Have you ever visited Uzbekistan?  Me neither.

I may never go if I need to rely on the Uzbeki (is that a word?) national airline, whose billboard ad wishes us “Good Luck” as an airliner disappears into a dense cloud with apparent snowy weather ahead.

Thanks to The International Business Edge for pointing out this fun example of a somewhat misguided effort at language translation.

By coincidence, I stumbled today across a second encouraging article about this fine country.  The Kansas City FBI office reported today that “an Uzbekistan national pleaded guilty in federal court today to his role in a criminal enterprise involving illegal aliens working in 14 states, including employees at hotels in the Kansas City, Missouri area and in Branson, Missouri.”

Maybe this fellow and his cohorts were so scared by the prospect of the flying Uzbekistan Airlines that they came to the United States and took up smuggling illegal aliens instead.

If you are not already a regular reader of Imprimis, a monthly publication of Hillsdale College, I strongly encourage you to start. 

“Imprimis is the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College and is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political and educational issues of enduring significance.  The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered to Hillsdale College-hosted events, both on-campus and off-campus.  First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over 1.8 million subscribers.”

A subscription to deliver a printed version mailed to your home is free; an electronic copy is at your fingertips on the web.  I always enjoy the insightful commentary from a broad range of speakers, all devoted to the principle of freedom.

This month’s issue was adapted from a speech by Stephen F. Hayes, Senior Writer, The Weekly Standard.  Entitled “The Tea Parties and the Future of Liberty”, the article highlights the rise of the Tea Party movement and discusses the objectives of participants of the movement.

How did the Tea Party movement begin?

“The accidental founding of the Tea Party movement took place in February 2009, when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli let loose a rant against the stimulus package, and in particular the proposal to subsidize what he called “the losers’ mortgages.” He proposed a ceremonial dump of derivative securities into Lake Michigan, and a few hours later a website popped up calling for a Chicago Tea Party. The video clip raced around the Internet, and it was soon clear that many average Americans were furious about the massive new spending bill and the plan to subsidize bad mortgages.”

Who is involved in the Tea Party movement? In July, 2008, during the last presidential campaign, John McCain participated in a town hall in Belleville, MI.  A provocative question was posted by Rich Keenan, who told McCain he would not be voting for Obama.  But then he said: “What I’m trying to do is get to a situation where I’m excited about voting for you.” 

Hayes explains further:

“I talked with Rich Keenan after the town hall. He described himself as a conservative independent. He said he often votes Republican but does not consider himself one. He added, “I do think that there are millions of Americans out there like me who are fairly conservative, probably more conservative than John McCain, and I think a lot of them are concerned about what’s going to happen if he does get elected.”

So who participates in the movement?

“Keenan was right. There were millions of people out there like him—conservatives, independents, disaffected Republicans, and many of them stayed home on election day. These people form the heart of the Tea Party movement.”

“…The Tea Party movement arose in an environment in which a growing number of Americans believed neither party was voicing its concerns.

“… This dissatisfaction flows directly from the president’s policies and those of his party. It is not simply “anti-incumbent,” as many of my press colleagues would have it. This voter outrage—and it is outrage, not hate—is specific and focused: Americans are fed up with big government and deeply concerned about the long-term economic health of their country.”

Besides the outrage against big government and massive spending, there is a deeper concern:

“For many Tea Partiers, the massive and unconstitutional growth of government is the fundamental issue. But I think there’s something deeper, too. After her husband had won several primaries in a row in the spring of 2008, Michelle Obama proclaimed that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. It was a stunning statement. It also foreshadowed what was to come: Since Barack Obama took office in January 2009, he has devoted much of his time to criticizing his own country. He apologizes for the policy decisions of his predecessors. He worries aloud that the U.S. has become too powerful. He has explicitly rejected the doctrine of American exceptionalism.”

So, what will become of the Tea Party movement?  Will it have a profound effect in the upcoming election?  Only time will tell.  The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.

Where you stand?  I attended a Tea Party rally once.  I was impressed with many of the speakers, but was disturbed by the hateful fringe.  I asked that my name be taken off the mailing list when a few people on the Tea Party website commenced a hateful diatribe against Congressman Jeff Flake, who, in my mind, is as close to an ideal congressional representative as we have in government today.

The hateful fringe does a disservice to a legitimate grassroots movement fueled by concerns that echo my own: rapid growth of government, overspending and over-taxation, rejection of traditional values and the principles of American exceptionalism.

I do hope the Tea Party movement succeeds, if it serves as a catalyst to encourage disaffected American voters to engage in civil debate and bring about a profound effect this year’s election – a step towards reducing the size of government, reducing spending and taxes, and reversing the trend towards moral decay and apology for the greatest nation in the world.

