Have you noticed that when ever liberals are confronted about their liberal ideas or programs that they challenge conservatives with, the conservative's ideas and programs are "not perfect"? We all know that there are very very few ideas or programs that are "perfect" so the liberal's argument always works. What ever happened to the concept of "good enough"? The world does not work on the basis of "perfect", it works on the basis of "good enough". It is a classical "straw man argument".
Here is a short example of the mind dead thinking of most liberals. We have two states, one with a population of 1 million and another with 10 million. We want to find out how many of the people in each state are over 65 years old. Rather than ask 100% of the people in each state how old they are, some smart Industrial Engineer proposes that we just ask 500 people in each state how old they are and then "assume" the ratio is the same for the whole state. The result of the questioning shows that in the smaller state the number of people over 65 years of age is 83 or 16.7%. In the larger state the ratio turns out to be 18.4%.
The conclusion is that the larger state has a high percentage of people over 65 years of age. Some liberal comes along and says that we can not conclude the bigger state has a higher percentage of older people because we did not take a big enough sample in the larger state. Because there are 10 times as many people in the larger state, we should have asked 10 times as many people how old they were to have a fair comparison.
What do you think? Do you agree with the liberal? To be sure about how many people each state has over age 65, do you think we need to ask 100% of the people how old they are? Would you believe that to have exactly the same level of accuracy that the size of the sample has "nothing" to do with the size of the state? If more people understood statistics, we would see the flaw in the liberals' "not perfect" argument. Profiling is a perfect example of ignorance of basic statistics by the voting public that has lead to a rejection of a perfectly good policy. We need more voters who understand basic math if the USA has any chance of surviving. Look in the mirror. Is profiling a good idea? Do you agree with liberal "not perfect" logic?
Think about Obamacare. Liberals ask conservatives if they do not like Obamacare, "then what is their proposal"? How about "do nothing". Liberals can't seem to understand that concept either. It is the old life boat story where someone screams "do something" when it is clear that doing nothing is the right decision.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Monday, December 29, 2014
Flight 8501
Everyone seems to have comments on flight 8501, so why shouldn't I? Well, I do. What do we know? The plane crashed. There was very bad weather. The pilot tried to climb. Given those facts, what are the most likely possibilities?
First, bad weather. The plane was flying at about 35,000 feet which is about average for a plane like this. The thunder storms often are as tall as 80,000 feet so it is very likely that the pilot could not fly over the weather. If the weather was on the extreme side, the air would be warm and rising with a lot of moisture and of very low density. We all understand that our cars do not have as much power when driven in high mountains and it is the same with airplanes. Planes have altitude limits due to the efficiency of the engines and the lift of the wings. The climb rate is very much less at high altitudes due to air density. Trying to climb would have been one of the worst decisions that the pilot could have made. The chances of a high altitude "stall" would be very likely.
Next, how planes work. Look at the design of modern airplanes. This whole business of designing more sophisticated planes is that the improvements come at a cost. Look at the wings. They do not have much lift and depend on big flaps to help them fly at lower landing speeds. The wings alone can only provide enough lift if the plane is able to fly fast enough. This brings us to the next question.
Air speed is not the same thing as ground speed. As the air gets thinner and thinner given the same ground speed, the air speed goes "down". If the air speed goes too low, the plane stalls. The pilot only has two choices to prevent this from happening. Dive the plane or increase power. There is one other complication and that is "icing". If the plane gets ice on the wings, all bets are off regarding stall speed. If the plane has icing the stall speed has to be higher than normal. There is no way for the pilot to know exactly what the required air speed is. He can only guess.
More on the weather. We hear on the weather news that, "there were hail stones as big as baseballs". In a big thunder storm, there are often hail stones in the clouds that do not ever hit the ground. If the plane were to have encountered some of these, it could have affected the engines, the wings or control surfaces. Again, all bets are off.
Finally, what do you think would happen if a plane were to be hit by a hail stone the size of a baseball at 300 mph? It would be like being hit by a cannon. This plane was a fiberglass plane without much redundant structural strength, be cause it was "well" engineered. At sea level the air pressure is about 14 psi and I think that they keep the plane pressurized at about 10 psi. If the air pressure on the outside were very low due to the storm, it could be as low as 5 psi for a few seconds. Now look at a window on the plane that was 12" x 24". How much force do you think would be on that window? Would you believe 1,440 #? Under those special conditions, a door or a window could have blown out.
It seems clear that the pilot had no business flying into or trying to fly over that storm. He should have turned back regardless of the instructions from the ground or other planes in the area. He had onboard radar to help to prevent hitting an other plane and should have put his trust in that system. If the other pilots were smart, they would not have been in the area anyway.
It will be interesting to find out what actually happened and see if my ideas are correct.
PS----New data on the plane. It has some special system to determine the angle of attack that is used by the autopilot to prevent a stall. The problem is that a little ice will cause the system to produce bad data and thus cause the autopilot to take the "wrong" action. By the time the pilot figures out that the autopilot is "wrong", it is too late. Look at a typical 10 hour flight. The autopilot is flying the plane all but the first five and the last five minutes. This means that a pilot with 5,000 hours of flight time only really has 83.3 hours of time flying the plane. I have a lot more flying time than that.
First, bad weather. The plane was flying at about 35,000 feet which is about average for a plane like this. The thunder storms often are as tall as 80,000 feet so it is very likely that the pilot could not fly over the weather. If the weather was on the extreme side, the air would be warm and rising with a lot of moisture and of very low density. We all understand that our cars do not have as much power when driven in high mountains and it is the same with airplanes. Planes have altitude limits due to the efficiency of the engines and the lift of the wings. The climb rate is very much less at high altitudes due to air density. Trying to climb would have been one of the worst decisions that the pilot could have made. The chances of a high altitude "stall" would be very likely.
Next, how planes work. Look at the design of modern airplanes. This whole business of designing more sophisticated planes is that the improvements come at a cost. Look at the wings. They do not have much lift and depend on big flaps to help them fly at lower landing speeds. The wings alone can only provide enough lift if the plane is able to fly fast enough. This brings us to the next question.
Air speed is not the same thing as ground speed. As the air gets thinner and thinner given the same ground speed, the air speed goes "down". If the air speed goes too low, the plane stalls. The pilot only has two choices to prevent this from happening. Dive the plane or increase power. There is one other complication and that is "icing". If the plane gets ice on the wings, all bets are off regarding stall speed. If the plane has icing the stall speed has to be higher than normal. There is no way for the pilot to know exactly what the required air speed is. He can only guess.
More on the weather. We hear on the weather news that, "there were hail stones as big as baseballs". In a big thunder storm, there are often hail stones in the clouds that do not ever hit the ground. If the plane were to have encountered some of these, it could have affected the engines, the wings or control surfaces. Again, all bets are off.
Finally, what do you think would happen if a plane were to be hit by a hail stone the size of a baseball at 300 mph? It would be like being hit by a cannon. This plane was a fiberglass plane without much redundant structural strength, be cause it was "well" engineered. At sea level the air pressure is about 14 psi and I think that they keep the plane pressurized at about 10 psi. If the air pressure on the outside were very low due to the storm, it could be as low as 5 psi for a few seconds. Now look at a window on the plane that was 12" x 24". How much force do you think would be on that window? Would you believe 1,440 #? Under those special conditions, a door or a window could have blown out.
It seems clear that the pilot had no business flying into or trying to fly over that storm. He should have turned back regardless of the instructions from the ground or other planes in the area. He had onboard radar to help to prevent hitting an other plane and should have put his trust in that system. If the other pilots were smart, they would not have been in the area anyway.
It will be interesting to find out what actually happened and see if my ideas are correct.
PS----New data on the plane. It has some special system to determine the angle of attack that is used by the autopilot to prevent a stall. The problem is that a little ice will cause the system to produce bad data and thus cause the autopilot to take the "wrong" action. By the time the pilot figures out that the autopilot is "wrong", it is too late. Look at a typical 10 hour flight. The autopilot is flying the plane all but the first five and the last five minutes. This means that a pilot with 5,000 hours of flight time only really has 83.3 hours of time flying the plane. I have a lot more flying time than that.
Monday, December 22, 2014
The Good Paying Job Myth
If I have heard it one time, I have heard it a thousand times coming out of the mouths of the talking heads on TV, "The problem is that we don't have enough good paying jobs". Do you really think that this is the problem? When most people think about "good paying jobs", they think about a job that pays more than the person is worth. This is the objective of labor unions, to get the workers paid more than they are worth. In this bog, I will try to set the record straight.
First, a little lesson on the economics of business. Most successful companies only make a very modest profit. It may look big all added up, but when you look at the price of that companie's stock, it turns out to be about 20 to 1 with many below that. Most companies belong to the stock holders, not the company management. You need to keep that point straight. If a company starts making too much money, it invites competition and its margins are driven down. Most companies walk a very fine line with the costs of labor and other expenses. If one of these goes up, it directly affects the bottom line. Most companies do not have as much fat as many people may think. Because of the above, it is critical that they do not pay more for something than it is worth and that includes labor. What would be the logic for a company to pay 10% or 20% more for a welder than the "going rate"?
Now, a little about the "going rate". First, look at professional football. You may think that the jobs in professional football are "good paying jobs" and stop right there, but you would be wrong. It is not the jobs that are good paying, it is the fact that the players are "worth more". Why else would you see such ranges in the pay for professional football players? This is an example of the free market at work and most of us would not want it any other way.
Shipping goods has always been a challenge for the human race. Recall the spice trade? They first used camels and later ships and even later trains and airplanes. The result was that it got cheaper and cheaper to get spice from farther and farther away. This same thing has happened with almost every other product. The new monster container ships have made it as cheap to send a product from China to the USA as it is to send a product from Texas to New York. That means we can now get the best products at the lowest prices no matter where they are made. That is good and it has resulted in a higher and higher standard of living for us. You have to agree with that one, but there is a down side.
Back to sports. If you follow basketball, you will notice that there are a lot of players who were not born in the USA and the same for baseball. This just points out that "what a player is worth" is based on a world wide market. It is the same for goods like TV sets, shoes and every thing else including the value of your labor. More and more you and I have to compete against every other person in the world for the value of our labor. It is not just having the kid down the street agree to mow lawns for half of what you are charging, it is lawn mowers from all over the world.
