Hey, I'm still here and have more comments about our public educational system. This first comment is a little off my subject, but I found it interesting. I just watched an add on TV for a home computerized tutoring system to help your kids do better in school. The interesting part was that the young boy who was using the system said that the system was so good and efficient that he had extra time left over to practice his "Dodge Ball" game. Based on this comment, you could assume the system is for real education and not a bunch of "Fuzz Feel Good" stuf like our public schools. Part of this might be a repeat, but I feel it is worth it.
Try this simple test on any school aged kid and see what you find. Ask them, "Why they are going to school?" You will get a million different answers and none of them are right. As I have said before in my Blogs, if you don't know what you are working for, it is hard to be very motivated. Ask them, "Why do you go to football practice?" and you will get a very different set of answers. Kids know why they are going to football practice, but not public school. They go to football practice so that they can beat the other team. They know that if they do not practice, they won't win. The purpose is clear. So, why is it not clear for our public schools? That is the question and I think I may have, at least, part of the answer.
The reason for going to school can not be some absract reason. It has to be direct and very direct like for football. The kids need a reason not only for going to school, but for doing well, very well in school. Now are you starting to get the idea? Any good definition has to take into account "both" the positive and negative aspects of why our kids are going to school and doing well. First, kids need to be reminded to look around at the commuity and imagine themselves at age 35 or 40. The reason that they need to do this is to start to understand "why" they are going to school. They need to be shown that the quality of life that individual enjoy at ages 35 or 40 are the direct result of how well they did in public school back when they were the ages of these kids. It sounds complicated, but this is the start of understanding why you go to public school. Once they start to make the connection the reason can be further defined.
Back in the 40's and 50's when I went to public school, it was clear for everyone to see that people who did not finish or do well in school were not enjoying a very high quality of life. We could all make the connection back then. What has happened in the past 60 years is that more and more of those who were doing well were called on by government thru the rule of law to share the value of their labor and dicipline with those who did not take advantage of the schooling they were offered for free. Today, it is less clear that doing well in school is the reason for doing well in life. I believe in both positive and negative incentives and thus feel that less should be done for those who have by their own will and action placed themselves in the hole that they find themselves in. We need the examples of their plight to show other that responsible hard work and doing well in school provide the ladder out of their povety hole. It seems the rest of the world gets this message, why not the USA? Why are we dead last in education when we spend the most on education?
I believe in "tough love" too. We would do more for the 40% of our kids who do not graduate from high school by allowing them to sink deeper into their self created poverty rather than giving them a free welfair ride. They do not deserve a very high quality of life at the expense of those who did the right thing. Indirectly, all of these liberal wellfare programs are causing the quality of education in the USA to go down. Think about it and I feel you will agree.
If you agree with me, sit down with your kids or your grand kids and see if you can show them the connection between doing well in school and the quality of their lives in the future. If you can, you will have done more for their education than any increase in school teacher pay or smaller class sizes.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Boom and Bust
How is that for a topic? As you must know from my past Blogs that I am always looking for "connections", "principles" and "concepts" that have a universal application. Well, I think that I have stumbled on to a very significant one with the concept of "Boom and Bust. I am originally from California and have spent time exploring the Mother Lode area of California. The area has many old mining towns that are now only Ghost Towns. When you go visit one of these, it makes one think about how the place must have once been as contrasted to what it is today. That is the lesson that I want to develop here. All these places were busy places with a lot of excited and interesting people playing out their lives trying to find their fortune. Some did, but most did not and today all that is left are these old Ghost Town as reminders that they ever existed. You might ask, "why is this such a big deal". It is a big deal because it helps us learn from the past and predict the future, so here goes.
There were Ghost Towns long before the California Gold Rush of 1849 and there will be many more. Let's start with Greece. 5,000 years ago it was "Booming" place as shown by the magnificent ruins that we find there now. It clearly has had a "Boom and Bust". It was once great and is now a broken mess that is not going to be rebuilt. Greece recently tried to regain some of its old wealth by government borrowing and deficit spending. but it did not work. They are now back in worse shape than they were to begin with. How about India? About 2,000 years ago they were in a position similar to Greece. They still have the magnificent building to prove it, but where are they now or where have they been for the last 500 years? They had their "Boom and Bust". How about Egypt? Same old story. Egypt today is a poor over populated mess. If you figure on the basis of the small amount of good land that they have, they have one of the densest populations in the world. "Boom and Bust" all over again. I could go on and on with these kinds of examples, but I think you are starting to get the idea. What does it all mean?
What it means is that when you are inside one of these "Boom and Bust" cycles, things look "Normal" when the last thing they are is "Normal". It might sound strange, but it is difficult to see that you are part of a "Boom and Bust" cycle when you are actually in one. Few are exactly like anything in the past, so it is difficult to compare and thus predict where it will lead. Take the "Dot-Com" bubble. That was clearly a "Boom and Bust". Did you see it coming? Were most, supposedly smart people, aware of what was happening? I don't think so. The reason that I bring up the "Dot-Com" thing is that they all look different and they take different amounts of time to run their course. The "Dot-Com" was a fast one, where as, the "Greek" one took about a thousand years. Same for the Romans, the Incas and the Aztecs.
Many "Boom and Bust" cycles are the result of the playing out of specific factors. There are many, so I am only going to go thru a few. In Europe and Asia, they had both domestic animals and beasts of burden, the cow and the horse. The new world did not have either of these and thus were "stuck" in terms of economic development.
When these two items along with iron tools and gunpowder were introduced to the new world, a "Boom" cycle was started. Like all know historical "Booms" they have been followed by a "Bust". Next came the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. These like the cow and the horse created their own "Boom". All of these "Booms" depended on one key thing and that was "energy". For the cow and horse, it was food and for the engines, it was oil. Both food and oil were cheap and thus the "boom" continued. Now what would happen if food and oil became much more expensive? In the limit, we know what will happen. The "Boom" will be followed by a "Bust". Think about Easter Island. In about 500 or 750 years the first people to land on the island went from "Boom" to "Bust".
Now think about the USA. To me it looks a lot like Easter Island. We had a "Boom and Bust" in timber. We had a "Boom and Bust" in the fur trade. We had a "Boom and Bust" in the iron mining and steel industry. We had a "Boom and Bust" in auto industry. We had a "Boom and Bust" in housing after WWII upto now. We have had a "Boom and Bust" cycle in about anything that you can think of. Take social security, do you think that has gone thru a "Boom and Bust"? Right after WWII, with the infrastructure of almost every country in the world in a mess, only the USA was in a position to take advantage of the special situation and we did. Was that the start of a "Boom and Bust"?
I got a little off the point here. Could you see that we were in a "Boom and Bust" cycle in the housing market before the "Bust"? Human nature being what it is, many of us tried to "flip" homes to make a profit. Did that make the "Bust" better or worse or did it make it happen sooner? The main thing is that most of us did not have any idea that we were in a "Boom and Bust" cycle. We all thought that the economy of the USA was acting "Normally". We were just smarter and harder working than most of the rest of the world. Right? We were "spinning" ourselves. We were never as smart or hard working as we claimed, we were just "normal". I contend that we were actually below normal all the time and were just caught up in a "Boom and Bust" cycle that was beyond our control or recognition.
The purpose of this Blog is to get you thinking more about the big picture of what is happening here in the USA and see that much of our past has been one of "Boom and Bust" and that it will continue. The only way that I know of to minimize the impact of these "Boom and Bust" cycles is to be honest about what is "normal". A home that sold for $100,000 20 years ago that has appeared to have gone up in value at the rate of 8% would now sell for $466,100. Do you really think that the $100,000 home is worth that when the overall inflation rate has only been 3%?. At 3% the home would be worth $180,600. If the home went down by 25% during this "Bust" it would still be worth $349,575. Now, I ask you, "what is normal"? Is it $200,000 or $250,000 or $300,000? When you hear people asking, "when will home prices get back to normal", someone has to wake up and realize that we got a long way from "normal" so don't ever expect to see those kinds of numbers again.
"Boom and Bust" cycles are like being drunk, it takes a while for you so sober up and what Obama is doing is making the situation much worse. When are we going to all sober up and stop drinking the cool aid?
PS,
Take a look at china. Several years ago they passed a law that a couple could only have one kid. The idea was to slow their population growth, but it has more significant implications. If each family only had one kid, think about how it would impact the size of the work force and the amount of money that would be available for economic development. The percentage of qualified workers in the work force would increase significantly by this action and would have a clear impact on economic growth. The problem with this is that it would create a "Boom" that would be followed by a "Bust" when all the workers got old and there were few workers in the population to support them. It will happen in about 40 years. Do the math and see if you agree. Just another application of the "Boom and Bust" principle.
There were Ghost Towns long before the California Gold Rush of 1849 and there will be many more. Let's start with Greece. 5,000 years ago it was "Booming" place as shown by the magnificent ruins that we find there now. It clearly has had a "Boom and Bust". It was once great and is now a broken mess that is not going to be rebuilt. Greece recently tried to regain some of its old wealth by government borrowing and deficit spending. but it did not work. They are now back in worse shape than they were to begin with. How about India? About 2,000 years ago they were in a position similar to Greece. They still have the magnificent building to prove it, but where are they now or where have they been for the last 500 years? They had their "Boom and Bust". How about Egypt? Same old story. Egypt today is a poor over populated mess. If you figure on the basis of the small amount of good land that they have, they have one of the densest populations in the world. "Boom and Bust" all over again. I could go on and on with these kinds of examples, but I think you are starting to get the idea. What does it all mean?
What it means is that when you are inside one of these "Boom and Bust" cycles, things look "Normal" when the last thing they are is "Normal". It might sound strange, but it is difficult to see that you are part of a "Boom and Bust" cycle when you are actually in one. Few are exactly like anything in the past, so it is difficult to compare and thus predict where it will lead. Take the "Dot-Com" bubble. That was clearly a "Boom and Bust". Did you see it coming? Were most, supposedly smart people, aware of what was happening? I don't think so. The reason that I bring up the "Dot-Com" thing is that they all look different and they take different amounts of time to run their course. The "Dot-Com" was a fast one, where as, the "Greek" one took about a thousand years. Same for the Romans, the Incas and the Aztecs.