The following YouTube video features artist Jon McNaughton speaking about his painting depicting his belief, which I share, that the Constitution of the United States was inspired by Jesus Christ.

The rich symbolism in the painting is explained via an informative interactive page on the McNaughton Art website:

From the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I quote the words of the Savior:

77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

(D&C 101: 77-80)

I agree with the analysis articulated in this video, that by taking the side of a foreign nation in sponsoring legal action against the State of Arizona, the President of the United States is abdicating his constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the United States of America.

Is treason too strong a word?

Lest you think I’m too radical, I urge you to read my previous blog, “Dearth of Leadership Take 2, or Leadership by Litigation,” where I explain that I am not in favor of SB1070, and outline my proposed plan to solve the immigration challenge.

However, as a citizen of the State of Arizona and the United States of America, I am appalled that the leadership of the US would sue Arizona for attempting to enforce the same laws the federal government has refused to enforce.  But I’m sure the drug cartels are rejoicing.

What do you think?

Note: I created this post for my professional blog:  Discovering Identity.  Yet the implications this advancing facial recognition technology has on our personal freedoms made it pertinent to our I Love Freedom theme.  Enjoy!

Thanks to Malisa Vincenti, leader of the LinkedIn Group Security & Technology – Critical Infrastructure Network & Forum, for highlighting the CNN article entitled “Why face recognition isn’t scary – yet.”

Much of the article was dedicated to describing the benefits and deficiencies of facial recognition software used by online services like Facebook, Picasa and iPhoto to make it easier for users to keep track of photographs.  Speaking of such functionality,  Michael Sipe, vice president of product development at Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition, a Carnegie Mellon University split-off company that makes face-recognizing software said these types of photo programs are a response to the hassles of keeping track of growing digital photo collections.

"In general, there’s this tsunami of visual information — images and video — and the tools that people have to make sense of all that information haven’t kept pace with the growth of the production of that information," he said. "What we have is a tool to help extract meaning from that information by using the most important part of that media, which is people."

It is interesting that one of the most distinguishing attribute of a person’s identity – his or her face – is so difficult for computers to recognize.  We humans often say, “I can remember faces much better than names,” yet computers are just the opposite.  It turns out that a person’s smile, which may be one of the most easily-remembered feature of the human face (for us humans, at least), is the most difficult for computers to comprehend:

Anil Jain, a distinguished professor of computer science at Michigan State University, said it’s still not easy, however, for computers to identify faces from photos — mostly because the photos people post to the internet are so diverse.

Computers get confused when a photo is too dark, if it’s taken from a weird angle, if the person is wearing a scarf, beard or glasses or if the person in the photo has aged significantly, he said.

Smiling can even be a problem.

"The face is like a deformable surface," he said. "When you smile, different parts of the face get affected differently. It’s not just like moving some object from one position to another," which would be easier for a computer to read.

So … what will happen when this technology matures and makes the leap from family-friendly Facebook to applications in real live security or survellance applications?

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the motives behind the technology are what worry him.

Governments and corporations intend to use facial recognition software to track the public and to eliminate privacy, he said, noting that automatically identifying people in public in the U.S., when they are not suspected of a crime, could be a violation of constitutional rights.

When facial recognition comes to surveillance cameras, which are already in place, "you’re no longer racing through iPhoto to figure out how many pictures of Barbara you have," Rotenberg said. "You’re walking around in public and facing cameras that know who you are. And I think that’s a little creepy."

I suppose this is like many other technologies – there are an abundance of positive applications, and the potential for terribly nefarious uses.

For example, if facial recognition can be used to identify  terrorists so they could be detained prior to boarding airplanes, we would generally think that was a good application. 

Similarly, if I could be granted entrance to my corporate office building or be logged onto necessary computer systems just by smiling (or frowning) into a camera, the building and computer systems might be more secure and the present-day use of passwords or ID cards might go the way of the buggy whip.

However, if an abusive husband used facial recognition software to stalk his estranged wife, or if the government successfully tracked every movement its citizens made in the normal course of events, we would generally think of those applications as negative.

I have a crazy habit of smiling and waving at security cameras I see in airports or banks or convenience stores. Who knows what is happening on the other side?  At the present level of today’s technology, I’m probably being recorded and not much more.  In a few years, however, the sophisticated software behind the camera will probably recognize Mark Dixon and report my antics to the NSA.  That will surely make me frown, not smile, when I wave to the ubiquitous cameras.

In a recent post, I expressed dismay that we had a terrible lack of genuine leadership at the top in federal government, as evidenced by the poor leadership in the oil spill crisis.

