аЯрЁБс>ўџ фцўџџџжзийклмнопрстуџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС7 јП?d bjbjUU А^ 7|7|n[ Цџџџџџџl––––ООО„B‹‹‹рђ‹”†ŒДB+к2FŽ’и“мД”Д”Д”чšЎ•Љ4Щ­–й˜й˜й˜й˜й˜й˜й$]л }нbМйОхЏѓ™єчšхЏхЏМйЪ––Д”Д”?бйЪЪЪхЏ$–дД”ОД”–йЪхЏ–йЪ Ъ/г:й,jTОˆйД”:Ž PSћўЦBа‚‹ Бќ,й –йяй<+к6йRпнШпнˆйЪBB––––й --- A synergistic approach for dealing with a complex world --- --- A text book for the able and a reference book for the rest ---  Dedication To Ginny In 1966, I married Virginia Jane Wheeler, a 1966 Hood College graduate who grew up in Baltimore, Maryland. After quite a few military service related moves, we settled in Germantown, Maryland, where we have lived since 1981. We have two daughters, Susan and Jennifer, who are now in their mid-thirties. Ginny, besides being my main source of encouragement over the years, is a cancer survivor and also an elementary school teacher, a reading specialist in Montgomery County Public Schools. This book is dedicated to Ginny for many reasons, one of which is that she read this book in draft form ten years ago and only offered one comment, that “it sure is more deep and complicated” than she thought it would be. Since then I have tried to uncomplicate the presentation. I suppose it will always be a bit complex and in draft form since it must change constantly to keep pace with our complex, constantly changing world and its many problems and issues. Timeliness of This Book The observation that this book is deeper than might be expected for a book on common sense is consistent with my initial decision to make Technidigm-2000 available to everyone “online” and at no charge. Indeed, one of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 is the need to take time to do things right. The need for this book was just not as evident 10 years ago as it is today. Thus, On-the-Level has enjoyed a decade of waiting for the right time. Thousands of Internet surfers have stumbled upon it as a result of Googling and other such searches. Many who have commented on Technidigm-2000 to date have done so favorably, with only one dissenter, who apparently balked at clicking his way through all the online pages. Thus, I hope that this integrated version is less intimidating and readable than the previous overly hyperlinked version. I now believe that the thoughts (perhaps deep but increasingly relevant) in this book are much more needed by our country and the world. I think they are more relevant to modern issues and conflicts; and many more people are likely to benefit from these thoughts and the associated problem-solving paradigm, particularly the personal evaluation scheme that I have included in the appendices. While this may be the right time for this book to be made available in a more agreeable form, the reader is cautioned that understanding the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 requires some effort and practice. The reader must take the time to consider its relevance to many (if not all) issues, large and small, and learn to use Technidigm-2000 as the framework within which to consider and deal with them. Charles R. Jones Germantown, Maryland Preface In this book I provide a relatively concise “technical paradigm,” coining the new word “technidigm.” This technical paradigm consists of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, a framework for dealing with issues in our new millennium. While I could have established a more complex paradigm with many more elements, I decided to bow to the popular notion that 12 of anything is an upper limit for many people, and it is intended that this book should reach many people. Thus, the 12 elements discussed in this book represent those that I consider to be the most powerful and most useful across the broadest range of issues, concerns, and problems in general. This book, titled On-the-Level, is subtitled Common Sense, Technically Speaking. In this increasingly complex world, our notions of common sense may not be as lucid as we would like. By the time we understand intuitively how things should work, technology moves on and produces a new world with new frames of reference, diminishing our confidence in the validity of basic social and moral principles that we once considered to be self-evident. Thus, this book is more about dealing with social and political problems that seem to constantly plague us even in this advanced world of technology and, possibly, as a result of this advanced world of technology. It is intended to be extremely useful in dealing with all such problems. It used to be that society and its basic principles changed little over many decades or even centuries. Now they can change a great deal even in only one decade. Change is driven by technology and is accelerated by the catalyst of “commercialism” (“greed” might be more accurate), and not all of this change is for the good of society. For example, television ratings (the number of people watching a given program) improve when crude or oversexed programming is provided, whether or not the program’s level of decadence outpaces the ability of society to recognize and to counteract its negative cultural consequences. We are momentarily amused by men and women behaving badly, while the constant portrayal of misbehavior gradually erodes society’s standards of behavior to lower and lower levels. Many of our young people do not even realize that the world was ever much different. "Living together" before marriage has become the norm. Casual attitudes toward family cohesiveness and problem-solving responsibilities are particularly troublesome when accidental parents struggle with their “feel good” level of commitment and, later, to maintain basic connections with their own young-adult children. Failing to apply the wisdom of their ancestors as codified in the rituals of courtship and matrimony, they become increasingly unable to apply common sense to either avoiding or dealing with life’s expected problems. While a few informal unions manage to succeed and result in the formal commitments of marriage, an increasing number offspring cycle between divorced or never-married parents in search of stability, but finding chaos and further instability. Stable families seem to be more of a rarity, unstable children more common, and school shootings by students confusingly common. Yet, we somehow continue to reject the lessons of life passed to us from generation to generation, lessons based in common sense. Of course, such family related social problems comprise only one arena for our modern disconnect with common sense. This book addresses much more than that, all within the same paradigm, the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000. In addition to family and social issues, there are now many governmental and political disconnects, constitutional issues, and a whole range of media issues that need a strong injection of common sense. Just like Thomas Paine’s original “Common Sense” pamphlet that helped spur the 1776 American patriots to take decisive actions toward independence from Great Britain, perhaps this addendum on the subject of common sense is timely, will ring true to many people, and will spur modern patriots (a subgroup of the silent majority) to finally unite and take steps to gain better control of their own lives and, hopefully, of their country. Our Colonial Frame of Reference Two centuries ago, Thomas Paine taught the colonists about common sense by writing a short book with that name. What he had to say was sufficient to have an impact on solving the problems of the day, encouraging a dramatic shift in the political paradigm and leading to the independence of the American Colonies from Great Britain. It is the goal of this new book on Common Sense, Technically Speaking to have a similar impact on our modern problems, from the year 2000 onward. The principles that formed the foundation for Paine’s Common Sense were primarily government related. Paine’s central theme was that government is a necessary evil, but a government that is not close to the people it serves should be discarded. Fortunately for Paine, the big question of the day was regarding independence from Great Britain. The arguments were easy to make, and the actions needed to achieve that independence were obvious. Modern notions of common sense are far more obscure and require effort to develop them properly, an effort that is made much easier when one understands and applies the twelve common sense elements explained in this book. While what Paine taught about government in his book Common Sense is still valid today, it does not provide us with enough insights to address our many, more complex problems without some additional help. This is where this online book comes in. In addition to common sense problems with government, there is often lack of modern versions of common sense in complex social issues, which are increasingly impacted by rapid changes in technology. Indeed, there is even a lack of common sense applied in modern technical fields such as the space program and in the nuclear energy field, arenas in which we might think that the application of common sense "is a given." Some of the complexity involved with applying common sense today is a result of so many of our leaders and special-interest people not being on-the-level, thus the name of this book. One must first be on-the-level to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. It Includes Everybody! After you learn about Technidigm-2000, you become more aware of what is going on and how to deal more effectively with problems in our complex world, with its increasingly technological society. It is a condensed version of how to deal with complex issues. It is condensed in the sense that I have avoided the hundred shades of gray that would make it impossible to convey and understand. Thus, I have settled on the 12 most significant, critical elements of all issues. These 12 elements are seldom all understood and satisfied in our modern society, resulting in the unfortunately high level of technical and social problems that we see today. Even those of us who fully understand Technidigm-2000 find it difficult to bring them to bear in discussions with the uninitiated. Most people are simply not accustomed to discussing issues in 12 parts, but everyone will be helped if we require this of government leaders, politicians, the news media, and anyone else involved with identifying and fixing problems. Still, even 12 elements are a challenge. Amazingly, Technidigm-2000 accommodates this fundamental human limitation or difficulty by making it unnecessary to invoke more than one or two of its elements to win an argument on almost any topic. Once studied, the applicable elements will likely pop into your head as soon as you start thinking about an issue or problem that you have. Technidigm-2000 practitioners can dismiss most social or technical arguments as "level one" (opinions) and concurrently propose several approaches to reaching a more valid “level four” (solution) understanding. Technidigm-2000 is just in time for each of us to be able to deal more effectively with the modern social dysfunctions that we now consider to be rather normal. Perhaps soon you will hear an on-the-level politician describe his level four solution to an issue, and also share his personal self-assessment score. Common Sense Revisited As already alluded to above, few of us can pursue "profound thinking" about common sense (a contradiction in terms) without at some point visiting Thomas Paine's original work, Common Sense. His 200 year old, revolutionary-period pamphlet is well-known but not widely-read. It is also a bit out-of-date when we consider the profound impacts of modern technology on whatever it is that we mean by wisdom and common sense. Yet it provides a starting point as well as a counterpoint for any modern effort on the subject of common sense. His focus was on common sense in government, which is addressed here as well. Since I graduated from high school in 1962 (when I was sure I knew everything!), I have witnessed the gradual demise of common sense and the counter-parallel rise of nonsense. Each of us has some notion of what I am talking about here, but in this online book I state my version of that notion. With the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, we can start to push back at some of the nonsense. Unfortunately, as an engineer I am without the necessary skills to be so convincing and articulate that I can hold your attention throughout the presentation of On-the-Level. I am no Tom Clancy, but I think I have something here that needs to be said, something that will be understood, appreciated, and applied by a growing number of us modern citizens. It's a Paradigm, Not a Paradox While I can not grant you an increased portion of common sense, I can provide a "framework" or "paradigm" within which you can organize and exercise your own common sense. More importantly, once we all understand the framework, we will better understand each other and better communicate with each other. I offer only a framework, supplemented by a few level one opinions to get you thinking, but it is up to you to come up with the plans for level four solutions. At this point, please assume that I have managed to capture your attention and have motivated you to read, understand, and apply this online book. The level of motivation is, of course, very limited, especially when compared with the many other interests and distractions available in our modern society. It is my hope that there is enough interesting stuff in this online book to provide insights and to change your approach to dealing with common and uncommon issues. A Bold Claim Now for the boldest claim that I can make for this entire effort: Those people who understand and apply the 12 common sense Technidigm-2000 concepts will quickly become more effective members of our technical society. Whether the issue is nuclear power plant safety (my area of expertise, by the way) or political-campaign funding (I can only suggest a solution in this book), Technidigm-2000 provides you with an approach to achieving important insights that are readily communicated. Even when other people do not understand the ins-and-outs of Technidigm-2000, what you say is concise, unambiguous, and easily understood. It can make the difference between success and failure in our sound-bite world. To those who want to hurt you, Technidigm-2000 feels like a sharp sword. To those who want to help you, you can explain the 12 Technidigm-2000 concepts in about 10 minutes. After all, it is only common sense! Charles R. Jones Germantown, Maryland Table of Contents  TOC \o "1-2" \h \z   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271152" Part I The 12 Elements of Technidigm-2000  PAGEREF _Toc150271152 \h 1  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271153" Chapter 1 A Simple Paradigm for All  PAGEREF _Toc150271153 \h 2  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271154" Why Technidigm-2000?  PAGEREF _Toc150271154 \h 6  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271155" Twelve Parts  PAGEREF _Toc150271155 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271156" Chapter 2 The Four Paradigm Boundaries  PAGEREF _Toc150271156 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271157" Being "On-the-Level"  PAGEREF _Toc150271157 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271158" Principles  PAGEREF _Toc150271158 \h 33  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271159" Objectives  PAGEREF _Toc150271159 \h 37  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271160" Context  PAGEREF _Toc150271160 \h 40  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271161" Chapter 3 Communicating with Levels  PAGEREF _Toc150271161 \h 54  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271162" Four More Level Elements  PAGEREF _Toc150271162 \h 54  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271163" Level One: Opinions  PAGEREF _Toc150271163 \h 58  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271164" Level Two: Facts  PAGEREF _Toc150271164 \h 61  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271165" Level Three: Research  PAGEREF _Toc150271165 \h 63  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271166" Level Four: Solutions  PAGEREF _Toc150271166 \h 64  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271167" Level Relationships  PAGEREF _Toc150271167 \h 67  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271168" Chapter 4 Systematic Paradigm Solutions: The Last Four Pieces  PAGEREF _Toc150271168 \h 72  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271169" System Objectives  PAGEREF _Toc150271169 \h 73  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271170" System Components  PAGEREF _Toc150271170 \h 76  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271171" System Components  PAGEREF _Toc150271171 \h 79  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271172" System Resources  PAGEREF _Toc150271172 \h 86  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271173" System Resources  PAGEREF _Toc150271173 \h 89  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271174" Time's Up!  