Many "Boom and Bust" cycles are the result of the playing out of specific factors. There are many, so I am only going to go thru a few. In Europe and Asia, they had both domestic animals and beasts of burden, the cow and the horse. The new world did not have either of these and thus were "stuck" in terms of economic development.
When these two items along with iron tools and gunpowder were introduced to the new world, a "Boom" cycle was started. Like all know historical "Booms" they have been followed by a "Bust". Next came the steam engine and the internal combustion engine. These like the cow and the horse created their own "Boom". All of these "Booms" depended on one key thing and that was "energy". For the cow and horse, it was food and for the engines, it was oil. Both food and oil were cheap and thus the "boom" continued. Now what would happen if food and oil became much more expensive? In the limit, we know what will happen. The "Boom" will be followed by a "Bust". Think about Easter Island. In about 500 or 750 years the first people to land on the island went from "Boom" to "Bust".
Now think about the USA. To me it looks a lot like Easter Island. We had a "Boom and Bust" in timber. We had a "Boom and Bust" in the fur trade. We had a "Boom and Bust" in the iron mining and steel industry. We had a "Boom and Bust" in auto industry. We had a "Boom and Bust" in housing after WWII upto now. We have had a "Boom and Bust" cycle in about anything that you can think of. Take social security, do you think that has gone thru a "Boom and Bust"? Right after WWII, with the infrastructure of almost every country in the world in a mess, only the USA was in a position to take advantage of the special situation and we did. Was that the start of a "Boom and Bust"?
I got a little off the point here. Could you see that we were in a "Boom and Bust" cycle in the housing market before the "Bust"? Human nature being what it is, many of us tried to "flip" homes to make a profit. Did that make the "Bust" better or worse or did it make it happen sooner? The main thing is that most of us did not have any idea that we were in a "Boom and Bust" cycle. We all thought that the economy of the USA was acting "Normally". We were just smarter and harder working than most of the rest of the world. Right? We were "spinning" ourselves. We were never as smart or hard working as we claimed, we were just "normal". I contend that we were actually below normal all the time and were just caught up in a "Boom and Bust" cycle that was beyond our control or recognition.
The purpose of this Blog is to get you thinking more about the big picture of what is happening here in the USA and see that much of our past has been one of "Boom and Bust" and that it will continue. The only way that I know of to minimize the impact of these "Boom and Bust" cycles is to be honest about what is "normal". A home that sold for $100,000 20 years ago that has appeared to have gone up in value at the rate of 8% would now sell for $466,100. Do you really think that the $100,000 home is worth that when the overall inflation rate has only been 3%?. At 3% the home would be worth $180,600. If the home went down by 25% during this "Bust" it would still be worth $349,575. Now, I ask you, "what is normal"? Is it $200,000 or $250,000 or $300,000? When you hear people asking, "when will home prices get back to normal", someone has to wake up and realize that we got a long way from "normal" so don't ever expect to see those kinds of numbers again.
"Boom and Bust" cycles are like being drunk, it takes a while for you so sober up and what Obama is doing is making the situation much worse. When are we going to all sober up and stop drinking the cool aid?
PS,
Take a look at china. Several years ago they passed a law that a couple could only have one kid. The idea was to slow their population growth, but it has more significant implications. If each family only had one kid, think about how it would impact the size of the work force and the amount of money that would be available for economic development. The percentage of qualified workers in the work force would increase significantly by this action and would have a clear impact on economic growth. The problem with this is that it would create a "Boom" that would be followed by a "Bust" when all the workers got old and there were few workers in the population to support them. It will happen in about 40 years. Do the math and see if you agree. Just another application of the "Boom and Bust" principle.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Canada
Well, I have been Blogging about Mexico, so why not Canada? I just watched an interview with the Finance Minister for Canada and thought that I might make some comments about Canada's economic situation. Apparently, Canada is doing a lot better than the USA. Their deficit is much lower than that of the USA as is their national debit. They are clearly in a lot stronger position going forward. My comment relate to how Canada is different from the USA. As you know, I look for a the few tall "tent poles" that account for the major part of the significant difference rather than dwell on all the small things that don't add up to much.
The first thing that I noticed was that Canada does not have a government sponsored real estate mortgage guarantee system. They leave real estate loans to the banks, not the government. We have already spent $385 Billion bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with more to come. That is more than we spent on bailing out all the banks and the auto industry, but you are not hearing much about it in the media. The real estate system in Canada looks sound. The banks there make the loans and have to collect the money, not pass it along to the taxpayers. Great idea!!!!
Another point is that 99% of the government people who I see on TV from Canada are "not" Jews. Here in the USA, at least 80% of the talking heads from government turn out to be Jews. Considering the fact that they are such a small percentage of our population appears to me that it might be part of our problem. I'm not specifically against Jews, but just trying to point out the differences. It seems to me that there are a lot more Scots and English in the Canadian government compared to here.
Canada spends much less on medical care than we do as a percentage of their GDP. This is because it is next to impossible to get expensive medical service there. I am not saying this is good, only that it is a key difference that makes Canada economically better than the USA.
Canada does not seem to have as large a percentage of Blacks or Mexicans as the USA. I think that anyone who has looked at the numbers would agree that these two group, on average, don't carry their own weight. Over 50% of the criminals in our jails and prisons are Black or Mexican and this is a big extra cost for the USA compared to Canada.
We have a larger Army compared to our GNP than Canada too. If we are spending more on our armed forces, the money has to come from some where and that means we don't have the money to develop our economy. Sad fact, but true.
Much of Canada's economy is from timber, farming and mining compared to the USA. As there has been a shift away from manufacturing here in the USA due to international competition, Canada has not suffered as much. The commodities that are a larger part of their economy have kept pace while value added manufacturing here has slipped. We had an advantage due to automation, but that advantage has been cancelled out by lower pay scales in places like China, plus they have the same or better automation than we do.
I don't have any specific facts on this, but the high school graduation rate for Canada is higher than the USA. This might sound like a broken record, but the decline in our quality of education is and will continue to be one of the tall "tent poles" that will bring down our economy while much of the rest of the world goes up.
Again, I don't have any specific numbers on this one, but I can tell you and be sure that Canada does not have as big a problem with out of wedlock births as the USA. This along with our poor educational performance accounts for much of why we are in as bad a shape as we are and why I do not see any improvement in the near future. The die has already been cast and we will have to live with it.
One final point, Vancouver has the largest Asian population in the world, outside of Asia. I think that we all know that Asians are among the smartest hard working people in the world and have among the strongest family units. Here in the USA, Asians are much more likely to be millionaires than Whites, Jews, Blacks or Latins. I think it is the same in Canada.
I have made a quick list of what I think are some of the key differences that account for why Canada is in better shape than the USA. If we don't start working on the basic building blocks of economics we are only going to get worse.
The first thing that I noticed was that Canada does not have a government sponsored real estate mortgage guarantee system. They leave real estate loans to the banks, not the government. We have already spent $385 Billion bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with more to come. That is more than we spent on bailing out all the banks and the auto industry, but you are not hearing much about it in the media. The real estate system in Canada looks sound. The banks there make the loans and have to collect the money, not pass it along to the taxpayers. Great idea!!!!
Another point is that 99% of the government people who I see on TV from Canada are "not" Jews. Here in the USA, at least 80% of the talking heads from government turn out to be Jews. Considering the fact that they are such a small percentage of our population appears to me that it might be part of our problem. I'm not specifically against Jews, but just trying to point out the differences. It seems to me that there are a lot more Scots and English in the Canadian government compared to here.
Canada spends much less on medical care than we do as a percentage of their GDP. This is because it is next to impossible to get expensive medical service there. I am not saying this is good, only that it is a key difference that makes Canada economically better than the USA.
Canada does not seem to have as large a percentage of Blacks or Mexicans as the USA. I think that anyone who has looked at the numbers would agree that these two group, on average, don't carry their own weight. Over 50% of the criminals in our jails and prisons are Black or Mexican and this is a big extra cost for the USA compared to Canada.
We have a larger Army compared to our GNP than Canada too. If we are spending more on our armed forces, the money has to come from some where and that means we don't have the money to develop our economy. Sad fact, but true.
Much of Canada's economy is from timber, farming and mining compared to the USA. As there has been a shift away from manufacturing here in the USA due to international competition, Canada has not suffered as much. The commodities that are a larger part of their economy have kept pace while value added manufacturing here has slipped. We had an advantage due to automation, but that advantage has been cancelled out by lower pay scales in places like China, plus they have the same or better automation than we do.
I don't have any specific facts on this, but the high school graduation rate for Canada is higher than the USA. This might sound like a broken record, but the decline in our quality of education is and will continue to be one of the tall "tent poles" that will bring down our economy while much of the rest of the world goes up.
Again, I don't have any specific numbers on this one, but I can tell you and be sure that Canada does not have as big a problem with out of wedlock births as the USA. This along with our poor educational performance accounts for much of why we are in as bad a shape as we are and why I do not see any improvement in the near future. The die has already been cast and we will have to live with it.
One final point, Vancouver has the largest Asian population in the world, outside of Asia. I think that we all know that Asians are among the smartest hard working people in the world and have among the strongest family units. Here in the USA, Asians are much more likely to be millionaires than Whites, Jews, Blacks or Latins. I think it is the same in Canada.
I have made a quick list of what I think are some of the key differences that account for why Canada is in better shape than the USA. If we don't start working on the basic building blocks of economics we are only going to get worse.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Obama and BP, What Else?
Obama just can't stop hogging all the news. He seems to want to be on TV two or three times a day without anything really to say. He just did it again regarding the BP Oil Spill. You know me and how I like to look at the facts rather than just the words coming out of the mouths of the talking heads, here I go again.