Another way to look at what your labor is worth is to compare yourself with all the people you know. Are you better at something than 9 out of 10 of your friends? Is that something a skill that is in demand by some company? If you can not say "yes" to both of these questions, you have a problem. If our whole community were like you, our whole community would have a problem and that is the situation within most of the Black community. Remember that it is not the "job" that is "good paying", it is the worker who is worth more. If you are not "worth more", there is no way that you will ever be able to expect to earn a good living.
I think that I blogged on this point before, that you have to figure out how to gain the skills that make you worth more. After you have gained those skills, you can then go out and see if you can match those special skills up with a job than demands those skills. Don't ever expect a company to hire you and pay you more than you are worth. Good companies pay people what they are worth. If you think you are worth more, you can go out and find a different job, but don't expect to be paid more than the job requires. We have that with our unionized school teachers. They take some simple minded summer school class that has nothing to do with their ability to teach and they get a raise in pay for it. Just because you know someone who is screwing the taxpayers, don't expect private businesses to do something that stupid. Look in the mirror for a change and honestly admit what you are really worth!
First, a little lesson on the economics of business. Most successful companies only make a very modest profit. It may look big all added up, but when you look at the price of that companie's stock, it turns out to be about 20 to 1 with many below that. Most companies belong to the stock holders, not the company management. You need to keep that point straight. If a company starts making too much money, it invites competition and its margins are driven down. Most companies walk a very fine line with the costs of labor and other expenses. If one of these goes up, it directly affects the bottom line. Most companies do not have as much fat as many people may think. Because of the above, it is critical that they do not pay more for something than it is worth and that includes labor. What would be the logic for a company to pay 10% or 20% more for a welder than the "going rate"?
Now, a little about the "going rate". First, look at professional football. You may think that the jobs in professional football are "good paying jobs" and stop right there, but you would be wrong. It is not the jobs that are good paying, it is the fact that the players are "worth more". Why else would you see such ranges in the pay for professional football players? This is an example of the free market at work and most of us would not want it any other way.
Shipping goods has always been a challenge for the human race. Recall the spice trade? They first used camels and later ships and even later trains and airplanes. The result was that it got cheaper and cheaper to get spice from farther and farther away. This same thing has happened with almost every other product. The new monster container ships have made it as cheap to send a product from China to the USA as it is to send a product from Texas to New York. That means we can now get the best products at the lowest prices no matter where they are made. That is good and it has resulted in a higher and higher standard of living for us. You have to agree with that one, but there is a down side.
Back to sports. If you follow basketball, you will notice that there are a lot of players who were not born in the USA and the same for baseball. This just points out that "what a player is worth" is based on a world wide market. It is the same for goods like TV sets, shoes and every thing else including the value of your labor. More and more you and I have to compete against every other person in the world for the value of our labor. It is not just having the kid down the street agree to mow lawns for half of what you are charging, it is lawn mowers from all over the world.
Another way to look at what your labor is worth is to compare yourself with all the people you know. Are you better at something than 9 out of 10 of your friends? Is that something a skill that is in demand by some company? If you can not say "yes" to both of these questions, you have a problem. If our whole community were like you, our whole community would have a problem and that is the situation within most of the Black community. Remember that it is not the "job" that is "good paying", it is the worker who is worth more. If you are not "worth more", there is no way that you will ever be able to expect to earn a good living.
I think that I blogged on this point before, that you have to figure out how to gain the skills that make you worth more. After you have gained those skills, you can then go out and see if you can match those special skills up with a job than demands those skills. Don't ever expect a company to hire you and pay you more than you are worth. Good companies pay people what they are worth. If you think you are worth more, you can go out and find a different job, but don't expect to be paid more than the job requires. We have that with our unionized school teachers. They take some simple minded summer school class that has nothing to do with their ability to teach and they get a raise in pay for it. Just because you know someone who is screwing the taxpayers, don't expect private businesses to do something that stupid. Look in the mirror for a change and honestly admit what you are really worth!
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Thoughts From An Efficiency Expert
Here is the truth about efficiency. We all know that efficiency is good, but like most things that are good, there are bad sides too. This blog is about some of the bad sides.
First, a little story. Consider that you are a farm worker who owns a mule you hire out too farmers to plow their land. You have been doing this for years and using your earnings to care for your family. One day another a guy down the road buys a tractor and competes with you charging half the price that you were charging. This means that now your labor is worth 50% of what it was. You just got a cut in pay of 50%. Follow that?
Here is what happened. The farmer now makes more money because he only has to pay half as much to get his land plowed. Is that clear? It is a fact that efficiency tends to make the economic pie larger. The farmer can now plow land that was uneconomical to plow before. This means he can grow more and sell more. Look at the down side. The farmer now makes more and the farm worker with the mule makes less. This is the basic mechanics that has caused the difference between those on the top and those on the bottom to keep getting bigger.
What is the solution? The guy with the mule has to figure out how he can make himself more valuable! If the farmer or a company made the worker more efficient, the company gets the benefit, not the worker. That is the way it works and that is the right way. I used to work on the basis of "piece work". That is where you were paid by what you produce. If you figured out how to produce more, you got the benefit. If the farmer came up with how to produce more by purchasing a tractor, it was the farmer who got the benefit. It may even be that the farm worker got paid less to drive the tractor than driving a mule because the work was easier. That seems fair to me. If you are understanding the simple logic of the above, you will see that if the worker wants to be paid more, then the worker needs to figure out how to make themselves worth more. Simple!!!!
Given the state of the world's economy, the only way that a worker can make themselves more valuable is by increasing their "skill". The more scarce that skill, the more valuable it tends to be. Learning how do drive a car or truck is a very easy and common a skill to gain and as a result is not very valuable. Advanced technical skills are more difficult to develop and thus are more valuable. Isn't this simple to understand? If you are in the worker group, education and gaining special skills is about all you can do to get ahead. If you stand still, you will actually go down and that is what many of us have done. You can't do what your parents did and expect the quality of life that you had as a kid. That is a fact of life, so get used to it. Efficiency makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer while it makes the economic pie bigger. Hard to get your head around that isn't it?
PS---I think that it has been a big mistake to have gotten away from "piece work". With "piece work" the worker was incentivized to participate in finding ways to produce more "pieces". In a company of 250 people, you would have 249 workers trying to figure out how to produce more, but with work paid for on the basis of "time" you only have the one, the boss. I think that in China, most of their work is based on "piece work". If that is the case, we don't have a chance against them using our "time' based system.
First, a little story. Consider that you are a farm worker who owns a mule you hire out too farmers to plow their land. You have been doing this for years and using your earnings to care for your family. One day another a guy down the road buys a tractor and competes with you charging half the price that you were charging. This means that now your labor is worth 50% of what it was. You just got a cut in pay of 50%. Follow that?
Here is what happened. The farmer now makes more money because he only has to pay half as much to get his land plowed. Is that clear? It is a fact that efficiency tends to make the economic pie larger. The farmer can now plow land that was uneconomical to plow before. This means he can grow more and sell more. Look at the down side. The farmer now makes more and the farm worker with the mule makes less. This is the basic mechanics that has caused the difference between those on the top and those on the bottom to keep getting bigger.
What is the solution? The guy with the mule has to figure out how he can make himself more valuable! If the farmer or a company made the worker more efficient, the company gets the benefit, not the worker. That is the way it works and that is the right way. I used to work on the basis of "piece work". That is where you were paid by what you produce. If you figured out how to produce more, you got the benefit. If the farmer came up with how to produce more by purchasing a tractor, it was the farmer who got the benefit. It may even be that the farm worker got paid less to drive the tractor than driving a mule because the work was easier. That seems fair to me. If you are understanding the simple logic of the above, you will see that if the worker wants to be paid more, then the worker needs to figure out how to make themselves worth more. Simple!!!!
Given the state of the world's economy, the only way that a worker can make themselves more valuable is by increasing their "skill". The more scarce that skill, the more valuable it tends to be. Learning how do drive a car or truck is a very easy and common a skill to gain and as a result is not very valuable. Advanced technical skills are more difficult to develop and thus are more valuable. Isn't this simple to understand? If you are in the worker group, education and gaining special skills is about all you can do to get ahead. If you stand still, you will actually go down and that is what many of us have done. You can't do what your parents did and expect the quality of life that you had as a kid. That is a fact of life, so get used to it. Efficiency makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer while it makes the economic pie bigger. Hard to get your head around that isn't it?
PS---I think that it has been a big mistake to have gotten away from "piece work". With "piece work" the worker was incentivized to participate in finding ways to produce more "pieces". In a company of 250 people, you would have 249 workers trying to figure out how to produce more, but with work paid for on the basis of "time" you only have the one, the boss. I think that in China, most of their work is based on "piece work". If that is the case, we don't have a chance against them using our "time' based system.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Is Jeb Bush An Idiot On immigration?
Have you been listening to what is coming our of Jeb Bush's mouth? He is coming down on the side of more immigrants being "good" for the USA. He even tries to remind us that "immigrants built this country". He does not seem to understand that the immigrants came here and "exploited" the resources of the USA. They did not crate anything. Now that 100% of the resources of the USA have been exploited, you have to ask why we need more immigrants to help us exploit them even more? I think that it is clear that we have enough. Any new immigrants only help the USA by their production of "value added". That means that to increase the "average" family income they need to produce "value added" greater than the "average".
To give you some perspective, look at South Korea. Here is a country where 99% of the people work hard and are much better educated than the USA. 100% of their economy is by way of "value added" produced by their citizens. Even with their superior performance, the average family income is far below that of the USA. How can that be, you may ask? Are our similar groups of "value added" families so different from those of South Korea? Ours are not as good. Why is this not adding up? It is because a very large amount of our economy is based on the exploitations of our natural resources. These are natural resources that South Korea does not have and resources the immigrants did not produce.
I don't know how I could make it clearer that more and more immigrants are going to lower our family income and standard of living. The top 10% or 15% of our citizens may actually do better due to immigration, but the average person will do worse. Obama and most politicians still don't understand economics and quality of life. I know that they took Econ 101 in college where they heard the same half baked economic logic over and over until they thought that it was the truth. If you follow my blogs, then you will understand that "exploitation of natural resources" is and has been the most significant way that wealth has been produced. It has not been by "value added" produced by individuals. A few people get rich by "value added", but it has done little for the average person.
How did the John D. Rockefellers get so rich? Don't know? Exploitation of oil that was already here in the ground when Columbus discovered the New World. That is just an example. There are many more.
PS---Immigration is good for who? Good for poor unskilled people who immigrate into the USA and bad for everyone who was in the USA legally already. I want a better life for my grand children, not for the people of Mexico or any place else.
