JC Mowen's Web Site

Sun Tzu, Adam Smith, and Hippocrates walk into Whole Foods. By chance, each goes to the cheesemonger’s counter. The woman says, “Thanks guys for wearing masks and keeping social distance.”

Sun Tzu rips off his mask and growls, “I only wear this thing because my wife makes me. President Trump has said that we are at war against Covid 19. Fighting an enemy while wearing masks is foolhardy.”

Hippocrates frowns. “Mr. Tzu, we’re not fighting a war. We’re dealing with a colossal medical emergency. The World Health Organization was correct stating that we cannot return to normal until health systems can detect, test, isolate, and treat every case and trace every contact.”

As she worked on their orders, the cheesemonger listened.

Sun Tzu snaps at Hippocrates, “If we use WHO’s guidance, the world will never return to normal. There’s no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

“Both of you make good points,” Adam Smith said. “But, the worst thing is the loss of jobs. By June, New Mexico’s unemployment rate will be over 25 percent. The invisible hand of a free market can resolve the crisis.”

Hippocrates responded, “Mr. Smith, you’re delusional. Your idea will result in massive levels of sickness and death. I agree with Governor Grisham’s orders, but she should make them even more stringent.”

Smith retorted. “The presence of disease kills people, and the absence of livelihood also kills people. Closing businesses, because they are deemed nonessential, is arbitrary and takes away people’s means of support.”

“Smith, you’re moving in the right direction, but your approach works too slowly,” Sun Tze said. “A timid army never won a war.”

“I don’t believe what I’m hearing,” Hippocrates snarled, “Your approach, Tze, will kill 300,000 people.”

Demeaning Hippocrates by mocking his name, Sun Tzu replied, “Hippo, 300,000 deaths are less than the United States sustained in World War II, and less than half the number killed in the Civil War.”

With things getting heated, the men looked to the cheesemonger for help. She said, “Gentlemen, you are seeing the problem through narrow focusing lenses. We face a situation in which the stakes are high and even science-based information is ambiguous. Trade-offs must be made between saving lives and saving livelihoods. To make this judgment call, use the principle of multi-frame superiority. Employ the best ideas from the military, economic, and medical perspectives. Also, consider ethics. Use Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. Identify the extremes of positions and make a choice that resides close to the middle. Hopefully, Governor Grisham and President Trump will do this. Future generations depend upon it.”

Smith, Zhu, and Hippocrates took their packages and left. They wondered how a simple cheesemonger could out-think them all.

A beloved wife is killed in a murder-for-profit scheme. A criminology professor seeks revenge.

While investigating his wife’s murder, Rud Gordon uncovers a firm that kills clients after buying their life insurance policies. The motive—increase profits by securing the death-benefit payouts, fast. The hunter becomes the hunted, when an old nemesis and a super-model assassin act to stop the ex-Army Ranger.

Mysteries blend in a novel for mature readers. Can Rud stay alive long enough to eliminate those who killed his spouse and threaten his daughter? Why does the military hero join a heroin trafficking ring? How does his long-ago romance in Burma come back to haunt him? Will he fall for the exotic assassin sent to kill him?

The thrilling page-turner is set primarily in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It features two original, quirky characters. Rudyard Gordon is a decorated ex-Army Ranger, a respected criminology professor, and a criminal. A flawed hero avenging his wife’s murder, he becomes a mixture of Jack Reacher and Walter White. Born in Burma, Pema Greene is kidnapped by the Chinese and trained as an undercover asset. The exotic woman becomes a successful Parisian model. She and Gordon cross paths when her foster parents are killed after selling their insurance policies. Death and mayhem follow in their footsteps. A surprise ending teases the reader.

In his debut work of fiction, JC builds upon experiences as a business professor, social psychologist, and decorated Ranger-qualified Army officer to write a thrilling page-turner. He has published non-fiction books on high-stakes decision-making with Simon & Schuster and John Wiley, as well as works on consumer behavior with Macmillan, Prentice-Hall, and Cengage.