PAGEREF _Toc150271174 \h 89  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271175" System Feedback  PAGEREF _Toc150271175 \h 94  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271176" System Feedback  PAGEREF _Toc150271176 \h 97  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271177" Part II Technidigm-2000 Applications  PAGEREF _Toc150271177 \h 101  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271178" Chapter 5 Level 1 Constitutional Examples.  PAGEREF _Toc150271178 \h 106  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271179" The U. S. Constitutional System Is Born  PAGEREF _Toc150271179 \h 106  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271180" Chapter 6 Level 1 Political Examples  PAGEREF _Toc150271180 \h 122  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271181" Political Topics  PAGEREF _Toc150271181 \h 123  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271182" Level One Opinions on Political Parties as Systems  PAGEREF _Toc150271182 \h 153  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271183" Chapter 7 Technidigm Applications in Government  PAGEREF _Toc150271183 \h 161  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271184" Level 1 Opinions on Government  PAGEREF _Toc150271184 \h 167  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271185" IRAQ WAR POLICIES AND SOLUTIONS  PAGEREF _Toc150271185 \h 169  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271186" Chapter 8 Improving Our Culture with "Future" Common Sense.  PAGEREF _Toc150271186 \h 177  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271187" Going Forward with Technidigm-2000  PAGEREF _Toc150271187 \h 178  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271188" Appendix A Political Candidate Assessments A- PAGEREF _Toc150271188 \h 1  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271189" Technidigm-2000 Self Assessment Worksheet A- PAGEREF _Toc150271189 \h 3  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc150271190" Appendix B About the Author B- PAGEREF _Toc150271190 \h 1  Part I The 12 Elements of Technidigm-2000 Chapter 1 A Simple Paradigm for All  Isn't that a "politically incorrect" quote? Well, the United States was founded in political incorrectness, inflamed with a good dose of common sense. Today, everyone is supposed to be equally wise and able, or at least be treated as such even if it violates common sense. It is expected that some readers will be able to read about, understand, and apply the concepts presented in this book, using it much like a text book on modern applications of common sense. Others will not be able to make it past the front matter and will perhaps never read these words. Still others will skim through the many pages and, perhaps, keep On-the-Level on their bookshelf as a reference book. I leave it to the reader to decide whether he or she is “wise and able” enough to comprehend and apply this book effectively. Even if the reader gives up early, the reader needs to consider whether it is appropriate for our national leaders and others (such as those in the news media and other professional critics) to be able to say that they were able to comprehend the book and can communicate effectively using the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000. That is, would you vote for a senatorial or a presidential candidate who was simply unable to read and use a book on common sense? Let us now jump right in, starting with something most people have already figured out for themselves. Computers Can Not Do Everything Offensive or not, the above "straggling thoughts of individuals" quote at least reminds me of the modern version: A computer can randomly write words forever and will eventually state everything. Now if we could just read it all and ignore the nonsense, we would not have to think for ourselves! While not quite that effective, the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 will from now on help us to ignore all the gibberish and organize our thoughts and make it obvious when those around us have not yet done so. More notable than the computer's ability to generate mountains of random gibberish is the fact that even a "straggling thought" by a human being is likely to contain some elements of what we humans refer to as wisdom. As far as I know, no computer has ever been accused of having the slightest amount of wisdom. Nor are computers blessed with what we refer to as common sense. Only humans can have common sense, so only humans can have an unexpected shortage of it, straggling (lazy) or not. It is the "wise and able men" part of the opening quote that deserves more of our attention. In pointing toward wisdom and ability as elements necessary to produce something useful, Thomas Paine's statement lays out the basis of common sense. That is, common sense presumes the presence of at least some wisdom and some ability that is human and, thus, common sense lies beyond purely mechanistic actions such as produced by computers, however powerful they may be. If common sense were available from computers, we would have more common sense in institutions such as our government. Although computer technology is rapidly advancing, it remains a tool and not an end in itself. The skilled technicians and programmers who are improving our high-tech computer environment are doing little (if anything) that would enhance common sense. Indeed, it is more likely that rapid changes in technology are facilitating misguided cultural changes, changes that are outpacing our ability to anticipate consequences and, thus, our ability to develop a modern version for common sense. Television, movie theaters, and the Internet provide communications vehicles for whatever perversion and titillation society has to offer. Technology promotes perversions and titillations by making them more available and more intense. For example, automatic weapons, bomb-laden trucks, portable nuclear weapons, and surface-to-air missiles provide the means for terrorism. Terrorism created and portrayed by modern media provides elements of suggestion, self-fulfillment, and false apprehensions that further complicate the social landscape. Nothing prepares us adequately in advance to deal with the impacts of technology, so countervailing social structures are often developed reactively. Even if they could be developed more rapidly, perhaps also using technology, such countervailing social structures are still easily outpaced by the power of commercialism and profit seeking. Moreover, the inexperience of our youth makes them easy targets for degenerative lifestyles, especially when human wisdom and maturity, culturally positive religious dictums, and respect for laws and lawmakers are all undermined as part of a supposedly enlightened culture. If youthful friends obsessed by shallow interpersonal foolishness are portrayed favorably on television as a means of attracting an audience, we can expect shallow youth. Exacerbating our misguided culture and its common sense foundations is the fact that many of our brightest young people are caught up in computers rather than community. They are focused on developing what we can do rather than what we should do. Our government is also caught up in what it can do rather than what it should do. Our youth and our government require wise guidance to avoid being misguided. With the help of Technidigm-2000, we can each contribute to providing that guidance. Moreover, as much as the socially useful notions of common sense are based on wisdom and ability, such notions in turn can provide a stable basis for "amplifying" that wisdom and ability. The need for such an expansion of our capacity for wisdom and ability is increasingly evident in this world of accelerated developments in technology. The meaning of "high-tech" is redefined annually. However, if we presume that high-tech equates to high-wisdom, we are already disconnected from common sense. The dominance of youth in the high-tech arena reduces the probability that experience-based wisdom will be applied to important issues in a timely manner. We are increasingly entering into an era of social and technical trial and error. Technidigm-2000 provides us with a universal framework within which we can catch up with and manage these changes. Common Sense Is Wisdom, Not a Gut Reaction Assuming the participants are "on-the-level," Technidigm-2000 focuses us further on common sense and on our notions of applied wisdom. One cannot apply a useful amount of wisdom without periodically invoking common sense. It follows that one cannot make wise decisions without being consistent with common sense. We would all like to think that we have this thing called common sense, but our common sense is often confused with our gut reactions. There is a difference between gut reactions (does not require thinking) and common sense (requires thinking). The lazy substitution of our gut reactions for common sense is a natural result of the confusion created by modern conveniences. For example, global communications require the compression of our daily news into one minute "in-depth" stories and strings of 10-second sound bites. We barely get enough information to have any reaction at all, but the news media that titillate the most while appearing to be sincere get the biggest audience and, thus, give us more of the same false analysis. They appeal to our gut reactions rather than to our intellect and common sense. Technidigm-2000 addresses these gut wrenching, rapid, and superficial communication modes, creating an environment in which common sense and even wisdom once more thrive and can be communicated almost instantly. If you already know the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements, you know that in the case of the news media, everything must be presumed (at best) to be level one opinions until proven otherwise. We would be hesitant to make any conclusions at levels two and three, and most decisions will be made at level four. If you do not yet understand these levels, you soon will. With Technidigm-2000 in place, in the rush to claim level four validity, some news sources will simply demonstrate that they are not on-the-level. Nevertheless, our emotions are often stronger influences on our behavior than our intellect. Thus, even when we know something is not accurate or proper, we are likely to go along with it because it feels better. Even for those of us who are intent on making progress toward reason and wisdom, emotions will often overwhelm common sense and even logical proof on most subjects. Technidigm-2000 simply makes our errors in judgment more apparent, enabling us to make personal progress and, also, to promote clear thinking by others. Technidigm-2000 reaches back more than 200 years to the common-sense thinking of the U. S. founding fathers, particularly as reflected in Thomas Paine's detailed essay on Common Sense. Under Technidigm-2000, Thomas Paine's colonial notions of common sense are updated in terms of our modern technical culture. In particular, Technidigm-2000 restores our confidence in our modern notions of common sense, overcoming the confusion introduced in part by technology. This modern lack of understanding regarding common sense is real. We have no basis for applying common sense to issues that we do not understand. Professional specialization and advances in technology cause much of this uncertainty. Ironically, these advances in technology, although rapid, have been just gradual enough that many people sense the problem but are not sure what it is. They certainly are not eager to admit to personal defects such as a lack of common sense. Technidigm-2000 clarifies the arena of modern common sense and concurrently provides a shorthand language for communicating common sense even when we are dealing with issues that we do not fully understand. Thus, Technidigm-2000 is a powerful and unprecedented tool that all of us can use at any time to deal with any issue. The Technidigm-2000 user reflects on principles, objectives, and issues in terms of the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, creating a powerful modern version of common sense. Technidigm-2000 applications include all of the major categories of human interest and activities involving decision making and conflicts. For example, the Technidigm-2000 approach is effective in addressing issues of politics, religion, social programs, the military, crime prevention, and even the news media. More importantly, Technidigm-2000 often points directly at the best solutions to problems while quickly overwhelming opinions and out-of-context facts. A good example of modern solutions is found in the arena of nuclear safety, my area of expertise. While I have spent most of the past 40 years working on many and varied nuclear-related level four solutions, there is no point in me reminiscing about them here. Less than one percent of you readers would be fascinated with any of that, but the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 apply there as well. It applies to all issues and problems because Technidigm-2000 is to a technical society what a hammer is to a house -- an indispensable tool for construction and maintenance! Yet, before the tool can be used, it must be picked up. You will learn the basics of Technidigm-2000 here, and then you will be able to discuss almost any issue in terms of those basics, especially after reviewing some of my level one application verbiage, discussions that are admittedly limited to the lowest level of Technidigm-2000. The level one discussions contained in this book merely point out that, even without knowing much about an issue, anyone can understand its basis and start to understand what others are saying (or not saying) about a problem, and some with even create a common sense solution on their own. The only prerequisite is being on-the-level! If you have a pre-established agenda that you are advocating at the expense of all else, you are simply off-the-level and can not perform effectively even at level one. Moreover, using Technidigm-2000, others will readily perceive and challenge your slanted agenda. Only the Serious Need Apply Thus, Technidigm-2000 supports those on-the-level, serious people who want to be effective in dealing with the complexities of modern professionalism and the problems of our modern society. As you will discover, those people who are on-the-level do well in dealing with others in the unofficial community of Technidigm-2000 users. Those who are off-the-level are exposed as such and, thus, become motivated to upgrade their integrity. Initially, not everyone out there will know about or want to take the time to understand Technidigm-2000. Those who do understand Technidigm-2000 will simply talk over the heads of others as may be needed to get the job done, including constituting an informal political party wherein every candidate is assessed relative to all others. Care must be taken not to be arrogant or otherwise offensive when doing this, but people who have common