To give you some perspective, look at South Korea. Here is a country where 99% of the people work hard and are much better educated than the USA. 100% of their economy is by way of "value added" produced by their citizens. Even with their superior performance, the average family income is far below that of the USA. How can that be, you may ask? Are our similar groups of "value added" families so different from those of South Korea? Ours are not as good. Why is this not adding up? It is because a very large amount of our economy is based on the exploitations of our natural resources. These are natural resources that South Korea does not have and resources the immigrants did not produce.
I don't know how I could make it clearer that more and more immigrants are going to lower our family income and standard of living. The top 10% or 15% of our citizens may actually do better due to immigration, but the average person will do worse. Obama and most politicians still don't understand economics and quality of life. I know that they took Econ 101 in college where they heard the same half baked economic logic over and over until they thought that it was the truth. If you follow my blogs, then you will understand that "exploitation of natural resources" is and has been the most significant way that wealth has been produced. It has not been by "value added" produced by individuals. A few people get rich by "value added", but it has done little for the average person.
How did the John D. Rockefellers get so rich? Don't know? Exploitation of oil that was already here in the ground when Columbus discovered the New World. That is just an example. There are many more.
PS---Immigration is good for who? Good for poor unskilled people who immigrate into the USA and bad for everyone who was in the USA legally already. I want a better life for my grand children, not for the people of Mexico or any place else.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Leadership Paradox #2
This business of leadership has turned out to be a lot larger than I first thought so I have add a chapter #2. In my first blog, I pointed out that leadership can have a dark side, but few people ever consider that aspect. This blog is more about how leadership works.
To be a leader, you have to have followers. Further, for these people to respond to your leadership, they have to have some kind of discipline. With me so far? Look at some examples. The military prepares the soldiers for the leaders by training them in "discipline". This training takes many forms, such as marching, making your bed a certain way or dressing in a special manner. These patterns are repeated over and over until the person to be lead responds to the commands of the leader by reflex without thinking. The leader does the thinking and the follower does the following. Simple as that!
The whole business is to substitute the decisions or will of the leader for that of the follower. How well this is all done is a measure of the person or systems ability to lead. Remember that I showed in my first blog that Hitler was a good leader and was able to substitute his will for that of his millions of followers. Given that we spend all this time trying to train leaders, why is it that we have no programs to "protect" followers from misguided leaders like Hitler? History has had all kinds of leaders who lead millions of people in the wrong direction. These have come from all areas including religion.
Look at the changes in the structure of families here in the USA and how that might relate to leadership and discipline. I think that we can all agree that the family structure has weakened over the past 50 or so years. Now why do you think that is? I feel that it is related to this business of leadership. In a family structure, it is the responsibility of the parents to "produce" a child at about age 18 who is ready to compete in the world and provide primary care for themselves. Most kids today can not do that and here is what I think is why. Historically, the parents first prepared their child by training them in discipline. As stated above, this is the process that prepares the child to respond to parental leadership. If the child is not first disciplined, any attempt at parental leadership is not going to work. Many of the routines that train a child in discipline are not pleasant, like cleaning their own rooms or putting away their toys and dirty cloths. It may include courtesy to adults such as not talking unless spoken too by an adult. Are you starting to see the connection between discipline and leadership? When ever a parent gives up the responsibility to train their children in discipline, it is the beginning of the end for ever producing the child who is prepared for life at age 18.
Most parents know what is good for their child and want to impart that knowledge to their child with their leadership, but if the child is not disciplined there is no way that the parent can expect to get their child to accept that knowledge thru their leadership. Historically, most children spent most of their time in contact with their parents or immediate family. That is not the case today. Children spend more time with their electronic games and other children than they do with their parents. This means that discipline has had to suffer as well as the opportunities to be exposed to the parents positive leadership. There is not free lunch here and it has resulted in a generation of children who at age 18 are far from prepared for life.
An area where I am very concerned is that of how a follower is supposed to deal with a leader who is leading toward the dark side. Hitler being a typical example. In the formation of our country over 250 years ago, the founders were very concerned about the possibility of one of these dark side leaders ending up as President. Their solution was to limit the authority of the President and to provide checks and balances on the authority of each branch. I think that they felt that it was better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. What has happened is that we have ended up with a Judas as President who is very good at leadership, but who is from the dark side. Further, by his exceptional leadership, he has convinced many followers that "doing nothing" is worse than the risk of "doing" the wrong thing. What should followers do who feel that the President is doing the wrong thing?
There was a case on the Military channel where during WWII some troupes were ordered to shoot some prisoners and they followed the order and shot the prisoners. When we now look back on that event, what should the soldiers have done? Should they have just refused to shoot or what? Today, it seems to me that every time some situation comes up where there is clearly an illegal order being given by our President that people follow the order or look the other way. Are we suffering from being over disciplined? Do we all need training in how to deal with dark side leaders? My father had such strong character that if he had a serious problem with an order from a boss, he would quit on the spot even if he did not have a dine in his pocket. He was willing to go hungry rather than subjugate his pride and character for another pay check by following the order. We don't have many people like that today and I don't know why.
We all need boundaries that we will not cross to accommodate to the will of a leader. We have to be in control of our own actions and not hide behind the excuse of following some leader, no matter how skilled that leader may be or how many of our friends agree to follow that leader. There are risks both ways when it comes to following leaders and we need to understand that there are times when we may be alone in our decisions, but have the courage to be honest with ourselves in the end.
PS---I used to watch western movies as a kid and always wondered how some rich rancher could get his hired hands to shoot and kill other ranchers because they had sheep and they had cattle. Why would a cow hand paid $5 a week ever do something like that? Was the rich rancher such a good leader and the cow hand such a good follower?
To be a leader, you have to have followers. Further, for these people to respond to your leadership, they have to have some kind of discipline. With me so far? Look at some examples. The military prepares the soldiers for the leaders by training them in "discipline". This training takes many forms, such as marching, making your bed a certain way or dressing in a special manner. These patterns are repeated over and over until the person to be lead responds to the commands of the leader by reflex without thinking. The leader does the thinking and the follower does the following. Simple as that!
The whole business is to substitute the decisions or will of the leader for that of the follower. How well this is all done is a measure of the person or systems ability to lead. Remember that I showed in my first blog that Hitler was a good leader and was able to substitute his will for that of his millions of followers. Given that we spend all this time trying to train leaders, why is it that we have no programs to "protect" followers from misguided leaders like Hitler? History has had all kinds of leaders who lead millions of people in the wrong direction. These have come from all areas including religion.
Look at the changes in the structure of families here in the USA and how that might relate to leadership and discipline. I think that we can all agree that the family structure has weakened over the past 50 or so years. Now why do you think that is? I feel that it is related to this business of leadership. In a family structure, it is the responsibility of the parents to "produce" a child at about age 18 who is ready to compete in the world and provide primary care for themselves. Most kids today can not do that and here is what I think is why. Historically, the parents first prepared their child by training them in discipline. As stated above, this is the process that prepares the child to respond to parental leadership. If the child is not first disciplined, any attempt at parental leadership is not going to work. Many of the routines that train a child in discipline are not pleasant, like cleaning their own rooms or putting away their toys and dirty cloths. It may include courtesy to adults such as not talking unless spoken too by an adult. Are you starting to see the connection between discipline and leadership? When ever a parent gives up the responsibility to train their children in discipline, it is the beginning of the end for ever producing the child who is prepared for life at age 18.
Most parents know what is good for their child and want to impart that knowledge to their child with their leadership, but if the child is not disciplined there is no way that the parent can expect to get their child to accept that knowledge thru their leadership. Historically, most children spent most of their time in contact with their parents or immediate family. That is not the case today. Children spend more time with their electronic games and other children than they do with their parents. This means that discipline has had to suffer as well as the opportunities to be exposed to the parents positive leadership. There is not free lunch here and it has resulted in a generation of children who at age 18 are far from prepared for life.
An area where I am very concerned is that of how a follower is supposed to deal with a leader who is leading toward the dark side. Hitler being a typical example. In the formation of our country over 250 years ago, the founders were very concerned about the possibility of one of these dark side leaders ending up as President. Their solution was to limit the authority of the President and to provide checks and balances on the authority of each branch. I think that they felt that it was better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. What has happened is that we have ended up with a Judas as President who is very good at leadership, but who is from the dark side. Further, by his exceptional leadership, he has convinced many followers that "doing nothing" is worse than the risk of "doing" the wrong thing. What should followers do who feel that the President is doing the wrong thing?
There was a case on the Military channel where during WWII some troupes were ordered to shoot some prisoners and they followed the order and shot the prisoners. When we now look back on that event, what should the soldiers have done? Should they have just refused to shoot or what? Today, it seems to me that every time some situation comes up where there is clearly an illegal order being given by our President that people follow the order or look the other way. Are we suffering from being over disciplined? Do we all need training in how to deal with dark side leaders? My father had such strong character that if he had a serious problem with an order from a boss, he would quit on the spot even if he did not have a dine in his pocket. He was willing to go hungry rather than subjugate his pride and character for another pay check by following the order. We don't have many people like that today and I don't know why.
We all need boundaries that we will not cross to accommodate to the will of a leader. We have to be in control of our own actions and not hide behind the excuse of following some leader, no matter how skilled that leader may be or how many of our friends agree to follow that leader. There are risks both ways when it comes to following leaders and we need to understand that there are times when we may be alone in our decisions, but have the courage to be honest with ourselves in the end.
PS---I used to watch western movies as a kid and always wondered how some rich rancher could get his hired hands to shoot and kill other ranchers because they had sheep and they had cattle. Why would a cow hand paid $5 a week ever do something like that? Was the rich rancher such a good leader and the cow hand such a good follower?
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
The Leadership Paradox
It seems that I hear every day about something to do with leadership. Our schools and colleges have "leadership" programs as does our military and most companies. If so many people are pushing this business of "leadership", it has to be good and should be encouraged. Right? Maybe not. Like many things that sound so good, they often have a dark side. This blog is about that dark side.
Back when I was a kid, I used to hear about the danger of "confidence men". These were slick talking people who swindled people. As I understood it, you had to be ware of these types of people. I don't know where the name came from, but it is clear that it required that the swindler to be able to gain your "confidence".
