should opt-out. That’s an easy choice, but hard to prac­tice. Don’t like pay­ing taxes? Change your tax with­hold­ing to zero and don’t pay taxes when the time comes. Work for cash, or if fiat cur­rency isn’t your thing, pre­cious met­als. Don’t buy health in­sur­ance, and when you get sick, don’t seek care from mod­ern med­ical in­sti­tu­tions. You can al­ways opt-out. If America won’t let you, move to some­place that will, but don’t com­plain when the qual­ity of life blows, be­cause qual­ity of life is cre­ated and sus­tained through so­cial con­tracts, gov­er­nance, and lov­ing thy neigh­bor.

PS. If you’re rais­ing your kids to be lib­er­tar­ian, don’t potty train them. You’ll be forc­ing them to abide by a so­cial con­tract for san­i­ta­tion. Give them the free­dom of choice. Plus, you won’t have to wake up in the mid­dle of the night to teach them to wake up and take a piss when they feel the need.

Caveat Emptor

Monday, 24 May 2010

There are end­less things we can and have learned from na­ture that have daily, prac­ti­cal ap­pli­ca­tion in our lives. Velcro was in­vented by a guy who took a close look at the burrs that stuck to his dog’s fur. It wasn’t given to us by Vulcans. I’m sure my mom has a spe­cial place in her heart for those things, since there were in­nu­mer­able times that my socks went through the wash com­pletely cov­ered in them. Velcro is use­ful, and it is kind of dif­fi­cult to fig­ure out how it could be mis­used.

Marketing, on the other hand, is some­thing that na­ture has in­grained into us, and learn­ing to use it as a tool for just about any job means it gets mis­used all the time. The most bla­tant form of nature’s mar­ket­ing is used for sex­ual se­lec­tion. Think pea­cocks, or Irish Elk. Pretty harm­less, specif­i­cally tar­geted mar­ket­ing. That eas­ily ex­plains the mar­ket­ing phrase “sex sells.” Properly mar­keted, you can sell any­thing. With prod­ucts, this has been age old; there were huck­sters sell­ing snake-oil and hoof grease to dirt-farm­ers in Ur. I’m sure the mar­ket­ing of ideas dates to an­tiq­uity as well, but the pro­lif­er­a­tion of com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the in­for­ma­tion age com­pounds this into a se­ri­ous prob­lem.

With proper mar­ket­ing, you can sell any idea. There’s a sucker born every min­ute. What sucks about the suck­ers is that they’re more likely to be­lieve the hype than due the dili­gence. So you can sell cre­ation­ism, fas­cism, racism, and that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslin and folks will take the good mar­ket­ing as gospel.  It’s Colbert’s truthi­ness. Facts are hard things, and think­ing re­quires thought. Since we’re hard-wired by na­ture to buy good mar­ket­ing, it’s eas­ier to buy in­tel­lec­tual snake oil (es­pe­cially when it goes with our pre­con­cep­tions) than put forth the ef­fort to test facts for scratch, in­den­ta­tion and re­bound hard­ness.

Caveat emp­tor, and if you don’t, God help the rest of us.

Terrorist Attack Trading Cards

Saturday, 19 June 2004

I was at Jamie’s Flea Market Saturday and I found some­thing that hit the mar­ket when I was 6 years old. Something that shows me what 17 years of bick­er­ing, global re­or­ga­ni­za­tion and blood­shed has changed in the zeit­geist of America. Yeah, ba­si­cally noth­ing.

WRAPPER_thm.jpg

Disclaimer

Though these cards claim to be ed­u­ca­tional, it is well to bear in mind that any words of ed­u­ca­tional value con­tained on the backs are re­fracted through a lens of ag­gres­sive and rhetor­i­cal American na­tion­al­ism. While ter­ror­ism is, in­deed, a ter­ri­ble thing, the type of ed­u­ca­tion that these col­lectible items provide is an­tag­o­nis­tic and ig­no­rant of its own ef­fects. Moreover, they are both hi­lar­i­ous and sober­ing [a sort of shake-your head and laugh] to any per­son who has a de­cent abil­ity to sep­a­rate thoughts into sub­jec­tive and ob­jec­tive frames. So. You just need com­mon sense.

Benito Mussolini Terrorist Attack Trading Card

Mussolini was a ter­ror­ist? and a facist? If I had a face like Mussolini I def­i­nitely wouldn’t want to form a po­lit­i­cal party about it. The fact that he was cap­tured by the par­ti­sans he op­pressed is not ironic, it is closer to po­etic jus­tice. It would be ironic if he was ex­e­cuted by his own party for op­press­ing the par­ti­sans.

SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB

First off: “Bombs cre­ate the spec­tac­u­lar and safe types of de­struc­tion that ter­ror­ists are known for.” WHAT?!? To con­clude, end­ing a sen­tence in a prepo­si­tion ain’t good English. Thirdly, some­one ob­vi­ously busted out the the­saurus for ‘per­fid­i­ous.’

Margaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold Day

Beware of guys hid­ing be­hind trash cans and at­tempt­ing to hide be­hind build­ings but not do­ing a very good job of it be­cause their ri­fles stick way out. They blow up things. AMERICA SANCTIONED!

Liberty

Of course they were go­ing to blow up the SoL. Drug-run­ning is an im­pos­si­ble pos­si­bil­ity. Our na­tion hu­mil­i­ates it­self just fine, thanks.

caught

This guy looks like me when I had my beard. That creeps me out.

Qaddafi

I can’t re­ally be funny about any of these be­cause they are so ridicu­lous they speak for them­selves. Note the sub­tle jux­ta­po­si­tion of the last two sen­tences.

Iran

The Ayatullah looks like he is speak­ing to masses of peo­ple burn­ing in eter­nal damna­tion. He might be use­ful as a means to un­der­mine the Soviets. This card also in­vokes Godwin’s Law.

BOMB

Thanks for play­ing! I won­der if Tom Clancy got his idea for The Sum of All Fears from this card. Goodbye!