When you get old enough, you start to see trends that young people just do not pick upon. In the past 50 or so years, the population of the USA has more than doubled. Most of you know this, but did you also notice that the rural population has gone down at the same time? If the population doubled and the rural population went down, where did all these new people end up? They ended up in our larger cities. The first time that I ever went to San Jose, Ca, I think the population was under 50,000. Now San Jose is one of the 10 largest cities in the USA. That all happened in my life time and this USA is older than many life times and I hope that it will go on for many more. I am getting to my point.
I know that you could divide the people of the USA into many groups, but I am going to divide them into just four. (1) Asians, (2) Jewish, (3) Black and (4) All others. The first 3 groups are significantly different from "All others" and here is how. These first three groups are much more urbanized than the "all other" group. Most Asians live in large urban areas, as do both Jews and Blacks. If you think about this, I don't think that this is a big surprise to anyone, but there is more.
Next, how are urban and rural places different? They are different in many ways, but for my point, I feel that this is the most significant way that they are different. To succeed in an urban area, the person needs to have some special skill or intellect. This could be education, social responsibility, hard working. Things like strength, a strong back or keen eye sight would not count for much in an urban environment. As the urban areas get larger, these characteristics become more important.
Now, contrast this to rural areas. To succeed in a rural area, you need to be able to do more physical work and thus strength and a strong back would be key assets. I am thinking about milking cows or hauling hay, logging or mining. It could be picking farm crops, driving heavy equipment or trucks. I grant you that the rural area of work has become more efficient faster than most urban office or professional jobs and accounts for much of the decline in rural population.
The point that I am building up to is that the skill demands for urban and rural are very different and that has an affect on different segments of our population. Take Asians first. As a group, they are the best educated and the hardest working and most socially disciplined. Most live in urban areas and their set of skills serve them well. They earn the most per person of all the groups and do it in an urban environment. Next, the Jewish community. Like Asians they mostly live and work in urban areas and succeed just like the Asians. Next, the Black group. Of all the groups, they are the least skilled, socially responsible and educated, yet they are mostly in urban areas. They have not done well and will not do well because their skill set does not match the requirements of an urban environment. Their skills would be a lot better match for the requirements of a rural area. Do you see where I am going with this?
The trend in urban areas that demand higher and higher skills to succeed is not going to change. It is going to get even worse. It will be like rowing a boat up stream. If the Black community does not improve their skill set faster than the current in the stream, they will go backwards in terms of quality of life. They have to row faster to just stand still. It is not a simple case of being better educated than your parents, you have to be a lot better educated and work a lot harder. I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but I think these are the facts. To repeat, "there is no free lunch in the world". There is no easy way to dig ones self out of a deep hole. I think that know what you are up against is critical if there is any hope of digging out. Sugar coating the truth does no one service.
I think that one only needs to look at Detroit and see how difficult survival is in an urban area if you do not have the special skills needed. We are talking about a lot more than just education too. The Black community in Detroit is going to continue to go down hill until the high school graduation rate there is at least 95%. Now is is less than 33% so you can see how far they have to go to stop going down. When they stop going down, "then" they can think about going "up".
PS---Isn't it interesting that our Black President has said or done little to point out the path that his Black community needs to follow to improve their status. As a community organizer, you would think that he understood the problem of cities like Detroit and the Black community.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Monday, October 28, 2013
Clewless Obama
Have you noticed how Obama always claims that he did not know anything about this or that? What he does is claim ignorance every time anything bad happens in his administration. Did you also notice how he knew all about a Black professor from Harvard being arrested when he tried to break into his own home. He even shot his mouth off that the police were wrong and implied that they were racist. Did you also notice that the Black young man who was shot in self defense by a Latin American was "like Obama's own son"? Look a Lybia. In that case both Obama and Clinton did not know anything. They claimed to be ignorant again. It would seem to be that they could have been incompetent or dishonest, but they never claim that. If you get stopped for speeding by a cop, and claim that you did not know the speed limit, you still get a ticket. I guess if you are President and claim that you did not know the speed limit, the cop would let you off.
What if Obama claimed that, "The dog ate my home work". Would you think that Obama was lieing or just had a bad dog? What I can not understand is how stupid the voting public is and how they keep accepting "ignorance" as a good reason for letting bad things happen in the Obama administration. Did you notice how fast the girl was fired who was an Obama Care telephone support person when she spoke to Hannity? Notice how fast the guy in the White House .was fired when he tweeted bad things about Obama? If Obama can take such good care of his ego, why can't he do his job as President? Interesting isn't it?
How far do you think you would get telling your boss, when some thing bad happened under your responsibility, that you were "ignorant". He would say that a person who was that "ignorant" should not keep their job. You would be fired!
A challenge for you would be to keep track of how many times Obama and his people claim to be "ignorant" or "incompetent". It is the same thing and we all know it.
What if Obama claimed that, "The dog ate my home work". Would you think that Obama was lieing or just had a bad dog? What I can not understand is how stupid the voting public is and how they keep accepting "ignorance" as a good reason for letting bad things happen in the Obama administration. Did you notice how fast the girl was fired who was an Obama Care telephone support person when she spoke to Hannity? Notice how fast the guy in the White House .was fired when he tweeted bad things about Obama? If Obama can take such good care of his ego, why can't he do his job as President? Interesting isn't it?
How far do you think you would get telling your boss, when some thing bad happened under your responsibility, that you were "ignorant". He would say that a person who was that "ignorant" should not keep their job. You would be fired!
A challenge for you would be to keep track of how many times Obama and his people claim to be "ignorant" or "incompetent". It is the same thing and we all know it.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Jihadist And Bank Robbers
What do Jihadist terrorist and bank robbers have in common? This is a difficult one. That is the point of this blog, to explain why these two are very much alike. Before I do that, I want to clear up a couple of other points.
You can divide people up into at least three groups and my three are. (1) People who fear punishment, (2) People who don't feel they will ever be caught, and (3) People who have no fear of punishment. You could divide then a lot of ways, but these three will make my point. Our whole legal system is based on "fear of punishment". Most people do not rob banks because they fear punishment. For them, it is not worth it to attempt to rob a bank. Here in the USA people like this make up 99% of our population, so our legal system seems to work. The problem is that we have those other two groups of people and that is where the trouble comes in.
From the beginning of our Western legal system, our main problem has been with people who think that they will never be caught. It turns out that "most" are never caught or punished. For every criminal who is in jail for some crime, they have committed at least 5 other crimes for which they were never caught. The news papers don't spend much ink on crimes that were never solved. Once in a great while you may hear of one, but those are few and far between. For most of us, "catching" the bad guy and "bring him to justice" is what our legal system is all about. Every TV crime show is organized this way and even the "Who Done It" books are written this way.
This final group, (3) are the really bad ones. They do not fear punishment. If that is the case, how do we deal with them? You can't go to jail for what you are thinking, or can you? Thinking about robbing a bank is "not" a crime. Domestic violence is a good example of "no fear of punishment". That is why such gruesome murders can occur in domestic violence cases. How about insane people? Do you think that they have any fear of punishment? No way. Jihadist terrorists are in this final group. they have no fear of punishment and thus our system does not work very well or at all.