Now, let's dig a little deeper. What is the impact or result of a person gaining your "confidence"? Is it really any difference from "leadership"? The swindler is able to get you to accept their judgment in place of your own. That is also exactly what this business of "leadership" teaches. People who are good "leaders" are able to get people who would have been following their own independent judgment to stop and follow the judgment of the leader. Leaders get people to do what they want rather than what the individual wants. In many cases it turns out that the leader's judgment is better than that of the individual. I accept that, but that does not take into account the dark side.
It is a little like a sharp knife. With a sharp knife, it is easier to cut things and in many cases produce more goods and services that add to our quality of life. Are you with me on this? Look at some recent history about Germany and Hitler. Was Hitler a good leader? You have to say "yes" because of how he was able to get so many people to follow his judgment. Now, looking back, it is clear to everyone that Hitler had a very sharp knife and he used it to cut in a very destructive way. I could have used many other examples, but I think that you have to agree that these very special people who are very good at leadership carry with them this dark side.
Now, let's compare Obama with some of our past Presidents and how much both "good" and "bad" might have been possible by each. Look at John Kennedy. He got a lot of our young kids to join the Peace Corp and work for next to nothing the push American good will around the world. It was good, but in the process, it produced a lot of die hard liberals in the process. Kennedy knew that and that is one of the main reason that he pushed it. How about Jimmy Carter? He was not a really good at leadership and thus he did not cause much "change", either good or bad. Many people think that was bad, but not me. After the USA has been in business for over 250 years, my guess is that we have done and are doing most things right so I don't what an "upstart" making radical changes.
This brings me to Obama. He is not a great leader for 100% of the country, but he is a really great leader for about 45%. He has this group who have given up their own judgment and are willing to follow Obama's judgment on almost anything. Obama has a very sharp knife with his group of followers and he has been using it to cut deeply into the 45% who totally disagree with him and his policies. Most of us trusted the constitution to protect the minority form abuses like those which Obama has been doing, but are finding out that it is little more than an empty threat.
What is the message from this blog? Super leaders can have a dark side and we should be on guard and skeptical of those who claim to be leaders. We need to trust more in our own judgments rather than those of self appointed leaders. We have lessons from nature that confirm this position. Look at ants and honey bees. They do not follow the orders of leaders. They follow their own individual judgment and their systems have functioned for millions of years. We only have 250 years under our belt and I am not sure of how many more that we can expect if we don't start following our own individual judgments more rather than those of self appointed leaders like Obama.
Back when I was a kid, I used to hear about the danger of "confidence men". These were slick talking people who swindled people. As I understood it, you had to be ware of these types of people. I don't know where the name came from, but it is clear that it required that the swindler to be able to gain your "confidence".
Now, let's dig a little deeper. What is the impact or result of a person gaining your "confidence"? Is it really any difference from "leadership"? The swindler is able to get you to accept their judgment in place of your own. That is also exactly what this business of "leadership" teaches. People who are good "leaders" are able to get people who would have been following their own independent judgment to stop and follow the judgment of the leader. Leaders get people to do what they want rather than what the individual wants. In many cases it turns out that the leader's judgment is better than that of the individual. I accept that, but that does not take into account the dark side.
It is a little like a sharp knife. With a sharp knife, it is easier to cut things and in many cases produce more goods and services that add to our quality of life. Are you with me on this? Look at some recent history about Germany and Hitler. Was Hitler a good leader? You have to say "yes" because of how he was able to get so many people to follow his judgment. Now, looking back, it is clear to everyone that Hitler had a very sharp knife and he used it to cut in a very destructive way. I could have used many other examples, but I think that you have to agree that these very special people who are very good at leadership carry with them this dark side.
Now, let's compare Obama with some of our past Presidents and how much both "good" and "bad" might have been possible by each. Look at John Kennedy. He got a lot of our young kids to join the Peace Corp and work for next to nothing the push American good will around the world. It was good, but in the process, it produced a lot of die hard liberals in the process. Kennedy knew that and that is one of the main reason that he pushed it. How about Jimmy Carter? He was not a really good at leadership and thus he did not cause much "change", either good or bad. Many people think that was bad, but not me. After the USA has been in business for over 250 years, my guess is that we have done and are doing most things right so I don't what an "upstart" making radical changes.
This brings me to Obama. He is not a great leader for 100% of the country, but he is a really great leader for about 45%. He has this group who have given up their own judgment and are willing to follow Obama's judgment on almost anything. Obama has a very sharp knife with his group of followers and he has been using it to cut deeply into the 45% who totally disagree with him and his policies. Most of us trusted the constitution to protect the minority form abuses like those which Obama has been doing, but are finding out that it is little more than an empty threat.
What is the message from this blog? Super leaders can have a dark side and we should be on guard and skeptical of those who claim to be leaders. We need to trust more in our own judgments rather than those of self appointed leaders. We have lessons from nature that confirm this position. Look at ants and honey bees. They do not follow the orders of leaders. They follow their own individual judgment and their systems have functioned for millions of years. We only have 250 years under our belt and I am not sure of how many more that we can expect if we don't start following our own individual judgments more rather than those of self appointed leaders like Obama.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Government Pay Raise Myth
I was talking to a good friend who was very concerned that the congress only approved a 1% raise for the Military. I agree that it was a little too small, but there is more to this pay raise business and that is the point of this blog.
The implication is that our soldiers' pay does not even keep up with inflation. If that is the case, how can we expect to field an army? What most of us never considered is the fact that a soldier does not remain just a "private" for their whole career. They get promotions. Let's figure that the average pay raise as the result of a promotion is 10% and that during the career of a soldier, they are promoted on average every 3 years. That means that they get a raise per year on average due to promotions of 3.33%. If that is added to the 1% approved by the government, the soldiers get a raise of 4.33% per year. Now, that does not sound so bad does it?
Another point about the army is that if a person does not "progress" and is not qualified for the normal promotions, they cash them out. I think this is a good idea because it is a way to get rid of dead beets. Think of it this way. What is the purpose of having a soldier who get promoted to the level of General at age 65? How many years do we get from this person serving as a General? If the army did not do some thing like this, our whole army would be made up of old dead beets, like the government.
I used to think that this process was actually "gaming" the system so that on retirement the soldiers got the highest possible pay. In the public area, this is the case. Look at you police departments and other public service areas. I think that in the case of firemen and highway patrol they retire at about age 50 on "disability". Many stay on disability until well over age 65 because it pays better. Think about our school teachers who start out at about age 22 teaching 25 kids and retire at age 65 still teaching 25 kids, but getting paid 4 or 5 times more. Are your kids getting a good education if they have a 25 year old teacher who makes half as much as the one who is 65 years old?
I don't have a problem paying someone if they are promoted to a more difficult or demanding job, but I do have a problem paying workers just because they have gotten older. This is the situation in 99% of our public employment and we need to figure out some way to change it so that we pay for what a person does or produces rather than how old they are. Would you pay more for a pair of shoes if they were made by an older person? I don't think so. If a company ever stops growing, it is not long before they are loaded up with older higher paid workers who have to compete with new companies who have younger workers. That is how it works!!
The implication is that our soldiers' pay does not even keep up with inflation. If that is the case, how can we expect to field an army? What most of us never considered is the fact that a soldier does not remain just a "private" for their whole career. They get promotions. Let's figure that the average pay raise as the result of a promotion is 10% and that during the career of a soldier, they are promoted on average every 3 years. That means that they get a raise per year on average due to promotions of 3.33%. If that is added to the 1% approved by the government, the soldiers get a raise of 4.33% per year. Now, that does not sound so bad does it?
Another point about the army is that if a person does not "progress" and is not qualified for the normal promotions, they cash them out. I think this is a good idea because it is a way to get rid of dead beets. Think of it this way. What is the purpose of having a soldier who get promoted to the level of General at age 65? How many years do we get from this person serving as a General? If the army did not do some thing like this, our whole army would be made up of old dead beets, like the government.
I used to think that this process was actually "gaming" the system so that on retirement the soldiers got the highest possible pay. In the public area, this is the case. Look at you police departments and other public service areas. I think that in the case of firemen and highway patrol they retire at about age 50 on "disability". Many stay on disability until well over age 65 because it pays better. Think about our school teachers who start out at about age 22 teaching 25 kids and retire at age 65 still teaching 25 kids, but getting paid 4 or 5 times more. Are your kids getting a good education if they have a 25 year old teacher who makes half as much as the one who is 65 years old?
I don't have a problem paying someone if they are promoted to a more difficult or demanding job, but I do have a problem paying workers just because they have gotten older. This is the situation in 99% of our public employment and we need to figure out some way to change it so that we pay for what a person does or produces rather than how old they are. Would you pay more for a pair of shoes if they were made by an older person? I don't think so. If a company ever stops growing, it is not long before they are loaded up with older higher paid workers who have to compete with new companies who have younger workers. That is how it works!!
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Global Warming Quiz
I hear a lot of people talking about global warming or climate change as it is now called and I wondered if these people really knew anything about climate so I came up with a simple quiz. The idea is to see if I am talking with a person with a brain or someone with just a mouth.
(1) What causes the wind to blow?
(2) Why is the prevailing wind in the USA out of the West?
(3) How high do you have to go to get beyond 50% of the Earth's atmosphere?
(4) What percentage of the atmosphere is water vapor?
(5) What is the most common gas in the atmosphere?
(6) What is Ozone?
(7) What caused the great glaciers in North America to form?
(8) What caused the great glaciers to melt?
(9) Is there more or less water on Earth today than 10 million years ago?
(10) What caused Mars to loose its atmosphere?
(11) Is the Earth's atmosphere getting denser of less dense?
(12) Why are there no giant Redwood trees in Nevada?
(14) If the northern ice cap melts, how much will the oceans rise?
(15) Where did the Oxygen in the atmosphere come from?
This is just my first list of 15 questions. I could come up with more, but if you don't know the correct answers to at least 10 of these simple questions, it would be unfair for me to debate with you on global warming.
PS--It is a fact that the more energy one uses, the higher their quality of life. Check it out and get your own facts. The answer is always the same. Given the above fact, when Obama lets 5 or 10 million illegals come into the USA, they go from a low quality of life situation to a higher quality of life. Agree with that? In the process they use more energy than they would have had they stayed home. That is a fact too. Any efforts to raise the quality of life for many of the poor people around the world means an increase in energy use by those people and thus more global warming. You may think that is the correct thing to do to improve the quality of life for more people, but at the same time you cause them to use more energy and thus contribute to global warming. Sorry, but you can not have it both ways! The only logical way to prevent global warming is to reduce the total number of people in the world and to hold down the population. In the end there is no other way unless you want most of the world living under a very low quality of life and thus low use of energy.
