This is my challenge to you. Who but a Judas would do some thing like giving 16 F-16 Jet Fighters and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt? If you can come up with a logical reason, other than Obama being a Judas, let me know. I have some friends who are cool-aid drinking liberals and I put the question to them as to why Obama would do such a thing. The answer was to make the area "safer". To come to that conclusion, you would first have to figure out why anyone would want to invade Egypt. It is already killing itself from the inside by out of control population growth. Their population doubles every 20 years and they have not been able to feed their population in years. They depend on hand-outs for food and energy. It is just like Hatti, but not on an island and the people are not so black. They do have one thing in common and that is the Africa connection.
I tried hard to get one of my liberal friends to defend Obama's decision in more logical detail, but all declined. Obama liberals don't need to think for themselves, they have Obama to think for them and to lead them where ever a Judas normally leads his followers. I am not concerned about Obama leading his cool-aid drinking followers over the cliff, but in the process, he is screwing up every thing that my family has built here since 1608. That is the problem.
Have you checked out what the liberal media has had to say about the decision? For them, the decision does not even make page #10. Remember when the Democrats used the word "gravitas"? It went thru the liberal media like corn thru a goose. Everyone was picking up on the word. If that is not proof that they all slop at the same watering hole, I don't know what is. If you watch the White House news conferences and notice a new or unusual word being used, you can bet that same word will be used by the liberal media. It is a brainwashing technique to get you to associate the word with the liberal message without thinking about it. It is kind of like a familiar smell making you think of something associated with that smell. These things don't happen by "chance". Someone is at the controls and that is Obama and the liberal media. It is actually a lot worse than most of you realize, and this thing about Egypt is just a simple example. There will be a lot more, so get ready.
If you are now convinced that Obama is a Judas, have enough courage to tell your friends. At first, they will think you are crazy, but if you give them the facts in small doses, they will get the message. It is up to people like us, because we are not going to get any help from the liberal media or our schools or our colleges. They all seem to be on the cool-aid.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Guitar Is Now Finished
Hey, you did not think that I had what it takes to make a first class guitar. Well, I finished the guitar and it sounds great. I had a professional from Nashville play it and he found that it was right on from the first fret, all the way down in every note and every cord. It don't get no better than that.
Remember that the sound board was made from a 1946 Taylorcraft wing spar and the Sitka Spruce tree was cut back int the 1930's. If that was not "cured" wood, I don't know what cured wood is. It was a lot of detailed work that I had not done before, but it turned out great. The only other thing that I need to do is to laser the name of my plane and the tail number on the face of the guitar. If anyone who makes guitars is interested, give me a comment and I think that I could help you come up with some tone wood from a classic airplane that you could use to make a "GREEN" classic guitar.
For me, this has been a great experiance and I would like to share it with anyone who has a similar interest. Now, I and going to go and some "hot licks" on my new guitar.
Remember that the sound board was made from a 1946 Taylorcraft wing spar and the Sitka Spruce tree was cut back int the 1930's. If that was not "cured" wood, I don't know what cured wood is. It was a lot of detailed work that I had not done before, but it turned out great. The only other thing that I need to do is to laser the name of my plane and the tail number on the face of the guitar. If anyone who makes guitars is interested, give me a comment and I think that I could help you come up with some tone wood from a classic airplane that you could use to make a "GREEN" classic guitar.
For me, this has been a great experiance and I would like to share it with anyone who has a similar interest. Now, I and going to go and some "hot licks" on my new guitar.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Number One Reason For Bad Decisions
This blog is a repeat, but there are somethings that have to be repeated until they sink in. This is one. Most of us have made decisions that were good ones, but many were not. When we look at those that were not good decisions, there is a common factor that seems to come to the top of the list. With all the problems that our new college graduates are having finding jobs, many are examples of the kinds of bad decisions that I am talking about.
First off, all decisions are between "alternatives". That means that your decision is between which "alternative" to chose. If "all" the possible choices or alternatives are on your list, then it stands to reason that the best or correct alternative is some where on the list. The challenge is then to pick that best alternative. This is where most of us put our efforts, but there can be a problem with this process. Now, what is that?..It turns out that most people pick the best alternative on their list, but still end up with a bad decision. The reason is the "number one reason for bad decisions". The best alternative was "never" on the list in the first place. Failure to have all the alternatives on the list is the main reason for bad decisions. There are other reasons, like not picking the best alternative off the list when it is "on" the list. What this is, is a build up for my main point.
If your decision is about "who Obama really is" and all the alternatives are not on your list, then the decision process that you go thru may not end up with the correct decision. If your list does not include the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas, it is my position that you just may not come up with the correct decision. My recommendation is that you put the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas on your list and then pass it thru your regular decision making process. If you reject Obama as being a Judas, OK, but the "possibility" needs to be there.
Another, point in how you consider alternatives is in two parts. First, what are the chances of this alternative actually happening? Second, what is the impact or cost of that alternative if it happens? If the chances are small and the cost small, don't give it too much weight. If, on the other hand, the chances are small, but the cost is very high, give it a lot more consideration. Global Warming is one of those types of alternatives. The chances seem low, but the cost looks like it could be very high. It is the same way with Obama being a Judas. The chances of a USA President being a Judas like Hitler is small, but the cost would be very very high. For that final reason, you need to think about the possibility that Obama is a Judas. If you act on the basis that Obama is a Judas, what does it cost the USA? Not very much. If you do not act and Obama is a Judas, you risk everything. Could I make it more simple?
Watch the news and look at what Obama has been doing and see if you can put together any scenario other than the fact that Obama is a Judas that will connect the dots. Why else would he be doing the things that he is doing? Who does it help or hurt and why? The only way that I can answer all the strange things that Obama has been doing is that Obama is a Judas. When Germany woke up to what Hitler had done to them, it was too late and it will be the same here as long as we keep our eyes and minds closed to the alternative that Obama is a Judas.
First off, all decisions are between "alternatives". That means that your decision is between which "alternative" to chose. If "all" the possible choices or alternatives are on your list, then it stands to reason that the best or correct alternative is some where on the list. The challenge is then to pick that best alternative. This is where most of us put our efforts, but there can be a problem with this process. Now, what is that?..It turns out that most people pick the best alternative on their list, but still end up with a bad decision. The reason is the "number one reason for bad decisions". The best alternative was "never" on the list in the first place. Failure to have all the alternatives on the list is the main reason for bad decisions. There are other reasons, like not picking the best alternative off the list when it is "on" the list. What this is, is a build up for my main point.
If your decision is about "who Obama really is" and all the alternatives are not on your list, then the decision process that you go thru may not end up with the correct decision. If your list does not include the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas, it is my position that you just may not come up with the correct decision. My recommendation is that you put the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas on your list and then pass it thru your regular decision making process. If you reject Obama as being a Judas, OK, but the "possibility" needs to be there.
Another, point in how you consider alternatives is in two parts. First, what are the chances of this alternative actually happening? Second, what is the impact or cost of that alternative if it happens? If the chances are small and the cost small, don't give it too much weight. If, on the other hand, the chances are small, but the cost is very high, give it a lot more consideration. Global Warming is one of those types of alternatives. The chances seem low, but the cost looks like it could be very high. It is the same way with Obama being a Judas. The chances of a USA President being a Judas like Hitler is small, but the cost would be very very high. For that final reason, you need to think about the possibility that Obama is a Judas. If you act on the basis that Obama is a Judas, what does it cost the USA? Not very much. If you do not act and Obama is a Judas, you risk everything. Could I make it more simple?
Watch the news and look at what Obama has been doing and see if you can put together any scenario other than the fact that Obama is a Judas that will connect the dots. Why else would he be doing the things that he is doing? Who does it help or hurt and why? The only way that I can answer all the strange things that Obama has been doing is that Obama is a Judas. When Germany woke up to what Hitler had done to them, it was too late and it will be the same here as long as we keep our eyes and minds closed to the alternative that Obama is a Judas.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Gun Show Math
With all the talk about guns after the shooting at Sandy Hook, it seems to be boiling down to two things. (1) Simi Automatics that hold more than 10 shots and (2) Back ground checks for people who purchase guns at gun shows. To make this a little more logical, I thought that I would resort to some 4th grade math, here goes.
Just for the record, they guy at Sandy Hook would not be affected by anything that is currently under discussion except for an armed guard in the school and even that would not be more than about 75% affective. I just want to remind everyone that the only thing we can do is to "reduce" the number of kids killed, not totally stop the killing.
We already have tight controls on full automatics and to my knowledge, there has never been any mass murders done with any full automatic rifles obtained under current law. For that simple reason, I do not see any need for further discussion about full automatic rifles, except for the enforcement of current law. No new laws would help the situation.
My numbers may not agree with those of some of yours, so if they don't just apply your numbers and I think we will both end up in the same place. I do not see any of the new laws being discussed affecting the number of guns now in the hands of people. If that is the case, these new laws can only affect "first time legal buyers". Further, they will have no affect on "first time illegal buyers". As you can see, we are down to just "first time legal buyers". To get some idea of just how big of a group this is, let's run a few numbers.
We now have back ground checks and waiting periods for guns purchased from licensed gun dealers. The two areas where we do not now require background checks is for sales at gun shows and private sales. It is a fact that we are never going to be able to enforce background checks on private sales. I say this because, we have not been able to stop private drug sales and there are a 100 times more of them. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, so I rest my case on this point. That leaves only the gun shows.
Now, who buys guns at gun shows? 99% of the people already own one or more guns. Some own hundreds. By far the most guns purchased at gun shows are by collectors who already own several guns so that I estimate that no more than 1% of the guns purchased at gun shows are "first time buyers". Next, I estimate that no more than 2% of all guns sold are by way of gun shows. Most guns are sold by licensed gun dealers and Wal-Mart is the largest of those. Now comes the math. We said earlier that these new laws only really affect "first time buyers", so what do we have? If 2% of all guns are sold at gun shows and only 1% of those are to "first time buyers", what percentage of guns sold are we really going to affect. It works out to the fact that we are going to affect 2 guns out of 10,000 sold. That is the number.