After all this set up, I am coming to my real point and that is Jihadist terrorist and bank robbers are a lot alike. How can I say that? Both are self motivated and act on their own. They are not employees or take orders from anyone. Jihadist just hate us and bank robbers want easy money. What are your chances of finding a Jihadist terrorist before they act? How about a bank robber? They act on their own and are part of what is called a "distributed control system". The system that we use to defeat the two groups is called a "central control system". The batting average of central control system defeating distributed control systems is very poor. If it works at all, it only works in very small system.
Are you starting to see how Jihadist terrorists and bank robbers have alot in common? If you are maybe you are ready for the next point. In the case of bank robbers, do we ever expect to totally eliminate bank robbers? No. You know that it would cost far too much compared to the amount of money that is stolen. Isn't it the same for Jihadist terrorists? We put a lot of effort to keep the frequency of bank robberies down to acceptable levels, but we don't expect to eliminate them. If that is so clearly the case with bank robbers, why is it not the same with Jihadist terrorist? We keep calling for our government to spent what ever it takes to "eliminate" Jihadist terrorist when we know that no matter how much we spend, we will never totally eliminate them. What we have to do is the same thing that we have done with bank robbers and that is to keep the rate down to an "acceptable" level. The debate should be about how much to spend to get to that acceptable level. Is this starting to make some sense? Are you also starting to see how this "War" is against a "distributed system" and not against Germany or Japan as in WWII? In the case of Germany or Japan, it was possible to defeat those enemies, but that same thing does not apply to a distributed enemy like bank robbers.
You can divide people up into at least three groups and my three are. (1) People who fear punishment, (2) People who don't feel they will ever be caught, and (3) People who have no fear of punishment. You could divide then a lot of ways, but these three will make my point. Our whole legal system is based on "fear of punishment". Most people do not rob banks because they fear punishment. For them, it is not worth it to attempt to rob a bank. Here in the USA people like this make up 99% of our population, so our legal system seems to work. The problem is that we have those other two groups of people and that is where the trouble comes in.
From the beginning of our Western legal system, our main problem has been with people who think that they will never be caught. It turns out that "most" are never caught or punished. For every criminal who is in jail for some crime, they have committed at least 5 other crimes for which they were never caught. The news papers don't spend much ink on crimes that were never solved. Once in a great while you may hear of one, but those are few and far between. For most of us, "catching" the bad guy and "bring him to justice" is what our legal system is all about. Every TV crime show is organized this way and even the "Who Done It" books are written this way.
This final group, (3) are the really bad ones. They do not fear punishment. If that is the case, how do we deal with them? You can't go to jail for what you are thinking, or can you? Thinking about robbing a bank is "not" a crime. Domestic violence is a good example of "no fear of punishment". That is why such gruesome murders can occur in domestic violence cases. How about insane people? Do you think that they have any fear of punishment? No way. Jihadist terrorists are in this final group. they have no fear of punishment and thus our system does not work very well or at all.
After all this set up, I am coming to my real point and that is Jihadist terrorist and bank robbers are a lot alike. How can I say that? Both are self motivated and act on their own. They are not employees or take orders from anyone. Jihadist just hate us and bank robbers want easy money. What are your chances of finding a Jihadist terrorist before they act? How about a bank robber? They act on their own and are part of what is called a "distributed control system". The system that we use to defeat the two groups is called a "central control system". The batting average of central control system defeating distributed control systems is very poor. If it works at all, it only works in very small system.
Are you starting to see how Jihadist terrorists and bank robbers have alot in common? If you are maybe you are ready for the next point. In the case of bank robbers, do we ever expect to totally eliminate bank robbers? No. You know that it would cost far too much compared to the amount of money that is stolen. Isn't it the same for Jihadist terrorists? We put a lot of effort to keep the frequency of bank robberies down to acceptable levels, but we don't expect to eliminate them. If that is so clearly the case with bank robbers, why is it not the same with Jihadist terrorist? We keep calling for our government to spent what ever it takes to "eliminate" Jihadist terrorist when we know that no matter how much we spend, we will never totally eliminate them. What we have to do is the same thing that we have done with bank robbers and that is to keep the rate down to an "acceptable" level. The debate should be about how much to spend to get to that acceptable level. Is this starting to make some sense? Are you also starting to see how this "War" is against a "distributed system" and not against Germany or Japan as in WWII? In the case of Germany or Japan, it was possible to defeat those enemies, but that same thing does not apply to a distributed enemy like bank robbers.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Obama Care Computer Program
What did you expect? Did you really think that someone as incompetent as Obama could pull this off? If you did, you just might be one of the fools who voted for him. Here is a little advice from little old me, who was never a community organizer or who never passed the bar exam.
First, ask this simple question, "Why do people go to the web site?" They go to the Obama Care web site for two main things. First, to get a quotation and second to purchase a policy. The mix of those who come to the site is at least 100 to one or 100 times as many just want a quotation. If they just want a quotation, there is "no" need for confidential information. I see no reason why they would need to give their Social Security number just for a quotation. My guess is that a person would "test" several sets of data before they actually buy a policy. If the quotation input data were just made up, there would be "no" need to tag all the security bases and thus slow down the system. If the government had done just this one simple thing, I think they would have eliminated 99% of their start up problems.
My experience in computer systems goes back to the late 1950"s. Most computer systems are a total bore and for that reason, I have avoided them. In the early 1960"s I was introduced to "decision trees" and thought that this was a great concept. It was not until 20 years later that I realized how limited "decision trees" were. In the mid 1960's I was introduced to the "Primal-Dual" concept and realized that it was much more powerful than simple trees. The reason that both "trees" and the "primal-dual" were so well accepted was that they could be drawn on a blackboard. If the concept could not be written on a blackboard, it would be difficult for the average person to understand.
The next concept that I stumbled onto was "Rule Based" parallel logic. This is the logic that Darwin has been running the world with. Darwin has a set of "Rules" that have to be obeyed or bad things can happen. Look at the rule of "gravity". If you throw something up in the air, it will come back down. If it hits you on the head, it could be the end of you. If you stand under a tree that is falling, gravity will be there doing its job, following Darwin's "Rule". With "Rule" based logic, the Obama Care program would only "ask" for data that was needed to get you too the final answer. What happens is that many times, it turns out that you don't need much of the data that the program asks for to get too the correct answer.
I'll try to come up with an example. Let's say that you are going to drive from Chicago to Omaha. If you were to use the logic in the Obama Care program, you would have to have tons of data plugged in before the trip even started. Look at getting from you home out to Interstate 80. There are at least 1000 ways that you could do that, but Obama care only supports "one" route. If you were to miss a turn, the Obama Care program would "crash". The way a "normal" person would manage the trip would be to apply simple "rules" along the route to solve any problem that might be encountered. Can you imagine a program that told you "not to turn" here or there at every intersection? That is what we have with the Obama Care program.