(1) What causes the wind to blow?
(2) Why is the prevailing wind in the USA out of the West?
(3) How high do you have to go to get beyond 50% of the Earth's atmosphere?
(4) What percentage of the atmosphere is water vapor?
(5) What is the most common gas in the atmosphere?
(6) What is Ozone?
(7) What caused the great glaciers in North America to form?
(8) What caused the great glaciers to melt?
(9) Is there more or less water on Earth today than 10 million years ago?
(10) What caused Mars to loose its atmosphere?
(11) Is the Earth's atmosphere getting denser of less dense?
(12) Why are there no giant Redwood trees in Nevada?
(14) If the northern ice cap melts, how much will the oceans rise?
(15) Where did the Oxygen in the atmosphere come from?
This is just my first list of 15 questions. I could come up with more, but if you don't know the correct answers to at least 10 of these simple questions, it would be unfair for me to debate with you on global warming.
PS--It is a fact that the more energy one uses, the higher their quality of life. Check it out and get your own facts. The answer is always the same. Given the above fact, when Obama lets 5 or 10 million illegals come into the USA, they go from a low quality of life situation to a higher quality of life. Agree with that? In the process they use more energy than they would have had they stayed home. That is a fact too. Any efforts to raise the quality of life for many of the poor people around the world means an increase in energy use by those people and thus more global warming. You may think that is the correct thing to do to improve the quality of life for more people, but at the same time you cause them to use more energy and thus contribute to global warming. Sorry, but you can not have it both ways! The only logical way to prevent global warming is to reduce the total number of people in the world and to hold down the population. In the end there is no other way unless you want most of the world living under a very low quality of life and thus low use of energy.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Profiling And Probability
Why is it that the word "profiling" became a bad word? Should we take the word out of the Dictionary? Do most people even know what the word means? That is the objective of this blog.
Are any of you gamblers? Do you bet on Baseball or Football? Do you buy lottery tickets? If you do, what makes you bet for this team or that team? Do think that you know some thing that increases the odds that you will win? Do you have a better batting average on your bets than some of your friends? If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then you are doing "profiling".
One of the definitions of intelligence is that the decisions that you make every day take into account knowledge that you have gained prior to the decision. If you are a fisherman and dig earth worms for bait, you use profiling. You know from experience that earth worms live in moist soil. Why would you dig in some hard dry earth area if you had prior knowledge that earth worms do not normally live in dry soil? If you liked to fish for trout and knew from prior experience that trout do not live in warm water, why would you fish in a warm stream or lake for trout? What you are doing is profiling and using probability to improve the quality of your decisions about fishing. It would be stupid to fish in streams randomly if you knew that only cold water streams contained trout.
Now what if you were a policeman? As a policeman, you have experience that helps you do your job. You know that young Blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than other groups. This is a fact that we can all agree on, so why should police not be allowed to take this knowledge into account when doing their job? A policeman does not have the time to stop people "randomly" if he knows from experience that one group or another is more likely to be commit crimes. It appears, also, that Blacks more often than any other group "resist" arrest. This is also a fact. Look at these facts. If Blacks commit 3 times as many crimes as other groups and resist arrest 2 times as often as other groups, then Blacks would be 6 times as likely to get injured in an arrest situation than other groups. Do you understand that? The two Blacks that died in the process of being arrested by police, both resisted arrest. I am 100% sure that if they had not resisted arrest that neither would have died. If that is the case, exactly what was the problem and what needs to happen to solve the problem? Easy answer isn't it?
Blacks need to stop committing crimes and being socially irresponsible and when a policeman is in the process of arresting them, they need to cooperate rather than resisting. Simple.
Blacks need to forget about profiling. The fact that the police are smart enough to use their brains and prior knowledge including profiling, they save the lives of many more Blacks than if they were required by law to turn their brains off and not use prior knowledge.
Everyone needs to remind themselves that the reason that us humans enjoy the quality of life that we do is a result of our brains and the fact that we use our brains. If we were to stop all profiling, we would be no better off than our dogs and cats.
Are any of you gamblers? Do you bet on Baseball or Football? Do you buy lottery tickets? If you do, what makes you bet for this team or that team? Do think that you know some thing that increases the odds that you will win? Do you have a better batting average on your bets than some of your friends? If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then you are doing "profiling".
One of the definitions of intelligence is that the decisions that you make every day take into account knowledge that you have gained prior to the decision. If you are a fisherman and dig earth worms for bait, you use profiling. You know from experience that earth worms live in moist soil. Why would you dig in some hard dry earth area if you had prior knowledge that earth worms do not normally live in dry soil? If you liked to fish for trout and knew from prior experience that trout do not live in warm water, why would you fish in a warm stream or lake for trout? What you are doing is profiling and using probability to improve the quality of your decisions about fishing. It would be stupid to fish in streams randomly if you knew that only cold water streams contained trout.
Now what if you were a policeman? As a policeman, you have experience that helps you do your job. You know that young Blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than other groups. This is a fact that we can all agree on, so why should police not be allowed to take this knowledge into account when doing their job? A policeman does not have the time to stop people "randomly" if he knows from experience that one group or another is more likely to be commit crimes. It appears, also, that Blacks more often than any other group "resist" arrest. This is also a fact. Look at these facts. If Blacks commit 3 times as many crimes as other groups and resist arrest 2 times as often as other groups, then Blacks would be 6 times as likely to get injured in an arrest situation than other groups. Do you understand that? The two Blacks that died in the process of being arrested by police, both resisted arrest. I am 100% sure that if they had not resisted arrest that neither would have died. If that is the case, exactly what was the problem and what needs to happen to solve the problem? Easy answer isn't it?
Blacks need to stop committing crimes and being socially irresponsible and when a policeman is in the process of arresting them, they need to cooperate rather than resisting. Simple.
Blacks need to forget about profiling. The fact that the police are smart enough to use their brains and prior knowledge including profiling, they save the lives of many more Blacks than if they were required by law to turn their brains off and not use prior knowledge.
Everyone needs to remind themselves that the reason that us humans enjoy the quality of life that we do is a result of our brains and the fact that we use our brains. If we were to stop all profiling, we would be no better off than our dogs and cats.
Selective Enforcement
I could have called this blog anything, but I chose "selective enforcement". Until I saw what Allende was able to do to Chile in such a short period of time, I would not have guessed that selective enforcement of the laws could be such a powerful tool. Since 99% of you have no idea who Allende was, you also have no idea how powerful a Judas like Obama can be in changing who and what the USA is. After over 250 year of different people being in control of the USA, you would think that we are strong enough to prevent or overcome any changes in the "wrong" direction. You, however, would be wrong. How about a short story?
Look at the decisions and choices that a young person makes early in their lives. At the time they seem small and unimportant, but as most of you can see, they have profound affect on how that person's life plays out. Like wise, you can contrast the differences between a person who makes "good" choices and those who make "poor" choices and how about those who make "bad" choices? If you follow that little story, how do you think the same thing could affect a whole country like the USA? The same way!
In the case of the USA, it is even more critical and here is why. Think about the current state of the USA as a place on the very top of a steep mountain. Over the past 250 years all those who came before have been climbing this steep mountain. I said that it was steep and has become easier and easier to tumble down as we have climbed higher. Contrast this with a country like Haiti that is a place of total squalor. Haiti is at the bottom of the mountain and could not fall down farther. My point is that it is a lot easier for the USA to go "down" and it is to go "up" given our current state. This means that if our President makes "poor" decisions rather than "good" decisions regarding the future of the USA, we will be going down hill. Our future Presidents have to be "better" than those in the past to keep us from going down hill and Obama is clearly not. Given the fact that Obama is also a Judas means that he only has to pull or push on the wrong levers a little and we will start going down hill.
Now, how does selective enforcement figure into this? What a good Judas does not need to create any new laws or problems for the USA. All he needs to do is to block or slow down the good ideas and get on board with the bad ideas. Isn't that exactly what Obama has done? Here is a few from my list.
Size and capabilities of our military. In a country a large and diverse as the USA, the have always been groups who want a smaller military and who are against war of any kind. All Obama has to do is to get on the side of these types of groups and ignore those on the other side. One group will hate Obama and the other group will support him. Simple, right?
Running up the national debit. Here again there are at least two groups involved. Those who pay the bills and those who free load. All Obama has to do is to borrow money from China and give it to the free loaders. The people who pay the bills will be against Obama and those who like the goodies will be for Obama. Obama did not invent this concept. He has just taken advantage of human nature.
Global warming or climate change. Obama did not invent this idea. It was here long before Obama. All he did was to get on the side of the global warming group and use it to screw up our economy. The people from the global warming movement support Obama and those who pay the bills hate him.
Not sealing the borders and not deporting illegals. We know the affect of more low skilled immigrants on the economy of the USA, but there is a group who feels sorry for poor people all over the world and see no problem letting them into the USA. Again, Obama gets on the side of the illegal immigrants and gains their supports while citizens with a brain hate Obama.
Obamacare. Obama has no problem having the government, who has a dismal record of running anything, run one of the most complex systems in the USA. Over 17% of our economy is medical and in the name of "helping the poor", Obama is willing to screw up one of the best medical systems in the world and make medical services "worse" for most of the people.
I could list a lot more items, but I think that you get the idea. I know that most of you can not get your heads around the idea that our President Obama is a Judas, but I don't see how anyone could connect the dots and come up with any other explanation for his actions. I know that most people have never confronted a true Judas and thus can not believe that they elected one.
Look at the decisions and choices that a young person makes early in their lives. At the time they seem small and unimportant, but as most of you can see, they have profound affect on how that person's life plays out. Like wise, you can contrast the differences between a person who makes "good" choices and those who make "poor" choices and how about those who make "bad" choices? If you follow that little story, how do you think the same thing could affect a whole country like the USA? The same way!
In the case of the USA, it is even more critical and here is why. Think about the current state of the USA as a place on the very top of a steep mountain. Over the past 250 years all those who came before have been climbing this steep mountain. I said that it was steep and has become easier and easier to tumble down as we have climbed higher. Contrast this with a country like Haiti that is a place of total squalor. Haiti is at the bottom of the mountain and could not fall down farther. My point is that it is a lot easier for the USA to go "down" and it is to go "up" given our current state. This means that if our President makes "poor" decisions rather than "good" decisions regarding the future of the USA, we will be going down hill. Our future Presidents have to be "better" than those in the past to keep us from going down hill and Obama is clearly not. Given the fact that Obama is also a Judas means that he only has to pull or push on the wrong levers a little and we will start going down hill.