sense also have a surplus of integrity and have good manners anyway. Once you have communicated using Technidigm-2000 terminology, you will be a bit annoyed by people who cannot do so. Nevertheless, your Technidigm-2000 communications will be unambiguous, concise, and defensible even if your listeners have no clue about Technidigm-2000. Most importantly, Technidigm-2000 places integrity at the center of everything. For example, integrity is a key focal point of the Technidigm-2000 self assessment, as discussed at the end of this book in the appendices. After completing the ten-minute self assessment, you can even use your score on your rщsumщ and in correspondence. Professionals who understand, subscribe to, and use Technidigm-2000 methods can work more reliably and effectively on any task. Thus, a continuing application of Technidigm-2000 thinking is a commitment to the pursuit of excellence. Anyone can learn about Technidigm-2000 basics, but applying those basics indicates that the user is serious about understanding and dealing with modern issues and, just as important, has achieved a mature level of integrity. Technidigm-2000 is about integrity as much as common sense! Why Technidigm-2000? Have you ever put a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle together? You can spend days, weeks, and even months trying to fit all of the tiny and almost-identical pieces together. Each piece of the puzzle that you are able to place becomes a small, personal triumph. Yet, chances are you will not have the time or the patience to complete the puzzle. You just hope that whoever gave you the darn thing never finds out that you gave up in frustration! But what if someone showed you how to identify the twelve most important puzzle pieces for every jigsaw puzzle? What if these twelve pieces are so important and central to solving the puzzle that once they are identified, placing all of the remaining pieces becomes trivial? Would you be impressed? Knowing immediately which twelve pieces are the keys to solving the puzzle would really cut down on your level of frustration, and you might even enjoy yourself! An ability to simplify complex situations is what you will have when you understand and apply Technidigm-2000. With the start of this new millennium, it is appropriate for each of us to learn about the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, perhaps contributing our own thoughts and ideas about how to improve this solution facilitator. The logical framework of Technidigm-2000 provides substance for what you have intuitively suspected all along but were too unsure of yourself or too confused to assert with any confidence. As you learn more about this logical framework for assessing problems and communicating your own highly perceptive views, you will actually enjoy identifying the key pieces of the complex problems that come your way! You will routinely apply one or more parts of Technidigm-2000 to put a problem into proper perspective quickly, or you may decide to apply all twelve parts, reaching a conclusion or solution. It is your choice. Nevertheless, Technidigm-2000 beginners should practice using or thinking about the 12 elements daily, even while not addressing major issues, perhaps gradually overcoming their dependence on the views of others. More important than solving the problems of an individual is the possibility of solving complex societal problems. Technidigm-2000 provides a common language and frame of reference within which each individual can communicate effectively on any complex issue regardless of his or her personal ability, education, or experience. An individual applying the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 can easily produce results that exceed the products of study committees and consensus groups and in less time. The older generations will have more difficulty understanding and applying the 12 elements than will the younger generations. Students naturally have more time to contemplate and reflect on such things, and they have less intellectual baggage to overcome. A high school student who thinks and learns in terms of these 12 elements will ask the best questions, reach the best conclusions, and develop a life-long skill that can be used everyday. Such a student will extract and separate opinions and facts, look for the rest of the facts, do the necessary research, and seek the best overall solution to each problem or issue. The student will recognize views that are polarized and will seek a higher level of more circumspect understanding. At the minimum, with almost no effort, the student will quickly recognize when this higher level of understanding has not yet been attained. For example, politicians will no longer be able to talk about their solutions to problems without addressing each of the 12 elements. Anything less would be viewed as a shallow approach compared with what the student wrote in a short essay as part of a routine homework assignment. Those people who learn to communicate using Technidigm-2000 will be more interested, effective, and precise in sharing their thoughts with others who have done likewise. In many cases, others will be forced to learn Technidigm-2000 simply to keep up. Politicians will be much more able to communicate with voters, and the news media will be able to provide a more efficient conduit for this communication. Much less room is left for misunderstanding. Ambiguities and distortions are easily identified and eliminated, and everyone is tuned in on separating fact from opinion and whether the facts are all present. The goal is to have everyone understanding and using Technidigm-2000 as soon as possible. This is why it is on the Internet. You can pick up the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 rather quickly, allowing you to understand what others are saying. With this minimal knowledge, you will understand what is happening when a politician responds to news reporters' so-called tough questions, taking them head on and elevating (or limiting) the responses to the right levels of discussion. Moreover, there are dozens of ongoing problems that pop up in the news media daily, most of which you will be able to better understand yourself as you read them! You will become a more effective critic. Technidigm-2000 is a powerful tool, but only those having good intentions should wield it. It can help us solve problems, or it can help us make them worse. Since it is a two-edged sword, the most important attribute for a Technidigm-2000 user is that user's integrity or intentions. With a premium placed on the user's integrity, it follows that each user will apply strict standards of integrity in as many situations as may be appropriate, which is to say all of them. Thus, Technidigm-2000 cuts a wide swath through the center of society, and its effects are most notable in arenas of relatively questionable integrity such as modern politics. Those who choose to wield this powerful tool inappropriately (radical elements, as usual) will soon be embarrassed by those who do it properly (the majority of users). Thus, the two edges of the sword may be referred to as (1) on-the-level and (2) off-the-level. It is far easier for young people than us older folks to be on-the-level and to be perceived as such. It does not take much of an off-the-level "track record" to make it very difficult to be perceived as being on-the-level. Political campaigns are notorious for resurrecting a candidate's failures to be upright, whether it be the usual media effort to tear down what is up and to build up what is down or an opponent's effort to create doubt regarding the other guy's character. Often, all political candidates are damaged during a political campaign (political warfare) by their own off-the-level behavior, often presented out of context and with little appreciation for elapsed time and possible character growth. Young people are idealistic until bent by the realities of life. The bending forces are often imposed by their off-the-level seniors seeking to make a buck, get promoted, or get elected to some political or government position. Being off-the-level is frequently more effective than being on-the-level, just as liars are more effective thieves than are honest people. Stealing an election by lying or pointing out the youthful indiscretions of one's opponent has become acceptable in that it generates little outrage among the general population. With Technidigm-2000 thinking and interactions available, everyone has an effective means of countering such intellectual thievery and deceptions. You are already technically competent to some degree if you downloaded this book from the Internet. The wonder of Technidigm-2000 is that any intelligent person can understand it and use it effectively with very little time invested. If you know of any intelligent people out there, tell them about what you have learned here, and perhaps they too will want to be able to address issues effectively and to communicate in terms suitable for the Third Millennium! Many politicians are polarized, by definition, and polarized people are almost always not on-the-level. Attempts by politicians to apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements inappropriately to social issues quickly expose their underlying principles and objectives to the glaring light of common sense. All we have to do is to ask about their level four report on an issue, a question that forces a detailed explanation or reveals that there is none. If you look at the kind of level three research and level four solutions that are now commonplace in nuclear safety, and then you will start to understand what I mean by a detailed explanation. Asking for a level four report is easy, but the response to such a request is difficult. This rapid, inescapable Technidigm-2000 exposure makes it easier to discourage social anarchy and to encourage more thoughtful, experienced, and capable people to step forward into the political arena. Yet politics is merely a simple application for Technidigm-2000, one that is so obvious that we will perhaps eventually wonder how politics ever existed without using Technidigm-2000 terminology! But we will not be able to turn simple areas like politics around until a lot more people understand and use the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. I would like to include you in the Technidigm-2000 community. To realize its power in politics and other areas of your life, you must first take the time to understand Technidigm-2000! Twelve Parts The 12 puzzle pieces of the Technidigm-2000 solution system are shown below. When all 12 pieces are in place and understood, you are ready to solve the problem or establish a program to address the problem systematically over a period of time.  This puzzle-like picture of the key elements of Technidigm-2000 will become central to your problem solving for now on. You will be able to recall each of the 12 parts readily as you deal with any situation. The pieces are arranged in specific locations that help you learn and recall them. The foundation piece of this puzzle, being on-the-level, is probably the most important Technidigm-2000 concept. Personal integrity and honesty are required for those people who are on-the-level, so the left side of the puzzle is held up by character and principles. Similar but different is the pillar on the right side, objectives. Most of us associate principles with honesty and integrity, but a person can have principles without being honorable. If they do not have honorable objectives, principles have no real meaning. Once an individual is on-the-level, however, chances are that his or her principles are the right kind of principles, and they will naturally pursue honorable objectives. The fourth most important part of Technidigm-2000 is found at the top of the 12-part solution picture. After we are sure we are on-the-level and that we are using the right principles to pursue the right objectives, it is also important to be using the right context. Most people understand that facts taken out of context can cause more problems than they solve. Unless we are using the right context as we solve our problems, it does not matter much whether we are honest and have good intentions. Solving problems in the right context requires the application of knowledge, and knowledge is the cumulative result of education and experience. Thus, it is more likely that a problem is being resolved in context when leaders and decision makers are properly educated and experienced. A method for comparing people in these areas is included in this book in the appendices. The root cause of a problem (and thus a solution) will escape us unless we understand context. Even with the general context identified, part of the solution process is to ensure that we have identified the specific context needed for a more applicable solution. One of the primary defects in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations is that generic rules are derived from one set of specific contexts and then applied to another set of specific contexts. OSHA inspectors are simply not prepared to assess the overall safety of diverse industrial plants, but they have no problem identifying hundreds or thousands of potentially safety-related defects. They can cause a safe factory or plant to be shut down unfairly because they are not able to assess the in-context impact of potential defects. Keep in mind that context changes with time. Time is a central element of Technidigm-2000 since it impacts (1) context as well as (2) the achievement of solutions or programs through resources, components, and feedback. The cyclical social and progressive technical changes that have occurred over the past two centuries have been dramatic. Yet time's relationship to context is what created the need for this book on technical common sense in the first place. Technology changes during the past 50 years have occurred so quickly that we have had little time to evaluate their impact on society and to dampen society's constant cycles from good-and-heavenly to bad-and-devilish. But time seems to be running out, and we have to plan for the future, as did our own forefathers. The 12 Technidigm-2000 elements will play an important role in that future, but it is up to us to understand and apply them. Chapter 2 The Four Paradigm Boundaries The four border pieces of Technidigm-2000 are (1) being on-the-level, (2) having principles, (3) pursuing objectives within the limits of those principles, and (4) keeping things in context. These boundaries are critical to understanding the remaining eight pieces that I have elected to place in the center of the paradigm diagram. Most issues or problems should first be understood in terms of these four elements, and this basic understanding should be kept in mind as each of the other eight pieces is considered. As will be described in more detail on later pages, the eight internal pieces of the puzzle can be divided into two sets of four. The four pieces on the left are referred as levels (one through four), which culminate at level four in a solution, and the four pieces on the right are referred to as elements of that solution, the elements needed to execute the solution systematically. Together, levels and systems allow us to develop a comprehensive and highly effective approach to addressing almost any problem or issue. Yet, we must take care to protect the four bounding elements and revisit them frequently to make sure we continue to be on-the-level. As powerful as these key concepts are, levels and systems are useless unless the four bounding pieces are in place -- being on-the-level, applying principles consistently in achieving objectives, and getting things into the proper context of time and place. Each of these four bounding pieces is addressed in much more detail below. The approach I have taken is to provide a lot of reinforcement so you can learn the 12 elements thoroughly, such that they will become a normal part of your thinking -- your native tongue rather than a foreign language! Being "On-the-Level" You