I know that 90% of you do not follow this, but take my word for it. The Obama Care program was developed by people just like Obama. Recall the difference between "Central" and "Distributed" control systems? No one who voted for Obama Care understood this one simple concept either.
PS----Did you ever notice that on "E-Bay" they let you check out the prices of things without having to have an account. Only if you want to buy or sell do you need the complexity of an account. Why didn't the people that Obama hired do it this way? Answer, "Stupidity".
First, ask this simple question, "Why do people go to the web site?" They go to the Obama Care web site for two main things. First, to get a quotation and second to purchase a policy. The mix of those who come to the site is at least 100 to one or 100 times as many just want a quotation. If they just want a quotation, there is "no" need for confidential information. I see no reason why they would need to give their Social Security number just for a quotation. My guess is that a person would "test" several sets of data before they actually buy a policy. If the quotation input data were just made up, there would be "no" need to tag all the security bases and thus slow down the system. If the government had done just this one simple thing, I think they would have eliminated 99% of their start up problems.
My experience in computer systems goes back to the late 1950"s. Most computer systems are a total bore and for that reason, I have avoided them. In the early 1960"s I was introduced to "decision trees" and thought that this was a great concept. It was not until 20 years later that I realized how limited "decision trees" were. In the mid 1960's I was introduced to the "Primal-Dual" concept and realized that it was much more powerful than simple trees. The reason that both "trees" and the "primal-dual" were so well accepted was that they could be drawn on a blackboard. If the concept could not be written on a blackboard, it would be difficult for the average person to understand.
The next concept that I stumbled onto was "Rule Based" parallel logic. This is the logic that Darwin has been running the world with. Darwin has a set of "Rules" that have to be obeyed or bad things can happen. Look at the rule of "gravity". If you throw something up in the air, it will come back down. If it hits you on the head, it could be the end of you. If you stand under a tree that is falling, gravity will be there doing its job, following Darwin's "Rule". With "Rule" based logic, the Obama Care program would only "ask" for data that was needed to get you too the final answer. What happens is that many times, it turns out that you don't need much of the data that the program asks for to get too the correct answer.
I'll try to come up with an example. Let's say that you are going to drive from Chicago to Omaha. If you were to use the logic in the Obama Care program, you would have to have tons of data plugged in before the trip even started. Look at getting from you home out to Interstate 80. There are at least 1000 ways that you could do that, but Obama care only supports "one" route. If you were to miss a turn, the Obama Care program would "crash". The way a "normal" person would manage the trip would be to apply simple "rules" along the route to solve any problem that might be encountered. Can you imagine a program that told you "not to turn" here or there at every intersection? That is what we have with the Obama Care program.
I know that 90% of you do not follow this, but take my word for it. The Obama Care program was developed by people just like Obama. Recall the difference between "Central" and "Distributed" control systems? No one who voted for Obama Care understood this one simple concept either.
PS----Did you ever notice that on "E-Bay" they let you check out the prices of things without having to have an account. Only if you want to buy or sell do you need the complexity of an account. Why didn't the people that Obama hired do it this way? Answer, "Stupidity".
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Is The Majority Always Correct?
Obama keeps pointing out that the majority of the voters agree with him and not with the Republicans. Sorry to say, but that is true. The problem is that there is an assumption that the majority is correct. What if that is not true? Have you watched some of the Late Show episodes where a person goes out on the street and asked random voters simple questions? I know you have. Did you also notice how many don't seem to know the correct answer to the question? These were simple question that any person who had a brain should have known, but many did not. When you look at surveys about Obama and his policies, you have to admit that many of the people in the USA who have the right to vote are totally incompetent. What a survey shows is what stupid people here in the USA think. Does that concern you? If it does not, then you may be one of those people. Look at history on this point.
How many years ago was it that most of the people on Earth thought the Earth was "flat"? It was about 500 years ago. In human time, that is not all that long ago. We are talking about over 95% holding the view that the Earth was flat. Does that make you trust the opinion of the majority? Try another one.
For thousands of years us humans thought that the Sun revolved about the Earth and that the Earth was the center of the universe. Was that true? No!! the church who got their knowledge directly from God even got it wrong. The church would jail people who thought differently and even burn them as witches. Was the church correct? I don't think so. How about another?
How long did doctors and other think that stomach ulcers were caused by what they eat? It was for over hundreds of years. Think of all the people who had to drink butter milk as a cure. I think that is was until only about 30 years ago that a doctor in Australia figured out that the cause was bacteria that could be easily controlled with antibiotics. The majority of our doctors had it wrong.
The point that I am trying to make is that a survey can determine what the average opinion is, but it can not determine the correct answer. What we just went thru with the partial government shutdown points out that opinions are just opinions, but they just may not be the correct answer. Why do we have a problem? Simple. We spend more than we earn. If that is the case. what is the correct answer? It is to spend less or collect more tax! The other fact that needs to be considered is that if we try to collect more tax, we will reduce the total tax base. Companies will either go out of business or will not grow as fast as they would with out the added tax. There is going to be pain to correct our problem and the less pain we have now, the more we will have later. If you have children or grandchildren, you know that they are the ones who will have the most pain as they have to clean up our mess.
Who do you really think is correct on this one? The majority or the minority? The majority was dead wrong in the past and I feel they are dead wrong on this one too.
How many years ago was it that most of the people on Earth thought the Earth was "flat"? It was about 500 years ago. In human time, that is not all that long ago. We are talking about over 95% holding the view that the Earth was flat. Does that make you trust the opinion of the majority? Try another one.
For thousands of years us humans thought that the Sun revolved about the Earth and that the Earth was the center of the universe. Was that true? No!! the church who got their knowledge directly from God even got it wrong. The church would jail people who thought differently and even burn them as witches. Was the church correct? I don't think so. How about another?
How long did doctors and other think that stomach ulcers were caused by what they eat? It was for over hundreds of years. Think of all the people who had to drink butter milk as a cure. I think that is was until only about 30 years ago that a doctor in Australia figured out that the cause was bacteria that could be easily controlled with antibiotics. The majority of our doctors had it wrong.
The point that I am trying to make is that a survey can determine what the average opinion is, but it can not determine the correct answer. What we just went thru with the partial government shutdown points out that opinions are just opinions, but they just may not be the correct answer. Why do we have a problem? Simple. We spend more than we earn. If that is the case. what is the correct answer? It is to spend less or collect more tax! The other fact that needs to be considered is that if we try to collect more tax, we will reduce the total tax base. Companies will either go out of business or will not grow as fast as they would with out the added tax. There is going to be pain to correct our problem and the less pain we have now, the more we will have later. If you have children or grandchildren, you know that they are the ones who will have the most pain as they have to clean up our mess.
Who do you really think is correct on this one? The majority or the minority? The majority was dead wrong in the past and I feel they are dead wrong on this one too.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Obama And Ignorance
I think that I have finally connected the dots on Obama and the Republicans. When the dots connect, it always turns out to be a lot simpler than you ever would have thought. You know that this is always true when you finally figure things out.