Now, how does selective enforcement figure into this? What a good Judas does not need to create any new laws or problems for the USA. All he needs to do is to block or slow down the good ideas and get on board with the bad ideas. Isn't that exactly what Obama has done? Here is a few from my list.
Size and capabilities of our military. In a country a large and diverse as the USA, the have always been groups who want a smaller military and who are against war of any kind. All Obama has to do is to get on the side of these types of groups and ignore those on the other side. One group will hate Obama and the other group will support him. Simple, right?
Running up the national debit. Here again there are at least two groups involved. Those who pay the bills and those who free load. All Obama has to do is to borrow money from China and give it to the free loaders. The people who pay the bills will be against Obama and those who like the goodies will be for Obama. Obama did not invent this concept. He has just taken advantage of human nature.
Global warming or climate change. Obama did not invent this idea. It was here long before Obama. All he did was to get on the side of the global warming group and use it to screw up our economy. The people from the global warming movement support Obama and those who pay the bills hate him.
Not sealing the borders and not deporting illegals. We know the affect of more low skilled immigrants on the economy of the USA, but there is a group who feels sorry for poor people all over the world and see no problem letting them into the USA. Again, Obama gets on the side of the illegal immigrants and gains their supports while citizens with a brain hate Obama.
Obamacare. Obama has no problem having the government, who has a dismal record of running anything, run one of the most complex systems in the USA. Over 17% of our economy is medical and in the name of "helping the poor", Obama is willing to screw up one of the best medical systems in the world and make medical services "worse" for most of the people.
I could list a lot more items, but I think that you get the idea. I know that most of you can not get your heads around the idea that our President Obama is a Judas, but I don't see how anyone could connect the dots and come up with any other explanation for his actions. I know that most people have never confronted a true Judas and thus can not believe that they elected one.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Economics Of Stealing
Every time I hear someone say that, "Immigrants built this country", I want to scream. No one "built" the USA. It was already here when Columbus got lost and ended up here. It was worth then exactly what it is worth today less the value extracted. If you look at the "value added" by those immigrants, you will find that it is not that much. The oil, coal, timber and good farm land was already here. The immigrants did not create it. Today, we have less oil, coal, timber and good farm land than we had when Columbus arrived. To be honest, you would have to subtract off the value of those original resources that have been used up from all the "value added" produced by the immigrants to determine the value of the USA today. I think that what you are going to find is that the net "value added" by those immigrants was not all that much compared to the original value of the USA. Here are some examples.
Let's say that you have a farm in Iowa of 250 acres that you grow corn and soy beans on. The land did not have any trees that you had to clear nor was the land so uneven that you had to level it down before you could farm it. My point is that it is almost the same today as the day that the USA was discovered. The soil is actually more eroded and less fertile than it was before the original farmer arrived, but let's agree that it equal in value. Next, what do you think that 250 acres is worth today? I have proposed that it was actually worth the same before the farmer arrived. I have heard that farm land like this goes for about $8,000 per acre today. That would make this farm worth about $2,000,000 today. Remember that the original farmer did not pay a penny for this land.
Now, let's assume that some penniless person from Europe discovered some lost island that had the same quality 250 acres of land that we are talking about in Iowa. He would go instantly from being penniless to now being worth 2 million dollars. How high on the hog do you think that new farmer would be living compared to the rest of the world? That is more or less what happened here in the USA. It was a one time gift and it is a gift that will never happen again. Don't tell me about growth or some trend. It was a one time deal that will never repeat. The USA lived high on the hog because we discovered a pot of gold and we have been spending that pot of gold ever since. Do you think that we have been putting back into that pot by or efforts of "value added" faster than we have been taking out the gold? Be honest. No!
Think of the average net worth of the people of the USA, considering that they owned the USA back 250 years ago compared to today? We have been getting poorer every day since the first white man set foot in the USA. We all know the story about Argentina. They were the richest people in the world less than 100 years ago and where are they now. Most people think they understand what happened to Argentina, but they don't seem to be able to see what is happening to the USA today nor into the future. Due to banking and finance, a person can spend their net worth like it is money from value added. Look at the adds on TV for home equity loans and "you still own your house".
Spain did it a little differently. They stole the gold from the New World and took it back to Spain. Back in Spain, they spent the gold like is was value added that they produced not understanding that the gold was stolen. Further, what was the chances of stealing more gold? From where? Now, look at Spain. They are flat broke.
What I am proposing is that we recognize the honest history of the USA and much of the world and not buy into the style of economics that is preached by professors in all of our universities. If we want to keep our high quality of life, we have to be doing the things that will protect and produce that quality of life. Those are population control, education and social efficiency. Don't know what social responsibility is? It is people working hard, not doing drugs, crime or things that waste the energy and resources of the USA. I ask you is Obama doing that? No! He is a smart Judas and he is our enemy doing all the things he can to destroy and accelerate the decline of the USA, His actions are not accidental. Obama knows what he is doing, but most of you don't.
PS---Europeans stole the USA from the Native Americans. Remember that! I blogged on this point before. What countries in the world have a high quality of life that don't have a lot of natural resources? Very few! Notice that the countries that have the highest standard of living or quality of life are the ones who also have the most natural resources "per person". Did those countries "build" that wealth or did they "extract" it? You know the answer. We need an economic model that gives credit to the impact of natural resources per person and not just GNP. More Mexican immigrants might increase our GNP, but they reduce our natural resources per person and that is my point!!! The make us poorer and that is what Obama wants!!
Let's say that you have a farm in Iowa of 250 acres that you grow corn and soy beans on. The land did not have any trees that you had to clear nor was the land so uneven that you had to level it down before you could farm it. My point is that it is almost the same today as the day that the USA was discovered. The soil is actually more eroded and less fertile than it was before the original farmer arrived, but let's agree that it equal in value. Next, what do you think that 250 acres is worth today? I have proposed that it was actually worth the same before the farmer arrived. I have heard that farm land like this goes for about $8,000 per acre today. That would make this farm worth about $2,000,000 today. Remember that the original farmer did not pay a penny for this land.
Now, let's assume that some penniless person from Europe discovered some lost island that had the same quality 250 acres of land that we are talking about in Iowa. He would go instantly from being penniless to now being worth 2 million dollars. How high on the hog do you think that new farmer would be living compared to the rest of the world? That is more or less what happened here in the USA. It was a one time gift and it is a gift that will never happen again. Don't tell me about growth or some trend. It was a one time deal that will never repeat. The USA lived high on the hog because we discovered a pot of gold and we have been spending that pot of gold ever since. Do you think that we have been putting back into that pot by or efforts of "value added" faster than we have been taking out the gold? Be honest. No!
Think of the average net worth of the people of the USA, considering that they owned the USA back 250 years ago compared to today? We have been getting poorer every day since the first white man set foot in the USA. We all know the story about Argentina. They were the richest people in the world less than 100 years ago and where are they now. Most people think they understand what happened to Argentina, but they don't seem to be able to see what is happening to the USA today nor into the future. Due to banking and finance, a person can spend their net worth like it is money from value added. Look at the adds on TV for home equity loans and "you still own your house".
Spain did it a little differently. They stole the gold from the New World and took it back to Spain. Back in Spain, they spent the gold like is was value added that they produced not understanding that the gold was stolen. Further, what was the chances of stealing more gold? From where? Now, look at Spain. They are flat broke.
What I am proposing is that we recognize the honest history of the USA and much of the world and not buy into the style of economics that is preached by professors in all of our universities. If we want to keep our high quality of life, we have to be doing the things that will protect and produce that quality of life. Those are population control, education and social efficiency. Don't know what social responsibility is? It is people working hard, not doing drugs, crime or things that waste the energy and resources of the USA. I ask you is Obama doing that? No! He is a smart Judas and he is our enemy doing all the things he can to destroy and accelerate the decline of the USA, His actions are not accidental. Obama knows what he is doing, but most of you don't.
PS---Europeans stole the USA from the Native Americans. Remember that! I blogged on this point before. What countries in the world have a high quality of life that don't have a lot of natural resources? Very few! Notice that the countries that have the highest standard of living or quality of life are the ones who also have the most natural resources "per person". Did those countries "build" that wealth or did they "extract" it? You know the answer. We need an economic model that gives credit to the impact of natural resources per person and not just GNP. More Mexican immigrants might increase our GNP, but they reduce our natural resources per person and that is my point!!! The make us poorer and that is what Obama wants!!
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Obama's Golf Club
We all know that Obama spends more time on the golf course than he does trying to working as our President. I am not sure if Obama really belongs to a private golf club, but what if he did? If so, here is what he might be having to deal with.
Obama worked hard and saved his money so that he could pay the initiation fees required to join his favorite golf club. Joining the golf club was the economic reward for working so hard and saving responsibly. Besides just playing golf, the club provided other benefits to Obama, his family and his friends. He and his family often had dinner at the golf club and when is daughter got married, they had the wedding party at the club. No young girl, as wells her father could have asked for more. The event would be remembered for generations.
The way that most private golf clubs work is that the members elect a President and a board of directors to operate the golf club. It is a lot like how governments work. Obama's golf club has been in business for over 250 years and many people would like to join, but the initiation fee and the monthly dues are quite high. The members all have do work hard and save their money in order to become members. Not only does this golf club have a very nice golf course, but a restaurant, bar, tennis courts and a swimming pool. It can be use by member families, their guests and for parties like weddings and graduations. It cost a lot, but it is worth it.
One day Obama showed up at his private golf course expecting to get a "T" time in a few minutes, but he found that there was a long line of golfers ahead of him. He asked the Pro what was going on and he said that the new President opened the golf course to poor people in the area. Obama finally got a "T", but was disgusted with the new President's unilateral actions.
After Obama played his round of golf, he went to see the club President to find out what was going on. He asked the President what was going on and he told Obama that he noticed that there were a lot of poor golfers in the community who would enjoy playing at a nice private golf club rather than at the local public golf courses. Obama got mad and told the new President that it was not fair that he had to work hard and save his money so that he could play on the golf course and these poor people in the community got in for "free". Why should he have to pay and these other people got every thing that he paid for free!! Obama was getting madder and madder. Obama knew that the club had been in business for 250 years and was built by the due of all those members before and now this new President picked people off the street and made the equal to him. This was bull shit.