have often heard the phrase "on-the-level" used as a substitute for honesty. The personal quality of being on-the-level is closely related to one's integrity. Being on-the-level is probably derived from many centuries of using scales and weights to conduct trade. With or without the use of scales to conduct transactions, a merchant is either on-the-level or off-the-level. Once a buyer decides a merchant is off-the-level, future transactions with that merchant are not likely to occur. Likewise, if the buyer believes that the merchant is always on-the-level, the use of the scales became a formality rather than a necessity. Just as doctors practice their bedside manner, politicians practice being sincere. Politicians become experts at "looking good like a candidate should." Many news media personalities are also paid big salaries because they look good and appear to be sincere, conveying a sense of integrity that captures a bigger audience than that of the competition. Politicians and news media people have an advantage over doctors since they are just a little more detached from the focus or personal context of the individual citizen than are doctors from their patients. They also do not have to maintain detailed records, nor is it likely that anyone will file a malpractice suit against them, although they do worry a little about libel suits. Likewise, people in the entertainment industry are largely unaccountable simply because they admit to being actors. They have instant emotional capital among their fans, so they can influence a large number of people. Once again, technology plays a significant role in enabling actors to attain such influence. Properly used, that influence can be positive. When used simply to support a narrow or polarized special interest agenda, an actor's influence can be problematic. Like politicians and news media people, popular entertainers are difficult to hold accountable, especially in the absence of a critical framework such as Technidigm-2000. In contrast to doctors, politicians, entertainers, and news media personalities, industrial plant managers are likely to be held strictly accountable. In particular, nuclear plant managers can not afford to just look good, at least not for very long. They must operate their nuclear plants under the scrutiny of independent inspectors (I used to be one of them) who get paid to make long lists of discrepancies. If a nuclear plant manager or worker is not on-the-level, it is likely that they will be identified as contributing to the root causes of problems or potential problems. In one instance, a nuclear department manager merely suggested that our inspection team should ease up a bit on the inspection. He was unemployed before the day was out. He was held accountable for his poor approach to nuclear power plant safety. There are many such stories that could be told about the strict standards and accountability in the nuclear industry, but off-the-level people are found much more frequently in areas of context more familiar to the reader. Indeed, most of you could write your own book on people who are not on-the-level and not inclined to do the right thing (objectives) for the right reasons (principles). No Point Being Off-the-Level You do not often hear the phrase "off-the-level," but you immediately recognize that this refers to dishonesty. Being "on"-the-level is important because there is no point in trying to conduct business or solve problems in the midst of dishonesty. Thus, Technidigm-2000 stresses personal integrity, making it a central litmus test for those who want to participate in Technidigm-2000. How would you like to have dishonest people operating a nuclear power plant in your community? Fortunately, the nuclear industry has no tolerance at all for dishonest people. The same is true for the military. The tough part is identifying the individuals who should be removed. The need for honesty and integrity in human relations was much more evident a couple of hundred years ago when people depended on each other more than they depended on government. Being on-the-level was a litmus test for most situations, a test that quickly removed a lot of the confusion surrounding most problems. People were on-the-level, and their handshake was enough to seal a deal. A person's handshake was as important as a signature on a contract is today. Some would say that personal integrity was at one time more important than a signature. The fact is that integrity is just as important today as it ever was -- we have simply failed to recognize its importance and have failed to require it in a consistent manner. Being On-the-Level: A Matter of Intent Requiring integrity is not the same as requiring perfection. Perfection is merely enabled by the good intentions of honest people. Such people have good intentions, and they should be forgiven their honest errors more readily than people of questionable integrity. Integrity is a key part of Technidigm-2000 and is closely related to the "fifth dimension" of context. Integrity is needed to keep things in context or to apply experience properly in new situations. Integrity is one of the most powerful tools that we have available to us as human beings. We associate integrity with truth and honor, so we award people of integrity an initial presumption of being correct. They do not have to prove that they are correct on an issue -- we take it for granted just like we assume that the captain of a ship will make correct decisions, or at least the best decision humanly possible in a given context. This does not mean that mistakes will not be made. Most of us would say that it is foolish to fire people when they make honest mistakes. Who would have or could have taken better action, given the situation? Yet, if a captain takes the ship aground, the custom is, indeed, to hold that captain accountable. In the context of the navy (where I spent many years), even honest mistakes can cause the loss of many lives, so captains are held strictly accountable for those lives as well as for the proper and efficient use of their ship and its assets. As compared with non-military leaders, military leaders are far more likely to be presumed to have integrity, and they are also the easiest leaders to replace, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly. We can also look at it from the opposite direction. People of integrity are often viewed as being natural leaders, but they are also presumed to be good leaders as well. Their intentions are noble, so they command respect rather than suspicion. They do not have to defend everything they do. Those people who understand, subscribe to, and practice Technidigm-2000 are also presumed to have good intentions, so their mistakes are honest and not intentional. This does not mean that they are going to make perfect decisions. It does mean that they are more likely to make the best and fairest decision available at the time. No Greater Love Intent… We associate self sacrifice and integrity with military organizations simply because military people sometimes have to put their lives on the line in a way self-serving people would not. To the extent that military leaders rise to the top of a military organization due to their demonstrated integrity, especially in combat, we can easily sense that integrity. They have proven that they are willing to lose their lives for (at least) something. We presume that such a military leader would make a fine government leader, even with no previous government experience. The first president of the United States, George Washington, was a professional military officer and was known for his integrity. Dwight Eisenhower served as president in the 1950's as a result of his 1940's World War II military leadership and his aura of professional integrity. More recently, Colin Powell could have taken the same path with similar credentials, but he was reluctant to take on our modern political and media arena. Thus, we are stuck with professional politicians who place priority on getting elected rather than on the more noble aspirations of mankind. Not only do they not have the nobility needed to place their lives on the line like the pre-revolutionary colonial founding fathers, they actually shun the military. Getting a noble military leader to participate in the modern political arena will be much easier under Technidigm-2000. With enforcement by an increasingly significant segment of the voters, successful political candidates and political party campaigns will increasingly be based on integrity. While there will still be a significant portion of the voting public that makes foolish choices on election day, their numbers will continue to decrease as more people become aware of and apply Technidigm-2000. Different Kinds of Integrity Doctors are judged on what we might call absolute integrity. Politicians and the news media are expected to have at least some integrity, but they are judged primarily in relative terms. Also, politicians and the news media are often presenting us with information and decisions that are outside our personal knowledge and experience, so we may not realize what aspects are out-of-context or blown out of proportion. We are seldom able to assess the true integrity and competence of politicians and news media personalities even in relative terms. They are also much more practiced at simply looking good than we are at assessing their integrity, much less their competence. We seldom have the opportunity to get to know these people personally, so our judgment is easily manipulated. We hardly realize that most of the talking heads on television are simply reading words written by others on topics with which they themselves are unfamiliar and even total ignorant. Yet, these people apply their good looks and credibility in a highly influential daily news context, with television viewers being swayed to believe that the commentary is accurate, circumspect, balanced, and complete. They can literally say just about anything and get away with it, as long as a gross violation of ethics is not evident. In contrast, we deal with our doctors one-on-one and can more readily sense their true level of competence and forthrightness. It is also easier for us to find another doctor who is more competent and forthright than it is to find better politicians and news media personalities. We have more control. One Technidigm-2000 objective is to motivate politicians and the news media to act more like doctors when it comes to dealing with society's ills. While such a objective may be unattainable with regard to all politicians and all of the news media, we can hope to achieve an improvement trend across the political scene and in the media industry. Medicine is also an industry. Doctors are increasingly expected to perform their services within a profit-and-loss organization, and they are more vulnerable than most professionals to legal actions. Some doctors and health management organizations take illegal advantage of public health programs sponsored by the government. Without inherent integrity, it is relatively easy for those in the medical industry to steal from the public coffers. Likewise, many government contractors have figured out how to extract undeserved profits from the government. Indeed, the government seems to have established many avenues for off-the-level individuals and companies to thrive. When they are found out, we may have a scandal for the news media to talk about, and the attention thus given to such scandals ensures that those people who are defined as being responsible will be severely punished. Their careers are destroyed, and they may even go to jail for a long time and have to pay exorbitant fines. Such is the effect of public opinion as created by the media and as applied by judges and juries, sometimes at an emotional level rather than in proper context. In a technical society such as ours, it is increasingly difficult to find a qualified judge and a jury of one’s peers. Often, we can only claim such fairness out of habit rather than reality. Thus, the importance of integrity is readily apparent, but a consistent and comprehensive approach to demanding integrity is needed. Technidigm-2000's emphasis on being on-the-level places a premium on integrity. The other 11 elements allow each of us to achieve high levels of integrity and concurrently discourage the kind of nonsense, special interest influence, and accidental unfairness that permeates much of our modern, complex society. We mean well, but we can not do things very well simply because of a lack of the kind of integrity needed to actual realize that we probably do not have the correct answers to complex problems available to us in the news media or in the polls. On-the-Level Integrity Being human, we find it far less difficult to deal with issues of judgment when we are allowed to use simplifications, including the bad simplifications (out-of-context facts) as well as the good ones (trusting people based on their apparent integrity). Integrity is a virtue, so it becomes a valuable generalization or simplification that we can use to mold our opinions on issues that are well beyond our personal frame of reference or personal competence. When we know that we can depend on someone else's integrity to help us make decisions, we feel comfortable dealing cooperatively with them on even the most complex and obscure issues. It is often just too hard for each of us to deal personally with issues within the context of the properly developed, comprehensive set of facts. We are in a constant search for persons of integrity who at least claim to know what is right to do in various circumstances. Under Technidigm-2000 it becomes easier to sort out such claims, and it also becomes easier to identify people of integrity. Moreover, levels and self-assessment scores provide dramatic competency sorters and filters. If someone claims a self-assessment score higher than what they deserve, their integrity is questioned. If it is calculated to be low relative to others, those others will be given an advantage in terms of public acceptance of their opinions and any facts that they may offer relative to solving a problem or addressing an issue. The nuclear industry depends greatly on personal integrity and unreserved cooperation, as do the independent assessment teams that inspect nuclear plants and facilities. There are many different functional areas or departments at nuclear plants, and their interfaces with each other and with senior management are complex. An example of these interfaces is provided in the management assessment guidance that I helped to develop over a decade ago. Such assessments are applicable to many industries that have significant safety responsibilities and that must rely on individual integrity. Importantly, it is of little or no value to poll the public as to the propriety of building new nuclear power plants, on how they should be managed, or whether they are really as safe as they should be. There are probably less than ten thousand people in the entire world who would be able to come close to the right answer, and their answer today might be wrong a year later or a decade later. Such matters are just too far beyond the ability of the average citizen and even the most highly respected news media personalities to comprehend. The same could be said of most modern technologies or industries. It's Really All Relative In these times of individual specialization, we have to rely constantly on an individual's integrity to get things done properly. When neither side of an issue or in a political campaign can claim much personal integrity, then we often have to resort to assessing relative amounts of integrity. Professional politicians know what is required to get elected just like each of us knows what is required to be successful in our own professions. They know that (1) how they look on camera and (2) simple name recognition are usually more important than their ability or integrity. If a politician looks really good, many voters can be convinced that a politician has a lot of integrity even when