First, let's look at just who the voters are here in the USA. I think that we rank about 25th in the world in terms of how well us voters are educated, but it does not stop there. If the total population ranks 25th, then there must be groups that are better and worse than 25th. With me on this one? This is a jump, but I think that I am on the right track and that is the two voting groups here in the USA who vote for the different parties have very different levels of education. Here is my estimate. Those who voted for Obama rank about 35th in the world in terms of education and those who voted for Romney ranked about 15th. That is a very big difference. Notice that the largest groups who voted for Obama were Blacks, Hispanics, union members and people on welfare or food stamps. If it takes "smarts" to compete in the world today, you have to admit that I am correct. All this is just to set the stage for my main point.
Now, let's look at the two groups defined above. Ask, "how do these two groups make up their minds about anything?" I contend that is is "not" with their brains. They are much like religious people. They go on "faith" without any basis for their position. As a politician, how do you deal with that? For one thing, you don't use logic or any argument that would require a brain on the part of the individual voter. That is the main reason that the Republican arguments seem to fall on deaf ears. These people are the perfect example of "one movers". They are like dogs and cats that just live in the present and never think of the future. Following me now?
It gets even better. When their leader, Obama, does a total screw up and then tells them, "I did not know anything about it", they accept that as a good excuse. Why do they accept it? Because they are so stupid and have no idea how a leader should act and what they should know before the take the job as the leader. Contrast this with the group that voted for Romney. This is the better educated group and know what a leader "should" know. They do not accept "ignorance" as a good excuse for screwing up, but the group that voted for Obama does. See where this is going?
Now look at how Obama deals with his supporters. He treats them like the stupid people that they are. He never gives them any kind of logical argument. He just smiles and shows how he loves his family. Watch the way Obama deals with his supporters and I think you will have to agree. The other side of the coin is that those who did not vote for him see what a con man and Judas that he is, but Obama does not care what they think. The net result of this kind of action by Obama and the logical way the Republicans have acted has had the affect of polarizing the country to the point that it is. Obama was elected by just over half of the voters and so he just ignores the almost other half of the population. I think that you can see how a simple minded policy of "spreading" the wealth is so popular with Obama's group and so unpopular with those who did not vote for him.
I think that this blog has connected a lot of dots in the only logical way that they could be connected. If you are "not" a "one mover", I think that you would have to agree.
PS---Do you think the financial crisis is over? It is only delayed. There is still another vote and that will be by the countries who buy our next trillion dollars of bonds. How high of an interest rate will they demand to cover the "risk"? When they stop buying, how will we pay our bills then?
First, let's look at just who the voters are here in the USA. I think that we rank about 25th in the world in terms of how well us voters are educated, but it does not stop there. If the total population ranks 25th, then there must be groups that are better and worse than 25th. With me on this one? This is a jump, but I think that I am on the right track and that is the two voting groups here in the USA who vote for the different parties have very different levels of education. Here is my estimate. Those who voted for Obama rank about 35th in the world in terms of education and those who voted for Romney ranked about 15th. That is a very big difference. Notice that the largest groups who voted for Obama were Blacks, Hispanics, union members and people on welfare or food stamps. If it takes "smarts" to compete in the world today, you have to admit that I am correct. All this is just to set the stage for my main point.
Now, let's look at the two groups defined above. Ask, "how do these two groups make up their minds about anything?" I contend that is is "not" with their brains. They are much like religious people. They go on "faith" without any basis for their position. As a politician, how do you deal with that? For one thing, you don't use logic or any argument that would require a brain on the part of the individual voter. That is the main reason that the Republican arguments seem to fall on deaf ears. These people are the perfect example of "one movers". They are like dogs and cats that just live in the present and never think of the future. Following me now?
It gets even better. When their leader, Obama, does a total screw up and then tells them, "I did not know anything about it", they accept that as a good excuse. Why do they accept it? Because they are so stupid and have no idea how a leader should act and what they should know before the take the job as the leader. Contrast this with the group that voted for Romney. This is the better educated group and know what a leader "should" know. They do not accept "ignorance" as a good excuse for screwing up, but the group that voted for Obama does. See where this is going?
Now look at how Obama deals with his supporters. He treats them like the stupid people that they are. He never gives them any kind of logical argument. He just smiles and shows how he loves his family. Watch the way Obama deals with his supporters and I think you will have to agree. The other side of the coin is that those who did not vote for him see what a con man and Judas that he is, but Obama does not care what they think. The net result of this kind of action by Obama and the logical way the Republicans have acted has had the affect of polarizing the country to the point that it is. Obama was elected by just over half of the voters and so he just ignores the almost other half of the population. I think that you can see how a simple minded policy of "spreading" the wealth is so popular with Obama's group and so unpopular with those who did not vote for him.
I think that this blog has connected a lot of dots in the only logical way that they could be connected. If you are "not" a "one mover", I think that you would have to agree.
PS---Do you think the financial crisis is over? It is only delayed. There is still another vote and that will be by the countries who buy our next trillion dollars of bonds. How high of an interest rate will they demand to cover the "risk"? When they stop buying, how will we pay our bills then?
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Solar Power, Wind Power, Electric Cars and True Cost
What do all of these have in common? Didn't get it? Few voters understand the "true cost" of the first three. I have been researching on the Internet what the "true cost" is of solar power, wind power and electric cars and have found it very difficult. There is so much Green bull shit out there that you have to dig thru that you end up with very dirty hands when you are all done. I was thinking today about a different way to analyse the cost and here it is.
For the 90% of our population who very little about technology, every time they hear about a technology that "can do" something, they respond with, "Well let's do it". They have zero idea about if the idea is going to be worth it or not. Most of this 90% know just enough about efficiency to think that by improving the efficiency of some idea that it will be worth while. They have no idea how easy or difficult that improvement will be or how much it will cost. For that reason, Obama and the people who voted for him barge off spending other peoples money on ideas that have zero chance of every paying back. These are "not" investments, they are just blatant wastes of our counties wealth. If this keeps up we will go broke, pure and simple.
What I propose for the 10% who can understand technology is that we first figure out how much we will have to improve efficiency or reduce cost for an idea to be competitive or worth doing. Easy concept, but so far this idea has fallen on deaf ears. Take the wind mill. This is a simple device that was invented about 1,000 years ago. The technology associated with it is very mature, which means that there is not much "fat" left in the concept. It is a structural tower with a simple fan on top turning and electric generator. The chances of improving the efficiency of any of these more than about 5% or 10% is almost zero. The question is how much improvement do we need in these three areas to make power from a wind mill competitive with other alternatives? Right now the fan collects about 45% of the wind power that passes thru the fan. It is impossible to collect more than about 60% or you slow the wind down too much thru the fan and thus start losing power. If the cost of power from the wind mill is now 10 times that from coal, there is "no" way that wind power will ever be competitive. This point alone should be enough to cause Obama and his green friends to cancel all government wind power programs. The only reason that wind mill continue to be built is that it is now against the law "not" to build them, There is a government mandate that a certain % of our power much come from wind and that electric power companies have to pay the wind mill builders the "retail" price for that power. The power companies could buy that same power on the open market for as little as 10% of what the law says they have to pay the wind mill owners. is this sick or what?