Now, Take 2!

True to form, the administration chose to divide and alienate rather than leverage the power of the “best and brightest” to solve a significant challenge – that of illegal immigration – by suing the State of Arizona over the passage of HB 1070, the illegal immigration enforcement law.

I am not anti-immigration.  I actually have a deep respect for our immigrant brothers and sisters.  However, I am also a passionate supporter of the rule of law within a society of free people.  Our freedom is dependent on the willingness of citizens to obey the law and the willingness of government to enforce the law.

At the same time, I am not a proponent of HB 1070, because I believe it ignores the larger reality that sizable portions of our economy currently depend on currently-illegal immigrants and that comprehensive immigration reform is needed before the overall problem will be solved. 

However, it galls me that the administration would sue Arizona for attempting to enforce the existing immigration laws the federal government has failed (or refused) to enforce already.  By refusing to enforce federal law already on the books, the federal government has imposed huge financial and social burdens on the states. Perhaps we should sue the feds for reimbursement.  Oh, I think Governor Janet Napolitano did that before selling out to the current administration.  Leadership?

In case anyone cares, my comprehensive reform proposal includes the following major points:

1. Provide a liberal guest worker program, recognizing that immigrants are an integral part of the US economy.  The program will make sure they pay taxes, insurance, medical, education, etc. Over time, if they comply with strict guidelines, they may earn citizenship. 
2. Provide a way for illegals already in the US to come clean, pay hefty fines, pay taxes, insurance, medical costs, education fees, etc. and work toward citizenship over time if they adhere to strict guidelines. 
3. Immediately export all illegals who don’t comply with #1 or #2.
4. Do not make any public services (medical, education, etc.) available to anyone who is not a citizen or can demonstrate compliance with #1 or #2, except in a medical emergency, after which they are immediately exported in line with #3.
5. Revoke the business license of any employer who hires illegals outside the guest worker program – you, too, Walmart, not just the little guys.
6. Do not grant citizenship to children born in the US unless at least one of their parents is already a citizen.
7. Build a high, double, physical wall with electronic surveillance and rigorous countermeasures between the US and Mexico.
8. Provide national guard troops at the border, equipped with real bullets and orders to use them  to enforce the law.
9. Enforce national and state immigration law, with the federal government paying the states to enforce the law if the feds choose not to.

While the administration wastes tax payer dollars on fighting HB 1070 in court, and while the supposed “best and brightest” in congress sit on the sidelines and refuse to address immigration reform, I guess we must live with the spirit of Arizona captured in this proposed new Arizona flag:

I applaud the administration of the State of Arizona for choosing to defend HB 1070 vigorously, even though I don’t think the bill gets to the heart of the matter.  Perhaps this action will be a catalyst to encourage the “best and brightest” to intervene and correct the actions of the appalling lack of federal leadership.

Thanks to my friend Stan Ferrin, who sent me the flag photo.

My new freedom friend, Drew Jensen, suggested that I highlight a portion of the famous poem, “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” on my blog today.  Written in 1860 by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the poem recounts Paul Revere’s thrilling ride through the Boston area to warn his compatriots about the advancing British army.

The following few lines captured the exemplary courage he exhibited in the face of personal and collective danger as the fate of an emerging nation hung in the balance.

And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with it’s heat….

"So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.’

May we all be so courageous in the constant battle for freedom!

I exchanged emails this evening with a deep thinking, dedicated freedom fighter, Drew Jensen, who has assembled a vast array of documents and links on the subject of freedom and politics, on his aptly named website, “Freedom and Politics.”

The statement included on the photo above is from Patrick Henry:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, but for the people to restrain the government.”

There is no way I could read all the information Drew has assembled in an evening, or in a week, but I look forward to looking through his collection and highlighting content I think is particularly pertinent to discuss on this blog.

Thanks, Drew, for introducing yourself and for your dedication to the cause of freedom!

Dearth: “an inadequate supply; scarcity; lack”

When I grew up on a small southern Idaho farm, we didn’t have television in our home.  But I remember the time in 1962,  when, as an anxious nine year old, I huddled with my family around a cream-colored tube-type radio listening to news about the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I remember distinctly asking my Dad if he thought we were going to have a nuclear war.

He responded gravely but confidently, “If President Kennedy sticks to his guns, we’ll be ok.”

My Dad had not voted for Kennedy and never would, as far I I know, vote for a Democrat presidential candidate.  Around our house mere mention of the initials “FDR” was like cussing.