Now, how much do you think that is really going to affect our safety? The number is "zero". Like most actions, there is another side. What is it going to cost for what ever benefit we think we are going to get? It is really not "zero", but it is very close. The way you calculate this one is to find out what it cost for each gun and divide that by the number of problem guns or people identified. If it has a cost of $10 to do a back ground check, and we spot 2/10,000, then the cost per each problem we find is $50,000. You know and I know that there is no way that we can do a good back ground check for just $10, so the cost is much more. Finally, we have to ask, "is it worth it?" That answer is easy. No!!!
PS--- When you divide any number by "zero", the cost of any benefit that you get is "infinite". Even a "one-mover" can figure out that if the cost is "infinite" that it is not worth doing. Just remember that.
Just for the record, they guy at Sandy Hook would not be affected by anything that is currently under discussion except for an armed guard in the school and even that would not be more than about 75% affective. I just want to remind everyone that the only thing we can do is to "reduce" the number of kids killed, not totally stop the killing.
We already have tight controls on full automatics and to my knowledge, there has never been any mass murders done with any full automatic rifles obtained under current law. For that simple reason, I do not see any need for further discussion about full automatic rifles, except for the enforcement of current law. No new laws would help the situation.
My numbers may not agree with those of some of yours, so if they don't just apply your numbers and I think we will both end up in the same place. I do not see any of the new laws being discussed affecting the number of guns now in the hands of people. If that is the case, these new laws can only affect "first time legal buyers". Further, they will have no affect on "first time illegal buyers". As you can see, we are down to just "first time legal buyers". To get some idea of just how big of a group this is, let's run a few numbers.
We now have back ground checks and waiting periods for guns purchased from licensed gun dealers. The two areas where we do not now require background checks is for sales at gun shows and private sales. It is a fact that we are never going to be able to enforce background checks on private sales. I say this because, we have not been able to stop private drug sales and there are a 100 times more of them. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, so I rest my case on this point. That leaves only the gun shows.
Now, who buys guns at gun shows? 99% of the people already own one or more guns. Some own hundreds. By far the most guns purchased at gun shows are by collectors who already own several guns so that I estimate that no more than 1% of the guns purchased at gun shows are "first time buyers". Next, I estimate that no more than 2% of all guns sold are by way of gun shows. Most guns are sold by licensed gun dealers and Wal-Mart is the largest of those. Now comes the math. We said earlier that these new laws only really affect "first time buyers", so what do we have? If 2% of all guns are sold at gun shows and only 1% of those are to "first time buyers", what percentage of guns sold are we really going to affect. It works out to the fact that we are going to affect 2 guns out of 10,000 sold. That is the number.
Now, how much do you think that is really going to affect our safety? The number is "zero". Like most actions, there is another side. What is it going to cost for what ever benefit we think we are going to get? It is really not "zero", but it is very close. The way you calculate this one is to find out what it cost for each gun and divide that by the number of problem guns or people identified. If it has a cost of $10 to do a back ground check, and we spot 2/10,000, then the cost per each problem we find is $50,000. You know and I know that there is no way that we can do a good back ground check for just $10, so the cost is much more. Finally, we have to ask, "is it worth it?" That answer is easy. No!!!
PS--- When you divide any number by "zero", the cost of any benefit that you get is "infinite". Even a "one-mover" can figure out that if the cost is "infinite" that it is not worth doing. Just remember that.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Danger Of "Anything Is Better Than....."
Well, now we have it. Remember all the people who voted on the basis that, "anything is better than Bush"? When ever you hear someone say that, "Anything is better than....", you know that you are hearing an idiot. I hear that expression all the time and it is always some idiot talking. In this last election, I know of several people who voted for Obama on the basis that, "anything is better than Bush" when Bush was not even on the ballot. I think that the people of Russia thought that, "anything is better than the Czar". Little did they know that the Czar was a lot better than the Communists. I don't know how long it is going to take before our voters realize that Obama and his plans are worse than "Bush". In the case of Russia, it took over 75 years and the deaths of millions. How long do you think it will take here?
Look at South Africa today. The people who took over South Africa were people who had moved into South Africa from other areas of Africa to get jobs. It was like the people now coming into the USA from Mexico. After a while these "new" Blacks out numbered the original Blacks and were able to push out the Europeans who civilized and built the country from scratch. At the time the Blacks in South Africa were saying that, "anything is better than the Europeans who built this place". On that basis, out went the Europeans. How about Rhodesia? It was the same thing there. I know a Rugby player who is from Rhodesia and he left the mess created when the Blacks took over. In both of the above cases, things are now a lot worse. I am just pointing out the danger of, "anything is better than..."
You could apply this demented logic to the gun control fever that is sweeping the country. "Anything is better than having our children shot in our schools". Sounds logical to the "one-movers", but we know that if we take guns away from the law abiding citizens that only criminals will have guns and we will all be less safe.
The point of this blog is to show how stupid this statement is and that is not only stupid, but very dangerous. These expressions, however, do have a degree of logic, "out of the frying pan, into the fire", or "better the devil you know than the devil that you don't ". How about, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". We need to start using expressions that have some degree of logic rather than the one where, "anything is better than.....".
Pay better attention to what is going on and speak up!!!
Look at South Africa today. The people who took over South Africa were people who had moved into South Africa from other areas of Africa to get jobs. It was like the people now coming into the USA from Mexico. After a while these "new" Blacks out numbered the original Blacks and were able to push out the Europeans who civilized and built the country from scratch. At the time the Blacks in South Africa were saying that, "anything is better than the Europeans who built this place". On that basis, out went the Europeans. How about Rhodesia? It was the same thing there. I know a Rugby player who is from Rhodesia and he left the mess created when the Blacks took over. In both of the above cases, things are now a lot worse. I am just pointing out the danger of, "anything is better than..."
You could apply this demented logic to the gun control fever that is sweeping the country. "Anything is better than having our children shot in our schools". Sounds logical to the "one-movers", but we know that if we take guns away from the law abiding citizens that only criminals will have guns and we will all be less safe.
The point of this blog is to show how stupid this statement is and that is not only stupid, but very dangerous. These expressions, however, do have a degree of logic, "out of the frying pan, into the fire", or "better the devil you know than the devil that you don't ". How about, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". We need to start using expressions that have some degree of logic rather than the one where, "anything is better than.....".
Pay better attention to what is going on and speak up!!!
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Clinton's Libya Tell All
What did you expect? Honesty! If that is what you thought then her husband did not get a blow job in the tax payer's Oval Office. These are the people who have control of our country. Here is my take.
I predicted that she would use the fact that she is going to find the horse that got out of the barn and put him back in the barn. You know the story. She should be fired for leaving the barn door open in the first place. Why people fall for this kind of smoke screen is beyond me. The only way that I can see that this kind of thing works for the people who voted for Obama is that they are just "stupid" people. They are the one movers. Remember when Obama said that he was "going to" cut red tape to help the people after the storm Sandy? Good managers anticipate problems and "prevent" them. I don't care how good you are at mopping up spilled milk. You should not spill milk in the first place. That is point one and Clinton pulled the wool over the eyes of most of our stupid people.
The second point is that Clinton was "not in the loop". How could that be. As any kind of manager, you have to have some kind of protocol where serious problems like the killing of our Ambassador should be taken to the desk of Clinton, no mater if she is sitting on the toilet or not. If there is a way that she could claim that she was "out of the loop", she should be fired. The problem is that most of our stupid voters have never hired or fired anyone nor have they had to set up controls and protocols for most of the situations that could arise. Clinton is clearly incompetent and works for a President who is either, also incompetent or who is a Judas.
I have not talked to my liberal friends yet about this, but I can predict how they will respond. They will use the fact that Clinton is working to find the horse and put him back in the barn to off set the fact that she allowed our soldiers and the Ambassador to be killed. Finding the horse will not bring back the lives of those people nor will it deter future attacks. Those are the facts. Why our simple minded citizens can not see this for what it is is beyond belief.
The final point is from our old boy, Mohammad Ali. Remember the "ropa dope", where Ali ran out the clock and got his opponent so tired that in the end, he was able to knock him out. That is exactly what is also going on here. Any time she answered a question, she went on and on about things that were not true or were calculated to eat up the clock. We see it in football, so why don't people see it when the stakes are much higher and when the future of our country is at stake? I am baffled and seem to be out of sync with the 52% who voted for Obama. Who are these people and what makes them tick? You tell me because they seem like strangers in this country. Where did they come from? Where do they plan on taking what is left of this country? I am worried for my children and so should you be!!!!
I predicted that she would use the fact that she is going to find the horse that got out of the barn and put him back in the barn. You know the story. She should be fired for leaving the barn door open in the first place. Why people fall for this kind of smoke screen is beyond me. The only way that I can see that this kind of thing works for the people who voted for Obama is that they are just "stupid" people. They are the one movers. Remember when Obama said that he was "going to" cut red tape to help the people after the storm Sandy? Good managers anticipate problems and "prevent" them. I don't care how good you are at mopping up spilled milk. You should not spill milk in the first place. That is point one and Clinton pulled the wool over the eyes of most of our stupid people.
The second point is that Clinton was "not in the loop". How could that be. As any kind of manager, you have to have some kind of protocol where serious problems like the killing of our Ambassador should be taken to the desk of Clinton, no mater if she is sitting on the toilet or not. If there is a way that she could claim that she was "out of the loop", she should be fired. The problem is that most of our stupid voters have never hired or fired anyone nor have they had to set up controls and protocols for most of the situations that could arise. Clinton is clearly incompetent and works for a President who is either, also incompetent or who is a Judas.
I have not talked to my liberal friends yet about this, but I can predict how they will respond. They will use the fact that Clinton is working to find the horse and put him back in the barn to off set the fact that she allowed our soldiers and the Ambassador to be killed. Finding the horse will not bring back the lives of those people nor will it deter future attacks. Those are the facts. Why our simple minded citizens can not see this for what it is is beyond belief.