If I have this right, Obama is expecting BP to pay up and make all the affected parties whole. The estimate is that this could cost as much as $45 billion dollars. I just heard today on the news that the well has leaked over 150,000,000 gallons of crude and it is killing the Gulf. Now with a little 4th grade math, let's see how much damage a gallon crude has caused. If I have this right, it will cost BP $300 for each gallon of crude that was leaked. Does that seem a little steep to you? It does to me when the stuff is only worth about one dollar per gallon.
Now let me see how the damages work. Let's say that I have a hotel on the Florida pan handle or what a lot of people call, The Redneck Riviera". As I pointed out before, the real damage is a oil line on the beach that looks like a bath tub ring a few feet wide. The rest of the beach is fine as is 99% of the water. The water is so shallow along most of the western Florida beach that you can't really swim in the water, you can only wade upto your knees. I don't see why people can't still do this if they just cleared paths thru the "bath tub ring". As a kid on the west coast beaches, there used to be a line along the beach where all the stinky sea weed and dead seals would wash up. As kids, we just jumped over or went around this stuff to the water. It was not a big deal. Now the real problem for Florida is what people "think" after hearing the talking heads on TV, not the facts. People "think" that the whole gulf must be one big mess, which it is not. There are areas where the marsh grass covers an area back from the water a distance of several miles. The only area that has any damage is about five to 10 feet in from the water's edge. The rest is fine. 99% of all the birds and animals live in the area not affected. My guess is that you could put all the birds killed so far in the back of just one pickup truck. For comparison, in the state of Wisconsin cars kill about 75,000 deer and the deer kill about 50 drivers. As far as I am concerned, this is a lot worse in terms of deaths than the oil spill in the Gulf and I don't hear anyone talking about getting rid of cars in Wisconsin.
From my way of thinking, I don't see how anyone could have a claim for what someone is "thinking". No one has control over what people "think", at least not so far. There are people who "think" there are spacemen running around in New Mexico or people who "think" praying will cause it to rain. Do you "think" that too much praying is what caused the hurricane to smash New Orleans?
Here is what I think about the fishing part of the Gulf problem. If the fishermen stop fishing for a while, the number and size of fish will increase so that when they do go back to fishing again, there will be many more fish than before. I do a lot of fishing and often cast my bait next to docks. These docks cover the water just like they are claiming the crude oil now does. Fish like it under the docks and I think that they like it just fine under the crude oil film. I don't think that one shrimp will be killed by all this crude oil. I think there will be even more shrimp to catch when our government lifts the ban on fishing. Look at what happened in Yellow Stone National Park due to the big forest fire a few years ago. There is "more" game there now than before. It did not take years to recover, it took less than two years and I think it will be the same with the Gulf.
Back to my original point, if they seem to be willing to pay $300 for each gallon of crude leaked and we know that "Mother Nature" will clean up 90%, then us humans will only clean up 10% in the end. Again, with my 4th grade math, that means we could pay $3,000 per gallon to pick the stuff up. Are you starting to see that this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion? Next time you hear one of these talking heads, including Obama, talking try to cut thru to the facts before you make any judgement.
PS,
I heat my home with electricity and I buy it at the interpretable rate of about 5.5 cents per KWH. During the winter it can cost as much as $300/month for heat. If we were to switch to solar or wind, how much do you think my heating bill would be? Now with coal, electricity has a cost of about $0.02 per KWH at the power plant. The cheapest that I have been able to find for solar or wind power is $0.18/ KWH at the source. Again, with my 4th grade math, my heating bill would go upto 9 or 10 times what it is now or $2,500 to $3,000 per month. Now at the same time everything else that I buy would also go up due to their cost of power too. The net affect is that I would have a lower quality of life than Haiti. This seems to be what Obama wants for us. Can you understand that? He used the Gulf oil spill to make his point again. I think he wants to kill the USA, pure and simple, but why? That is the question that we should all be asking? Why?
If I have this right, Obama is expecting BP to pay up and make all the affected parties whole. The estimate is that this could cost as much as $45 billion dollars. I just heard today on the news that the well has leaked over 150,000,000 gallons of crude and it is killing the Gulf. Now with a little 4th grade math, let's see how much damage a gallon crude has caused. If I have this right, it will cost BP $300 for each gallon of crude that was leaked. Does that seem a little steep to you? It does to me when the stuff is only worth about one dollar per gallon.
Now let me see how the damages work. Let's say that I have a hotel on the Florida pan handle or what a lot of people call, The Redneck Riviera". As I pointed out before, the real damage is a oil line on the beach that looks like a bath tub ring a few feet wide. The rest of the beach is fine as is 99% of the water. The water is so shallow along most of the western Florida beach that you can't really swim in the water, you can only wade upto your knees. I don't see why people can't still do this if they just cleared paths thru the "bath tub ring". As a kid on the west coast beaches, there used to be a line along the beach where all the stinky sea weed and dead seals would wash up. As kids, we just jumped over or went around this stuff to the water. It was not a big deal. Now the real problem for Florida is what people "think" after hearing the talking heads on TV, not the facts. People "think" that the whole gulf must be one big mess, which it is not. There are areas where the marsh grass covers an area back from the water a distance of several miles. The only area that has any damage is about five to 10 feet in from the water's edge. The rest is fine. 99% of all the birds and animals live in the area not affected. My guess is that you could put all the birds killed so far in the back of just one pickup truck. For comparison, in the state of Wisconsin cars kill about 75,000 deer and the deer kill about 50 drivers. As far as I am concerned, this is a lot worse in terms of deaths than the oil spill in the Gulf and I don't hear anyone talking about getting rid of cars in Wisconsin.
From my way of thinking, I don't see how anyone could have a claim for what someone is "thinking". No one has control over what people "think", at least not so far. There are people who "think" there are spacemen running around in New Mexico or people who "think" praying will cause it to rain. Do you "think" that too much praying is what caused the hurricane to smash New Orleans?
Here is what I think about the fishing part of the Gulf problem. If the fishermen stop fishing for a while, the number and size of fish will increase so that when they do go back to fishing again, there will be many more fish than before. I do a lot of fishing and often cast my bait next to docks. These docks cover the water just like they are claiming the crude oil now does. Fish like it under the docks and I think that they like it just fine under the crude oil film. I don't think that one shrimp will be killed by all this crude oil. I think there will be even more shrimp to catch when our government lifts the ban on fishing. Look at what happened in Yellow Stone National Park due to the big forest fire a few years ago. There is "more" game there now than before. It did not take years to recover, it took less than two years and I think it will be the same with the Gulf.
Back to my original point, if they seem to be willing to pay $300 for each gallon of crude leaked and we know that "Mother Nature" will clean up 90%, then us humans will only clean up 10% in the end. Again, with my 4th grade math, that means we could pay $3,000 per gallon to pick the stuff up. Are you starting to see that this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion? Next time you hear one of these talking heads, including Obama, talking try to cut thru to the facts before you make any judgement.
PS,
I heat my home with electricity and I buy it at the interpretable rate of about 5.5 cents per KWH. During the winter it can cost as much as $300/month for heat. If we were to switch to solar or wind, how much do you think my heating bill would be? Now with coal, electricity has a cost of about $0.02 per KWH at the power plant. The cheapest that I have been able to find for solar or wind power is $0.18/ KWH at the source. Again, with my 4th grade math, my heating bill would go upto 9 or 10 times what it is now or $2,500 to $3,000 per month. Now at the same time everything else that I buy would also go up due to their cost of power too. The net affect is that I would have a lower quality of life than Haiti. This seems to be what Obama wants for us. Can you understand that? He used the Gulf oil spill to make his point again. I think he wants to kill the USA, pure and simple, but why? That is the question that we should all be asking? Why?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
"E-M-I"
What do you think "E-M-I" means? I got this one from Mike Huckabee. He said that what the state governments spend all their money for is to, "Educate, Medicate and Incarcerate". He said those are the big numbers and if anyone at the state level is going to do anything significant about state taxes or cost, they are going to have to tackle these three. What is the big common denominator for these three? Unions and public money with very little private money in the game. It is all paid for with your tax money. What we need to do is to put these in private hands rather than the government where they are now, but that is exactly what we are not doing. Our boys in DC just passed Obama's health bill that will only make things much worse. Look at Europe where they have been going down this road for a much longer period of time. I think that in many ways Europe is in better shape than we are. Where do you think they would be today if they had Mexico on their door step or the ethnic situation that we have or the crime and murder rate that we have or the educational quality that we have? I am making myself sick with this list. Just the over weight problem that we have here an its health implications should wake us up. Soon, we are not going to have enough smart healthy people to support an army. Don't think so? 75% are not qualified now and it is getting worse. Maybe I should stop this Blog because it is making me so sick.
If you have anything to add, post them. I need a break.
If you have anything to add, post them. I need a break.
Education, Let's Get Serious, Chapter 12
It has been a while since I Blogged on Education, but it has not been because I have not been watching what has been going on. Some of my Blogs might have seemed radical, but given that what we are now doing is not working, we need to do something else. I normally start from the position that resources are limited and to optimize the output, we need to be sure that we get value for each and every dollar we spend. We now know that we spend more for education than any other country in the world. The results of those expenditures are also among the lowest. If it is our objective to improve the value, how do we go about it? Let's see.
We all should by now understand that spending more on education here in the USA is not making things better. There is data that shows since 1960 we have increased the expenditure on education by over 5 time based on current dollars while the quality of our education has, at best, stayed the same. This would tell anyone with a brain that this last 400% increase in expenditure has produced "nothing". I think you can follow this math. Let's say that our education quality is now 100% or 100 points and our expenditure is also 100% or 100 points. By dividing education by expenditure, we get a ratio of "1.0". Following me? We need some kind of index to judge whether our actions are taking us in the right direction.