Electric cars are exactly the same. Auto makers are subject to mandate laws too that require them to build a certain minimum percent of their cars as electric or hybrid. They would not do it if it were not for the law. The government even went so far as to provide a $7,500 tax rebate to the buyer of the car. I have no problem with a few very rich Green nuts buying electric cars with their own money, but not with my tax money. Just take the battery as one component. After working on the improvement of batteries for over 100 years, we now have a battery that can store 1kwh for a sale price of about $750 and can be charged and discharge "up to" 1,000 times. The battery starts to do down hill right from the start and by the time it has been charged and recharge 1,000 times, it will take less than 33% of its original charge. This is left out of the numbers published in most news papers. Now the question is, "How cheap does the battery have to get to be competitive?" A rough estimate is that we have to get the cost of the battery down to about $150 to store 1kwh or electricity and be able to hold that charge for at least 1,000 charges and recharges. The chances of that happening in the next 500 years is "zero". It is not possible, so why do we keep trying? That is because 90% of our population have almost zero knowledge about technology or the history of technology.
You could heat your home by just rubbing your hands together if you had enough people doing it. If that is the case, "Should we do it?" I don't think so. Just because some thing is possible does not mean that we should spend other people's tax money to try to do it. You can spend you own money any way that you want, but public tax money need to be controlled to a higher standard and that is, "Is it worth it."
For the 90% of our population who very little about technology, every time they hear about a technology that "can do" something, they respond with, "Well let's do it". They have zero idea about if the idea is going to be worth it or not. Most of this 90% know just enough about efficiency to think that by improving the efficiency of some idea that it will be worth while. They have no idea how easy or difficult that improvement will be or how much it will cost. For that reason, Obama and the people who voted for him barge off spending other peoples money on ideas that have zero chance of every paying back. These are "not" investments, they are just blatant wastes of our counties wealth. If this keeps up we will go broke, pure and simple.
What I propose for the 10% who can understand technology is that we first figure out how much we will have to improve efficiency or reduce cost for an idea to be competitive or worth doing. Easy concept, but so far this idea has fallen on deaf ears. Take the wind mill. This is a simple device that was invented about 1,000 years ago. The technology associated with it is very mature, which means that there is not much "fat" left in the concept. It is a structural tower with a simple fan on top turning and electric generator. The chances of improving the efficiency of any of these more than about 5% or 10% is almost zero. The question is how much improvement do we need in these three areas to make power from a wind mill competitive with other alternatives? Right now the fan collects about 45% of the wind power that passes thru the fan. It is impossible to collect more than about 60% or you slow the wind down too much thru the fan and thus start losing power. If the cost of power from the wind mill is now 10 times that from coal, there is "no" way that wind power will ever be competitive. This point alone should be enough to cause Obama and his green friends to cancel all government wind power programs. The only reason that wind mill continue to be built is that it is now against the law "not" to build them, There is a government mandate that a certain % of our power much come from wind and that electric power companies have to pay the wind mill builders the "retail" price for that power. The power companies could buy that same power on the open market for as little as 10% of what the law says they have to pay the wind mill owners. is this sick or what?
Electric cars are exactly the same. Auto makers are subject to mandate laws too that require them to build a certain minimum percent of their cars as electric or hybrid. They would not do it if it were not for the law. The government even went so far as to provide a $7,500 tax rebate to the buyer of the car. I have no problem with a few very rich Green nuts buying electric cars with their own money, but not with my tax money. Just take the battery as one component. After working on the improvement of batteries for over 100 years, we now have a battery that can store 1kwh for a sale price of about $750 and can be charged and discharge "up to" 1,000 times. The battery starts to do down hill right from the start and by the time it has been charged and recharge 1,000 times, it will take less than 33% of its original charge. This is left out of the numbers published in most news papers. Now the question is, "How cheap does the battery have to get to be competitive?" A rough estimate is that we have to get the cost of the battery down to about $150 to store 1kwh or electricity and be able to hold that charge for at least 1,000 charges and recharges. The chances of that happening in the next 500 years is "zero". It is not possible, so why do we keep trying? That is because 90% of our population have almost zero knowledge about technology or the history of technology.
You could heat your home by just rubbing your hands together if you had enough people doing it. If that is the case, "Should we do it?" I don't think so. Just because some thing is possible does not mean that we should spend other people's tax money to try to do it. You can spend you own money any way that you want, but public tax money need to be controlled to a higher standard and that is, "Is it worth it."
Media Bias Test
Have you noticed the bias in our national news media? If you have not, you would be wasting your time reading this blog. I like to look deeper than just the bias and see if I can figure out "why" there is a national news media bias. To get a better understanding of the situation, I have designed a simple test. This is not really a test, it is what is called an "inventory". There are no right or wrong answers. How you answer tells something about you and in the case why there is such a bias. Try some of these.
(1) Does the person you are married too:
(a) Drive a truck?
(b) Working in an office?
(c) Work in a factory making something?
(d) Other?
(2) Which do you prefer to drink:
(a) Red wine?
(b) White wine?
(c) Scotch
(d) Bourbon
(e) Beer
(f) Other
(3) How often do you get your hair cut:
(a) Every week?
(b) Every two weeks?
(c) Every three weeks?
(d) Four weeks or more?
(4) How often do you have your nails done:
(a) At least one per month?
(b) At least once per year?
(c) Never?
(5) How often do you get a massage:
(a) At least one per month?
(b) At least once per year?
(c) Never?
(6) Drive what kind of car:
(a) Electric or Hybrid?
(b) American car?
(c) Forign car?
(d) Pickup Truck?
(7) Own how many guns:
(a) One?
(b) Two?
(c) 10 or more?
(d) None?
(8) Drive how many miles per week:
(a) Less than 25?
(b) 25 to 100?
(c) More than 100?
(9) How frequently do you run a chain saw:
(a) Less than once per month?
(b) More than once per month?
(c) Never
(10) Live in what size town:
(a) Less than 5,000?
(b) More than 5,000, but less than 50,000?
(c) More than 50,000?
(d) On a farm or ranch?
(11) Percent of friends who are college graduates:
(a) Less than 10% or none?
(b) Between 10% and 50%?
(c) More than 50%?
Take the test and see how you compare with those in the national media.
(1) Does the person you are married too:
(a) Drive a truck?
(b) Working in an office?
(c) Work in a factory making something?
(d) Other?
(2) Which do you prefer to drink:
(a) Red wine?
(b) White wine?
(c) Scotch
(d) Bourbon
(e) Beer
(f) Other
(3) How often do you get your hair cut:
(a) Every week?
(b) Every two weeks?
(c) Every three weeks?
(d) Four weeks or more?
(4) How often do you have your nails done:
(a) At least one per month?
(b) At least once per year?
(c) Never?
(5) How often do you get a massage:
(a) At least one per month?
(b) At least once per year?
(c) Never?