However, at the point in time when the chips were down and the future of our nation hung in the balance, my Dad expressed confidence in the office of the President and those who were assisting him in preserving the fragile peace.  President Kennedy marshaled the “best and brightest” of people from many backgrounds and political persuasions to assist him in decisions that were of great importance to our country. Then, he acted decisively and stuck to his guns.  That is called leadership.

Please fast forward with me nearly 48 years to our current time and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill crisis.  Ironically, the geographical focal points then and now are not too far apart. The potential end game is not nuclear war or fragile peace, but the livelihood of millions, the future of the environment and our economic stability do hang in the proverbial balance.

Now, in contrast to listening to the small family radio in 1962, we are bombarded with newscasts about this event.  It was soon clear to me that the BP executives were living in denial or just hoping the fairy godmother would come down and clean the whole mess up.

And then, when President Obama declared crudely that he was going to find out whose a** to kick, I told my family that “There is certainly a dearth of leadership in this mess.”  Leadership is all about consulting the best and brightest, having the courage to exert intellectual honesty, and finding solutions, not laying blame.  I just didn’t see that happening anywhere.

A few weeks later, I was pleased to hear that I was not alone in my thinking.

On June 10th, I read an op-ed piece in the USA Today, where Mitt Romney came to precisely the same conclusion.

Has it come to this again? The president is meeting with his oil spill experts, he crudely tells us, so that he knows “whose ass to kick.” We have become accustomed to his management style — target a scapegoat, assign blame and go on the attack. To win health care legislation, he vilified insurance executives; to escape bankruptcy law for General Motors, he demonized senior lenders; to take the focus from the excesses of government, he castigated business meetings in Las Vegas; and to deflect responsibility for the deepening and lengthening downturn, he blames Wall Street and George W. Bush. But what may make good politics does not make good leadership. And when a crisis is upon us, America wants a leader, not a politician.

Mr. Romney went on to give several examples of excellent leadership – across the spectrum of political persuasion:

We saw leadership on Sept. 11, 2001. Then as now, black billows seemed to come from the center of the earth. Lives had been lost. The environmental impact was immeasurable. The looming economic impact from lost tourism was incalculable. Into the crisis walked Rudy Giuliani. While that was an incomparable human tragedy, how the mayor led New York City to recover is a useful model for the president. …

In a crisis, the leader must gather the experts — federal, state, local, public and private — not to discover who is to blame but to secure their active and continuous involvement until the crisis is resolved. There is extraordinary power inherent in an assembly of brilliant people guided by an able leader. In virtually every historic national crisis, our most effective leaders gathered the best minds they could find — consider the Founders in Philadelphia, Lincoln with his “Team of Rivals,” Roosevelt with scientists and generals seeking to end World War II, Kennedy with the “Best and Brightest” confronting the Cuban missile crisis.

There are certainly a lot of smart people available – from industry, academia, government and the general public.  There is no dearth of ideas, but there is a real dearth of leadership at the helm.

But even a gathering of experts won’t accomplish much unless a skilled leader uses their perspective to guide the recovery. So far, it has been the CEO of BP who has been managing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The president surely can’t rely on BP — its track record is suspect at best: Its management of this crisis has been characterized by obfuscation and lack of preparation. And BP’s responsibilities to its shareholders conflict with the greater responsibility to the nation and to the planet.

Battling the oil crisis might not be the “change” that was high on the President’s agenda, but Murphy’s Law still reigns, bad things do happen, and we need leadership to lead us out of this big black hole.

The president must personally lead the effort to solve the crisis. He cannot delegate this quintessential responsibility of his presidency in the way he delegated the stimulus bill, the cap-and-trade bill and the health care bill. It may be an instance of learning on the job, but it is a job only he can do.

Kennedy was a young man; many of those he gathered around him were young, but youth didn’t stand in the way of purposeful action.  In times of crises, we don’t need excuses; we need results.

The president can learn a good deal from the crisis leadership of men and women in government and in business. Giuliani is a notable example, but so too are Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Kennedy. In a time of national crisis, we look to our president to acknowledge, as Harry Truman did, that it is at his desk where the buck stops.

This is not just a political issue.  It is an issue of capability, credibility, motivation and decisive action. It is not about placing blame.  There is plenty of that to spread around when the time comes.  Genuine leaders rise above faults they and others always have, and learn, like Kennedy, to marshal the best and brightest, listen to what they have to say, act decisively, and stick to their guns.  Then, and only then, will we be ok.

It’s late, but I must share one more video, this one referred to me by my wife, whose Facebook status today proclaimed, “ Claudia Dixon loves the red, white, and blue and all it stands for.”

I believe this took place at an air show at Langley Air Force Base in 2008.

I wonder if Claudia will let me take the next jump?

Happy Independence Day … and good night! God bless America!