Now let's try a couple of examples. What if we increased our educational expenditure by 10% to 110 points? Based on our past experience, we got "zero" for our higher expenditures, but to be fair, I am going to say that we increased the quality of our education by 1%. That is more than history shows, but let's go with it. Now let's check to see how our ratio is doing? 101/110 = 0.918. Logical so far? If so, we are going backwards in terms of getting our monies worth for education. How about going the other way? A side point. Do you think that we now have the "perfect" ratio? In the real world, there are very few systems that are at an "optimum" ratio. Based on that, I conclude that our educational expenditures and results are "not" at an "optimum" ratio either.
Now let's go the other way. We know that we got the same quality education back when we only spent 20% of what we are spending now, but I am going to give the teachers union a break here and say that if we reduced our expenditures by 10% that it would reduce the quality of our eduction by 2% even though I know it won't. Now let's check our ratio. 98/90 = 1.089. Notice, for the first time, that we are getting more value for our educational expenditure. I think we might be on a role here.
Another way to look at these numbers is in terms of the "incremental" cost and value. That is how much pop to we get for each additional buck we spend without getting all bogged down in all the money that we have already spent. This is a very logical way of looking at expenditures and is taught in every business school, but is unknown in political science and education classes. In the first case, we spent an additional 10% and got an additional 1% in value. That gives us a ratio of 1/10 = 0.1. As bad as the current educational expenditures are at a ratio of 1.0, this new expenditure is 10 times worse. If that is the case, why are we spending more on education when the pay back is so poor? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves.
Now how about when we reduced the educational expenditures by 10%. In that case, we only reduced the educational quality by 2%, as in my example. I guess that would seem bad to most people, but wait. What did we do with that 10% of the money? We gave it back to the taxpayers who paid it in the first place or we reduced our national debit. Or we traded a big cut in borrowing for a 2% reduction in educational quality. The impact in Detroit would be that rather than only 25% of kids graduated from high school, it would drop all the way down to 24.5%. My real guess is that it would not make any difference in the graduation rate for the city of Detroit.
The bottom line is that we all know that spending more is not helping our education so let's try spending less and keep on spending less until it is crystal clear that we have gone too far. At that point, stop cutting for a while and see if things stabilize before trying to increase again. I know teacher's unions and our education college crowd will scream bloody murder, but we can't continue what we are now doing knowing that it is not working and is bankrupting our country. Putting the money back in the taxpayer's pocket will do more good than continually pouring it down the teacher's union rat hole.
PS
Try this one. We have a school with 100 graduates and spend $10,000 per year on each. We do this for 13 years for a total of $130,000 for each graduate. With the example above, we increase the expenditure by 10% and get 1% benefit. We were spending for the whole 100 graduates, $13,000,000 and are now going to spend 10% more or $14,300,000 and get 101 high school graduates. Follow me so far? How much did it cost to get that "one" extra graduate? $14,300,000 - $13,000,000 = $1,300,000. Do you want to think about that again? That's right, for $1,300,000 of tax money, we got one more graduate. Did we get our monies worth? I leave it to you. It would be much worse if I used compound interest as I should have.
We all should by now understand that spending more on education here in the USA is not making things better. There is data that shows since 1960 we have increased the expenditure on education by over 5 time based on current dollars while the quality of our education has, at best, stayed the same. This would tell anyone with a brain that this last 400% increase in expenditure has produced "nothing". I think you can follow this math. Let's say that our education quality is now 100% or 100 points and our expenditure is also 100% or 100 points. By dividing education by expenditure, we get a ratio of "1.0". Following me? We need some kind of index to judge whether our actions are taking us in the right direction.
Now let's try a couple of examples. What if we increased our educational expenditure by 10% to 110 points? Based on our past experience, we got "zero" for our higher expenditures, but to be fair, I am going to say that we increased the quality of our education by 1%. That is more than history shows, but let's go with it. Now let's check to see how our ratio is doing? 101/110 = 0.918. Logical so far? If so, we are going backwards in terms of getting our monies worth for education. How about going the other way? A side point. Do you think that we now have the "perfect" ratio? In the real world, there are very few systems that are at an "optimum" ratio. Based on that, I conclude that our educational expenditures and results are "not" at an "optimum" ratio either.
Now let's go the other way. We know that we got the same quality education back when we only spent 20% of what we are spending now, but I am going to give the teachers union a break here and say that if we reduced our expenditures by 10% that it would reduce the quality of our eduction by 2% even though I know it won't. Now let's check our ratio. 98/90 = 1.089. Notice, for the first time, that we are getting more value for our educational expenditure. I think we might be on a role here.
Another way to look at these numbers is in terms of the "incremental" cost and value. That is how much pop to we get for each additional buck we spend without getting all bogged down in all the money that we have already spent. This is a very logical way of looking at expenditures and is taught in every business school, but is unknown in political science and education classes. In the first case, we spent an additional 10% and got an additional 1% in value. That gives us a ratio of 1/10 = 0.1. As bad as the current educational expenditures are at a ratio of 1.0, this new expenditure is 10 times worse. If that is the case, why are we spending more on education when the pay back is so poor? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves.
Now how about when we reduced the educational expenditures by 10%. In that case, we only reduced the educational quality by 2%, as in my example. I guess that would seem bad to most people, but wait. What did we do with that 10% of the money? We gave it back to the taxpayers who paid it in the first place or we reduced our national debit. Or we traded a big cut in borrowing for a 2% reduction in educational quality. The impact in Detroit would be that rather than only 25% of kids graduated from high school, it would drop all the way down to 24.5%. My real guess is that it would not make any difference in the graduation rate for the city of Detroit.
The bottom line is that we all know that spending more is not helping our education so let's try spending less and keep on spending less until it is crystal clear that we have gone too far. At that point, stop cutting for a while and see if things stabilize before trying to increase again. I know teacher's unions and our education college crowd will scream bloody murder, but we can't continue what we are now doing knowing that it is not working and is bankrupting our country. Putting the money back in the taxpayer's pocket will do more good than continually pouring it down the teacher's union rat hole.
PS
Try this one. We have a school with 100 graduates and spend $10,000 per year on each. We do this for 13 years for a total of $130,000 for each graduate. With the example above, we increase the expenditure by 10% and get 1% benefit. We were spending for the whole 100 graduates, $13,000,000 and are now going to spend 10% more or $14,300,000 and get 101 high school graduates. Follow me so far? How much did it cost to get that "one" extra graduate? $14,300,000 - $13,000,000 = $1,300,000. Do you want to think about that again? That's right, for $1,300,000 of tax money, we got one more graduate. Did we get our monies worth? I leave it to you. It would be much worse if I used compound interest as I should have.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Method Acting
Years ago when Marlon Brando was famous, he popularized the concept of "Method Acting". As I understand this technique, the actor really gets into the part to the extent that they really think they are the person who they are playing. By doing this it is supposed to develop the realism where the audience feels that the actor is not acting, but is the real person. That is the final objective of the actor isn't it? In life there are all kinds of examples where this technique is employed to reach an objective and that objective is to influence people for their own ends. Here are a few real life examples.
We all know that for a salesman to be affective, he must believe in his product and company. Given two products that are near equal, the salesman who believes most in his product will be the one who comes home with the order. In every sales meeting that I have ever gone to, it was the objective of the meeting to convince the salesman that he had the best products and that he was the best salesman. There are all kinds of examples where a company with inferior products was able to get the orders away for their competitor who had the superior products. You know this is true. We see this in sports too. The person who feels most that they can win, normally is the winner. The point is that the best product is not always the winner and that the messenger can have more of an affect than the product they represent.
Take another example from religion. Did you ever listen to a preacher who had any dought about the existence of God or Heaven? We all know that there is "Zero" proof of the existence of either and the preacher is working with this same "Zero" proof that we are. If this is the case, then why do so many normal people buy into what the preacher is saying? This is a case where a good salesman can take a product that does not appear to exist and still sell it to people all over the place. I have listened to the claims made by many preachers of detailed facts that they claim to know about God or Heaven and even to extent of knowing what Jesus was "thinking" at a particular time. We all know that his statement is impossible and a complete fabrication, but still many believe and accept the preacher's claims as "fact".
I used to teach Decision Theory at a major university. In the decision making process it is critical that one separate "fact" from "fiction". Most people know this, but they don't seem to be able to do it when the chips are down. One very simple concept or rule that has been around for a while is, "Actions talk, bull shit walks". If more of us would listen to this simple rule, we would make a lot better decisions. It seems that "Talk" is placed ahead or on the same level as "Action" when it comes to decisions. That can be a very big mistake. What we want in a decision is to select the "correct" or "best" product or solution. If we listen to the best salesman alone, do you think we will select the best product or will the best salesman convince us to buy their inferior product? I am getting close to the point now.
In this past Presidential election we had two candidates or salesman out selling their products. The real question before us was, "who had the best product". If we were using our brains, we would have been trying to find out which one had the "best" product, but that is not what many people did. Some voted to "punish" a person who was not even running. "I hate George Bush". I think that everyone would agree that Obama was a better salesman than McCain, but who had the better product? The point that I am trying to make is that when a decision comes along that is as important as who will be President of the USA, we need to look at "Actions" not the "Bullshit" and we did not do that. I can only conclude that the average voters here in the USA are among the dumbest in the world. After spending more per kid on education than any country in the world, we only graduate 60% nation wide and only 50% in Los Angles and 25% in Detroit. While in Wisconsin we graduate 98% of non black kids, we can only get 40% of blacks thru high school in the same state.
Final note on "Method Acting". Obama used "Method Acting" better than Marlon Brando, all the way to the Presidency of the USA and you now know it. He just might be the best "Acting" President that we have ever had, but right now we need the real thing.
PS
Remember the old Dragnet TV program with Jack Webb? He was Sargent Friday and he used to say, "Just the facts m'am". What he meant was to give him the facts and forget all the "bullshit". We seem to have forgotten that in this last election and allowed Obama to spin us full of "bullshit". Now "bullshit" is all we have to show for the election.