The final point is from our old boy, Mohammad Ali. Remember the "ropa dope", where Ali ran out the clock and got his opponent so tired that in the end, he was able to knock him out. That is exactly what is also going on here. Any time she answered a question, she went on and on about things that were not true or were calculated to eat up the clock. We see it in football, so why don't people see it when the stakes are much higher and when the future of our country is at stake? I am baffled and seem to be out of sync with the 52% who voted for Obama. Who are these people and what makes them tick? You tell me because they seem like strangers in this country. Where did they come from? Where do they plan on taking what is left of this country? I am worried for my children and so should you be!!!!
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Judas Has Now Been Officially Sworn In
The big question now is whether or not the Judas can finally destroy the United States in the next four years. He is going to try and you know it. I have listened to a lot of Presidential speeches and I have never heard one that has made me fear for my country more than the one just made by Obama. If you could not see or understand what just happened, I guess you will just have to wait until this country is on the scrap heap and you are begging for food to feed your children. I know that many of you are "one-movers" and live only in the present like dogs and cats. For those of you who are not "one-movers", I know that you can look backwards at what has happened so far and have the ability to predict what is going to happen in the future as the Judas continues his work. The picture is not good. As this country continues to splits into different factions who each want to "get their fair share", it will in the process destroy our country. Have you seen what happens in a chicken yard when the last of the grain that the good farmer has thrown down on the ground for his chicken is all gone? It is not a very pleasant sight. The chickens turn on each other and if one is injured and it draws blood, all the other chickens attack that chicken until it is a dead bloody mess. Not a good picture, but that is what happens in the end when all the food is gone.
Don't think it could happen here with us nice humans? Think again. In war, soldiers do not have any problem shooting the enemy and you know that too. In this case, the Judas wants to make everyone except "you" the enemy so that in the end, you will be able to shoot your enemy. It is that simple, like most things, in the end, turn out to be simple. How could the well educated Germans kill all those Jews? The Germans first had "group think" where they followed like sheep. Next, a Judas came into their midst and lead them in a new direction that split them into one faction against all other factions. It just happened that the Jews were one of those other factions and thus their enemy. We all know that it is not difficult to kill you enemy and the Germans conducted themselves just like they were programmed. This is not a made up story. This is exactly what happened and it is exactly what is happening right here.
These kinds of changes do not come in just four years, it takes time and with small steps, but in the end it is the same. Do you ever watch the dog training show on TV? Dogs are "one-movers" and live only in the present. By working with the dog on a very gradual basis there is almost no limit to what you can get the dog to do. The cat, on the other hand, is not like a dog or a sheep and it is very difficult to change the cat. He leads himself and does not need a Judas to lead him. I know that too many of you are "one-movers" like the dog and thus will do what the Judas has trained you to do in the end. You may care about the "end", but the Judas does not. The Judas wants to destroy this country and knows that he can do it because he has zero respect for you and everyone like you. He is and know that he is smarter than you and thus knows that he can train you like a dog until you will attack little old ladies like the Germans did to the little old Jewish ladies. Japan was not much different. They had a closed society where they were trained to hate their enemies and to have no respect for them as humans. You know what the Japs did to our prisoners during WWII. How about the Europeans when they came here and encountered the Native Americans who had owned this place for the past 30,000 years? The Native Americans were not humans and thus could be killed at will. As recently as the 20th century, in Northern California, the family of Ishi were shot like animals. Ishi was the last surviving really wild Native American in the United States. How could it have happened? We became sheep and followed a Judas rather than thinking for ourselves. Now too many of us are doing exactly the same thing. I am just a small voice and one of the last in the line of my family who walked here 30,000 years ago and others who came here in 1608. We have seen it all and now we are facing the worst!!!
Don't think it could happen here with us nice humans? Think again. In war, soldiers do not have any problem shooting the enemy and you know that too. In this case, the Judas wants to make everyone except "you" the enemy so that in the end, you will be able to shoot your enemy. It is that simple, like most things, in the end, turn out to be simple. How could the well educated Germans kill all those Jews? The Germans first had "group think" where they followed like sheep. Next, a Judas came into their midst and lead them in a new direction that split them into one faction against all other factions. It just happened that the Jews were one of those other factions and thus their enemy. We all know that it is not difficult to kill you enemy and the Germans conducted themselves just like they were programmed. This is not a made up story. This is exactly what happened and it is exactly what is happening right here.
These kinds of changes do not come in just four years, it takes time and with small steps, but in the end it is the same. Do you ever watch the dog training show on TV? Dogs are "one-movers" and live only in the present. By working with the dog on a very gradual basis there is almost no limit to what you can get the dog to do. The cat, on the other hand, is not like a dog or a sheep and it is very difficult to change the cat. He leads himself and does not need a Judas to lead him. I know that too many of you are "one-movers" like the dog and thus will do what the Judas has trained you to do in the end. You may care about the "end", but the Judas does not. The Judas wants to destroy this country and knows that he can do it because he has zero respect for you and everyone like you. He is and know that he is smarter than you and thus knows that he can train you like a dog until you will attack little old ladies like the Germans did to the little old Jewish ladies. Japan was not much different. They had a closed society where they were trained to hate their enemies and to have no respect for them as humans. You know what the Japs did to our prisoners during WWII. How about the Europeans when they came here and encountered the Native Americans who had owned this place for the past 30,000 years? The Native Americans were not humans and thus could be killed at will. As recently as the 20th century, in Northern California, the family of Ishi were shot like animals. Ishi was the last surviving really wild Native American in the United States. How could it have happened? We became sheep and followed a Judas rather than thinking for ourselves. Now too many of us are doing exactly the same thing. I am just a small voice and one of the last in the line of my family who walked here 30,000 years ago and others who came here in 1608. We have seen it all and now we are facing the worst!!!
Martin Luther King Day Advice From Brazil
On this special Martin Luther King Day, I have some advice from the people of Brazil. When things were not gong so well in Brazil, there was an expression that was going around that I would like to share with those who think they are following Martin Luther King's ideas. GOYA! When anyone in Brazil complained that life had dealt them a bad hand, the people around them would call our "GOYA". They used to tell me the same thing. I did not speak the language very well and did not know exactly what GOYA meant. At first, I thought it was some kind of drink or food or maybe the name of some famous artist, but I was wrong. I even started using the expression "GOYA" without really knowing what it meant. We use words all the time that we do not know exactly what they mean so it was not a big deal.
Finally, I was talking to a friend in a bar and had the courage to ask him exactly what does all the "GOYA" business mean? That was when I realized what it was the message was from Martin Luther King. Since then I have tried to carry his message far and wide because I know that Martin Luther King had the answer for 99% of the problems that faced the Black community in the Southern part of the USA and in the minds of those who lived in the states that did not have any form of discrimination.
I guess that by now, you too would like to know exactly what Martin Luther King's message was and what "GOYA" from Brazil has to do with it. Well, like most problems in this world that seem complicated, the solution is most often very simple and this one is not different. "GOYA" means "Get Off Your Ass". If the Black community would just "GOYA" and stop taking or selling drugs, stop shooting each other and others, stop commiting serious crimes, and stop having children out of wedlock, and finish free high school, and clean up their neighbor hoods, and yes, spend a little less time playing basketball and more time reading books, 99% of their problems would be solved.
What Martin Luther King would like to see would be to have the Black community greet one another with "GOYA" rather than some kind of jungle hand shake. Saying "GOYA" before bed time would make Martin Luther King very happy.
Finally, I was talking to a friend in a bar and had the courage to ask him exactly what does all the "GOYA" business mean? That was when I realized what it was the message was from Martin Luther King. Since then I have tried to carry his message far and wide because I know that Martin Luther King had the answer for 99% of the problems that faced the Black community in the Southern part of the USA and in the minds of those who lived in the states that did not have any form of discrimination.
I guess that by now, you too would like to know exactly what Martin Luther King's message was and what "GOYA" from Brazil has to do with it. Well, like most problems in this world that seem complicated, the solution is most often very simple and this one is not different. "GOYA" means "Get Off Your Ass". If the Black community would just "GOYA" and stop taking or selling drugs, stop shooting each other and others, stop commiting serious crimes, and stop having children out of wedlock, and finish free high school, and clean up their neighbor hoods, and yes, spend a little less time playing basketball and more time reading books, 99% of their problems would be solved.
What Martin Luther King would like to see would be to have the Black community greet one another with "GOYA" rather than some kind of jungle hand shake. Saying "GOYA" before bed time would make Martin Luther King very happy.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask What You Can Do For Your Country."
Remember this one? It was by John F. Kennedy. I have only shook the hand of one President and that was John F. Kennedy. I don't know if that was a big deal or not, but it seemed like one when we talked and I shook his hand. As I recall, there was no special security any where, but that is not the point of this blog. It is this call to serve your country.
I have blogged in the past about the concept of "one movers" and "two or three movers" and that has application here. For some reason when there is a call to serve your country, it is like asking a religious nut to go on some kind of missionary trip. To my way of thinking, it calls for "group think" which I have pointed out in the past can be so dangerous. "Group think" is like mob think where no one is really using their heads and can do the most awful things that they would never do as individuals. When ever you hear a call like John F. Kennedy made be cautious. Obama is going to make some kind of call for service and "group think" and many people are going to fall for it. I see that as a real problem.
Take this simple example. "We should save our country by cleaning up the trash on streets in our cities." Not a bad idea, but why don't individuals just stop throwing the trash on the streets in the first place. Or, why don't people, as individuals, pick up any trash that they see on the street and put it into the trash barrel? Why does it take being a part of some "group think" program where everyone wears the same cap or t-shirt so they can pick up the trash? What is wrong with us. Don't throw the trash along the streets in the first place.
Religion is the model for the "do-gooder" "group think". They go out and collect money from real working people and then give it to people they identify as needy. They get their jollies when that person looks them in the eye and tells them "thank you". It is not their money they are giving out, it is some one else's money. What is the logic in that except to feed the ego of the missionary?