surrounded by contrary evidence. This is especially easy when we consider that politicians only have to create an illusion of having more integrity than the most popular opposing candidate. An appearance of integrity is a lot easier to develop than true integrity, so it should not surprise us that some of the most successful politicians merely appear to have integrity. Indeed, true integrity often gets in the way of developing an appearance of integrity. In our sound-bite society, the appearance of integrity has become more effective than true integrity, especially for successful politicians. Bill Clinton's raised eyebrows and ambiguous language convince us that he will always do the right thing regardless of the issue, setting the standard in some respects for all professional politicians. Yet, we suspect that such integrity is pretty shallow and self serving. Yet, with the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000 being used by such politicians, they will have a lot of opportunities to demonstrate their leadership and integrity simply by using these elements routinely as part of their vocabulary and approach to solving problems. We seek to improve the fairness of our perceptions of the integrity to be found in others using Technidigm-2000, motivating even politicians to do the right thing at the right time. Successful politicians seeking re-election find it even easier to appear to be honest, capable, and knowledgeable simply by avoiding responsibility for what went wrong during their tenure. With incumbency-based name recognition, most politicians can get re-elected just by maintaining appearances and never admitting to any faults. Politicians having integrity are more easily defeated because they will admit their mistakes. Thus, without a direct emphasis on integrity and real substance, we are likely to have unscrupulous and unqualified politicians running things. On the other side of that coin, it is easy enough for the news media and pollsters to create an impression that an incumbent has made or is making mistakes. As described in more detail later in this book, the news media exist and thrive by being able to report change rather than reporting on the status quo. A prime example for 2006 is the notion that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq since no weapons of mass destruction were found. The more elegant assessment that, if such weapons (especially nuclear weapons) had been found we would have failed to invade that country in time, is lost in the rush to find fault and to seek to replace all the leaders who are in place. Indeed, even more elegant an argument could be made that the invasion of Iraq eliminated a nuclear weapons development program once and for all, a program started in the 1970s and which cost the Iraqi people hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly wasted on trying to build isotope separation facilities that they could not get to work, but with a continuing clandestine program that had perhaps only been delayed during the 1990s. With regard to keeping the former Iraq regime from acquiring nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we could make the case that it was a great success, especially as compared with subsequent developments in Iran and in North Korea. Yet, the news media and the opposing politicians are eager to find fault with how all three of these countries were managed in terms of their nuclear weapons programs. Under Technidigm-2000, it is much more difficult to change principles and objectives to suit the special interests of the few, and more attention has to be paid to the differing context of each situation. With differing context, the level four solution could easily be totally different. It is just that we sometimes fail to articulate the solution or, as in the case of issues involving nuclear weapons, it is in the best interest of everyone to keep those solutions secret. Within the realm of applying secrecy on behalf of the interests of a nation, those with the most integrity will keep the secrets better, and the same people will seek to find the best solution to these important issues on our behalf. Thus, we need to elect the best leaders that we can in a democracy, and give them the benefit of the doubt on issues and problems that require or depend on secrecy to be effective. Under Technidigm-2000, this kind of election and reliance process is facilitated. Insisting on Integrity and Ability One Technidigm-2000 objective is to minimize the need for assessing relative amounts of integrity. This can be accomplished in part if we expand our insights by adding to integrity the relative levels of knowledge and experience -- that is, relative wisdom. Not only should politicians and government officials have good intentions to do the right thing, they should be able to do so. With this complementary need in mind, we can develop a simple quantitative framework within which to assess ability and integrity. As long as it is applied consistently, a comparative assessment process is almost as good as an absolute assessment process. It would be a great service to all of us if the news media expended more of their resources on generating objective assessments of political candidates rather than simply tearing down those who are up and building up those who are down. In the nuclear industry, one goal is to improve each nuclear plant's safety record continuously. This requires positive recognition for good performance records and negative consequences for not-so-good performance records. Under Technidigm-2000, time and feedback elements (discussed more in later sections of this book) are used to generate positive recognition and negative feedback quantitatively, making integrity a significant component of one's qualifications for any leadership role. If we are able to assess integrity quantitatively, and two people are about the same, we must look at experience and education in identifying our most capable and deserving leaders. If the levels of integrity are significantly different, we may perhaps decide that, at least for the people being compared, education and experience do not need to be assessed. Unfortunately, it is far too difficult to assess integrity, so sometimes it is useful to assess everything else first. We may give credit to some for military experience and credit to others for corporate experience, inferring some measure of integrity based on their actions that reflect integrity. We would give a medal of honor winner an edge on integrity based on military actions. We would give a corporate president a few points for initiating an expensive recall of a defective product that otherwise might not have been found out by the consumer. Each political candidate is already eager to release such information, and we only need a way of using it, a way provided by Technidigm-2000 thinking and assessments. Basic Integrity Honesty used to be important and even critical to a person's social position and employment. Many view the simpler times before the explosion of technology as more honest times. People did not even bother to lock their doors. The modern era of technology brought us advanced communications and an awareness that not everyone is as good as we might have assumed in the past. With technology came a worldly awareness that made people a little more suspicious of others. It became easier to move to another town, state, or country, so our neighbors became strangers. In conjunction with this increased awareness of the world, we also somehow became less aware of our own neighbors and neighborhoods. Who knows whether a Frankenstein or serial killer is at the door or in the neighborhood? Maybe the people down the street bought their house and cars using drug money. Even more alarming is the fact that it is now possible for a total stranger living in another country to steal from us over the Internet. Moreover, they are dedicated to doing so. It used to be that people viewed their world more from the narrow confines of their own neighborhood, their schools, their local businesses, and their religious communities. Most of their experience was on-the-level. Dishonesty and deception existed, but they were not of constant concern, even when dealing with strangers. If it was not totally natural to be honest, it was natural to be nonviolent and to participate positively in society. Whether or not this is true today seems to be obscured by our view of society, a view distorted by television, movie, and computer game violence. Perhaps it is a matter of innocence lost. Once lost, it may never be regained. What remains may perhaps be better managed and controlled, but we have to seek out ways to do so. Technidigm-2000 facilitates such principles and objectives. Movies and Television Yet the world is largely driven by other principles and objectives. People view their world from the broader social and emotional environment created in the profit-and-loss world of commercialized technology, particularly movies and television. From my own experience of over 60 years, I can note for the ready that I believe we started a steep decline in moral values (and thus integrity) in about 1975, if not somewhat before. We had to segregate entertainment into different moral categories, although it has never been quite proper to state this openly. Nevertheless, I doubt that many would argue that the best social values are found in G rated entertainment as compared with all the other ratings. Yet we as humans are not that eager to seek G rated movies out when we can find other entertainment that strikes us as being more entertaining, if less socially redeeming. More modest societies around the world are even more shocked by our crudeness and our capitalistic bent on exporting our violence and immodest sexuality. Still other countries simply wish that they could keep up with the U.S. on generating profits from vulgarity, brutality, and sensuality in the entertainment arena. Still other countries are so bad that no one needs to go to the movies since they experience such things everyday in real life. Some radical elements in come countries use our relative level of decadence against us, even if we fail to acknowledge that we have such a problem. Some of them have declared war on us and intend to destroy us totally. We call them terrorists and they call us the Great Satan, mistaking us for those few among us who are without integrity and honor. Each is a cultural minority, perhaps, but the two minorities are making life miserable for the rest of us, and neither should be acceptable to us. Thus, even if the U.S. population perceives itself as morally upstanding (which I think it does, fairly erroneously), we are certainly not winning friends around the world by exporting our kind of entertainment and other decaying value streams. We are ready to admit a decline in values to ourselves but do not recognize it in the context of the world. Yet no one really wants the government to impose limits on morality. We will likely have to impose them from within by simply learning to shun anything that is not G rated. I do not intend to hold my breath until that happens, of course. Nevertheless, Technidigm-2000 forces us to lay out what principles we think are important and what objectives we really want to seek. If we choose to excuse the few Great Satans among us, we need to be ready to share the disdain of others in the world with such people. If we choose to establish ourselves as defenders of all things that are not G rated, we may have a long way to go to achieve victory. If we choose to globalize without become a good global neighbor, we will have trouble with some of those neighbors. It is up to us, not to our government, since in a democracy we essentially are the same as our government. Our leaders often take a poll to see which way we are leaning. It may be time to lean in another direction. Each of us has to decide such things. Technidigm-2000 can help sort the facts out and, perhaps, be used to move in a direction that is more useful to us as a country. What Do We Perceive as Being Entertainment? Well, you already know the answer to that. Dishonesty and deception are depicted as being everywhere, even if the good guy usually wins. Violence and murder are common themes, with whatever other lesser offenses can be fitted into the scenario. These are counterweighted a bit with interesting characters who serve as the good guys with whom we can identify and feel good about ourselves as we are entertained with this material. Indeed, with increased pressure on movies and television programming to contain some redeeming value, the current trend is also to include some gratuitous moralizing near the conclusion. While concluding violent and immoral stories with countervailing scenes of morality is a nice trend, the net effect is to excuse and promote more titillation to achieve higher ratings and profits. This is our culture at this point, and we need to decide whether we want it to continue like this. Most of us find it difficult to discourage titillation, yet it is not good for our children or our culture, which is changing relatively quickly. Our emotional weaknesses override our logic and common sense. Even with the increase in television shows that purport to represent angels and even cartoon depictions of God, one wonders if the writers have sufficient religious background to present an appropriately religious or socially beneficial theme. "Touched by an Angel" seemed to encourage the development of character and integrity. Where did that show go, anyway? There remains a great deal of controversy over other television shows that are titillating in every conceivable direction, seeking improved ratings. This is especially true of those that suggest homosexuality should be considered a normal lifestyle. We have now come to accept homosexuality on television more than we really accept it in real society. Comedy shows are particularly able to promote homosexuality, as long as the net impression is at least neutral, if not positive. Certainly, no show would dare suggest homosexuality is a bad thing. Indeed, it is now difficult to imagine a news story or television show presenting homosexuality in a negative light. Yet, it is easy to find people ready to condemn homosexuality on religious grounds. Those kinds of polls do not make good news, perhaps. Moreover, perhaps we should poll people in other countries to see if they think as we do. They often do not, of course. The change in our attitudes in the are of entertainment was perhaps enabled by technology since it is now much easier for small groups to influence society, especially the relatively inexperienced thirty-ish entertainment people among us. Also, the news media eagerly cover even small group activities such as marches and protests, which are encouraged by that coverage to make a lot of noise for the evening news. With a sympathetic presentation, the news media can start the process that results in forcing society to change its view of certain topics. Those who stick with the conservative views are treated less sympathetically and become the new object of ridicule. It is as if conservative people have no right to be conservative. Liberal activism and liberal changes to society are the life blood of the news media and of television in general. • If it is exciting, it is news. If it is exciting news, it draws viewers. • If it is conservative, it is not news. If it is conservative news, it does not draw viewers. With these simple rules in mind, it is easy to see why character and integrity are difficult to promote in society. Yet, these rules make it much easier to understand how powerful the forces of degradation and violence can be when coupled with the forces of commercialism. We now have to almost apologize for expecting non-violent television shows and shows consistent with the moral fabric of almost every religion or social order created by mankind to date. It is the purpose of Technidigm-2000 to help us to come to grips with both the good and the bad in society, defining each as objectively as possible. Technidigm-2000 