(6) Drive what kind of car:
(a) Electric or Hybrid?
(b) American car?
(c) Forign car?
(d) Pickup Truck?
(7) Own how many guns:
(a) One?
(b) Two?
(c) 10 or more?
(d) None?
(8) Drive how many miles per week:
(a) Less than 25?
(b) 25 to 100?
(c) More than 100?
(9) How frequently do you run a chain saw:
(a) Less than once per month?
(b) More than once per month?
(c) Never
(10) Live in what size town:
(a) Less than 5,000?
(b) More than 5,000, but less than 50,000?
(c) More than 50,000?
(d) On a farm or ranch?
(11) Percent of friends who are college graduates:
(a) Less than 10% or none?
(b) Between 10% and 50%?
(c) More than 50%?
Take the test and see how you compare with those in the national media.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Obama Care And Computerized Medical Records
I know that a lot of you think that computerizing medical records is a good idea and that the Federal Government should make all medical providers do it. Did you ever think about what it will cost compared to the benefits? I know that you never did. It is like thinking that all states should have the same speed limits or that all schools in every state should teach exactly the same subjects and the kids have to pass the same tests. Why is it that so many people think this way and why very few think for themselves? That is the point of this blog.
I think the problem starts with "group think", but that is not the root cause. What causes "group think"? That is the real question. Don't have the answer? I think that I do. It is "political correctness". What, you say. How can "political correctness" cause "group think"? It seems clear to me that if everyone lives under the same rules of "political correctness" that the natural out growth is a bunch of sheep who think alike, ie "group think". Next, you ask, "what is so bad about "group think"? What it does is to set up a society for an easy take over by some group or nut (Obama). In true group think, no one will step out of line and challenge things even if they are wrong and going in the wrong direction. What happened in Germany back in the 1930's? They killed a lot of Jews and others in Europe and Asia. Why did no one try to stop the killing? "Group think" and "political correctness". Japan was the same. If you are following this, you can see how a Judas could lead a bunch of sheep to their own destruction.
Now, computerized medical records. Since more and more people here in the USA have become sheep and part of "group think", they think that computerizing medical records is a great idea. They never think things thru for themselves. They never compare the cost to the benefits. I have had my share of medical problems as have some of my friends. We discussed their experience with medical records and paper work in general. Don't think that computerization eliminates paper work. I had a Tic bite and went to my doctor to get antibiotics for Lymes disease. The medical people spent 10 times more time with the "paper work" than they did helping me. I know for a fact that other people were still working on the paper work long after I had left the doctor's office. That is just for starters. The cost of the doctor visit was thus at least 10 times what it should have been. I am an old guy and only have a few years left to live, so who will care about my old records after I am dead. Who is going to purge the computer file? Who is going to get any value out of my old records? When you consider that we spend over 50% of our medical dollars in the last year of a person's life, who cares about those old records on dead people. If I had been back in Argentina, I could have gone down the corner pharmacy an purchased the medicine for 25% of what is cost me here in the USA and I would never have had to of see any doctor. Given the scale that all this goes on here, we are talking about billions of dollars wasted. Computerizing the records just adds to the cost and makes people think that they are helping. (Looks like global warming.)
We now spend about 17% of our GNP on medical. By adding the complexity of Obama Care and computerized medical records, it is going to cost more not less. I predict that if nothing is done, we will be over 20% within two years. Think of everything that we make costing 3-4% more than it does now. How are we going to compete in the world? The Judas is killing us because we are sheep. Isn't that exactly what the Judas goat always does?
I think the problem starts with "group think", but that is not the root cause. What causes "group think"? That is the real question. Don't have the answer? I think that I do. It is "political correctness". What, you say. How can "political correctness" cause "group think"? It seems clear to me that if everyone lives under the same rules of "political correctness" that the natural out growth is a bunch of sheep who think alike, ie "group think". Next, you ask, "what is so bad about "group think"? What it does is to set up a society for an easy take over by some group or nut (Obama). In true group think, no one will step out of line and challenge things even if they are wrong and going in the wrong direction. What happened in Germany back in the 1930's? They killed a lot of Jews and others in Europe and Asia. Why did no one try to stop the killing? "Group think" and "political correctness". Japan was the same. If you are following this, you can see how a Judas could lead a bunch of sheep to their own destruction.
Now, computerized medical records. Since more and more people here in the USA have become sheep and part of "group think", they think that computerizing medical records is a great idea. They never think things thru for themselves. They never compare the cost to the benefits. I have had my share of medical problems as have some of my friends. We discussed their experience with medical records and paper work in general. Don't think that computerization eliminates paper work. I had a Tic bite and went to my doctor to get antibiotics for Lymes disease. The medical people spent 10 times more time with the "paper work" than they did helping me. I know for a fact that other people were still working on the paper work long after I had left the doctor's office. That is just for starters. The cost of the doctor visit was thus at least 10 times what it should have been. I am an old guy and only have a few years left to live, so who will care about my old records after I am dead. Who is going to purge the computer file? Who is going to get any value out of my old records? When you consider that we spend over 50% of our medical dollars in the last year of a person's life, who cares about those old records on dead people. If I had been back in Argentina, I could have gone down the corner pharmacy an purchased the medicine for 25% of what is cost me here in the USA and I would never have had to of see any doctor. Given the scale that all this goes on here, we are talking about billions of dollars wasted. Computerizing the records just adds to the cost and makes people think that they are helping. (Looks like global warming.)
We now spend about 17% of our GNP on medical. By adding the complexity of Obama Care and computerized medical records, it is going to cost more not less. I predict that if nothing is done, we will be over 20% within two years. Think of everything that we make costing 3-4% more than it does now. How are we going to compete in the world? The Judas is killing us because we are sheep. Isn't that exactly what the Judas goat always does?
Default Facts
Do you really think we are going to default on our $16+ trillion dollar national debit? How about a few facts? Out GNP is about $17 trillion dollars, or equal to our national debit. The debit is owned by several groups, the largest is Social Security. That's right, Social Security. All the money that we have been paying in all these years was used to buy government bonds. Guess what our government did with the money from the bonds they sold to the Social Security department? They spent it just like it was regular tax money. Now there is "no" real money in the Social Security account. All there is is some bond certificates that our government has no money in the bank to redeem. That is who it works.
The other big owner of our debit is our own Federal Reserve. They print money on fresh paper and buy our bonds on the open market when no one else will. This has caused the interest rate on our government bonds to remain low. That sounds good, but how about those of us on Social Security who want our saved money to grow?
The next big group are American companies and individuals who own government bonds. These are the same bonds that you may have purchased for that new grand daughter. We, as citizens, own a lot of our own debit, but we don't earn enough on the bonds to even keep up with inflation. You have to ask, "why do we keep buying our own bonds?"
The next big group are foreign countries. China is now the biggest, with Japan next and then Brazil. I have no idea why Japan and Brazil have purchased so much of our debit, but they have. As for China, the answer is clear. For China, it is a way to help us poor Americans buy more and more products from China and shift jobs from here over to China. China can use our bonds like money to buy big ticket items from us or from other countries around the world. China has used their bonds to buy big ticket items all over the world, including right here in the USA. Why anyone would want to accept our bonds like real money is a mystery to me. I suspect that China has to discount the bonds a lot to get anyone to take them.