Now to the real point of "what you can do for your country". It is not the Peace Corp". I have no idea of how that helped "our" country except to "program" a lot of young people into the liberal way of thinking and it did do that. If we want to really do what is best for our country, it would be the more difficult things that are "not" a part of "group think". It would be things like not getting knocked up in high school or out of wedlock. It would be finishing free high school and working hard in the more difficult subjects. It would be not taking drugs or shooting people as has been the case in Chicago. It would be living with in your means and not depending on government hand outs. And yes, it would mean not throwing trash on our streets.
I have been about as poor as a person can be here in the USA and I never had some missionary or do-gooder show me how to do anything. I never had one drill me a water well or show me how to grow a garden. I never had one show me how to build a house. Further, I don't know anyone who ever had a do-gooder do any thing for them except ask them for money. Given all the do-gooding that has been sent to Africa over the past 500 years, what has been the net results? Don't answer to quickly! Did you come up with anything? I did not think so.
We don't need a call for "group think" or "do-gooding", we need individual responsibility. This country is based on individual rights and responsibilities, not "group rights". If we go down the road of "group rights" over "individual rights", the end will be insight and that is what Obama is going to call for. Do the people whose homes were damaged by the storm "Sandy" have more rights than I do for my home that was destroyed by a tornado even if my home was the only one damaged in the county? We have to get back to individual rights and responsibility and be very cautious when Obama calls for "group think". Remember Germany in 1935, they had "group think" and see what happened!!! Let's be cats and not sheep!!
I have blogged in the past about the concept of "one movers" and "two or three movers" and that has application here. For some reason when there is a call to serve your country, it is like asking a religious nut to go on some kind of missionary trip. To my way of thinking, it calls for "group think" which I have pointed out in the past can be so dangerous. "Group think" is like mob think where no one is really using their heads and can do the most awful things that they would never do as individuals. When ever you hear a call like John F. Kennedy made be cautious. Obama is going to make some kind of call for service and "group think" and many people are going to fall for it. I see that as a real problem.
Take this simple example. "We should save our country by cleaning up the trash on streets in our cities." Not a bad idea, but why don't individuals just stop throwing the trash on the streets in the first place. Or, why don't people, as individuals, pick up any trash that they see on the street and put it into the trash barrel? Why does it take being a part of some "group think" program where everyone wears the same cap or t-shirt so they can pick up the trash? What is wrong with us. Don't throw the trash along the streets in the first place.
Religion is the model for the "do-gooder" "group think". They go out and collect money from real working people and then give it to people they identify as needy. They get their jollies when that person looks them in the eye and tells them "thank you". It is not their money they are giving out, it is some one else's money. What is the logic in that except to feed the ego of the missionary?
Now to the real point of "what you can do for your country". It is not the Peace Corp". I have no idea of how that helped "our" country except to "program" a lot of young people into the liberal way of thinking and it did do that. If we want to really do what is best for our country, it would be the more difficult things that are "not" a part of "group think". It would be things like not getting knocked up in high school or out of wedlock. It would be finishing free high school and working hard in the more difficult subjects. It would be not taking drugs or shooting people as has been the case in Chicago. It would be living with in your means and not depending on government hand outs. And yes, it would mean not throwing trash on our streets.
I have been about as poor as a person can be here in the USA and I never had some missionary or do-gooder show me how to do anything. I never had one drill me a water well or show me how to grow a garden. I never had one show me how to build a house. Further, I don't know anyone who ever had a do-gooder do any thing for them except ask them for money. Given all the do-gooding that has been sent to Africa over the past 500 years, what has been the net results? Don't answer to quickly! Did you come up with anything? I did not think so.
We don't need a call for "group think" or "do-gooding", we need individual responsibility. This country is based on individual rights and responsibilities, not "group rights". If we go down the road of "group rights" over "individual rights", the end will be insight and that is what Obama is going to call for. Do the people whose homes were damaged by the storm "Sandy" have more rights than I do for my home that was destroyed by a tornado even if my home was the only one damaged in the county? We have to get back to individual rights and responsibility and be very cautious when Obama calls for "group think". Remember Germany in 1935, they had "group think" and see what happened!!! Let's be cats and not sheep!!
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Wood Working, PVA Glue Tip #2
I got a lot of hits on my blog about PVA glue and the fact that it acts like a hot melt a few days after it cures. I have used this factor for years when gluing down thin materials that, other wise, would require complex clamping. I put PVA glue on both surfaces and let the glue dry. I then put the two pieces together and use a hot iron to press the two surfaces together. I get an instant permenet bond. That was the first blog. Now I have a new concept.
For some reason when we deal with fiber glass cloth, we always go with either polyester resin or epoxy. The only reason that I can see to do that is that they cure clear and don't shrink much. This new concept is to use cheap PVA like Titebond II in place of the expensive epoxy. Titebond II is almost as water proof as epoxy and a lot easier to work with. What I do is combine the concept in my first blog and apply the PVA to the fiber glass fabric in a thinned down layer. What this does is to make the fiber glass fabric stiff. It is like using starch on your dress shirts. Once the fiber glass is stiff, it can be cut neatly with regular sissors without fuzzy edges. This is just the first step.
Once you have a sheet of cured fiber glass fabric coated with PVA, you can use it in many ways. Here is how you can splice two pieces of plywood together.. Cut a strip of cured fiber glass about 3" wide and as long as needed. Coat the edges of the plywood with PVA glue from the joint point back about 2" and let dry. This is an interface coating, or priming of the plywood. Next put some PVA on the edges of the two pieces of plywood and press them together. You know that this is not going to work and will only produce a weak bond. Next, take the strip of cured fiber glass that you had prepared earlier and place it over the crack between the two sheets of plywood. Since all the glue is dry, you can move the cured strip of fiber glass all around. When you have it is centered, take your hot cloths iron and iron the cured strip of fiber glass down into the dry PVA glue on the plywood. If your iron starts to stick, put a strip of aluminum foil over it that has that release coating. What will happen is that the heat will reactivate the glue and the fiber glass will bond the two sheets of plywood together. Next, do the same thing to the other side.
What you will notice compared to doing this job with expoxy is that it is a lot faster and the amount of PVA used is a lot less. The fiber glass is a lot thinner since it was pressed down with the hot iron, but it is just as strong. When you consider that the failure mode with epoxy is going to be the bond between the wood and the epoxy and it is going to be the same with the PVA, any extra strength that the epoxy has is wasted.
Think of how complicated it is to use epoxy on a vertical surface or the fact that you have to hold the objects in position while the epoxy cures. With this method, you get an instant permanent bond. I used to use a lot of expensive epoxy and polyester resin in my wood working, but not any more. I use Titebond II for almost every thing now, even with fiber glass and Kevlar. Because of the simplicity, I use this concept a lot more to maximize the strength of many things that I make. I use Kevlar and Graphite in places that I had never dreamed of before and at much less cost and complexity.
Have fun!!!!
PS--Experiment. It is amazing how thin and how little PVA glue is needed when the fiber glass is pressed in place with a hot cloths iron. It is like cheap "pre-preg". This procedure eliminates the shrinkage normally associated with PVA glues.
For some reason when we deal with fiber glass cloth, we always go with either polyester resin or epoxy. The only reason that I can see to do that is that they cure clear and don't shrink much. This new concept is to use cheap PVA like Titebond II in place of the expensive epoxy. Titebond II is almost as water proof as epoxy and a lot easier to work with. What I do is combine the concept in my first blog and apply the PVA to the fiber glass fabric in a thinned down layer. What this does is to make the fiber glass fabric stiff. It is like using starch on your dress shirts. Once the fiber glass is stiff, it can be cut neatly with regular sissors without fuzzy edges. This is just the first step.
Once you have a sheet of cured fiber glass fabric coated with PVA, you can use it in many ways. Here is how you can splice two pieces of plywood together.. Cut a strip of cured fiber glass about 3" wide and as long as needed. Coat the edges of the plywood with PVA glue from the joint point back about 2" and let dry. This is an interface coating, or priming of the plywood. Next put some PVA on the edges of the two pieces of plywood and press them together. You know that this is not going to work and will only produce a weak bond. Next, take the strip of cured fiber glass that you had prepared earlier and place it over the crack between the two sheets of plywood. Since all the glue is dry, you can move the cured strip of fiber glass all around. When you have it is centered, take your hot cloths iron and iron the cured strip of fiber glass down into the dry PVA glue on the plywood. If your iron starts to stick, put a strip of aluminum foil over it that has that release coating. What will happen is that the heat will reactivate the glue and the fiber glass will bond the two sheets of plywood together. Next, do the same thing to the other side.
What you will notice compared to doing this job with expoxy is that it is a lot faster and the amount of PVA used is a lot less. The fiber glass is a lot thinner since it was pressed down with the hot iron, but it is just as strong. When you consider that the failure mode with epoxy is going to be the bond between the wood and the epoxy and it is going to be the same with the PVA, any extra strength that the epoxy has is wasted.
Think of how complicated it is to use epoxy on a vertical surface or the fact that you have to hold the objects in position while the epoxy cures. With this method, you get an instant permanent bond. I used to use a lot of expensive epoxy and polyester resin in my wood working, but not any more. I use Titebond II for almost every thing now, even with fiber glass and Kevlar. Because of the simplicity, I use this concept a lot more to maximize the strength of many things that I make. I use Kevlar and Graphite in places that I had never dreamed of before and at much less cost and complexity.
Have fun!!!!
PS--Experiment. It is amazing how thin and how little PVA glue is needed when the fiber glass is pressed in place with a hot cloths iron. It is like cheap "pre-preg". This procedure eliminates the shrinkage normally associated with PVA glues.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Secretary Of State Clinton
Did you hear that finally Secretary of State Clinton is going to tell us what went on in Libya? What I heard is that she is going to tell us all about how she is going to track down the ones who did this and bring them to justice. As I have blogged in the past, this is one of the stupidest statements that I have ever heard. Clinton does not seem to get the fact that these terrorists are "fungible". That means that they are all the same, equal and that killing one has no affect on the ones who still want to kill us. We are not talking about people who fear punishment. It is a little like her husband who was getting a blow job in the Oval Office, he had no fear of punishment. What would bringing him to justice accomplish? Same with these terrorists.