provides a framework that enables us to deal with modern communications and the diverse motivations that come before us as sound-bite speed and disappear like bullets into a target. With Technidigm-2000, we can catch the bullets in mid-flight, examine them, and even turn them around. Integrity and the Media Movies and television are pretend and not reality. We should be more concerned with real-world problems and issues. With modern communications, the news media provide nearly instantaneous accounts of every problem in the world, often before all of the facts are available. Pressure is placed on police and government authorities to solve crimes quickly and with the expertise of a television detective. Moreover, the approach of the news media is often to infer higher expectations for the performance of honest and upright people than for the ways of dishonest and perverted people, who are often viewed as "victims" of a corrupt or biased society. Thus, it was far easier for Bill Clinton to survive impeachment with his character flaws that it would have been for Ronald Reagan. Sometimes people of integrity also become temporary victims of society, but they do not make it a life-long profession and an excuse to fail. Their shortcomings are always newsworthy events since we are more shocked by chips in diamonds than by chips in coals. It is not so much a problem that news media people tend to be liberal, there are just more diamonds in ancient rock formations than in river mud. People of low integrity simultaneously become part of the problem as well as part of the explanation of the problem. They are reliant on their own corruption and on the corruption in society rather than being self-reliant. It is easy to blame society's corruption while ignoring one's own corruption. Honest people of integrity do not spend their lives blaming society for their problems. They are intent on becoming self-reliant regardless of the obstacles. They are the diamonds. With so many people seeking to explain why people are corrupt, the fact that they are corrupt seems to become less important. That is, corruption is largely ignored unless the corrupt individual is supposed to be one of the "good guys." Interestingly, when someone is viewed as a defender of society's supposed victims, that person's integrity seems less vulnerable to being held to high standards. They may hold a political office normally reserved for the good guys, but they are not held accountable to the level that defenders of goodness and self-reliance are held. Thus, we are less disappointed and less surprised when an individual of obvious low character simply conducts himself in ways that seem normal to him. In the United States, there are so many personal freedoms and economic opportunities that it is difficult for people in other countries to understand why there are so many supposed victims. Self-reliance is all that is needed to be successful in a free country, but there is so much government-reliance in the United States that many people are led away from self-reliance. Government assistance becomes viewed as a life-long right that carries no obligation to strive to be self-reliant. This expectation is being turned around, but more for financial reasons than for common sense reasons. In the absence of a foundation built on principles, principles are only applied when they are convenient. When they are not convenient, we are asked to be flexible and understanding. Fortunately, using the Technidigm-2000 framework, we are able to be very understanding. Dishonesty is easier than honesty. It is the "path of least resistance," so it grows. It also is surrounded by excuses, some of which even make sense within the confusion of modern society. For example, income tax forms are harder to fill out when you are trying to be honest and law-abiding. Honest people are tempted to be dishonest, and they certainly suspect that many other people are not as honest as they. Successful politicians and lawyers are presumed and expected to be skilled at being dishonest. Chances are the unsuccessful politicians and lawyers are more honest than successful politicians. Technidigm-2000 turns this around. Being on-the-level can be morally fulfilling, but it can also be a great disadvantage in a society that tolerates dishonesty. If that society also has all of the tools provided by modern technology, honesty and integrity can not only be a disadvantage, they can be a real hardship. It becomes acceptable to move to Canada rather than be drafted into the army. After all, everyone knows that corrupt politicians cause wars and that Rambo will eventually regret fighting for his country. In spite of the current media-based culture, most people are really quite honest. There are more people in prison, but there are also more people who have never committed a serious crime. Yet, "the tail is wagging the dog" when our perceptions are that dishonesty and a lack of integrity are the norm. The bad guys represent only a small percentage of the population, but they seem to be getting all of the attention. Under Technidigm-2000, honesty and integrity are again the norm for society. The importance of being on-the-level within the Technidigm-2000 problem solving process is apparent in that those who are not on-the-level are not allowed to be part of the process. Honesty and integrity are rewarded, sometimes with the aid of technology. No one needs to go to a dishonest used car dealer when there is an honest one available. No one has to vote for a dishonest politician when there is an honest one available. The standards for honesty and integrity change to conform to the expectations of society. The bulk of society simply needs to have a means for expressing and enforcing its expectations. The "silent majority" needs a voice. Technidigm-2000 is that voice. The Prime Task: Always Being On-the-Level The first task in the Technidigm-2000 process is to continually ensure that all of the players are on-the-level. They might occasionally be wrong, but they are ready to admit their mistakes when presented with facts, and then they move on. They even admit their mistakes when it is apparent that no one would ever find out that they made them. They do not have a pattern of making and hiding mistakes, being found out, and then seeking forgiveness. With modern technology, it is now possible to label each person of integrity as being on-the-level. Those who consistently demonstrate that they have earned such a label are included in the database of on-the-level people. Modern social attitudes make such a database seem at first to be repugnant and unmanageable, but that was before Technidigm-2000. We are likely to associate qualities such as honor and integrity with a youthful George Washington admitting that he cut down the cherry tree. The other "Founding Fathers," especially those who signed the U. S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are presumed by most of us to have been on-the-level and, thus, to have had integrity. They risked their fortunes and lives for relatively abstract concepts. They are also viewed as being well educated and experienced leaders. They are models of integrity even today, perhaps more honored than they deserve in some respects, but still highly esteemed. While these character and ability presumptions regarding the Founding Fathers may be arguable, democratic governments are founded upon and dependent on the collective good intentions of the governed, intentions that are supposed to be reflected in elected officials. At the end of the 1990s, it is evident to many people that these perceived standards for political and government leaders are no longer as high as they were when the Founding Fathers established the government of the United States. What Is Integrity in a Technological Era? One reason that integrity is lower in priority is that we have lost track of what it is, who has it, how it is used, and what it means to a technological society and democracy. Other than the basic traits of a few very distinguished religious leaders, there is no general understanding of integrity even in a non-technological framework. We are not confident in our ability to determine who has basic integrity, so many of us make an assumption one way or the other, until proof emerges. Thus, the question of basic integrity relative to any issue or situation can elicit a spectrum of responses. Moreover, in a technically oriented society, integrity should not be limited to our basic personal traits. This means that we can have layers of opposing responses piled on top of our basic responses as to the nature of integrity and who has it. Integrity refers to notions of completeness as well as firmness relative to being prepared to deal well with a question or issue. Since people seldom can perfect their abilities and instantly deal perfectly with every question or issue, we often choose our leaders relative to each other. When we fail to understand the layers of experience and ability related to integrity in a technological society, it is easy to mis-select leaders. The evidence of this mis-selection may not emerge for years, and even then we may not recognize why we failed to select properly. We then may too easily justify our failure to select properly by claiming that we were simply voting against the other candidate, avoiding the issue of positive selection of leaders. In the nuclear energy field, our popular notions of personal integrity are fundamental but not sufficient for proper operation of a nuclear power plant. This is because our popular notions of integrity are limited to good intentions and fail to consider the increasingly important technology-related contributions to the integrity environment. It takes a lot more than a "nice guy" who has been to college to run a nuclear plant in conformance with society's needs. The same can be said of most industries. The Incomplete Manager It is increasingly difficult to have not only basic human honor against which to measure integrity, but also sufficient knowledge and experience such that integrity may be applied to the complete set of functions needed. Yes, there are additional and important integrity pieces that involve knowledge, experience, and even an appropriate industrial or interpersonal culture. A good nuclear safety culture is fundamental for nuclear power plants. Yet, there are some nuclear plant managers and nuclear oversight organization managers who have never worked in that culture. They may have integrity in terms of personal honor and good intentions, but they fall short in understanding issues of technical knowledge, experience, and the unique culture required for success. When a manager having an incomplete portfolio of integrity is too high up in the organization, it can become very difficult for others to keep the organization on track and to ensure success. These incomplete managers can have a highly developed sense of their own personal integrity, but they seldom provide evidence of any technical integrity because they do not have the knowledge and experience to form the basis for technical integrity. They are simply managers who have peripheral technical knowledge and experience. Incomplete manager spawn whistle blowers. Most whistle blowers not only have the basic personal integrity needed in their industry, they also have the technical and cultural integrity that most directly supports that industry's objectives. It is up to senior managers and leaders to establish and maintain a climate of integrity throughout the organization in which all members are comfortable raising questions and getting issues resolved responsibly. When someone is forced to play the role of whistle blower, it should immediately be evident that incomplete managers exist in the organization. This should be enough to cause an intensive reflection on technological common sense within the organization. Sometimes leadership is so powerful that whistle blowers are intimidated into silence. Many commercial nuclear plants and even nuclear weapon plants were supposed to be "saved" by retired Navy nuclear admirals, but most fell on their faces because they did not have the technical insights needed for technical integrity. They relied too much on leadership by intimidation, mimicking the highly esteemed Admiral Hyman Rickover, but bringing less than a full measure of technical ability and, indeed, less than a full understanding of the model, no-fault nuclear safety culture instituted within the Navy nuclear propulsion program. Thus, the absence of whistle blowers in an organization does not imply an adequate culture or adequate levels of technological integrity. You may still have incomplete managers running the organization. It only takes one of them in the organizational chain of command to set up conditions that could lead to disaster. This is why the organization's culture is so important. Most nuclear plant managers would have a difficult time passing a nuclear safety culture test, but almost none of its critics could even recognize the importance of the individual questions. Perfect Integrity In the following discussion, integrity is defined in even broader terms, and those broad terms help us to understand the narrower concept of personal integrity. Developing an understanding of integrity in its broadest sense is one area in which it is very useful to borrow directly from technology. Integrity in technology is less ambiguous than it is in human relations. If computer chip has a single flaw, even one that shows up only under extreme circumstances, the chip's integrity is largely destroyed. If we held people to the same standards as we hold computer chips, how many would meet the standard? We hope that more people would meet the standard than is indicated by the popular media, but there is a reason that we can expect things to be more perfect than people. The integrity of things is largely established when they are made. People have to establish their integrity continuously! Pretend for a moment that you do not understand this abstract thing we call integrity. Such ignorance occurs all the time in engineering circles. The designers and operators of the failed nuclear power reactor at Three Mile Island (TMI Unit 2) believed that they had done their best, right up to and including the melting of their nuclear fuel. The TMI plant was designed with effective containment buildings, so while a series of unexpected problems led to the meltdown of one of the plant's reactor cores, most of the radioactivity was contained. The TMI plant design had a kind of integrity that we seldom consider. It was not perfect, but it was adequate relative to the 1986 event at Chernobyl. TMI was the best we could do given the information available at the time of design and construction. The feedback (on of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements) from TMI's core meltdown was used to improve reactor plant design safety and operating procedures. Feedback allows technology to approach perfection - - design integrity. Feedback can help managers and their organizations to approach perfection and to become more complete. Incomplete Integrity At TMI, design integrity success compensated for failures in plant operational and maintenance integrity, even though the technical records and rationale behind the plant's "design basis" had already been discarded or lost. The nuclear industry refers to these compensating qualities as defense-in-depth. Similarly, the design success of the U.S. Constitution has often compensated for our failure to operate the resulting government as intended. We have been slow to understand and maintain the "design intent" of the Constitution. Technidigm-2000 provides a vehicle for turning this situation around. The designers and operators of the failed nuclear power reactor at Chernobyl also believed they were doing the right thing. Yet, the Chernobyl plant was designed without effective containment buildings, leaving little room for human error. The Chernobyl design integrity was faulty. The defense-in-depth was not as strong as at TMI. Then a Chernobyl