February 4, 2020

02/02/2020—A Special Trifecta Day

By JC Mowen

Yesterday, February 2, 2020, we experienced an amazing super trifecta. Not only was it “Super-Bowl Sunday” and Ground Hog day, but it was also the first “date-palindrome” (i.e., 02/02/2020) in 909 years.  How cool!

So, I started thinking about date-palindromes. The last one occurred on 11/11/1111. It happened during the medieval ages. The pace of change was slow during that epoch, but in the 1100s, the first universities were established. Also, the first record of windmills was reported–at which we’re still tilting by the way.  Of course, it was the pontification of the professors that kept the blades turning. In a further note, the first assembly line in history was built in Venice. Apparently, sailing ships were being mass produced—probably for use in the Venetian Crusade. Ah—nothing like a good war to release the creative spirit.

The next “date-palindrome” will happen on 12/12/2121, which is only 101 years away. Hopefully, my great-great-granddaughters will be around for it. Speaking of 100-year increments, the National Football League was founded in 1920—100 years ago. I wonder if the Super Bowl will still be around 101 years from now? In fact, I wonder if we will still be playing football. For that matter will our way of life be recognizable in 100 years? Will humans be recognizable?

These thoughts remind me of the one-hit wonder song, In the Year 2525, by Zager and Evans. The first verse goes, “In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive.” Wow, those optimistic words make me want to find a sledge hammer and slam it down on my right big toe for several hours.

Maybe someone should write a song about the year 2121. It could start, “In the year 2121, the year that women won, the year that men were done, when each one lost his gun. Whoops, too depressing? How about, “In the year 2121, when The Bears finally won, Chicago had some fun.” (Maybe someone else should write the lyrics.)

What will the world be like in the year 2121? Undoubtedly, very different from today’s world. Consider the world 101 years ago. In 1919, Congress had just passed the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. There were no televisions, antibiotics, or computers. In 1919 less than 1% of homes in the United States had electricity or indoor plumbing. The pace of change increased over the last 101 years. The rate of change will certainly increase even more over the next century. (SCARY!)

2020 can also be viewed through the lens of numerology. According to one guru, 2020 is a special year of “…perfect vision and accomplishment.” Also, adding the numbers in the date equals 4 which, according to numerologists, indicates all sorts of good things, such as stability, peace, and responsibility. (I wish.)

On the other hand, in Chinese culture the number 4 is unlucky because its character is pronounced like the one for death. Thus, most elevators will not have a button for the 4^th floor in China. Here’s a bummer thought for you–maybe the Coronavirus struck China because of the unlucky year—2020? Whoops, sorry—that’s way too harsh! Ugh, my bad.

In sum, it is amazing that so much happened on—02/02/2020. I hope that you enjoyed that special day when Kansas City won the Superbowl, Punxsutawney Phil failed to see his shadow, and hopefully, the number of people stricken by the coronavirus peaked and the disease’s incidence will begin its downward drift.

Recently, President Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland from Denmark. The Danish prime minister called the idea “absurd.” But would the Danish people consider a fair offer?

In 1946 the Danes turned down a proposal by Harry Truman for the US to buy the island for $100 million. If invested properly, the sum would be worth $163 billion today. Clearly, we would have to pay a lot more than just a few hundred billion dollars for the world’s largest island.

What would be a fair price to offer? Businesses use comparables for setting prices. In this instance, the most relevant comp is Seward’s Folly–the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million in gold. While the cost/benefit of the purchase has been questioned, it is generally agreed to have been a great deal for the US. Interestingly, one reason why Secretary Seward wanted to purchase Alaska was to surround Canada and force it to become part of the US. Let’s assume, however, that Mr. Trump does not want to make Canada our 51^st state by buying Greenland.