The only way to save out people is to prevent the attacks in the first place. It does no good to spend millions to find the ones who did the job since they have no fear of punishment. Most would just as soon die in the process of the terrorist attack, so fear of punishment is worthless. The fact that Clinton still thinks in terms of Arkansas should be an indicator of how incompetent she is.
I should not pile this all on Clinton. It is a fact that most of the USA voters are just a stupid as Clinton and she must be playing up to them. She wants to go find the horse that got out of the barn because she left the door open so that we don't notice that the whole problem was the result of her incompetence. I told you the story about how I left the barn door open, but when I proposed to go get the horse and bring him home, my father gave me a good beating and went to get the horse himself. Our problem is that we are so stupid that if Clinton does, after spending millions, capture the ones who did this and brings them to justice, we will forgive her. I, for one, will not forgive her. Her actions have shown that she is incompetent and you can't change the spots on this one.
In one of my first blogs after 9./11, I pointed out how our legal and justice system can not deal with terrorists. Our system works on the basis of fear of punishment while the terrorists do not care about punishment. In most cases, they plan on ending up dead at the end any way. That is what happened with 9/11. In that case who do we punish? If we sweep up the body parts and some how punish them, how does that prevent any future 9/11's? It does not. That is why we need a new kind of thinking. The only one that I know of is "prevention" and that is exactly what Clinton did not do in the case of Libya. How could it be clearer?????
PS----Was the "stand down order" part of a plan to trade the Blind Sheik for our captured ambassador until a Marine did his duty?
The only way to save out people is to prevent the attacks in the first place. It does no good to spend millions to find the ones who did the job since they have no fear of punishment. Most would just as soon die in the process of the terrorist attack, so fear of punishment is worthless. The fact that Clinton still thinks in terms of Arkansas should be an indicator of how incompetent she is.
I should not pile this all on Clinton. It is a fact that most of the USA voters are just a stupid as Clinton and she must be playing up to them. She wants to go find the horse that got out of the barn because she left the door open so that we don't notice that the whole problem was the result of her incompetence. I told you the story about how I left the barn door open, but when I proposed to go get the horse and bring him home, my father gave me a good beating and went to get the horse himself. Our problem is that we are so stupid that if Clinton does, after spending millions, capture the ones who did this and brings them to justice, we will forgive her. I, for one, will not forgive her. Her actions have shown that she is incompetent and you can't change the spots on this one.
In one of my first blogs after 9./11, I pointed out how our legal and justice system can not deal with terrorists. Our system works on the basis of fear of punishment while the terrorists do not care about punishment. In most cases, they plan on ending up dead at the end any way. That is what happened with 9/11. In that case who do we punish? If we sweep up the body parts and some how punish them, how does that prevent any future 9/11's? It does not. That is why we need a new kind of thinking. The only one that I know of is "prevention" and that is exactly what Clinton did not do in the case of Libya. How could it be clearer?????
PS----Was the "stand down order" part of a plan to trade the Blind Sheik for our captured ambassador until a Marine did his duty?
Another Case Of Gaming The System
Check this one out. Have our kids gamed the system by going to college? How could it be bad for more of our kids to go to college? That is the point of this blog. First a few facts.
I contend that the average IQ of the USA population has not changed in the past 100 years. The average is still 100. What has changed is the "motivation" of our population. There was a lot more "pain" in the USA 100 years ago and even 50 or 75 years ago. There are more goodies today than there were years ago and just like back then, we want them. Historically, we were willing then to work harder to get those few goodies that were available, but not now. We have a population that is looking at ways to "cheat" the system and get more than their share of those goodies. I have noticed that people who do not have the means to get those goodies feel that many of those who do have not come by them honestly. The fact is that most have come by those goodies honestly, but once you buy into the concept that those other guys are dishonest, it is easy for you to also become dishonest. You have the ego protection of saying to yourself that, "I am not as dishonest as those other guys". The fact is that you are more dishonest. Where is this going?
Historically the kids who were smarter and more motivated went to college and did much better than those who did not. Rather than putting it the way I did above, I should have said that those kids who were smarter and more motivated did better than those who were dumber and less motivated regardless if they went to college or not.. That was the major difference between the two groups, not the fact that they also went to college. There was a correlation, but no proven "cause and affect". We get into trouble all the time mixing up correlation with "cause and affect". This is just another example. Now what is this all about?
What many of us did was to act on the correlation and send our dumber less motivated kids to college expecting them to come out like the smarter more motivated kids. Well, it did not happen that way. What we ended up with is the same bunch of dumber less motivated kids with a big debit hanging over their heads. What we did was to "game" the system,. Many of us went even farther and took the watered down courses and majors so that we could get thru college. In this regard, we gamed ourselves and now only have ourselves to blame. Isn't it strange that their are some things in this world that you can't cheat on? You can't get that high paying job because you are not qualified. Sooner or later, the rubber has to meet the road and this is one case.
If you are dumb and unmotivated going into college, you are going to come out the same way that you went in. It is that simple. You could get a PhD, but that would not prove anything either. You just know more and more about less and less until in the end, you know every thing about nothing. That is how it works in the real world. You can't cheat or game the system for ever and that is where we find ourselves today. Who is going to pay the bill now?
I contend that the average IQ of the USA population has not changed in the past 100 years. The average is still 100. What has changed is the "motivation" of our population. There was a lot more "pain" in the USA 100 years ago and even 50 or 75 years ago. There are more goodies today than there were years ago and just like back then, we want them. Historically, we were willing then to work harder to get those few goodies that were available, but not now. We have a population that is looking at ways to "cheat" the system and get more than their share of those goodies. I have noticed that people who do not have the means to get those goodies feel that many of those who do have not come by them honestly. The fact is that most have come by those goodies honestly, but once you buy into the concept that those other guys are dishonest, it is easy for you to also become dishonest. You have the ego protection of saying to yourself that, "I am not as dishonest as those other guys". The fact is that you are more dishonest. Where is this going?
Historically the kids who were smarter and more motivated went to college and did much better than those who did not. Rather than putting it the way I did above, I should have said that those kids who were smarter and more motivated did better than those who were dumber and less motivated regardless if they went to college or not.. That was the major difference between the two groups, not the fact that they also went to college. There was a correlation, but no proven "cause and affect". We get into trouble all the time mixing up correlation with "cause and affect". This is just another example. Now what is this all about?
What many of us did was to act on the correlation and send our dumber less motivated kids to college expecting them to come out like the smarter more motivated kids. Well, it did not happen that way. What we ended up with is the same bunch of dumber less motivated kids with a big debit hanging over their heads. What we did was to "game" the system,. Many of us went even farther and took the watered down courses and majors so that we could get thru college. In this regard, we gamed ourselves and now only have ourselves to blame. Isn't it strange that their are some things in this world that you can't cheat on? You can't get that high paying job because you are not qualified. Sooner or later, the rubber has to meet the road and this is one case.
If you are dumb and unmotivated going into college, you are going to come out the same way that you went in. It is that simple. You could get a PhD, but that would not prove anything either. You just know more and more about less and less until in the end, you know every thing about nothing. That is how it works in the real world. You can't cheat or game the system for ever and that is where we find ourselves today. Who is going to pay the bill now?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Government Dependency, A Lesson From History
It is really not news, but it was on the news today that 25% of the kids in the USA are now on "Food Stamps". Isn't it nice to know that our government is concerned about our kids and is giving them "Food Stamps" so they get needed nourishment? That is what "one movers" and those who voted for Obama think. This country is in real trouble and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let me give you a little history lesson and maybe you will understand our problem a little better.
I used to live in Argentina and know a little about their history and their economy. The name "Argentina" means Silver. Why they did not pick Gold, I do not know, but the people who are at least 50% Italian came into this world with a silver spoon in their mouths and here is how it happened. Argentina has some of the richest farm land in the world and a most favorable climate. They only had a few Native Americans and they were quickly killed off, so the new Europeans had the whole place to themselves. Today, Argentina seems like a far away place, but until the Panama Canal and transcontinental railroads, it was half way between New York City and San Francisco. That's right, half way. Ships had to sail around the tip of South America and all stopped in Buenos Aries. It was the hub of activity and the world economy. Argentina got rich and I mean rich. For many years, there was an expression, "As rich as an Argentine". It stayed this way up until about 1960. During WWII Argentina was neutral and sold beef to all the armies and got even richer. After the war, their industrial economy was totally intact so they got even richer, just like the USA was doing. Because they had all this wealth and strong labor unions, the then President Peron, handed out money from the treasury to all his friend. The people of Argentina were living "large". Many played polo and golf to pass the time. There was plenty of good wine and cheap beef, so how could life be any better. Many spent time in France to pick up a little culture and to show off their wealth. The people of Argentina got used to this high living and had little need for work. Many had maids, cooks and gardeners who were in Argentina on "work permits" from other poor places in South America. Even today, Argentina has the highest rate of literacy in the Western Hemisphere, higher than the USA or Canada. They are smart, well educated people, but they have a problem. What do you think that is?
In about 1970, the worm started to turn on Argentina. The money was all gone from the treasury and there was no one who wanted to either work to put the money back or did not want to give up the free lunch that Peron had gotten them so used too. By 1970 most of the world that had gotten destroyed by WWII were back on their feet and hungry, but Argentina was used to being fat and happy. It had gotten so bad that it became illegal to eat beef in Argentina because there was not enough beef to sell to Europe to get money to pay the government bills. Seems the Argentines were eating up all the beef too. This is how fat they had become. The money in Argentina was devalued so many times that they had to print "new" money with the decimal moved over "two" places. A $100 bill "old" was replaced with a $1.00 "new". That is how bad it got and it even got worse until Argentina finally defaulted on their public debit.