supervisor, in the absence of an adequate nuclear safety culture as well, deliberately overrode a safety interlock while testing one of the Chernobyl reactors. The reactor core melted, and large amounts of fission-product radioactivity were released. Interestingly, the integrity of the Soviet reactor plant design conformed with the integrity of the Soviet governmental system, much like the integrity of the American reactor design and government conformed with each other. Integrity for a Lifetime The radioactivity released from the core fission products was largely contained at Three Mile Island, while the radioactivity released from Chernobyl contaminated most of the world. The difference between the two results was the amount of integrity associated with the technical design (relatively fixed) and operation (people) of each of the plants. Integrity of the original design, the integrity of construction, operation, testing, and maintenance all play a part in the definition of engineering integrity. The failure to maintain any of these factors impacting the integrity of a nuclear plant at any point in its life cycle can open the door to failure. Likewise, constitutional government requires careful design, testing, operation, and maintenance. We are its operators and maintainers. Our job is continuous. The fact that the Chernobyl accident and its release of great mounts of radioactivity to the atmosphere were was kept secret for a few days reflects on Russian governmental integrity. It was not until scientists in other countries detected the radioactive cloud and stated the obvious that the source of the radioactivity was acknowledged. The Russians were forced to admit that they had released a large quantity of radioactivity into the atmosphere. When you are forced to be honest and forthright, your integrity is questionable. Such questions remain for a lifetime, including the lifetime of a country. Although it falls within the most common understanding of integrity, forthrightness is only one aspect of integrity. The problem at TMI was acknowledged immediately. Nevertheless, the argument over the severity of the TMI radioactivity release continues as a result of the polarized interests involved -- pro-nuke and anti-nuke. Polarization leads to extremism, which almost always takes us off-the-level. Problematic Integrity Has Root Causes In engineering projects, engineers look for "root causes" of problems. When they find something that is less than what was needed, they have also found a weakness in the overall project integrity. The problem might be with the original design principles used many years ago, or it might be something that happened today for the first time. Nevertheless, the fact that we did not anticipate a new problem is as much a failure of a program's integrity as our failure to plan for what we knew would happen. We must allow margins for planning error and lay out programs and solution systems that are conservative enough to so hat we can maintain control of our enterprises. The root cause of many problems is that we failed to plan ahead. Planning ahead is part of integrity. Time (one of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements) must be considered in most decisions. This is a difficult task because no one can fully anticipate what might happen in the future. Yet, this is what we expect of nuclear plant designers. They meet our expectations by providing design safety margins. Their responsibilities for creating a design of high integrity are broad and circumspect. Likewise, societal institutions require a broad and circumspect definition and implementation of integrity. One difference between TMI and Chernobyl was a society that is able to demand integrity of its leaders and one that is not. In a democracy, the people expect more from government oversight organizations such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and they generally get something for these expectations. Indeed, the NRC is almost as interested in trends that could lead to problems as they are in problems that have already occurred. As in most situations, it is better to prevent a problem than to have to deal with it. Trends in Integrity The trends in society and in politics are also important in heading off major problems. The problem is that trends are not as easily recognized when the standards of performance are allowed to deteriorate. Negative trends become acceptable when the standards of performance slide. At some point, the problems get so severe that the lower standards are no longer acceptable, and the trend may cause reversals before a major problem. In a constitutional democracy, the people can cause such a reversal if they recognize the problem in time and take action. This can become more difficult when technology accelerates social changes. Technidigm-2000 helps us to recognize problems over time by recognizing time as a key element in dealing with issues. Nevertheless, the trending or planning issue is only one aspect of our modern, technology-based, societal integrity. Even in a democracy success depends on understanding the problem and facing the facts of the situation. Following the TMI accident, the NRC required all of the U. S. nuclear plants to reconstitute and validate their design integrity documentation. Many nuclear utility companies simply no longer knew how their nuclear plants had been designed. They had thrown out or lost their basic design information, so they could not maintain the plant in conformance with the designers' intentions. The NRC required them to face the facts of the situation. It was a very expensive requirement, but it reestablished the design integrity of the U. S. nuclear power industry. Nuclear plant operational and maintenance issues will continue and also must be addressed with continued high levels of integrity. Importantly, nuclear plant integrity was reestablished and improved by identifying and elevating previously neglected but fundamental safety principles. Engineering principles have evolved over thousands of years, but the integrity of their implementation is now more difficult and expensive due to increases in project size and complexity, not to mention the significant increase in the hazards that result from failure. Not surprisingly, the identification and continuing support of principles are closely related to integrity, whether that integrity is in design of things or in the character of individuals. What we learn from all of this is the purpose of integrity. The purpose of integrity is to implement and maintain principles even when it is difficult to do so. Unless we understand the principles being pursued, the effects of time, and the importance of feedback within margins of safety, our notion of integrity can wander significantly. This is true in any situation where integrity is an issue. Principles and integrity are inseparable in good technical projects, and they are inseparable in good people and good social projects. Understanding Personal Integrity If you think the need for personal integrity is obvious, no one will disagree with you. The hard part is determining whether personal integrity is present. The managers who decided to launch the Challenger space shuttle the day it exploded were full of integrity, but they did not understand how to apply their integrity in a technologically complex situation. They had to learn the hard way, at the expense of the lives of others. When the Challenger exploded, we all learned that being a manager does not bestow a manager with more technical wisdom than that of the cognizant engineer. It was a single engineer near the bottom of the organization who understood the specific limitations of the equipment, in this case the temperature limits of a critical seal or o-ring. There was little time and no effective means of expressing those limitations to the decision makers. Technidigm-2000 provides tools with which such complex and time-critical situations can be addressed more effectively in the future. The decision to launch the Challenger was probably made on-the-level, but at level one (a manager's opinion) rather than level four (a fully informed and experienced decision maker). To the extent that the manager's decision to launch was made due to inappropriate considerations, the decision was off-the-level. Assuming that we are on-the-level, levels constitute four more of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements. Many people believe that the engineering design integrity of the complex space shuttle launch system became a secondary consideration to the politics of the moment. Reversed priorities occur all the time, but they seldom lead to such a dramatic result as an explosion and loss of life. Much more often the politics of the moment merely suppress the thin threads of integrity such that adverse trends in relative to established standards develop. Major adverse consequences that can be deferred are likely to be deferred. When long term trends are involved, accountability for those adverse consequences becomes obscured by the passage of time and by changes in context. Thus, a good solution system to an issue must consider a range of integrity-related concepts for the label of good to be true. If we are to achieve good solutions, we first need good personal integrity in those who develop and control those solutions. With personal integrity in place, principles can be applied in the proper solution system context over the appropriate period of time. When these elements are properly coordinated, adverse consequences are more easily avoided. Bigger Challenges Changing ourselves such that we understand matters such as integrity at a more profound level is a significant challenge. Such self-sponsored improvements are fully within our control. Yet the challenge of self change pales in the face of the difficulty of changing society to conform with the deepest human values. We find ourselves not wanting to change the titillation of profit driven television, even when we know that it is probably contributing directly to social dysfunctions that affect every family. We all like to be titillated and amused. Even if we can eventually get to the point of wanting to change socially debasing influences, they will not change without the presence of pure rage. There is and always has been a social consensus that illegal drugs are socially disruptive. We have failed to stop drugs because there is no rage in our hearts sufficient to overcome the greed of those who profit from illegal drugs. While most people can and would drive drug dealers away from their own neighborhoods, they are not likely to go into the neighborhoods of those cannot or will not do so. Just like the issue of immoral television, we lack the level of rage needed to motivate our own effective actions in countering illegal drug sales in our neighborhoods and even in our schools. We leave such things in the hands of ineffective politicians and their "programs." The Good and the Bad On the less optimistic side, technology has taken our formerly agrarian culture down a garden path, and it has also provided new tools for dishonest people. Shady deals and scams have become more sophisticated but easier for dishonest people to dream up and to implement. Most of us have received a phone call from a computer searching for people with low levels of sales resistance. News stories about imaginative scams are frequent. Anyone having an email address on the Internet is constantly victimized by computer generated email advertising of the latest get rich scams as well as multi-millions of email addresses cheap. Most of the bad stuff in the world is facilitated by high tech computer communications equipment far more easily and at less cost than the relatively low tech communications that it replaces. Overt scams are easier to protect against than other forms of emergent, technology-based social ills. Vulnerable people yield more easily to temptation as obstacles decrease. It used to be that people had to be a little drunk before their inhibitions could be circumvented. Now their inhibitions evaporate as soon as they log on to the Internet. It will take a while, but we will eventually need creative ways to impose a responsible social framework on the Internet, unless we are willing to continue to suffer under the whims of the socially irresponsible. Impressionable young people are exposed through television, movies, and networked computers to a diverse range of imaginative plots, special effects, and unconstrained information, including visual presentations that we would be embarrassed to show our family members. The visual special effects require state-of-the-art technology and, to be fully used, the special effects often require an action theme based on violence and highly imaginative visual displays, which are now created quickly, realistically, and relatively cheaply with the aid of computers. In the absence of responsibility and accountability, the quest for money overrides principles of morality. Responsibility and accountability are consistent attributes of people of integrity, and inconsistent attributes of others. Thus, in the absence of integrity, immorality is promoted by greed. While this is obvious to most of us, it needs to be stated so that the polarized views of self-interest groups are kept in perspective. Without integrity, self-interest groups are free to claim freedom of speech and ignore the social responsibility that comes with such freedoms. Technidigm-2000 provides a framework for dealing with social irresponsibility even on the Internet. Experience and Common Sense Our notion of common sense is distorted by what we experience, especially when our exposure to new experiences is not undertaken from the perspective of an effective common sense framework. As a result of the greed-based violence on television and in the movies, we locked our doors and avoided our neighbors. Morality interfered with progressive entertainment, so immorality became more acceptable and even expected. As a result, society's fall became real rather than pretend. As mentioned above, the Internet has now proven that it is a means of accelerating that fall even more. Again, not surprisingly, Technidigm-2000 can help in all of these social decay environments. We must be able to distinguish between the artificial world of entertainment and real-life problems and their solutions. Hollywood movie and television heroes are not real-life heroes. Entertainment stars make good political candidates, social advisors, and leaders when they have the necessary integrity, experience, and education, just like everyone else. Yet, popular actors and actresses may not have anything more than name recognition going for them when they try to guide us on what to do about everything from abortion to nuclear waste. We even get environmental-quality advice from Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer dabbling in politics. At least he has established a foundation in common sense, albeit presented in a flamboyant manner. Under Technidigm-2000, people and things are readily classified as either on-the-level or off-the-level. Where there is disagreement, people find themselves discussing integrity, making integrity a goal and not just an abstract notion. For each of the electronic media, there should be two classifications or, where feasible, two parallel channels. One classification or channel would be off-the-level and one on-the-level. One would reflect integrity and one would reflect everything else. Ambiguity would be minimized because disputes would be resolved at level four as a form of arbitration, at least for issues of importance. In the battle of good and evil, good still has a fighting chance! Real Life Today vs. Options for Tomorrow Given the current state of society, it seems quite unrealistic to believe that it is possible for good to triumph over evil. Nevertheless, in a democracy we have the option of arranging things to conform with the will of the people. We seldom exercise that option, but it exists. People have the power of the ballot box and the power of capitalism to