Obama went home and told his wife about the situation. She reminded him that they were planning on having their other daughter's wedding party at the golf club and just got a telephone call from the manager that her scheduled party had been canceled so that some poor people off the street could have one of their birthday parties. She also said that the club manager told her that Obama's lunch with his group of lawyers was canceled too. "What the hell is going on", Obama said. He was going to go to the board of directors to see what they can do.
Just then the phone rang from a friend and member of the golf club. He said that he had already talked to the board of directors and was told that they had no authority to over rule the President.
Now, Obama is starting to understand why most of the people in the USA are pissed off about his. decision to let a bunch of illegal Mexicans into the USA where they can use all the facilities and programs paid for over a period of 250 years by USA tax payers. We are pissed off.
PS---A week later, Obama got a letter from the golf club manager that the dues were being increased to pay for the extra cost of allowing all the non-members to play and use the golf course facilities for free. (side note) The golf club President said that allowing non-paying members of the public to play on and use the golf club facilities would "not" cause any increase in dues. Very interesting?
Obama worked hard and saved his money so that he could pay the initiation fees required to join his favorite golf club. Joining the golf club was the economic reward for working so hard and saving responsibly. Besides just playing golf, the club provided other benefits to Obama, his family and his friends. He and his family often had dinner at the golf club and when is daughter got married, they had the wedding party at the club. No young girl, as wells her father could have asked for more. The event would be remembered for generations.
The way that most private golf clubs work is that the members elect a President and a board of directors to operate the golf club. It is a lot like how governments work. Obama's golf club has been in business for over 250 years and many people would like to join, but the initiation fee and the monthly dues are quite high. The members all have do work hard and save their money in order to become members. Not only does this golf club have a very nice golf course, but a restaurant, bar, tennis courts and a swimming pool. It can be use by member families, their guests and for parties like weddings and graduations. It cost a lot, but it is worth it.
One day Obama showed up at his private golf course expecting to get a "T" time in a few minutes, but he found that there was a long line of golfers ahead of him. He asked the Pro what was going on and he said that the new President opened the golf course to poor people in the area. Obama finally got a "T", but was disgusted with the new President's unilateral actions.
After Obama played his round of golf, he went to see the club President to find out what was going on. He asked the President what was going on and he told Obama that he noticed that there were a lot of poor golfers in the community who would enjoy playing at a nice private golf club rather than at the local public golf courses. Obama got mad and told the new President that it was not fair that he had to work hard and save his money so that he could play on the golf course and these poor people in the community got in for "free". Why should he have to pay and these other people got every thing that he paid for free!! Obama was getting madder and madder. Obama knew that the club had been in business for 250 years and was built by the due of all those members before and now this new President picked people off the street and made the equal to him. This was bull shit.
Obama went home and told his wife about the situation. She reminded him that they were planning on having their other daughter's wedding party at the golf club and just got a telephone call from the manager that her scheduled party had been canceled so that some poor people off the street could have one of their birthday parties. She also said that the club manager told her that Obama's lunch with his group of lawyers was canceled too. "What the hell is going on", Obama said. He was going to go to the board of directors to see what they can do.
Just then the phone rang from a friend and member of the golf club. He said that he had already talked to the board of directors and was told that they had no authority to over rule the President.
Now, Obama is starting to understand why most of the people in the USA are pissed off about his. decision to let a bunch of illegal Mexicans into the USA where they can use all the facilities and programs paid for over a period of 250 years by USA tax payers. We are pissed off.
PS---A week later, Obama got a letter from the golf club manager that the dues were being increased to pay for the extra cost of allowing all the non-members to play and use the golf course facilities for free. (side note) The golf club President said that allowing non-paying members of the public to play on and use the golf club facilities would "not" cause any increase in dues. Very interesting?
Monday, December 1, 2014
The Golden Rules Of Education
I have been blogging on education for some time and you know that I am very unsatisfied with what I have been seeing. In this blog, I will present a "new" concept that explains much of the problem with how we now deal with education. Don't think so? Read on.
What I have to say has nothing to do with IQ or race. As I see it, there are three basic rules in education. The first is plain old memorization. You know what I mean. This is where, in school, you are graded on how well you do on tests that ask the names of different things. Like, name the Presidents of the USA or name the states. There is no logic to those lists, you have no choice but to memorize the lists of "facts". Most of what our schools do is to make you memorize facts and see how good you are at reading them back. For the teacher, it is very easy to grade the students and it is easy for the students to figure out what they have to do to get a good grade. We all know that our parents have demanded that we get good grades. As a result of the above, we end up with a bunch of graduates who are good at memorization. If you are not good at memorization, you expect to have a lot of problems in our school system. Things like spelling get a lot of attention because it is mostly an exercise in memorization. In some prior blogs, I called students who are very good at reciting back memorized facts, "regurgatators". When students cram for tests, you can bet that the text will be based on memorization.
Biology is one of the subjects that depends the most on memorization. For some reason the, so called, good students are those who can name all the bones or tissues in the body. Does that take a smart student or just one who has the ability to memorize things, even if it is just for a short time required for the test? You know the answer. I think you could name a lot of college classes and majors that are mostly just memorization. You have to ask it this is really education.
When most students don't get good grades or do well on tests, their solution is to study harder. Now, what does that mean? It means try harder to memorize material that may be on a test. Are you starting to get the idea. I think that doctors and the medical profession is populated with a subset of the students who were very good at memorization. If you have ever had a real discussion with a medical doctor, it will be clear that they were good at memorization. This leaves the question about how smart they are or how well they might do in solving real medical problems.
The second rule has to do with learning algorithms. What is an algorithm, you ask? It is a procedure, much like a recipe to bake cookies. When you learned long division in 4th grade math, what you learned was an algorithm. Students who were, also, good at memorization did well with algorithms. It was like memorizing the recipe for baking bread. We call this memorization "learning". Using math as an example, I know many students who were very good at manipulating math algorithms and who were able to get the correct answers on the tests, but bombed out when they had to do "word" problems. If you look at other areas, you find that much of what we call learning in our schools is just the memorization of algorithms.
The last rule is the gut level real learning that goes on in the STEM's. In these areas, memorization is there too, but it is mostly on solving "word" problems. Engineering is a study of how to apply conceptual rules to a problem to get the most economical solution. Engineers do not use algorithms they learned in school to solve problems. They create their own algorithm to solve the problem at hand. This last area is where students learn principles and concepts that have universal application and that can be combined in different ways to solve, yet unknown, problems or to gain understanding.
Have you noticed how many students try to do well in the technical area by trying to memorize the material? It does not work and you know it. It is like doubling down with what worked back in the 4th grade and expecting it to work in this new area. What we need to do is to get away from blind memorization and to real learning. I have hired a lot of people and I have never given much weight to their ability to memorize facts. I have hired people who could apply principles and concept to solve new problems that they have not been exposed to before. I blogged in the past that many people look at "experience" as the most important criteria expecting that their memorized experience could solve problems that the person had never seen before.
This was not my best thought out blog, but I think that you can see that we have to get away for memorization as our criteria for a good education. Speaking a foreign language is an example of memorization and is really not true education as I have defined above. We need to rethink how we deal with education.
PS---On most IQ tests they ask you to find the "odd" item on a list or in a picture. Notice that this is not something you could have memorized before hand or solved using an algorithm. Sometimes, they ask you to "connect the dots" of related items. In life, we are confronted with a lot of data and to understand our world, you need to be able to "connect the dots". If that is the case, why don't our schools teach in this area more. In the case of Obama's actions, most people seem confused because they are not able to "connect the dots" that show Obama as a Judas wanting to destroy the USA. We need more real education, not more animal training and animal tricks.
What I have to say has nothing to do with IQ or race. As I see it, there are three basic rules in education. The first is plain old memorization. You know what I mean. This is where, in school, you are graded on how well you do on tests that ask the names of different things. Like, name the Presidents of the USA or name the states. There is no logic to those lists, you have no choice but to memorize the lists of "facts". Most of what our schools do is to make you memorize facts and see how good you are at reading them back. For the teacher, it is very easy to grade the students and it is easy for the students to figure out what they have to do to get a good grade. We all know that our parents have demanded that we get good grades. As a result of the above, we end up with a bunch of graduates who are good at memorization. If you are not good at memorization, you expect to have a lot of problems in our school system. Things like spelling get a lot of attention because it is mostly an exercise in memorization. In some prior blogs, I called students who are very good at reciting back memorized facts, "regurgatators". When students cram for tests, you can bet that the text will be based on memorization.
Biology is one of the subjects that depends the most on memorization. For some reason the, so called, good students are those who can name all the bones or tissues in the body. Does that take a smart student or just one who has the ability to memorize things, even if it is just for a short time required for the test? You know the answer. I think you could name a lot of college classes and majors that are mostly just memorization. You have to ask it this is really education.
When most students don't get good grades or do well on tests, their solution is to study harder. Now, what does that mean? It means try harder to memorize material that may be on a test. Are you starting to get the idea. I think that doctors and the medical profession is populated with a subset of the students who were very good at memorization. If you have ever had a real discussion with a medical doctor, it will be clear that they were good at memorization. This leaves the question about how smart they are or how well they might do in solving real medical problems.
The second rule has to do with learning algorithms. What is an algorithm, you ask? It is a procedure, much like a recipe to bake cookies. When you learned long division in 4th grade math, what you learned was an algorithm. Students who were, also, good at memorization did well with algorithms. It was like memorizing the recipe for baking bread. We call this memorization "learning". Using math as an example, I know many students who were very good at manipulating math algorithms and who were able to get the correct answers on the tests, but bombed out when they had to do "word" problems. If you look at other areas, you find that much of what we call learning in our schools is just the memorization of algorithms.
The last rule is the gut level real learning that goes on in the STEM's. In these areas, memorization is there too, but it is mostly on solving "word" problems. Engineering is a study of how to apply conceptual rules to a problem to get the most economical solution. Engineers do not use algorithms they learned in school to solve problems. They create their own algorithm to solve the problem at hand. This last area is where students learn principles and concepts that have universal application and that can be combined in different ways to solve, yet unknown, problems or to gain understanding.
Have you noticed how many students try to do well in the technical area by trying to memorize the material? It does not work and you know it. It is like doubling down with what worked back in the 4th grade and expecting it to work in this new area. What we need to do is to get away from blind memorization and to real learning. I have hired a lot of people and I have never given much weight to their ability to memorize facts. I have hired people who could apply principles and concept to solve new problems that they have not been exposed to before. I blogged in the past that many people look at "experience" as the most important criteria expecting that their memorized experience could solve problems that the person had never seen before.