The Army took over running the country and did not do much better than Peron. The reason was that Argentina's people had become "ungovernable". It is still that way today, after more than 50 years. Now what is the bottom line to all this? When a country becomes so dependant on government hand outs that it loses it's will to works, it can take a very very long time before they can get back to "normal". I do not know how long it is going to take for Argentina, they still seem to be getting worse. Think of it like a drunk. When does a drunk finally decide to stop drinking? Normally, it is after they have hit "rock bottom" and that just may be the only way that the country will turn around. That is Argentina and it is the picture of what the USA is going to become if we keep going down the road that we are now on. I have only shown what can happen and Argentina is a perfect example from history that we should learn from. If we don't, we all know how this thing is going to end up!!!
I used to live in Argentina and know a little about their history and their economy. The name "Argentina" means Silver. Why they did not pick Gold, I do not know, but the people who are at least 50% Italian came into this world with a silver spoon in their mouths and here is how it happened. Argentina has some of the richest farm land in the world and a most favorable climate. They only had a few Native Americans and they were quickly killed off, so the new Europeans had the whole place to themselves. Today, Argentina seems like a far away place, but until the Panama Canal and transcontinental railroads, it was half way between New York City and San Francisco. That's right, half way. Ships had to sail around the tip of South America and all stopped in Buenos Aries. It was the hub of activity and the world economy. Argentina got rich and I mean rich. For many years, there was an expression, "As rich as an Argentine". It stayed this way up until about 1960. During WWII Argentina was neutral and sold beef to all the armies and got even richer. After the war, their industrial economy was totally intact so they got even richer, just like the USA was doing. Because they had all this wealth and strong labor unions, the then President Peron, handed out money from the treasury to all his friend. The people of Argentina were living "large". Many played polo and golf to pass the time. There was plenty of good wine and cheap beef, so how could life be any better. Many spent time in France to pick up a little culture and to show off their wealth. The people of Argentina got used to this high living and had little need for work. Many had maids, cooks and gardeners who were in Argentina on "work permits" from other poor places in South America. Even today, Argentina has the highest rate of literacy in the Western Hemisphere, higher than the USA or Canada. They are smart, well educated people, but they have a problem. What do you think that is?
In about 1970, the worm started to turn on Argentina. The money was all gone from the treasury and there was no one who wanted to either work to put the money back or did not want to give up the free lunch that Peron had gotten them so used too. By 1970 most of the world that had gotten destroyed by WWII were back on their feet and hungry, but Argentina was used to being fat and happy. It had gotten so bad that it became illegal to eat beef in Argentina because there was not enough beef to sell to Europe to get money to pay the government bills. Seems the Argentines were eating up all the beef too. This is how fat they had become. The money in Argentina was devalued so many times that they had to print "new" money with the decimal moved over "two" places. A $100 bill "old" was replaced with a $1.00 "new". That is how bad it got and it even got worse until Argentina finally defaulted on their public debit.
The Army took over running the country and did not do much better than Peron. The reason was that Argentina's people had become "ungovernable". It is still that way today, after more than 50 years. Now what is the bottom line to all this? When a country becomes so dependant on government hand outs that it loses it's will to works, it can take a very very long time before they can get back to "normal". I do not know how long it is going to take for Argentina, they still seem to be getting worse. Think of it like a drunk. When does a drunk finally decide to stop drinking? Normally, it is after they have hit "rock bottom" and that just may be the only way that the country will turn around. That is Argentina and it is the picture of what the USA is going to become if we keep going down the road that we are now on. I have only shown what can happen and Argentina is a perfect example from history that we should learn from. If we don't, we all know how this thing is going to end up!!!
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Is Our Declining Birth Rate The Problem?
I was watching the TV news this morning and Varney made this statement that we are in trouble just like Japan due to our declining birth rate. He went on to mention California and how their declining birth rate and lower percentage of children is going to make for big future problems. His case sounded very logical until I noticed that Varney was a "one mover".
Oh, it is true we are going to have even more problems in the future, but the cause is not our aging population or the lower birth rates. If that isn't it, then what is the problem? The problem is that we have a social system that is one big "Ponzi" scheme. Ponzi is the right word for it. What we have is a social system based on someone else paying our bills. Who are those people? They are people yet not born, that is who. We went to the bank in China and borrowed money that we are spending today to buy steaks for our stupid voters who are going to invest the money and those steaks in the hole under the old out house. Isn't a ponzi scheme where the first investors are paid more than they put in from the payments from people who are not yet taking any money out? That is now it works.
What the lower birth rates have done is to have the affect of pulling back the curtain much like in the book, "The Wizard Of Oz". The problem is not the lower birth rate, it is the fact of what has been going on behind the curtain. The only thing about Japan as compared to the USA is that their birth rate started to decline sooner than ours. The people in Japan did not set enough money aside for the high living style that they expected when they retired. It is even worse here in the USA where we have one of the lowest savings rates in the world. This ponzi scheme was just another free lunch and anyone with any brains has known it for years. I had coffee with a guy that just had a knee replacement that cost the economy more than twice the amount of tax money that he put into the pot in his life time. You can't run a railroad like that and expect the results to be anything different than what we are now facing.
The only thing that a growing birth rate does is to mask the real problem. Think about it. Isn't that right? Here in the USA, we have it three or four times as bad as places like Japan. Think of it this way. We have the worst educated work force in the industrial world and we expect those kids to pay their own way and have some extra for those now on the dole. We also have the highest costing educational system in the world. That means we squander what little wealth that we have. Next, we have the most expensive medical system in the world yet we rank 38th in life expectancy. Just think about what a mess we would be in if by spending all this money, we ended up with the longest life expectancy. It is that bad. Finally, we have a President who does not think we have a spending problem! He wants to spend more and tax more. He wants to punish those few in our society who create jobs by getting even more money out of them.
In most systems, having just one strike against you could be enough to bring the system down, but we have several all going in the same direction, down. Do you know of any that are going the other way? I don't. What took Kodak down? One simple thing. They did not take digital photography seriously. Just that one thing. They invented "Super Glue" over 50 years ago, but I don't think you knew that. You didn't hear about Super Glue until their patents ran out and Loc-Tite started marketing it.
Next time you hear someone say that our social security problems are due to a declining birth rate or living longer, you will know that they are simple minded "one movers" who do not look back at the real cause or to the future solution. They want to get more Mexicans moving in so the birth rate will go up and pull the curtain in front of our real problem which is spending more than we produce.
Oh, it is true we are going to have even more problems in the future, but the cause is not our aging population or the lower birth rates. If that isn't it, then what is the problem? The problem is that we have a social system that is one big "Ponzi" scheme. Ponzi is the right word for it. What we have is a social system based on someone else paying our bills. Who are those people? They are people yet not born, that is who. We went to the bank in China and borrowed money that we are spending today to buy steaks for our stupid voters who are going to invest the money and those steaks in the hole under the old out house. Isn't a ponzi scheme where the first investors are paid more than they put in from the payments from people who are not yet taking any money out? That is now it works.
What the lower birth rates have done is to have the affect of pulling back the curtain much like in the book, "The Wizard Of Oz". The problem is not the lower birth rate, it is the fact of what has been going on behind the curtain. The only thing about Japan as compared to the USA is that their birth rate started to decline sooner than ours. The people in Japan did not set enough money aside for the high living style that they expected when they retired. It is even worse here in the USA where we have one of the lowest savings rates in the world. This ponzi scheme was just another free lunch and anyone with any brains has known it for years. I had coffee with a guy that just had a knee replacement that cost the economy more than twice the amount of tax money that he put into the pot in his life time. You can't run a railroad like that and expect the results to be anything different than what we are now facing.
The only thing that a growing birth rate does is to mask the real problem. Think about it. Isn't that right? Here in the USA, we have it three or four times as bad as places like Japan. Think of it this way. We have the worst educated work force in the industrial world and we expect those kids to pay their own way and have some extra for those now on the dole. We also have the highest costing educational system in the world. That means we squander what little wealth that we have. Next, we have the most expensive medical system in the world yet we rank 38th in life expectancy. Just think about what a mess we would be in if by spending all this money, we ended up with the longest life expectancy. It is that bad. Finally, we have a President who does not think we have a spending problem! He wants to spend more and tax more. He wants to punish those few in our society who create jobs by getting even more money out of them.
In most systems, having just one strike against you could be enough to bring the system down, but we have several all going in the same direction, down. Do you know of any that are going the other way? I don't. What took Kodak down? One simple thing. They did not take digital photography seriously. Just that one thing. They invented "Super Glue" over 50 years ago, but I don't think you knew that. You didn't hear about Super Glue until their patents ran out and Loc-Tite started marketing it.
Next time you hear someone say that our social security problems are due to a declining birth rate or living longer, you will know that they are simple minded "one movers" who do not look back at the real cause or to the future solution. They want to get more Mexicans moving in so the birth rate will go up and pull the curtain in front of our real problem which is spending more than we produce.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Why Do We Need A Constitution?
Did you know that England does not have a Constitution? Did you ever think about why we have or need a Constitution? Most people have not. Everyone believes in democracy and one man one vote, so why do we need a Constitution? Here are a few reasons.
Think about when the USA was formed. We had 13 independent countries here called the 13 colonies. They knew that they could not stand up individually to attacks from bigger countries in Europe so they needed to combine in some way for protection. They did not like the governmental concept of a King and Queen, they had just fought to get away from that form of government. The only other alternative was some kind of democracy, that is what they formed.
Before any of the independent colonies would join the new club, they needed some kind of contract or set of rules. They were not going to join a club without knowing what they were getting into. They liked the idea of one "man one vote", but the colonies were all different sizes with significantly different numbers of voters. To fix that they decided on two houses of representatives, one based on population and one giving each state the "same" number of representatives. This worked out just fine.