We all know that for a salesman to be affective, he must believe in his product and company. Given two products that are near equal, the salesman who believes most in his product will be the one who comes home with the order. In every sales meeting that I have ever gone to, it was the objective of the meeting to convince the salesman that he had the best products and that he was the best salesman. There are all kinds of examples where a company with inferior products was able to get the orders away for their competitor who had the superior products. You know this is true. We see this in sports too. The person who feels most that they can win, normally is the winner. The point is that the best product is not always the winner and that the messenger can have more of an affect than the product they represent.
Take another example from religion. Did you ever listen to a preacher who had any dought about the existence of God or Heaven? We all know that there is "Zero" proof of the existence of either and the preacher is working with this same "Zero" proof that we are. If this is the case, then why do so many normal people buy into what the preacher is saying? This is a case where a good salesman can take a product that does not appear to exist and still sell it to people all over the place. I have listened to the claims made by many preachers of detailed facts that they claim to know about God or Heaven and even to extent of knowing what Jesus was "thinking" at a particular time. We all know that his statement is impossible and a complete fabrication, but still many believe and accept the preacher's claims as "fact".
I used to teach Decision Theory at a major university. In the decision making process it is critical that one separate "fact" from "fiction". Most people know this, but they don't seem to be able to do it when the chips are down. One very simple concept or rule that has been around for a while is, "Actions talk, bull shit walks". If more of us would listen to this simple rule, we would make a lot better decisions. It seems that "Talk" is placed ahead or on the same level as "Action" when it comes to decisions. That can be a very big mistake. What we want in a decision is to select the "correct" or "best" product or solution. If we listen to the best salesman alone, do you think we will select the best product or will the best salesman convince us to buy their inferior product? I am getting close to the point now.
In this past Presidential election we had two candidates or salesman out selling their products. The real question before us was, "who had the best product". If we were using our brains, we would have been trying to find out which one had the "best" product, but that is not what many people did. Some voted to "punish" a person who was not even running. "I hate George Bush". I think that everyone would agree that Obama was a better salesman than McCain, but who had the better product? The point that I am trying to make is that when a decision comes along that is as important as who will be President of the USA, we need to look at "Actions" not the "Bullshit" and we did not do that. I can only conclude that the average voters here in the USA are among the dumbest in the world. After spending more per kid on education than any country in the world, we only graduate 60% nation wide and only 50% in Los Angles and 25% in Detroit. While in Wisconsin we graduate 98% of non black kids, we can only get 40% of blacks thru high school in the same state.
Final note on "Method Acting". Obama used "Method Acting" better than Marlon Brando, all the way to the Presidency of the USA and you now know it. He just might be the best "Acting" President that we have ever had, but right now we need the real thing.
PS
Remember the old Dragnet TV program with Jack Webb? He was Sargent Friday and he used to say, "Just the facts m'am". What he meant was to give him the facts and forget all the "bullshit". We seem to have forgotten that in this last election and allowed Obama to spin us full of "bullshit". Now "bullshit" is all we have to show for the election.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Meat And Potatoes
Years ago, I used to be a university professor teaching in the Industrial Engineering Department at San Jose State. I taught upper division and graduate classes. Early on, I decided on a teaching style that I felt comfortable with and one that would get the job done. I am not going to go in here on exactly what I meant by "get the job done", but it was to get the students to learn and understand what I was hired to teach. No one ever showed my how to teach, nor was I required to take any special course before I started teaching. I had been a student most of my life and observed what seemed to work and what didn't. Based on these real world observations, I came up with my own plan. Like most plans, in the final analysis, it was not all that complicated.
I noticed that in many of the classes that I had taken, the teacher or professor seemed to start off and stress small points about the subject. Since I did not know much about the subject at the start, much of the information in their examples went over my head. I know why a teacher does this and it is because they become bored with the basics and want to get to the interesting part as soon as possible. I don't blame them for this, but their job is to teach these kids and give them their monies worth. What I did was to stress the basics right from the start since later, I would have plenty of time to bring in the fine points with interesting examples. I coined the concept of "Meat and Potatoes" as my model. I am a Scottish hillbilly and we always had gravey at every meal. So where is the "gravey" to pour on the "Meat and Potatoes"? The "gravey" is the interesting examples. It serves no purpose to have all this "gravey" if there is no "Meat and Potatoes" on the plate. This was my style and it worked.
Now let's look at our public schools. What seems to be happening is that our schools have all turned into places where all they serve is "Gravey". If you look at what our kids learn, it contains no "Meat and Potatoes". My father used to say that, "you don't know what you don't know". I thought this was a silly statement, but when you look at what is happening in our schools it makes perfect sence. Not only, "don't our kid know what they don't know", but the teachers don't either. I have found that in a learning situation, you can find good "gravey" all over the place, but not much "Meat and Potatoes". I contend that if our teachers were to stress "Meat and Potatoes" more that the "Gravey" would take care of itself. A good meal without any "Gravey" is not all that bad, but one without "Meat and Potatoes" will not provide the nourishment needed to sustain you thru life. Isn't that the problem we have in our public schools?
You hear people talking about "back to basics". This is just another way of stating what I have said. I don't have any basic problems with the "Green" movement if it were presented as "Gravey" on the top of sound sience and math. The problem is that our public schools what to jump directly in the extreme aspects of the "Green" movement without first providing our kids with the "Meat and Potatoes" necessary to fully understand what they are doing. You see this all the time with things like "Global Warming" or renewable energy. Hybid cars are another example where "Gravey" has come before the "Meat and Potatoes". If our kids understood the "Meat and Potatoes" of energy and weather they would be in better position to judge the merit of these different concepts. As it is, they don't have the "Meat and Potatoes" under them to judge for themselves. They only have the choice to accept the "Green" cool aid or reject it on faith alone. We have let our kids down by allowing our public schools to get away with this type of teaching and indocrination of our kids. It is our fault and the cure is simple. We need to demand that our kids get fed more "Meat and Potatoes" and less "Gravey.
I noticed that in many of the classes that I had taken, the teacher or professor seemed to start off and stress small points about the subject. Since I did not know much about the subject at the start, much of the information in their examples went over my head. I know why a teacher does this and it is because they become bored with the basics and want to get to the interesting part as soon as possible. I don't blame them for this, but their job is to teach these kids and give them their monies worth. What I did was to stress the basics right from the start since later, I would have plenty of time to bring in the fine points with interesting examples. I coined the concept of "Meat and Potatoes" as my model. I am a Scottish hillbilly and we always had gravey at every meal. So where is the "gravey" to pour on the "Meat and Potatoes"? The "gravey" is the interesting examples. It serves no purpose to have all this "gravey" if there is no "Meat and Potatoes" on the plate. This was my style and it worked.
Now let's look at our public schools. What seems to be happening is that our schools have all turned into places where all they serve is "Gravey". If you look at what our kids learn, it contains no "Meat and Potatoes". My father used to say that, "you don't know what you don't know". I thought this was a silly statement, but when you look at what is happening in our schools it makes perfect sence. Not only, "don't our kid know what they don't know", but the teachers don't either. I have found that in a learning situation, you can find good "gravey" all over the place, but not much "Meat and Potatoes". I contend that if our teachers were to stress "Meat and Potatoes" more that the "Gravey" would take care of itself. A good meal without any "Gravey" is not all that bad, but one without "Meat and Potatoes" will not provide the nourishment needed to sustain you thru life. Isn't that the problem we have in our public schools?
You hear people talking about "back to basics". This is just another way of stating what I have said. I don't have any basic problems with the "Green" movement if it were presented as "Gravey" on the top of sound sience and math. The problem is that our public schools what to jump directly in the extreme aspects of the "Green" movement without first providing our kids with the "Meat and Potatoes" necessary to fully understand what they are doing. You see this all the time with things like "Global Warming" or renewable energy. Hybid cars are another example where "Gravey" has come before the "Meat and Potatoes". If our kids understood the "Meat and Potatoes" of energy and weather they would be in better position to judge the merit of these different concepts. As it is, they don't have the "Meat and Potatoes" under them to judge for themselves. They only have the choice to accept the "Green" cool aid or reject it on faith alone. We have let our kids down by allowing our public schools to get away with this type of teaching and indocrination of our kids. It is our fault and the cure is simple. We need to demand that our kids get fed more "Meat and Potatoes" and less "Gravey.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Safe????????
We are all hearing talk about "Safe", yet I don't think any of the talking heads on TV have any idea exactly what "Safe" means. I could go look the word up in the dictionary, but that might impede my logic. If I have heard the word "Safe" one time regarding the Gulf oil spill, I have heard it a 1000 times. "We have to stop drilling in the Gulf until we can be "Sure" that it is "Safe". See what I have done? I have combined two words that no one know what they really mean.
First look at "Safe". In most peoples minds, the word "Safe" combines two meanings and they are that, "nothing bad will happen" and that the probability is 100%. Now from prior Blogs, you know that nothing in this world is 100%. Even what "Bad" means is subject to individual definition. If your kid played football for the local high school, you don't want anything "Bad" to happen to your son. If he got a broken leg, would that be "Bad"? How about a blister on his foot? Would that be "Bad". Do you feel that playing football is "Safe"? Even if we all agree that a broken leg is "Bad" we still let our son play football because we are willing to assume some degree of risk. What if in every game at least one boy got a broken leg. Would you still let your son play? What I am trying to do is to put this whole business of "Safe" in some perspective.
Let's say that drilling for oil was 100% "Safe" and there was no chance of a spill, but to make the well "Safe" it required a diver to go down and check the shut off valve once a month. Let's also say that in 1% of the dives, the diver was killed. It is now really "Safe". Should we stop all drilling? In China, there is a coal mine accident every day where miners are killed. Should China stop coal mining? If we keep using oil, at some point it will be so scarce and expensive that farmers will not be able to grow food and most humans will starve. Are humans "Safe" from starvation? Is the potential cause, oil well drilling and thus should be stopped?