Now, back to the $17 trillion dollar debit. Figure that the average interest rate on our bonds is about 2%. That means we have to pay 2% of our GNP out as interest on the debit. But first, look at who owns that debit. Our own government along with the Social Security own at least 1/3 of the bonds. That means we own 1/3 of the annual interest to ourselves. That leaves only about 1.4% owed to others. Now it is getting interesting.
If we only owe 1.4% of our GNP in interest, then to prevent a default, all we need to come up with is 1.4% of our GNP. With me so far? To put this in perspective, we spend 17% of our GNP on medical. That is the highest in the world in both % and $. With Obama Care that 17% is expected to go up to at least 22% within a couple of years. You know from watching TV that that is true. You can't just look at this on an individual basis or one group or another. You need to look at it in the big picture and that is in terms of the GNP. We should be thinking about how to reduce our medical cost by 1.4% not increasing them by 5%. If we did that we would easily have enough to keep up with interest cost of our current national debit.
Our student loan debit is now over $1 trillion dollars. That is more than 2% of our total GNP or national debit. Since money is fungible, that same $1 trillion dollars is part of our national debit. It is "not" different money. It is all the same money. Student loans may be a good idea, but they should not be free. Free leads to too many bad decisions. Student loans should cost the same as home loans. Further, if we have a debit problem now and student loans have no value until far into the future, why don't we consider a trade-off of student loans in favor of our current national debit? See, there are a lot of ways to balance the books and all would make us stronger and force us to make better economic decisions in our lives. The USA is just a simple total of all the actions and decisions of our citizens and we have been making a lot of stupid decisions for a long time. Obama just represents a worsening of the situation. Do we have the balls to turn this ship around? That is the real question.
PS--Try this story. We have our home and a supply of wood for heat for the winter. Our problem is that we do not have enough wood to keep our home at 70f until spring. If we lower the temperature now to 60f, some of the family will be uncomfortable. We took a vote and a majority voted to keep the temp at 70f. If we had lowered it to 60f we would have had enough wood to get thru to spring. Now that they have voted to keep the home at 70f, the home will be very cold when the wood runs out and then there will be a lot more pain than just being uncomfortable.
The other big owner of our debit is our own Federal Reserve. They print money on fresh paper and buy our bonds on the open market when no one else will. This has caused the interest rate on our government bonds to remain low. That sounds good, but how about those of us on Social Security who want our saved money to grow?
The next big group are American companies and individuals who own government bonds. These are the same bonds that you may have purchased for that new grand daughter. We, as citizens, own a lot of our own debit, but we don't earn enough on the bonds to even keep up with inflation. You have to ask, "why do we keep buying our own bonds?"
The next big group are foreign countries. China is now the biggest, with Japan next and then Brazil. I have no idea why Japan and Brazil have purchased so much of our debit, but they have. As for China, the answer is clear. For China, it is a way to help us poor Americans buy more and more products from China and shift jobs from here over to China. China can use our bonds like money to buy big ticket items from us or from other countries around the world. China has used their bonds to buy big ticket items all over the world, including right here in the USA. Why anyone would want to accept our bonds like real money is a mystery to me. I suspect that China has to discount the bonds a lot to get anyone to take them.
Now, back to the $17 trillion dollar debit. Figure that the average interest rate on our bonds is about 2%. That means we have to pay 2% of our GNP out as interest on the debit. But first, look at who owns that debit. Our own government along with the Social Security own at least 1/3 of the bonds. That means we own 1/3 of the annual interest to ourselves. That leaves only about 1.4% owed to others. Now it is getting interesting.
If we only owe 1.4% of our GNP in interest, then to prevent a default, all we need to come up with is 1.4% of our GNP. With me so far? To put this in perspective, we spend 17% of our GNP on medical. That is the highest in the world in both % and $. With Obama Care that 17% is expected to go up to at least 22% within a couple of years. You know from watching TV that that is true. You can't just look at this on an individual basis or one group or another. You need to look at it in the big picture and that is in terms of the GNP. We should be thinking about how to reduce our medical cost by 1.4% not increasing them by 5%. If we did that we would easily have enough to keep up with interest cost of our current national debit.
Our student loan debit is now over $1 trillion dollars. That is more than 2% of our total GNP or national debit. Since money is fungible, that same $1 trillion dollars is part of our national debit. It is "not" different money. It is all the same money. Student loans may be a good idea, but they should not be free. Free leads to too many bad decisions. Student loans should cost the same as home loans. Further, if we have a debit problem now and student loans have no value until far into the future, why don't we consider a trade-off of student loans in favor of our current national debit? See, there are a lot of ways to balance the books and all would make us stronger and force us to make better economic decisions in our lives. The USA is just a simple total of all the actions and decisions of our citizens and we have been making a lot of stupid decisions for a long time. Obama just represents a worsening of the situation. Do we have the balls to turn this ship around? That is the real question.
PS--Try this story. We have our home and a supply of wood for heat for the winter. Our problem is that we do not have enough wood to keep our home at 70f until spring. If we lower the temperature now to 60f, some of the family will be uncomfortable. We took a vote and a majority voted to keep the temp at 70f. If we had lowered it to 60f we would have had enough wood to get thru to spring. Now that they have voted to keep the home at 70f, the home will be very cold when the wood runs out and then there will be a lot more pain than just being uncomfortable.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Global Warming Revisited
It seems that this Global Warming thing will never go away. When I listen to the talking heads, they never seem to have any significant facts. It is like a religion where they just accept things as being true without any facts to back them up. I don't know where the real scientific community is on Global Warming, because all we hear from are liberal left wing nuts. My position on Global Warming is, "so what". Plants and animals on Earth have had to adjust to change since the beginning of time, so what is new. During the Ice Age, the oceans were much lower than they are now. Again, so what. There used to be millions of Bison roaming on North America, but not any more. Things change and we are just going to have to change too. For some strange reason, liberals and left wingers seem to think that we can just vote and if we have a majority, then we can spend other people's hard earned money on anything that we want. Isn't that the way it has turned out? It is a lot easier to vote and steal someones property than to work an earn one's own. I think that we have all gone mad. Now back to Global Warming.
Isn't it interesting how little that most of us know about "historical" Global Warming? What caused the great Ice Age? What cause all the ice to melt all of a sudden? Where did all the oil and coal come from? Is the Earth still making oil and coal? If not, why not? Has the boiling point of water always been 212 f at sea level? Was our atmosphere denser in the past than it is now? What happened to all the water that was once on Mars? Did the moon ever have an atmosphere? Why do think we are so much like dogs and apes? Are humans getting more intelligent? If not, when were humans the most intelligent? Why did the new world have corn and the potato and Europe did not?
If one of these liberal global warming nuts had the answers to the above, I might listen to them, but you know they do not. I had the first frost on my garden the first of September, so for me, global warming can not come soon enough. Global warming would make life a lot easier for me and save me a lot of money. Bring it on!!!!