They still had problems and that was with the Federal part of the new government. How could they keep it from getting out of hand and taking all the power away from the colonies or states? They decided on a set of rules, a contract or Constitution that limited the powers of the new Federal government. This document was so important that before the states would sign, they needed to be assured that the rules would not be changed by a simple one man one system. They liked the idea of one man one vote, but saw the danger to smaller interest groups where by one vote the whole ball game or set of rules could be changes and leave them out in the cold.
The only way to avoid this danger was to put into the Constitution that it would take much more than just one man one vote to change it. It was agreed that if so many people wanted a new rule, then it must be worth it, but not by just "one" vote as with Obama Care.
Here in the USA today, it is a far different mix of people than the group that formed this country. Most of the original players were from Scotland and now only a small percentage can trace their roots to Scotland. The danger that those original people predicted has come true. Now, by just "one" vote the country that they built can be changed in ways that they never foresaw. Their biggest error was not requiring "more" functions of the Federal government to require more than a simple "one vote" majority to become law. Laws related to taxation and spending should have required more than just "one" vote. If it was really "worth it" then it should be no problem to get the extra votes. Other wise no changes in the laws would be made. Democracy is a good thing, but it has a very dark side too and that is what the Constitution is supposed to prevent. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Remember that!
Think about when the USA was formed. We had 13 independent countries here called the 13 colonies. They knew that they could not stand up individually to attacks from bigger countries in Europe so they needed to combine in some way for protection. They did not like the governmental concept of a King and Queen, they had just fought to get away from that form of government. The only other alternative was some kind of democracy, that is what they formed.
Before any of the independent colonies would join the new club, they needed some kind of contract or set of rules. They were not going to join a club without knowing what they were getting into. They liked the idea of one "man one vote", but the colonies were all different sizes with significantly different numbers of voters. To fix that they decided on two houses of representatives, one based on population and one giving each state the "same" number of representatives. This worked out just fine.
They still had problems and that was with the Federal part of the new government. How could they keep it from getting out of hand and taking all the power away from the colonies or states? They decided on a set of rules, a contract or Constitution that limited the powers of the new Federal government. This document was so important that before the states would sign, they needed to be assured that the rules would not be changed by a simple one man one system. They liked the idea of one man one vote, but saw the danger to smaller interest groups where by one vote the whole ball game or set of rules could be changes and leave them out in the cold.
The only way to avoid this danger was to put into the Constitution that it would take much more than just one man one vote to change it. It was agreed that if so many people wanted a new rule, then it must be worth it, but not by just "one" vote as with Obama Care.
Here in the USA today, it is a far different mix of people than the group that formed this country. Most of the original players were from Scotland and now only a small percentage can trace their roots to Scotland. The danger that those original people predicted has come true. Now, by just "one" vote the country that they built can be changed in ways that they never foresaw. Their biggest error was not requiring "more" functions of the Federal government to require more than a simple "one vote" majority to become law. Laws related to taxation and spending should have required more than just "one" vote. If it was really "worth it" then it should be no problem to get the extra votes. Other wise no changes in the laws would be made. Democracy is a good thing, but it has a very dark side too and that is what the Constitution is supposed to prevent. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Remember that!
Friday, January 4, 2013
Is Krugman Leaving Some Thing Out?
I have been trying to figure out a position on the looming Social Security mess. If anyone can tell me the logic of why Obama reduced the individual contribution to Social Security that is now being restored, please tell me. It would have been much more logical to reduce the employer's portion and I do not even agree with that.
Krugman is correct when he says that you need to look deeper into the life expectancy numbers. We are living longer now "on average" but most of the gain is the reduction in infant mortality so it has no affect on the life expectancy after age 65. I agree with that, but what about all the people who put money into Social Security and died before age 65? The jobs in those days required much harder physical labor and thus reduced the years that a person could work, but not now. My grandmother lived a long time and collected Social Security that was paid in by people who died before they reached the age of 65, but not now. I think that Krugman needs to use a better model of the system that more correctly represents the total facts.
Because there is so much misinformation flowing, we need someone who can get above the fray and not play games with the numbers. I think that the voters are ready for honest facts. Krugman has the audience to be such a person, if he really wanted too.
There is a sleeper in these numbers too and that is "Disability Insurance" that is taking money out of the pot. In the old days people who could not do higher paying hard physical labor took lower paying clerk type jobs. Who says that a person has to be able to play nose tackle for the NY Giants until age 65? They should go do something else, like a desk job or night watchman. This is a big leak in the dyke that needs to be plugged too.
Krugman is correct when he says that you need to look deeper into the life expectancy numbers. We are living longer now "on average" but most of the gain is the reduction in infant mortality so it has no affect on the life expectancy after age 65. I agree with that, but what about all the people who put money into Social Security and died before age 65? The jobs in those days required much harder physical labor and thus reduced the years that a person could work, but not now. My grandmother lived a long time and collected Social Security that was paid in by people who died before they reached the age of 65, but not now. I think that Krugman needs to use a better model of the system that more correctly represents the total facts.
Because there is so much misinformation flowing, we need someone who can get above the fray and not play games with the numbers. I think that the voters are ready for honest facts. Krugman has the audience to be such a person, if he really wanted too.
There is a sleeper in these numbers too and that is "Disability Insurance" that is taking money out of the pot. In the old days people who could not do higher paying hard physical labor took lower paying clerk type jobs. Who says that a person has to be able to play nose tackle for the NY Giants until age 65? They should go do something else, like a desk job or night watchman. This is a big leak in the dyke that needs to be plugged too.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Good Paying Job Myth
Do you hearing the liberal politicians in Washington DC keep saying that we need more "good paying jobs"? I am here to tell you that there is no such thing as a "good paying job". The implication in these statement is that a poorly qualified person can get a "good paying job" just by luck or some other non merit based method. I am here to tell you that the pay for jobs is a competitive process and the job is normally filled with the best qualified person who can do the job. It is also a myth that many workers are "over" qualified. The problem that most people have is that they are not in competition with just the guy the next street over. They are in competition with every worker in the world. If there is a person some place else who can do the job for lower pay, that is where the job will be. Not here.
There was a time when 99% of the people around the world were excluded from competing with us for jobs here, but those days are over. It is easy and cheap to ship products and raw materials from or too any place in the world. Times have changed. Now we need to prepare ourselves to compete on a world wide basis. Sorry, but that is the new name of the game. No union can protect you nor can your government.
Today, we have the fairest system for pay that have ever existed in the history of the world. That is a big statement, but it is true. Think about it. Some poor kid in some far away place who is better qualified than a person in Detroit can now get a job that utilizes his skills and the person in Detroit who used to get paid more than they were worth is now out of a job. This is the definition of fairness. Because of the skewed system that used to exist in Detroit, a poorly qualified person could land a job that paid "more" than the person who got the job was worth. When most jobs were based on a strong back, most workers around the world were about equal, but now when higher skills are required the game has changed and workers around the world are "less" equal. Those who are more skilled or qualified can find jobs where as those with only a strong back find them selves out of work for the duration. Those are the facts.
What we need to stop doing is thinking about "good paying jobs" and more about how we are going to improve our skills and worth. If we do not do that, we are going to keep losing jobs over seas and our economy is going to continue to decline along with our standard of living.
Forget "good paying jobs". That is not the problem. You and I are the problem and if we don't end the 40% high school drop out rate soon, the party will be over.
There was a time when 99% of the people around the world were excluded from competing with us for jobs here, but those days are over. It is easy and cheap to ship products and raw materials from or too any place in the world. Times have changed. Now we need to prepare ourselves to compete on a world wide basis. Sorry, but that is the new name of the game. No union can protect you nor can your government.
Today, we have the fairest system for pay that have ever existed in the history of the world. That is a big statement, but it is true. Think about it. Some poor kid in some far away place who is better qualified than a person in Detroit can now get a job that utilizes his skills and the person in Detroit who used to get paid more than they were worth is now out of a job. This is the definition of fairness. Because of the skewed system that used to exist in Detroit, a poorly qualified person could land a job that paid "more" than the person who got the job was worth. When most jobs were based on a strong back, most workers around the world were about equal, but now when higher skills are required the game has changed and workers around the world are "less" equal. Those who are more skilled or qualified can find jobs where as those with only a strong back find them selves out of work for the duration. Those are the facts.
What we need to stop doing is thinking about "good paying jobs" and more about how we are going to improve our skills and worth. If we do not do that, we are going to keep losing jobs over seas and our economy is going to continue to decline along with our standard of living.
Forget "good paying jobs". That is not the problem. You and I are the problem and if we don't end the 40% high school drop out rate soon, the party will be over.
Unification Theory
Do you remember Albert Einstein's "Unification Theory"? Well, he is not the only one who has a "Unification Theory"! Yours truly also has one, but it is not about Physics. Is is about the social organizations of us humans. I think that most people are confused by complex systems until some one comes along with a simple theory that connects the dots. Newton did this for mechanics and from then on astronomy was not a mystery, nor were many other areas of science. A good theory that does a good job of connecting the dots moves the human race farther along than all the Kings, Presidents and armies of the world ever did. Don't think so? Think again.
First off, complex systems are not a function of just one variable. This isn't what most one movers think. When Clinton was President, we had higher taxes rates than we do now, yet the economy was doing well. This is an example of one mover, one variable thinking. The problem for the human race is that most are one movers and think this way. Complex systems are functions of many variables, but some are more significant than others. Small changes in the important variables can have a big impact on the total system while large changes in less significant variable may have little or no affect. Further, the affect of changes in variables is a function of the "state" of the system. If this seems a little complex, it is because most systems are complex.
Now, I am, getting to my point. For this blog, I am going to deal with two types of control systems Centralized and Distributed. An example of a Centralized control system would be where the King has total authority and runs everything. Distributed would be where there is no King and each person or family goes about taking care of their own needs. Both of the these systems can work and work well, but not under all conditions and that is the point of this blog.