Is the current value of Alaska a reasonable comp? The answer is–yes. One reason why is that Greenland is one-third larger than Alaska. Consider all the natural resources that will be found there. Of course, 80% of Greenland is covered by ice. But that’s good. Because of climate change, the ice sheet is melting at an increasing rate. Soon its resources will be available to harvest. In addition, think of all the pure, healthy, millions-of-years-old water that could be gathered, bottled, and sold. The brand could be called Pur Glacier (Pure Glacier). So, let’s assume that the value of Alaska can be used as a comparable.

How much is Alaska worth? In 2012, a writer for the Washington Post calculated that the US could sell Alaska for $5 trillion in order to reduce the national debt. Presciently, he suggested that real estate mogul Donald Trump might be willing to make the purchase. Since 2012, Alaska’s value will have doubled to $10 trillion because of inflation and the state’s increased strategic importance. President Trump has already argued that Greenland is strategically important to the US as a check against Russia and China. Both nations are already casting covetous eyes on the arctic region in order to gain its resources. A troubling thought is that if Greenland were put up for sale, a bidding war could result. Perhaps the US should quickly and quietly pay Denmark $10 trillion for the island.

Would the Danes accept a $10 trillion offer? If the funds were distributed equally among the 5.7 million Danes, each would receive about $1.8 million. This huge windfall would make it hard for the Danes to say neg. Thus, Mr. Trump could have his island.

But wait! To get the money, every US citizen would have to pay over $30,000 to Uncle Sam for the purchase. Clearly, this iceberg won’t float.  

In sum, both leaders are wrong. On the one hand, the idea of Denmark selling Greenland is not absurd and makes sense–if the price is right. On the other hand, getting US taxpayers to cough up $10 trillion in order to sway Denmark is absurd. The purchase would become “Trump’s Folly.”

How then can we fulfill Mr. Trump’s goal of owning Greenland? The answer–INVADE! Certainly, an invasion would cost less than the $10 trillion price to buy it. It would be an easy win–even easier than the successful invasion of Granada ordered by President Reagan.

Yikes, suddenly I hear Blackhawk choppers. The sound is getting louder. Drat, they’re here. “Hi Sergeant Seal. Sir, the essay is a joke…. I was just kidding”……umpf…..”really”…splat..…”just”…..”kid…….

On February 14, 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought indictments against thirteen Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Could the Russian misinformation warfare have helped Donald Trump win the election? President Trump’s response was “NO!”

There are two reasons why many Americans, including some Democrats, hope President Trump is right. The first is that it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his presidency, which would further split our nation into querulous factions. This reason, though, says nothing about whether the meddling actually changed the election.

Second, according to the Special Counsel, Russia spent $1.5 million a month in their attacks. In contrast, the two political parties spent roughly $1.8 billion on the election. Thus, the Russian effort is billed as too small to have had an impact.

But, chaos theory suggests that Russia’s meddling could have caused Trump’s victory. This important theory has explained phenomena in mathematics, physics, meteorology, psychology, economics, and even robotics. One of its dictum’s states that small changes to the initial state of a system can cause huge effects. An example is the old adage—a single straw can break a camel’s back. That is, adding a small amount to the camel’s load (i.e., a single straw) can result in the animal’s collapse.

How can chaos theory explain Donald Trump’s victory when the polls showed that Clinton would win by a large margin? In 2016, chaos ruled our political and social systems. Many Americans were still suffering economically from the effects of the Great Recession. Standards of morality were being challenged by the LGBTQ movement. America was becoming less “white.” A significant percentage of voters was dissatisfied with the direction the nation was going. In addition, the Clinton campaign had made serious mistakes. Thus, consistent with chaos theory, the initial conditions were set so that a small Russian misinformation effort acted as the straw that broke the back of Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes.

So, what should we do? In the short-term, let Robert Mueller do his job and hope that our institutions are strong enough to endure his findings, whatever they are. My next essay identifies a longer-term solution to the information warfare crisis–a crisis no less dangerous than airplanes crashing into skyscrapers.