Should we ground all airplane flights because "Bad" things can happen and people can be killed? Is killing a human more important than killing a fish or bird? Is the killing of fish and birds in the Gulf going to cause them to become extinct? I don't think so. If we do nothing and let nature take care of the spill, how long will it take before the area is 50% as well off as it was before? Does the whole area have to be 100% as well as it was before the oil spill for us to accept the problem as solved?
I hear people talking that we should not allow another well to be drilled in the Gulf until we can be 100% sure that it is "Safe". Obama has already closed down 33 wells that are currently being drilled. As far as I know the only people killed in the Gulf oil spill so far were the workers on the platform when it caught fire. I did not hear of anyone dying in Florida or any one's cat or dog dying. The maim problem is that people can not walk on the beach next to the water without getting oil on their shoes and feet. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to issue these people boots?
When I was a kid, we used to collect pop bottles to make money. Why doesn't Obama set up stations that will buy crude oil collected from the beaches for so much a pound. Kids could go out on the beach and collect the oil. The problem is that they don't want to work on "piece work", they want to be paid by the hour so they can screw around and collect the money without doing any real work. As a kid, most of my jobs were "piece work". Unions hate "piece work" because it is based om merit. Sorry, I got a little off the subject. The point is that we need to ask how much should be spent to clean up one pound of oil. We can't just say that we have to clean it up "no matter what it costs". I contend that in most areas that we should not do anything and let nature cure the problem over time. Next to every well that I ever worked on there was a "Sump" where we pumped waste crude into. These looked like big dirt bottomed swimming pools where the oil would float to the top where it could be sucked off once a month. In these oil covered swimming pools, there were always a few dead birds, but I have not heard anyone on TV or in the government complaining about it. There are thousands of these all over the world and they have been there for over 100 years. What we have around the Gulf are a lot of these swimming pools where the oil will collect naturally due to the shape of the shore, water currents and winds. As the oil collects, it will float to the top and clean water under the oil will disperse back into the ocean leaving the oil. As the oil gets thicker in these areas, it becomes "economical" to suck up and sell. The world is not going to come to an end over this nor is anyone else going to die.
We need to discuss what we are going to pay for what degree of "Safe" and what "Sure" means and how much we want to pay for a cleaner beach since every beach in the world has some oil on them and always has.
First look at "Safe". In most peoples minds, the word "Safe" combines two meanings and they are that, "nothing bad will happen" and that the probability is 100%. Now from prior Blogs, you know that nothing in this world is 100%. Even what "Bad" means is subject to individual definition. If your kid played football for the local high school, you don't want anything "Bad" to happen to your son. If he got a broken leg, would that be "Bad"? How about a blister on his foot? Would that be "Bad". Do you feel that playing football is "Safe"? Even if we all agree that a broken leg is "Bad" we still let our son play football because we are willing to assume some degree of risk. What if in every game at least one boy got a broken leg. Would you still let your son play? What I am trying to do is to put this whole business of "Safe" in some perspective.
Let's say that drilling for oil was 100% "Safe" and there was no chance of a spill, but to make the well "Safe" it required a diver to go down and check the shut off valve once a month. Let's also say that in 1% of the dives, the diver was killed. It is now really "Safe". Should we stop all drilling? In China, there is a coal mine accident every day where miners are killed. Should China stop coal mining? If we keep using oil, at some point it will be so scarce and expensive that farmers will not be able to grow food and most humans will starve. Are humans "Safe" from starvation? Is the potential cause, oil well drilling and thus should be stopped?
Should we ground all airplane flights because "Bad" things can happen and people can be killed? Is killing a human more important than killing a fish or bird? Is the killing of fish and birds in the Gulf going to cause them to become extinct? I don't think so. If we do nothing and let nature take care of the spill, how long will it take before the area is 50% as well off as it was before? Does the whole area have to be 100% as well as it was before the oil spill for us to accept the problem as solved?
I hear people talking that we should not allow another well to be drilled in the Gulf until we can be 100% sure that it is "Safe". Obama has already closed down 33 wells that are currently being drilled. As far as I know the only people killed in the Gulf oil spill so far were the workers on the platform when it caught fire. I did not hear of anyone dying in Florida or any one's cat or dog dying. The maim problem is that people can not walk on the beach next to the water without getting oil on their shoes and feet. Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to issue these people boots?
When I was a kid, we used to collect pop bottles to make money. Why doesn't Obama set up stations that will buy crude oil collected from the beaches for so much a pound. Kids could go out on the beach and collect the oil. The problem is that they don't want to work on "piece work", they want to be paid by the hour so they can screw around and collect the money without doing any real work. As a kid, most of my jobs were "piece work". Unions hate "piece work" because it is based om merit. Sorry, I got a little off the subject. The point is that we need to ask how much should be spent to clean up one pound of oil. We can't just say that we have to clean it up "no matter what it costs". I contend that in most areas that we should not do anything and let nature cure the problem over time. Next to every well that I ever worked on there was a "Sump" where we pumped waste crude into. These looked like big dirt bottomed swimming pools where the oil would float to the top where it could be sucked off once a month. In these oil covered swimming pools, there were always a few dead birds, but I have not heard anyone on TV or in the government complaining about it. There are thousands of these all over the world and they have been there for over 100 years. What we have around the Gulf are a lot of these swimming pools where the oil will collect naturally due to the shape of the shore, water currents and winds. As the oil collects, it will float to the top and clean water under the oil will disperse back into the ocean leaving the oil. As the oil gets thicker in these areas, it becomes "economical" to suck up and sell. The world is not going to come to an end over this nor is anyone else going to die.
We need to discuss what we are going to pay for what degree of "Safe" and what "Sure" means and how much we want to pay for a cleaner beach since every beach in the world has some oil on them and always has.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill, Again?
Since the Gulf oil spill is in the news all the time, I thought that I would add my comments to all those flying around. I mentioned that I was born in the oil town of Bakersfield, Ca and everyone that I knew worked in the oil fields. To work my way thru engineering school, I worked summers in the oil fields too, so I know a little more than the average person about oil and the Gulf oil spill.
First, you need to ask yourself if you have ever held a jar of real crude oil and poured it out thru your fingers to get the feel of the stuff? I contend that none of the talking heads in the news ever have. The stuff does not feel like oil at all. It feels more like dirty water. Now here is a comparison that most people should be able to relate too. Compare a container of whole milk with is about 3.5% butter fat with a cube of butter. The whole milk is similar to the stuff coming out of the well in the Gulf. If you were to spill the milk on your door step, you could wash it off with a garden hose with plain water. Now if you were to drop the butter on your door step, it would be difficult to hose off with plain water. Butter is oily and waxy and is hard to wash off with plain water. We all remember the oil spill in Alaska by the tanker that went aground. That stuff was not plain crude oil, it was partially refined and had the water removed. It was more like butter than whole milk. As a result it was a lot harder to clean up as we all now know. The stuff in the Gulf is a lot different, more like whole milk.
Now for the beaches in Florida and around the Gulf. If you have ever spent any time there, you know that there is very little tide in the Gulf compared to most over coastal areas. Alaska has some of the highest tides. The reason that I bring this point up is that in Alaska the tide caused the oil to be distributed up and down the beaches. In the Gulf with practically no tide, the oil is disributed more like a bath tub ring. The beaches in Florida that are a couple hundred yards wide are not going to be covered with oil like Alaska. It is going to be a narrow strip just next to the water. Small dikes will be able to keep the oil off the beaches. This was not possible in Alaska. The point that I am trying to make is that the situation is a lot different in the Gulf compared to Alaska.
Next, when you wash you hands have you noticed that warm water cleans a lot better than cold water? In Alaska the water is just above freezing at no more than 40f. In the Gulf, it can be over 80f. Try washing your hands in 40f water and then in 80f water. In the warmer water the oil in your hands mixes a lot better in the warmer water. Did you ever notice a doctor washing his or her hands? If you did, the always use cold water so that all the natural oil in their hands is not removed. If they washed their hands in warm or hot water, they would have all kinds of skin problems in no time. As you can see there are big differences between the two spills.
As you may have noticed by my profile that I am interested in cooking. I like to cook and making bread is one of my favorite things to do. When you make bread with yeast, you don't put the dough in the refrigerator to raise the dough. You put it someplace warm so the yeast can grow. It is the same for making home brew. Since the water is so cold in Alaska, there is very little yeast and bacteria activity compared to the Gulf. In Alaska 90% of the oil was never recovered so the natural activites of yeast and bacteria as well as oxidation had to clean up that 90%. In the Gulf with the higher temperatures, these natural sources will operate much faster to get rid of the oil compared to Alaska.
I think we all have had our eyes glued on the black stuff coming out of the pipe a mile down. It looks like "pure" oil is pouring out all over the place. What is coming out of the pipe is a combination of oil, water and gas. At these depths and these pressures Methane gas is not in a gas state before it come out of the pipe, it is a liquid and as soon as the pressure drops at the tip of the pipe, the Methane turns from a liquid to a gas and in the process expands thousands of times its original volume. This give the impression that much more volume is coming out of the pipe. It is like burning a fire in your fire place. Notice how little wood it takes to make such a large amount of smoke? What we are seeing coming out of the pipe is equivalent to smoke that is colored by the oil just like smoke from you fire place is colored by carbon and soot particles. Some of the Methane desolves in the sea water, but most bubbles to the surface and escapes into the atmosphere. If you have ever been on a large boat and looked at the wake, you will have an idea of how the plume expands. It is similar with the Gulf oil spill. It looks worse than it really is. That is why the news people are all on this. It makes a very good story.
Finally, have you ever swan in a clear lake or in the ocean? Where are all the fish? They are mostly down near the bottom. Did you ever see a syrofoam coffee cup down there? You didn't and that is because they float just like the oil. No oil is going to sink to the bottom unless someone puts it on a rock and throws the rock into the ocean. The sea weed and fish are not going to be damaged very much by the Gulf oil spill. How about all the birds that will die? If you have spent any time on the Gulf, you noticed all the Pelicans sitting on pilings. Did you ever see a Pelican nest or a baby Pelican? You won't see them in the Gulf because they don't nest there. They nest in North Dakota and places like that. When you hear claims of all the birds being wiped out, get your fact streight. It is not going to happen.