I blogged before that Bees and Ants operate on a Distributed control system. Each member does his own thing without being told or commanded. This is a jump in logic, but I will go on to prove this to be a fact. Very large systems function best when organized as Distributed control system. It would be like the "invisible hand" that causes big economic systems to work. Remember that one? How about our environment? It has functioned for millions of years as a Distributed control system. I often use Darwin when I refer to this type of system because most people need to feel there is some single master controller, but there is not.
An example of a Centralized control system that works is the family unit. Look at a Mormon family or a Jewish family. These are normally small systems controlled by a strong central figure. I think that you have to agree that these units of control have worked very well. Look by contrast at the Black family here in the USA. They tend to have weak family units and thus have not done well. The point here is that these are small Centralized control systems and notice also that the members of these small units have less freedom and have to conform to rules handed down by the strong central figure. Notice also that this is not the case in many of the Black families and notice also the results.
Here is where it gets interesting. We all can agree that strong central control works well in these small family units and it also works well in slightly larger systems, but as the size of the system gets larger and larger, it works less and less well. Here is where I feel we go wrong. We all agree that strong centralized control systems work well for small units and we conclude that if it is not working as well as the system gets bigger, it is because the centralized control system is not strong enough or does not have enough authority. If it worked so good when things were small, then why is it not so good as things get bigger? That is the point. The "state" of the system has changed as the system has gotten larger and variables that were significant in the smaller system are now less significant or have turned negative. More can be good up to a point and after that it can become negative. This is one simple principle of complex systems. With a human population of mostly one movers, this is the problem. If you are not getting the point, I will go on.
Size makes a big difference in terms of which system tends to work best, but there are other variable too. How about "spending ones own money"? Who does it best? I don't think I need to push that point. In which system is there the most money being spent by the people who did not earn the money? That is clear. It is the centralized control system and the bigger the system gets, the more of the wealth generated by the system is spent by those who did not earn it. Creating wealth is one of the most important functions of a human system, but how that wealth is used is equally important. If the system tends to squander that wealth, the total system will be weakened and may perish. A side point about centralized control systems is that central controllers tend to grow faster than the rate that the total system grows. If that is a fact, in the limit, the centralized control system will eat up all the wealth of the system can produce and the system will perish. This is what happened to the Greeks and the Romans and to some degree the Native American societies of Central America. The centralized government that was not creating any new wealth ate up the smaller and smaller amount of wealth being generated by the worker Bees.
A country is a lot like a large business. Did you ever notice how well a company is doing when they are in a growth mode, but when they get mature they mostly go down hill? Look at IBM or ITT, these were some of the top companies 40 or 50 years ago, but where are they now? When a company is growing they are hiring new "good"people so the ratio of producers to dead wood is good, but when things turn down, no new "good" people are added and the ratio of good to bad turns against them. It is a little like that for the USA. When the economy stops growing or slows down, the growth of the central governments keeps growing so that in the limit the ratio of government workers to the real wealth producers goes up. In this state, the government eats up all the wealth produced by the worker and the society dies.
There is one last element that needs to be discussed and that is this business of "gaming the system". This is theft or stealing, no matter how you put it. The problem with gaming is that it becomes easier and more rewarding to the thief as the centralized system gets larger. There is more money in the basket and there is no one who is watching it. It is like a epidemic. Once it starts, it gets worse fast and is almost impossible to stop. If you have your eyes open, you know this is true. We have so many dogooders in Washington DC creating honey pots that call out for gamers and we have them in Spades. You don't see the gaming in the Distributed systems to near this degree because the ones who produced the wealth are the ones who are protecting that wealth.
Here is the bottom line. What we need to do here in the USA is to first recognize that more authority in Washington DC is not the solution and that we need to gradually take authority from Washington DC and get it out to smaller control systems like states, counties, cities and individuals. To do that, we have to accept that centralization has not worked, even though it did work well in small units like families. There will be things that are different from small unit to small unit, but that is a small price to pay compared to the cost and certain collapse of the centralized control system. Things like speed limits come to mind or drinking age. There are a lot more, but I think you get the idea. The medicine of Centralization or central authority is worse than the disease that is was intended to cure and that is the bottom line!
PS------It was very interesting that John Stossel had a show a couple of days later about this same topic. He pointed out that the free market did much better job in most cases than our expensive and repressive government. He showed how Wikipedia was as good as Encyclopedia Britannica and it was "free" and relied on volunteers to edit the material. Great!
PS----An other point. Notice that the Soviet Union failed when it tried strong central control while its competitors used a weaker central control system and relied on distributed free enterprise control more? The same thing happened in China. There is now "less" central control, but still too much. What Obama is trying to do in the USA is exactly the wrong thing. He is killing the USA and he knows it.
First off, complex systems are not a function of just one variable. This isn't what most one movers think. When Clinton was President, we had higher taxes rates than we do now, yet the economy was doing well. This is an example of one mover, one variable thinking. The problem for the human race is that most are one movers and think this way. Complex systems are functions of many variables, but some are more significant than others. Small changes in the important variables can have a big impact on the total system while large changes in less significant variable may have little or no affect. Further, the affect of changes in variables is a function of the "state" of the system. If this seems a little complex, it is because most systems are complex.
Now, I am, getting to my point. For this blog, I am going to deal with two types of control systems Centralized and Distributed. An example of a Centralized control system would be where the King has total authority and runs everything. Distributed would be where there is no King and each person or family goes about taking care of their own needs. Both of the these systems can work and work well, but not under all conditions and that is the point of this blog.
I blogged before that Bees and Ants operate on a Distributed control system. Each member does his own thing without being told or commanded. This is a jump in logic, but I will go on to prove this to be a fact. Very large systems function best when organized as Distributed control system. It would be like the "invisible hand" that causes big economic systems to work. Remember that one? How about our environment? It has functioned for millions of years as a Distributed control system. I often use Darwin when I refer to this type of system because most people need to feel there is some single master controller, but there is not.
An example of a Centralized control system that works is the family unit. Look at a Mormon family or a Jewish family. These are normally small systems controlled by a strong central figure. I think that you have to agree that these units of control have worked very well. Look by contrast at the Black family here in the USA. They tend to have weak family units and thus have not done well. The point here is that these are small Centralized control systems and notice also that the members of these small units have less freedom and have to conform to rules handed down by the strong central figure. Notice also that this is not the case in many of the Black families and notice also the results.
Here is where it gets interesting. We all can agree that strong central control works well in these small family units and it also works well in slightly larger systems, but as the size of the system gets larger and larger, it works less and less well. Here is where I feel we go wrong. We all agree that strong centralized control systems work well for small units and we conclude that if it is not working as well as the system gets bigger, it is because the centralized control system is not strong enough or does not have enough authority. If it worked so good when things were small, then why is it not so good as things get bigger? That is the point. The "state" of the system has changed as the system has gotten larger and variables that were significant in the smaller system are now less significant or have turned negative. More can be good up to a point and after that it can become negative. This is one simple principle of complex systems. With a human population of mostly one movers, this is the problem. If you are not getting the point, I will go on.
Size makes a big difference in terms of which system tends to work best, but there are other variable too. How about "spending ones own money"? Who does it best? I don't think I need to push that point. In which system is there the most money being spent by the people who did not earn the money? That is clear. It is the centralized control system and the bigger the system gets, the more of the wealth generated by the system is spent by those who did not earn it. Creating wealth is one of the most important functions of a human system, but how that wealth is used is equally important. If the system tends to squander that wealth, the total system will be weakened and may perish. A side point about centralized control systems is that central controllers tend to grow faster than the rate that the total system grows. If that is a fact, in the limit, the centralized control system will eat up all the wealth of the system can produce and the system will perish. This is what happened to the Greeks and the Romans and to some degree the Native American societies of Central America. The centralized government that was not creating any new wealth ate up the smaller and smaller amount of wealth being generated by the worker Bees.
A country is a lot like a large business. Did you ever notice how well a company is doing when they are in a growth mode, but when they get mature they mostly go down hill? Look at IBM or ITT, these were some of the top companies 40 or 50 years ago, but where are they now? When a company is growing they are hiring new "good"people so the ratio of producers to dead wood is good, but when things turn down, no new "good" people are added and the ratio of good to bad turns against them. It is a little like that for the USA. When the economy stops growing or slows down, the growth of the central governments keeps growing so that in the limit the ratio of government workers to the real wealth producers goes up. In this state, the government eats up all the wealth produced by the worker and the society dies.
There is one last element that needs to be discussed and that is this business of "gaming the system". This is theft or stealing, no matter how you put it. The problem with gaming is that it becomes easier and more rewarding to the thief as the centralized system gets larger. There is more money in the basket and there is no one who is watching it. It is like a epidemic. Once it starts, it gets worse fast and is almost impossible to stop. If you have your eyes open, you know this is true. We have so many dogooders in Washington DC creating honey pots that call out for gamers and we have them in Spades. You don't see the gaming in the Distributed systems to near this degree because the ones who produced the wealth are the ones who are protecting that wealth.
Here is the bottom line. What we need to do here in the USA is to first recognize that more authority in Washington DC is not the solution and that we need to gradually take authority from Washington DC and get it out to smaller control systems like states, counties, cities and individuals. To do that, we have to accept that centralization has not worked, even though it did work well in small units like families. There will be things that are different from small unit to small unit, but that is a small price to pay compared to the cost and certain collapse of the centralized control system. Things like speed limits come to mind or drinking age. There are a lot more, but I think you get the idea. The medicine of Centralization or central authority is worse than the disease that is was intended to cure and that is the bottom line!
PS------It was very interesting that John Stossel had a show a couple of days later about this same topic. He pointed out that the free market did much better job in most cases than our expensive and repressive government. He showed how Wikipedia was as good as Encyclopedia Britannica and it was "free" and relied on volunteers to edit the material. Great!
PS----An other point. Notice that the Soviet Union failed when it tried strong central control while its competitors used a weaker central control system and relied on distributed free enterprise control more? The same thing happened in China. There is now "less" central control, but still too much. What Obama is trying to do in the USA is exactly the wrong thing. He is killing the USA and he knows it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)