help them exercise their options. Technidigm-2000 makes it a lot easier to exercise these preferred options, whether good or bad, by taking advantage of political action and capitalism. For example, if we had two Internets, one could be on-the-level and the other could be off-the-level. Depending on which one was supported by the most people, the other would diminish. IBM could not advertise on both Internets because being on-the-level in "mutually exclusive" with being off-the-level. From a more practical perspective, the current Internet could be separated into two separate entities. Thus, email could arrive in your inbox unsolicited only on the off-the-level side of the Internet, assuming that it was viewed as inappropriate on the other side. This is a safe assumption because each of us could identify which types of email we would like to have, making on-line marketing more focused and efficient. Some of this is already in place in the form of routine news and similar mailings sent on the current Internet. From the Technidigm-2000 perspective, the on-the-level side of the Internet should apply the 12 common sense elements described in this online book. Forcing integrity into the Internet environment is not easy, but it is not necessarily hard, either. Many Internet providers are looking for a gimmick to distinguish themselves from others. Remember, if we can think of something that computers should be able to do, they can most likely be programmed to do it, and any capability that we may dream up may already exist. Real Off-the-Level People Described In real life, the number of victims has increased over the past few decades with the number of criminals, and the number of corrupt and manipulative politicians has increased with the demise of the popular basis for common sense. The same technology that created all of the titillation and excitement and heightened concerns for personal safety expanded as well in the political arena. Politics became a profession for more and more people. Political consultants and spin doctors became full-time jobs. As everyone locked their doors against the criminals, they also became more skeptical about politicians. In the case of criminals, television crime fighting and detective stories became abundant. Specialized news programs proliferated on the non-fiction, real-life side of crime, providing some balance in terms of demonstrating that the bad guys do not always win. Technology thus provided its own, partial social antidote for technology's over stimulation of our human weaknesses and evil spirits. Most of television crime fighting remains fiction, so the happy endings are not so difficult to achieve. Yet, even happy endings only lead us to conclude that it could be worse and that we need parental controls built into television sets. Moreover, even when the good guys win, some of the good guys are portrayed as having character traits that push the envelope of acceptability, again based on ratings and greed rather than goodness. As the envelope is pushed year after year, acceptability changes due to familiarity, resulting in more pushes. These elements of context and time are addressed within the Technidigm-2000 framework, but the underlying issues are more related to principles and objectives. Unfortunately, the key voices being heard in the entertainment arena are those of polarized, off-the-level, self-interest groups. This needs to be changed and change has already started. On the real-life social and political side, the outlook is not as rosy. Politicians and special or self-interest groups have figured out how to get what they want by manipulating the system. To counter this, the citizens and voters have not quite figured out how to regain their position as the true source of power in a democratic, representative society. Televised political debates have become fundamental to political campaigns, but we still have a weakened common sense foundation from which to view and sort out all of the political hoopla. How a candidate looks on television has become as vital as what he or she has to say. Even when all of the candidates are equal in looks, we are not convinced that what they have to say is real. Indeed, many political candidates will say anything if it helps them get elected. It is this fact alone that causes the greatest amount of voter frustration. Some voters are well aware of this frustration, but many voters are not at all aware that their voting efforts have been frustrated. They will defend their votes even when they are later proven to be errant and unjustifiable. After 200 years of technological development, neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln would have much chance of getting elected to any office, much less to the office of President of the United States. Most of the other former presidents would also lose simply based on how they look on television. In spite of our high intentions and intellectual claims to the contrary, we most often like and trust people based on how they look and how they talk. We know it is wrong, but we only give minor consideration to their experience or such abstract notions as their record of honesty, decency, and integrity. We even tend to marry people and buy pets that look like what we see in the mirror. Our likes and our sense of happiness are based on emotion, not on reason. Thus it is that the collective common sense of society has been set adrift in a sea of technology and an artificial world of superficialities, a sea of over-stimulation and excitement, a sea in which good and not-so-good people can drown. Extreme behaviors no longer appear to be so extreme. It becomes less unthinkable to shoot someone, but it also becomes normal to do other things that might not have been thinkable just 50 years ago. Not only have issues of right and wrong become clouded, we as citizens and voters now allow the presence of illegal drugs and recreational gambling just about everywhere. Our intellect tells us such things are bad, but we have little confidence in the resulting emotions. We are easily persuaded to elect political candidates who have few redeeming qualities even remotely connected with inspiring children to be as good or better than their parents. We then defend our voting choices just like we do our new automobile -- out of pride. It does not matter that we really got a lemon! Principles Being on-the-level is not the same as "having principles." Principles may be good or bad, so having them is not necessarily a virtue. Nevertheless, most people associate principles with goodness, and this association is consistent our intent in these discussions. Given that principles are good things to have, we should consider the different types of principles. In a technical society, some principles are as solid as laws of nature. Those found in science and engineering, are sometimes so fundamental that they are referred to as first principles. Other principles may be derived from first principles, but they must always be consistent with those first principles. Regardless of the types of principles that apply to a problem or situation, the violation of a principle is fundamental evidence that we are headed for trouble. While complicated situations or conditions may obscure the applicable principles, there is almost always an underlying principle involved. When people understand and agree with the underlying principles, identifying and reaching consensus regarding a solution to a problem should be less ambiguous and may even be simple. Conversely, when there is no agreement on basic principles, an effective and lasting solution to the problem is not likely to be found. To reach any agreement at all, both sides of an issue are asked to compromise on their principles, creating a weak foundation for any plan intended to address the problem. Examples of conflicting and, thus, compromised principles are found in Congress all the time. Principles Lead to Integrity Ability to state and to defend the validity of one's principles is an important element of leadership. The consistent application and adherence to those principles is what we mean by integrity. When a political leader states and adheres to specific principles, it is much easier for the voters to hold that political leader accountable. Since the current approach of many politicians is to adhere to ambiguity and obfuscation, a Technidigm-2000 voter might decide to vote for the candidate who most clearly stated a good set of long-held principles. If we can get politicians to argue over their basic principles first, we can start to select the best of them. Evaluating their consistency in terms of their principles, we can assess their integrity. From those having an acceptable level of integrity, we can select those with acceptable wisdom, a trait that is dependent on education and experience. Then we can move on to selecting candidates based on their goals and solution systems. Principles and the Media All of this idealistic dependence on principles and integrity impacts the news media. As the public demand for solid information increases, news media and investigative reporters are faced with a more demanding scope of work. While the dependence on pleasant looking and nice voiced presenters will undoubtedly continue, the people who write the verbiage read by these presenters will have to start thinking about basic principles and their relationship to integrity, wisdom, and solution systems. With a continued emphasis on principles and more intellectual reporting, perhaps we can speculate that news media reporters and their support personnel will gradually develop a better set of principles for their own profession. Just the voters and consumers are able to select office holders and breakfast serials, they can select their preferred source of news and entertainment. It would only require a little direct criticism of a particular news organization regarding its operating principles to suggest to the public to look elsewhere for their news. As discussed in greater detail later, Technidigm-2000 elements include four elements called levels. The four levels provide a powerful communications framework for the media criticism discussed above. With public awareness of the four levels, the public and commercial advertisers can influence news organizations to, at least, be on-the-level and may be able to get them to rise above level one opinions. Competing news organizations might claim a higher percentage of on-the-level and high level news reporting. Using Technidigm-2000 terminology, their claims can be made quickly and clearly, encouraging an equally effective response from the competition. Improvements in the news reporting environment become unavoidable. Principles Are Us None of the above can be effective unless each voter and customer (the real powers in any capitalistic democracy) have a modern tool or framework to apply, such as the 12 elements of Technidigm-2000, and takes steps to promote their use. Technidigm-2000 first requires the highest standards of integrity of each responsible community member. When we have integrity, we are on-the-level. We may not all agree on how to solve every problem, but it at least becomes possible to discuss the problem effectively and to arrive at a principle-based solution that provides our vision of where we would like to go in resolving a social or other problem. With this grassroots support for Technidigm-2000 thinking, solutions to problems will become more effective and, in many instances, less expensive. Principles Result in Common Sense Solutions To the extent that a problem is resolved in a principle-based environment of forthrightness and personal integrity, the emergent program or solution to that problem enjoys the benefits of common sense. While our common sense is often confused with our "gut reactions," when we require a connection between solutions and principles, then this confusion is reduced. Properly based in principles, a common sense program or solution has a solid foundation, even when changes are required during its implementation. Technidigm-2000 facilitates establishing and continuing such common sense programs and solutions. Stated from a different perspective, when we are not sure of which principles apply, we do not have a solid foundation or understanding of the problem or its solution. Without this understanding, it is much less likely that we have a common sense solution to the problem. To ensure a common sense solution, it is much more important to state what one's principles are than to state what one is going to do. Principles do not change quickly, if at all, but our solution can and should change as frequently as needed to ensure a continuing connected to common sense. The Interpretation Principle One of our problems is understanding how constitutional principles apply today. In the absence of a lot of constitutional amendments, we rely on frequent constitutional interpretations, interpretations that now very frequently involve the Supreme Court. Amendments are hard to get, but court interpretations are easy. Also, being a little more cynical, a high level of court activity at all levels to interpret things not dealt with by the Constitution helps to support a lot of attorneys and makes it possible for politicians to acquire more power. Similar to these path-of-least-resistance methods of government as embodied in the practice of judicial interpretations of constitutional issues, some nuclear plant operators do a lot of interpreting. In their environment of "verbatim compliance," creative interpretations of procedural requirements are very attractive. For example, if a step in a nuclear plant operating procedure is not in a convenient sequence, an operator might interpret the stated procedural sequencing as not important. Since such operator interpretations have often resulted in problems, the word interpret is a "red flag" in the nuclear industry, at least among those who know what they are doing. If a nuclear plant operating procedure involves any interpretation, then the procedure is not adequate. Most of us are relieved to hear that, but not all nuclear plant operators fully understand and conform with this principle. Likewise, not everyone associated with politics and government is eager to conform with the interpretation principle. They want to be able to interpret things on their own terms, which leads to constant argument. Nuclear plant operators having a more mature understanding of their nuclear safety responsibilities understand the importance of the interpretation principle. Nevertheless, it only takes one unenlightened manager in the organization to make life miserable for those operators who insist on observing basic nuclear safety principles. In the short term, it is often more profitable to ignore basic principles, but long term consequences can be devastating. The nuclear industry learned a lot about the dangers of interpretations as a result of the very expensive accidents at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl. Technology and Principles After two centuries, constitutional principles are largely the same, but society has changed significantly. Many of these social changes are the result of advances in technology, and the application of the underlying constitutional principles may need to shift with these advances. The ambiguity surrounding shifting applications of unchanging principles can cause problems. For example, now that we can closely observe and assess pre-birth development of a human baby, we no longer agree on when life starts nor when the legal protections afforded individuals begin. Life in the womb is now more real to us than it was 200 years ago. A parallel but contrary technical development is that we can also better predict birth defects and are more able to abort a pregnancy. The constitutional principles for protecting life will eventually win this conflict because people will increasingly realize that an unborn baby also lives. We may even reach the conclusion that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother. Depending on the topic, the transition betw