This might be the worst oil spill in US history, but it is not the worst in the Gulf. Did you know that? Did you ever hear about all the damage that these other spills caused? The reason is that after only a few years and little clean up effort, you can't find any real permenent damage. Remember when the river in Cleveland caught on fire? The river is very good fishing today as is Lake Erie. What we are going to have to do is look at the facts not all stuff coming out of politicans and the news media.
First, you need to ask yourself if you have ever held a jar of real crude oil and poured it out thru your fingers to get the feel of the stuff? I contend that none of the talking heads in the news ever have. The stuff does not feel like oil at all. It feels more like dirty water. Now here is a comparison that most people should be able to relate too. Compare a container of whole milk with is about 3.5% butter fat with a cube of butter. The whole milk is similar to the stuff coming out of the well in the Gulf. If you were to spill the milk on your door step, you could wash it off with a garden hose with plain water. Now if you were to drop the butter on your door step, it would be difficult to hose off with plain water. Butter is oily and waxy and is hard to wash off with plain water. We all remember the oil spill in Alaska by the tanker that went aground. That stuff was not plain crude oil, it was partially refined and had the water removed. It was more like butter than whole milk. As a result it was a lot harder to clean up as we all now know. The stuff in the Gulf is a lot different, more like whole milk.
Now for the beaches in Florida and around the Gulf. If you have ever spent any time there, you know that there is very little tide in the Gulf compared to most over coastal areas. Alaska has some of the highest tides. The reason that I bring this point up is that in Alaska the tide caused the oil to be distributed up and down the beaches. In the Gulf with practically no tide, the oil is disributed more like a bath tub ring. The beaches in Florida that are a couple hundred yards wide are not going to be covered with oil like Alaska. It is going to be a narrow strip just next to the water. Small dikes will be able to keep the oil off the beaches. This was not possible in Alaska. The point that I am trying to make is that the situation is a lot different in the Gulf compared to Alaska.
Next, when you wash you hands have you noticed that warm water cleans a lot better than cold water? In Alaska the water is just above freezing at no more than 40f. In the Gulf, it can be over 80f. Try washing your hands in 40f water and then in 80f water. In the warmer water the oil in your hands mixes a lot better in the warmer water. Did you ever notice a doctor washing his or her hands? If you did, the always use cold water so that all the natural oil in their hands is not removed. If they washed their hands in warm or hot water, they would have all kinds of skin problems in no time. As you can see there are big differences between the two spills.
As you may have noticed by my profile that I am interested in cooking. I like to cook and making bread is one of my favorite things to do. When you make bread with yeast, you don't put the dough in the refrigerator to raise the dough. You put it someplace warm so the yeast can grow. It is the same for making home brew. Since the water is so cold in Alaska, there is very little yeast and bacteria activity compared to the Gulf. In Alaska 90% of the oil was never recovered so the natural activites of yeast and bacteria as well as oxidation had to clean up that 90%. In the Gulf with the higher temperatures, these natural sources will operate much faster to get rid of the oil compared to Alaska.
I think we all have had our eyes glued on the black stuff coming out of the pipe a mile down. It looks like "pure" oil is pouring out all over the place. What is coming out of the pipe is a combination of oil, water and gas. At these depths and these pressures Methane gas is not in a gas state before it come out of the pipe, it is a liquid and as soon as the pressure drops at the tip of the pipe, the Methane turns from a liquid to a gas and in the process expands thousands of times its original volume. This give the impression that much more volume is coming out of the pipe. It is like burning a fire in your fire place. Notice how little wood it takes to make such a large amount of smoke? What we are seeing coming out of the pipe is equivalent to smoke that is colored by the oil just like smoke from you fire place is colored by carbon and soot particles. Some of the Methane desolves in the sea water, but most bubbles to the surface and escapes into the atmosphere. If you have ever been on a large boat and looked at the wake, you will have an idea of how the plume expands. It is similar with the Gulf oil spill. It looks worse than it really is. That is why the news people are all on this. It makes a very good story.
Finally, have you ever swan in a clear lake or in the ocean? Where are all the fish? They are mostly down near the bottom. Did you ever see a syrofoam coffee cup down there? You didn't and that is because they float just like the oil. No oil is going to sink to the bottom unless someone puts it on a rock and throws the rock into the ocean. The sea weed and fish are not going to be damaged very much by the Gulf oil spill. How about all the birds that will die? If you have spent any time on the Gulf, you noticed all the Pelicans sitting on pilings. Did you ever see a Pelican nest or a baby Pelican? You won't see them in the Gulf because they don't nest there. They nest in North Dakota and places like that. When you hear claims of all the birds being wiped out, get your fact streight. It is not going to happen.
This might be the worst oil spill in US history, but it is not the worst in the Gulf. Did you know that? Did you ever hear about all the damage that these other spills caused? The reason is that after only a few years and little clean up effort, you can't find any real permenent damage. Remember when the river in Cleveland caught on fire? The river is very good fishing today as is Lake Erie. What we are going to have to do is look at the facts not all stuff coming out of politicans and the news media.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Crime And Punishment
This Blog is a little off beat for me given my official profile, but here goes. I was watching the news today and they were discussing the Madoff case and what he is now doing in prison. It seems that he is bragging to his fellow inmates about how he was able to screw all of his friend out of billions. He seemed proud of what he had done. As the TV discussion went on, one of the people asked if the punishment was adequate for the crime and the hurt that he had done to so many people? The TV judge told them that our criminal system does not actually "punish" people for crimes, it only "takes away their freedons". I got to thinking about this and compared how we treat criminals to how I was treated as a kid by my parents for my small crimes. My dad would "punish" me with a belt on my butt. Now that was true "punishment". Now days, the thing to do with your kid who has commited one of these kid crimes is to give them "time out". They go sit in their room for a while, sort of like being in "prison". Now, I am up there in years so I have had time to see how this "Doctor Spock" thing has worked out and I can tell you "it has not". Kids today mind much worse here in the USA than they have ever in the history of this country. Too strong? I don't think so. This is one of the main factors that is at the root of the poor school performance of our kids. We are the worst in the world for any country who spends at least 10% of what we spend sending our kids to public schools. I think that history has proven that we need "punishment" as well as "rewards" to assure responsible social conduct. I wondered off the topic a little.
Our prison system does not actually "punish" prisoners for their crimes except for capital crimes where we impose the death penalty. Other than the death penalty, there is no other "punishment" in our prison system. All other crimes get the same treatment and that is a glorified "time out". The only variation is the length of the "time out". These criminals still get fed without doing any work. They get a clean bed and medical treatment better than many tax paying citizens. What I am getting aound to is that we need to put "punishment" back into our criminal system. I know that "punishment" worked on me and all the kids that I knew. Kids who I knew who had parents to gave them "time outs" or tried to "reason" with them all had kids that were sissies who cried when they did not get their way. We all saw them as weak spoiled brats.
Now, you know that I am a fiscal conservative and am always looking for ways to cut spending or get better value for my tax dollar. We spend more on criminals than we do on our best students. Is that logical? I think we spend far too much on education now for what we are getting and the same is true and even worse for our crimial system. Remember when that case came up in Hong Kong when the American kid was sentenced to "caning"? That is just a good spanking on the butt with a stick, but us Americans were up in arms. Why? Because the kid could get a sore butt and not be able to sit down for a while. I think we should start adding thing like spankings into our criminal system here in the USA and then gradually increase the number of true "punishments". Anyone who got a sentence of 10 years or more should be executed and those with less should get a regimen of "punishment" and shorter times in prison. I think it would significantly reduce cost and reduce crime at the same time. We all know that what we are now doing is not working. It works to the extent that we have more people in jail here than any country in the world. If they are in jail, they can't commit additional crimes. I think that if they were "punished" and then let out after a short time to think about what they did and that if the were to do it again, they could expect a harder punishment, crime would go down and it would be cheaper. The longer a person stays in prison, the harder it is to get them back into society. This is a fact independant of the original crime.
You always here "Crime and Punishment", but there really isn't any "punishment". It is just a "time out".
Our prison system does not actually "punish" prisoners for their crimes except for capital crimes where we impose the death penalty. Other than the death penalty, there is no other "punishment" in our prison system. All other crimes get the same treatment and that is a glorified "time out". The only variation is the length of the "time out". These criminals still get fed without doing any work. They get a clean bed and medical treatment better than many tax paying citizens. What I am getting aound to is that we need to put "punishment" back into our criminal system. I know that "punishment" worked on me and all the kids that I knew. Kids who I knew who had parents to gave them "time outs" or tried to "reason" with them all had kids that were sissies who cried when they did not get their way. We all saw them as weak spoiled brats.
Now, you know that I am a fiscal conservative and am always looking for ways to cut spending or get better value for my tax dollar. We spend more on criminals than we do on our best students. Is that logical? I think we spend far too much on education now for what we are getting and the same is true and even worse for our crimial system. Remember when that case came up in Hong Kong when the American kid was sentenced to "caning"? That is just a good spanking on the butt with a stick, but us Americans were up in arms. Why? Because the kid could get a sore butt and not be able to sit down for a while. I think we should start adding thing like spankings into our criminal system here in the USA and then gradually increase the number of true "punishments". Anyone who got a sentence of 10 years or more should be executed and those with less should get a regimen of "punishment" and shorter times in prison. I think it would significantly reduce cost and reduce crime at the same time. We all know that what we are now doing is not working. It works to the extent that we have more people in jail here than any country in the world. If they are in jail, they can't commit additional crimes. I think that if they were "punished" and then let out after a short time to think about what they did and that if the were to do it again, they could expect a harder punishment, crime would go down and it would be cheaper. The longer a person stays in prison, the harder it is to get them back into society. This is a fact independant of the original crime.
You always here "Crime and Punishment", but there really isn't any "punishment". It is just a "time out".