Isn't it interesting how little that most of us know about "historical" Global Warming? What caused the great Ice Age? What cause all the ice to melt all of a sudden? Where did all the oil and coal come from? Is the Earth still making oil and coal? If not, why not? Has the boiling point of water always been 212 f at sea level? Was our atmosphere denser in the past than it is now? What happened to all the water that was once on Mars? Did the moon ever have an atmosphere? Why do think we are so much like dogs and apes? Are humans getting more intelligent? If not, when were humans the most intelligent? Why did the new world have corn and the potato and Europe did not?
If one of these liberal global warming nuts had the answers to the above, I might listen to them, but you know they do not. I had the first frost on my garden the first of September, so for me, global warming can not come soon enough. Global warming would make life a lot easier for me and save me a lot of money. Bring it on!!!!
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
The America's Cup And The Real History
Did you ever have a history teacher who was also a good sailor? Did you ever have a history teacher who knew anything about navigation? Did you ever have a history teacher who knew anything about math? Did you ever have a history teacher who knew anything about farming? I did not think so. I think that is why most people know so little about history. History only starts with "what" happened. The main lessons from history are "why" it happened. If you don't know "why", you really don't know history. That is the objective of this blog.
One of the main difficulties with learning history is that you have to unlearn a lot of misinformation. If you start off in the wrong direction, be for you can go in the right direction you have to back track from how far you went wrong. For most people, they are not interested in Real History enough to ever turn back from the wrong direction, so here goes.
When I was in school, we learned how the bad Spanish navy tried to invade England with their big "Armada". That was the first time I had ever hear the big word "Armada". I was impressed. Per the history that I was taught, the Armada was caught in a big storm and most of their ships were destroyed. End of Spain and the beginning of the dominance of England. With me so far? Now the Real History.
The Spanish armada did sail up to England and they did fight the English navy, but this went much differently. The English ships were smaller than those of the Spanish and were both faster and about to "Point Higher". Pointing higher means being able to sail at a greater angle into the wind. I have a C&C34 that can sail about 30 degrees off the wind. I can not sail directly into the wind, but I can sail at a good angle into the wind. The Spanish ships could not sail well into the wind and thus were at a major disadvantage to the English ships. It would be like the English having the high ground and the Spanish down in the valley or the English had cavalry and the Spanish just had foot soldiers. The result was the Spanish were losing the battle due to the English's ability to "point higher".
The Commodore of the Spanish navy decided to, rather than continue the battle, to sail all the way around England and come at them from the West end of the English Channel. That is what they all did. They sailed around Scotland and were sailing West. They knew their latitude, but not their longitude. They were figuring their longitude based on "dead reckoning", which takes into account their speed and time. This is the same way that you would figure out a trip in your car. The problem was that the Spanish navy did not know there was a current in the sea that flowed from the West and they were sailing into that current. The result was that they were "not" as far West as they thought. When the Commodore calculated that the armada was far enough West, he ordered them to turn South. The result was that during fog and night time, most of the ships crashed into the Northern shores of England, Scotland and Ireland. There was no big storm as you were told in your history books.
The net result was that, now England had all its navy and most of Spain's navy had been destroyed. England, thus had the strongest navy in the world. There is even more.
About this same time England started to also have its ships hit rocky shores during the night or in fog. They realized that they needed a way to determine longitude while at sea. The only way that they could see to do this was if they had a very accurate clock. An Englishman by the Name of John Harrison built a clock that could keep time accurate to the degree needed and this added to England's ability to sail without the risk of sinking their expensive ships. This clock had more to do with the power of England than any King or Queen or Poet. Why didn't we find all this out in our history class? The clock answers the "why", but all you learned was "what". There is more.
What started the industrial revolution in Europe? The steam engine? No! It was the potato from the New World. The potato from the Native Americans. Europe finally had enough food to feed their people and the population boomed. Fewer farmers were needed so their were workers available to work in factories. Without the potato, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
I just pointed out three significant answers to "why". The ability of a sail boat to "point higher". The ability to calculate longitude while at sea, the accurate clock. Finally, the potato. How is that for a history lesson?
One of the main difficulties with learning history is that you have to unlearn a lot of misinformation. If you start off in the wrong direction, be for you can go in the right direction you have to back track from how far you went wrong. For most people, they are not interested in Real History enough to ever turn back from the wrong direction, so here goes.
When I was in school, we learned how the bad Spanish navy tried to invade England with their big "Armada". That was the first time I had ever hear the big word "Armada". I was impressed. Per the history that I was taught, the Armada was caught in a big storm and most of their ships were destroyed. End of Spain and the beginning of the dominance of England. With me so far? Now the Real History.
The Spanish armada did sail up to England and they did fight the English navy, but this went much differently. The English ships were smaller than those of the Spanish and were both faster and about to "Point Higher". Pointing higher means being able to sail at a greater angle into the wind. I have a C&C34 that can sail about 30 degrees off the wind. I can not sail directly into the wind, but I can sail at a good angle into the wind. The Spanish ships could not sail well into the wind and thus were at a major disadvantage to the English ships. It would be like the English having the high ground and the Spanish down in the valley or the English had cavalry and the Spanish just had foot soldiers. The result was the Spanish were losing the battle due to the English's ability to "point higher".
The Commodore of the Spanish navy decided to, rather than continue the battle, to sail all the way around England and come at them from the West end of the English Channel. That is what they all did. They sailed around Scotland and were sailing West. They knew their latitude, but not their longitude. They were figuring their longitude based on "dead reckoning", which takes into account their speed and time. This is the same way that you would figure out a trip in your car. The problem was that the Spanish navy did not know there was a current in the sea that flowed from the West and they were sailing into that current. The result was that they were "not" as far West as they thought. When the Commodore calculated that the armada was far enough West, he ordered them to turn South. The result was that during fog and night time, most of the ships crashed into the Northern shores of England, Scotland and Ireland. There was no big storm as you were told in your history books.
The net result was that, now England had all its navy and most of Spain's navy had been destroyed. England, thus had the strongest navy in the world. There is even more.
About this same time England started to also have its ships hit rocky shores during the night or in fog. They realized that they needed a way to determine longitude while at sea. The only way that they could see to do this was if they had a very accurate clock. An Englishman by the Name of John Harrison built a clock that could keep time accurate to the degree needed and this added to England's ability to sail without the risk of sinking their expensive ships. This clock had more to do with the power of England than any King or Queen or Poet. Why didn't we find all this out in our history class? The clock answers the "why", but all you learned was "what". There is more.
What started the industrial revolution in Europe? The steam engine? No! It was the potato from the New World. The potato from the Native Americans. Europe finally had enough food to feed their people and the population boomed. Fewer farmers were needed so their were workers available to work in factories. Without the potato, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
I just pointed out three significant answers to "why". The ability of a sail boat to "point higher". The ability to calculate longitude while at sea, the accurate clock. Finally, the potato. How is that for a history lesson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)