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill Revisited
My grandfather was a plumber and when I was a kid, I used to help him sometimes. I would pack the Oakum into the sewer pipe joints before he poured in the molten lead. That is how it used to be done. Now it is mostly plastic. The other thing we did was to unplug sewer lines. This happened all the time. He had a big roll of steel tape that was called a "Snake" that we would run down the pipe while we twisted on one end. It was sharp on the end and could cut thru tree roots. Roots were a big problem and they still can be. Plugged up sewers was a common problem, so I was thinking that we should try some of "Mother Natures" ways of plugging pipes up. He goes on my idea from my grandfather and Mother Nature.
I think that some of you have had occasions to hook up an ice maker to your refrigerator while the main line still had pressure on it. The way that it is done is to bolt on a combination drill jig and shut off valve. Once the device is clamped onto the pipe, you can insert a drill thru a seal that will allow you do drill into the pipe while a gasket seals around the drill preventing any leaking. Once the drill is thru to the inside of the pipe, the drill can be pull back a little and a valve between the tip of the drill and outside of the pipe can be closed. Once the valve is closed, the drill can be fully removed. You can then attach the tube to the ice maker and then turn on the water with the valve that you closed after removing the drill. It is that easy. I have seen welders in the oil fields do this on above ground gas and oil lines. This is the way that many home hookups are made to the main water line so that water service to all in the area does not have to be turned off. My point is that plumbers and oil people already know how to do this. My change is the following.
Once the hole is drilled into the oil pipe, a special type drill is then reinserted that expands with 3 or 4 prongs when it is inserted into the pipe with the oil flowing thru it. It now acts like a tree root in a sewer line. The next thing that is needed is some toilet paper to put into the pipe at a similarly drilled hole up stream of the fake tree roots. This would not be toilet paper, but some high strength fiber material that would collect on the fake tree roots until the pipe became plugged. At the point the flow slowed, the fibers could be switched to cement for a final cure. Now some of the fibers would get past the fake roots, but over time more and more would catch just right and then more would collect. Now the toilet would be plugged.
Even if the plug leaked, it would be better than the full flow that we have now. If they could drill one hole into the pipe, they could drill more and install even more fake tree roots. These roots would be high strength tool steel that could hold the pressure and force from the oil and gas pushing on them. I think this would work and it could be done in parallel with any other ideas that they might also be trying. It seems to me that they are not doing things in parallel, only one thing at a time. I would be pulling out all the stops. It is possible to drill all the way thru and out the other side of the pipe if needed to hold the force. I think there are a lot of concepts that could be used that build on the idea of plugging up the sewer. Mother Nature has had a long time to perfect her systems and we should pay attention to her.
I think that some of you have had occasions to hook up an ice maker to your refrigerator while the main line still had pressure on it. The way that it is done is to bolt on a combination drill jig and shut off valve. Once the device is clamped onto the pipe, you can insert a drill thru a seal that will allow you do drill into the pipe while a gasket seals around the drill preventing any leaking. Once the drill is thru to the inside of the pipe, the drill can be pull back a little and a valve between the tip of the drill and outside of the pipe can be closed. Once the valve is closed, the drill can be fully removed. You can then attach the tube to the ice maker and then turn on the water with the valve that you closed after removing the drill. It is that easy. I have seen welders in the oil fields do this on above ground gas and oil lines. This is the way that many home hookups are made to the main water line so that water service to all in the area does not have to be turned off. My point is that plumbers and oil people already know how to do this. My change is the following.
Once the hole is drilled into the oil pipe, a special type drill is then reinserted that expands with 3 or 4 prongs when it is inserted into the pipe with the oil flowing thru it. It now acts like a tree root in a sewer line. The next thing that is needed is some toilet paper to put into the pipe at a similarly drilled hole up stream of the fake tree roots. This would not be toilet paper, but some high strength fiber material that would collect on the fake tree roots until the pipe became plugged. At the point the flow slowed, the fibers could be switched to cement for a final cure. Now some of the fibers would get past the fake roots, but over time more and more would catch just right and then more would collect. Now the toilet would be plugged.
Even if the plug leaked, it would be better than the full flow that we have now. If they could drill one hole into the pipe, they could drill more and install even more fake tree roots. These roots would be high strength tool steel that could hold the pressure and force from the oil and gas pushing on them. I think this would work and it could be done in parallel with any other ideas that they might also be trying. It seems to me that they are not doing things in parallel, only one thing at a time. I would be pulling out all the stops. It is possible to drill all the way thru and out the other side of the pipe if needed to hold the force. I think there are a lot of concepts that could be used that build on the idea of plugging up the sewer. Mother Nature has had a long time to perfect her systems and we should pay attention to her.
Thoughts On Memorial Day
I am 70 years old and have seen many "Memorial Days" come and go. I even remember when it was called "Flag Day" and "Veteran's Day". I remember walking to school past the small library in our town where there was a very small park that had a big carved sign with all the names of the people who were killed in the war from our small town. These were people killed in WWI, since we were still fighting WWII. I had just learned to read and was able to real all the names on the big sign. My father at the time was still in the Pacific fighting against the "Japs". That is what we all called them in those days. We used to play games on the beach, building big sand castles. When the castles were finished, we would all run down the beach and jump high into the air and come down on the sand castles screaming, "bombs over Tokyo" or "bombs over Tojo". We all knew the names of the people we were fighting against and were proud of our fathers, uncles and friends whose families were also away in the war. We all knew that we would win and that our fathers would be coming home. That was a long time ago and I was just a small kid looking out at the big world.
It seems to me that with every passing year we all seem to forget about the fathers and uncles who did not come home from the war or those who came home, but carried serious injuries for the rest of their lives. I was at a friend house one day after the war and his uncle was there working with his shirt off. That was the first time that I had ever seen a man who had been shot several times in the war and still survived. His body was all scared and deformed, but he did not seem to complain or ask for any special attention. It was difficult for him to do many of the normal things, but he seemed to get by. I asked my friend what was wrong with his uncle and he told me that he was shot in the war. That was the first time as a kid that I really understood what war was and the cost that we paid. I had seen John Wayne in the movies, but seeing a person who had actually been in the war and injured made a very big impression on me. I had been in many fights and knew that there were things in life that were worth fighting for. I got my share of bloody noses and black eyes and I knew that in fights, like wars, people are going to get hurt and that was just part of it. Getting hurt was not a good enough reason "not" to defend yourself. Often my fights were about my family and I knew that was why my father was away in the war. My father did not want to go into the army, but when his name was called he said, "good bye" and got on the bus with all the other fathers. I did not see him again until the war was over.
This brings me back to "Memorial Day". In our small town, we had in our "Memorial Day" parade just a small color guard of older men who carried 70 year old rifles and the American Flag. They were followed by the high school marching band and a group of Cub Scouts and a troop of Brownies. That was it. It was small and short for sure, but the message was clear for those in the parade and those watching. It was a "big deal".
The final point that I want to make is the strange state of politics in the USA at this time. We just had the Vice President over in Europe complementing them on how much we owed them and the fact that they had all been there "doing something" for the past 1000 years and we were new kids on the block and should appreciate the contributions from Europe. I have no idea what those were, corn and potatoes came from here. I have been watching for the past 70 years, waiting for some European big shot to come over here on "Memorial Day" and say "thanks" for saving their collective asses in two world wars. They would all be speaking German right now if it were not for the fathers and uncles from here who died saving them. I just saw a list of places where American soldiers are buried in Europe. It was over 100,000 who did not come home to their families, yet I do not recall a "thank you" from anyone from Europe. Most of us or our families left Europe because we did not like the place or were not being treated fairly. It is interesting how the tables have turned and now we have the fancy European money on the ropes. On this "Memorial Day" do you think we will be called on the save their asses again?
It seems to me that with every passing year we all seem to forget about the fathers and uncles who did not come home from the war or those who came home, but carried serious injuries for the rest of their lives. I was at a friend house one day after the war and his uncle was there working with his shirt off. That was the first time that I had ever seen a man who had been shot several times in the war and still survived. His body was all scared and deformed, but he did not seem to complain or ask for any special attention. It was difficult for him to do many of the normal things, but he seemed to get by. I asked my friend what was wrong with his uncle and he told me that he was shot in the war. That was the first time as a kid that I really understood what war was and the cost that we paid. I had seen John Wayne in the movies, but seeing a person who had actually been in the war and injured made a very big impression on me. I had been in many fights and knew that there were things in life that were worth fighting for. I got my share of bloody noses and black eyes and I knew that in fights, like wars, people are going to get hurt and that was just part of it. Getting hurt was not a good enough reason "not" to defend yourself. Often my fights were about my family and I knew that was why my father was away in the war. My father did not want to go into the army, but when his name was called he said, "good bye" and got on the bus with all the other fathers. I did not see him again until the war was over.
This brings me back to "Memorial Day". In our small town, we had in our "Memorial Day" parade just a small color guard of older men who carried 70 year old rifles and the American Flag. They were followed by the high school marching band and a group of Cub Scouts and a troop of Brownies. That was it. It was small and short for sure, but the message was clear for those in the parade and those watching. It was a "big deal".
The final point that I want to make is the strange state of politics in the USA at this time. We just had the Vice President over in Europe complementing them on how much we owed them and the fact that they had all been there "doing something" for the past 1000 years and we were new kids on the block and should appreciate the contributions from Europe. I have no idea what those were, corn and potatoes came from here. I have been watching for the past 70 years, waiting for some European big shot to come over here on "Memorial Day" and say "thanks" for saving their collective asses in two world wars. They would all be speaking German right now if it were not for the fathers and uncles from here who died saving them. I just saw a list of places where American soldiers are buried in Europe. It was over 100,000 who did not come home to their families, yet I do not recall a "thank you" from anyone from Europe. Most of us or our families left Europe because we did not like the place or were not being treated fairly. It is interesting how the tables have turned and now we have the fancy European money on the ropes. On this "Memorial Day" do you think we will be called on the save their asses again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)