This was not my best thought out blog, but I think that you can see that we have to get away for memorization as our criteria for a good education. Speaking a foreign language is an example of memorization and is really not true education as I have defined above. We need to rethink how we deal with education.
PS---On most IQ tests they ask you to find the "odd" item on a list or in a picture. Notice that this is not something you could have memorized before hand or solved using an algorithm. Sometimes, they ask you to "connect the dots" of related items. In life, we are confronted with a lot of data and to understand our world, you need to be able to "connect the dots". If that is the case, why don't our schools teach in this area more. In the case of Obama's actions, most people seem confused because they are not able to "connect the dots" that show Obama as a Judas wanting to destroy the USA. We need more real education, not more animal training and animal tricks.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Juan Williams' Double Standard For Blacks
I was just watching Juan Williams comment on the handling, by the grand jury, the Ferguson case. He said that if a community like the Black community in Ferguson does not trust the police, then in a case like the Brown shooting, it should go to a full trial rather than letting the grand jury determine if it justifies a full trial. What do you think of that? I think that we can all agree that if the exact same thing were to have happened in a mostly White community, none of the rioting and lawlessness would have happened. What Juan Williams is proposing is that we adopt a double standard, one for the dominate Black community and a different one for the dominate White community. I don't know how anyone with half a brain and any understanding of law or the history of the USA could make such a statement. How about you? I feel that the greatest thing about the USA is the rule of law and the fact that the law is "blind" such that all are treated equally under the law no matter the color or financial station.
It seems this thing of trust keeps coming up with the implication that it affects how others who obey the law should treat a special group who bas much less concerned about the rule of law. I give you the Mexicans who violate our borders. How can they expect to be accepted in a country that prides itself on the rule of law if they just broke the law by coming into the USA illegally? The USA has one of the best records of any country in the world in terms of obeying the law and paying the taxes that we owe. I know for a fact that Mexico has a very low tax collection rate due mostly to that lack of respect for the law in Mexico. We don't need more people with that kind of attitude. A little off the subject, but it is related to the rule of law and its equal application.
I think that if Juan Williams reviews his recent statement about Ferguson that he will retract or at least clear up exactly what he meant. If he really feels that we need some kind of double standard related to Blacks, then the USA has a real problem that may never have a solution.
It seems this thing of trust keeps coming up with the implication that it affects how others who obey the law should treat a special group who bas much less concerned about the rule of law. I give you the Mexicans who violate our borders. How can they expect to be accepted in a country that prides itself on the rule of law if they just broke the law by coming into the USA illegally? The USA has one of the best records of any country in the world in terms of obeying the law and paying the taxes that we owe. I know for a fact that Mexico has a very low tax collection rate due mostly to that lack of respect for the law in Mexico. We don't need more people with that kind of attitude. A little off the subject, but it is related to the rule of law and its equal application.
I think that if Juan Williams reviews his recent statement about Ferguson that he will retract or at least clear up exactly what he meant. If he really feels that we need some kind of double standard related to Blacks, then the USA has a real problem that may never have a solution.
Holder's Ferguston Investigation
Now, Holder is going to investigate the Ferguson police department to see if he can find out what is wrong with the department, such that, the Black community does not trust them. With his statement, it is clear that Holder has a bias against the police department. He seems, also, to be blind to the actions or lack of actions to help the situation by the Black community. If Holder wanted to help, he would have said to the Black community that he had "total trust" in the Ferguson police department and the conduct of the police man who shot Brown. If both Holder and Obama say some thing that gives the impression that they do not trust Ferguson's police department and "many" of those around the USA, it gives confirmation that the Black community is correct to not trust the police. Can you think of any thing more destructive that our President, who was elected to represent all of us, could do than blame the police rather than Brown?
Now, the investigation. I used to teach decision theory at a major university and here is the type of question that the media should be asking. They should have asked Holder for a list of the possible major things that he could expect to find. The next question should be for him to use his experience and assign probabilities to each possible out come. The next question should then be, what will you do given each out come? If this seems strange, think about it and you will see that this is what an intelligent person does every day. If the actions that you would take for most of the out comes turns out to be the same, then why do you need to do any investigation? Just take that action and be done. You also have to answer the question, will the situation get worse while I am doing my investigation? If that is the case, it may be better to take the action now given the down side is not as bad as the damage done by waiting. The above may sound complex, but it is not.
Let's say that you go into your kitchen in the morning and hear a sound coming from one of your cupboards? You know by the size of the cupboard that it has to be some small animal and not a lion. You could open the cupboard and see what it was so that you could get the correct weapon to dispatch the animal thus avoiding the risk of getting the wrong weapon. The problem with that is that the animal may escape and thus get away or into a place where you could not get it. If you get a weapon first, you risk that it may be too small, but at least you have a chance of dispatching the animal. If you opened the door without a weapon you would have no chance of dispatching the animal.
Now, isn't it clear that rather than blindly following a step by step recipe in a decision situation that you need to take your prior knowledge and estimate the future possibilities to that you can develop your decision plan? What Obama and Holder are doing is fooling you by making you think that they are doing the right thing with their "step by step" recipe rather than using their brain.
Now, the investigation. I used to teach decision theory at a major university and here is the type of question that the media should be asking. They should have asked Holder for a list of the possible major things that he could expect to find. The next question should be for him to use his experience and assign probabilities to each possible out come. The next question should then be, what will you do given each out come? If this seems strange, think about it and you will see that this is what an intelligent person does every day. If the actions that you would take for most of the out comes turns out to be the same, then why do you need to do any investigation? Just take that action and be done. You also have to answer the question, will the situation get worse while I am doing my investigation? If that is the case, it may be better to take the action now given the down side is not as bad as the damage done by waiting. The above may sound complex, but it is not.
Let's say that you go into your kitchen in the morning and hear a sound coming from one of your cupboards? You know by the size of the cupboard that it has to be some small animal and not a lion. You could open the cupboard and see what it was so that you could get the correct weapon to dispatch the animal thus avoiding the risk of getting the wrong weapon. The problem with that is that the animal may escape and thus get away or into a place where you could not get it. If you get a weapon first, you risk that it may be too small, but at least you have a chance of dispatching the animal. If you opened the door without a weapon you would have no chance of dispatching the animal.
Now, isn't it clear that rather than blindly following a step by step recipe in a decision situation that you need to take your prior knowledge and estimate the future possibilities to that you can develop your decision plan? What Obama and Holder are doing is fooling you by making you think that they are doing the right thing with their "step by step" recipe rather than using their brain.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Ferguson, We Shall Over Come
We all heard Martin Luther King preach that, "We Shall Over Come". It seemed like a very good idea, but exactly what did it mean? That is the point of this blog.
After the events in Ferguson, we keep hearing people spouting that "we shall over come". Next, we hear cheers from the crowds of people. They all seem to agree and that is good, but what are they agreeing too? What I am trying to do is to point out how hollow all this bluster is. What action does a statement like, "we shall over come" call for or exactly what is advocating? Don't know do you? That is why simple minded statements like the above are worthless when it comes to solving what ever is the real problem. Now we are getting to the point.
What is the problem that "we shall over come" proposes to solve? In the case of Ferguson, do we need some kind of "leader" or Judas to "lead" the people in the right direction? I think that I know why the Black community is far down the economic and quality of life ladder. When Martin Luther King promised that "we shall over come", he was setting up a straw man that the reason that Blacks were so far down the ladder was because some White person was holding down the poor Black person. If you feel that is true, then the solution is simple. All we need to do is to find that bad White person and get them to stop holding down that Black person. The fact that we can never find that White person is because they do not exist. That is just a straw man fraud. Notice that in the above and all discussion is centered around some kind of "central" authority magically moving the Black community up the economic and quality of life ladder. This business of "central" is at the heart of the problem with the whole effort.
What is needed is to get off the whole "central" control logic and think in terms of "distributed" control like honey bees and ants. In a distributed control system, each member controls and directs themselves, not some central King or Queen. What the Black community has to do is for each individual to take control of their own actions and not wait for some kind of magic control to come from some centralized King or President. Dose a Black person need the President to tell them to get out of bed in the morning and go to school, or do they have to just get themselves out of bed and go to school? It is the individual who needs to do the right thing. If every Black as an individual just did the right simple things that Black person would start to take small steps up that ladder. If that individual avoided doing things that brought them back down the ladder, eventually they would end up much higher up the ladder.
Do Blacks need the President to make sure they go to school and study? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from doing crime or drugs? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from knocking up their girl friends out of wedlock? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from killing other Blacks? Do Blacks expect the President to make Whites give Blacks "respect" or do individual Blacks have to conduct themselves in such a way as to earn respect from non Blacks?
The reason that a hive of honey bees works is because each bee takes care of himself and works as an individual bee for the welfare of the hive. It is the same for ants. If this distributed system has worked so well for so many million years for honey bees and ants, why don't you think that it is not the solution for the Black community?
PS----I just listened to Holder's speech about Ferguson. His position was that Blacks do not trust the Ferguson police department and that he is going to investigate to see if the police department is doing every thing possible to get the Blacks to trust the department. He did not seem to be concerned that the department may have followed 100% of every law and he did not seem to be concerned that the Black community just might need to change in some way. It seems the police department follows the law, so is it because Blacks don't like the laws or that they don't understand the law? Given that over 50% of Black males don't finish high school, that maybe one of the reasons.
Holder also said that the Blacks were marching for "justice". Why didn't Holder tell the Blacks that they have had justice under the rule of law of the USA and what they were doing was in violation of the law of the USA? He should have reminded the Black community that his job is see that the laws are evenly enforced and that is exactly what just happened. The reason that so many Blacks are in jail is because Blacks commit most of the crimes.
After the events in Ferguson, we keep hearing people spouting that "we shall over come". Next, we hear cheers from the crowds of people. They all seem to agree and that is good, but what are they agreeing too? What I am trying to do is to point out how hollow all this bluster is. What action does a statement like, "we shall over come" call for or exactly what is advocating? Don't know do you? That is why simple minded statements like the above are worthless when it comes to solving what ever is the real problem. Now we are getting to the point.
What is the problem that "we shall over come" proposes to solve? In the case of Ferguson, do we need some kind of "leader" or Judas to "lead" the people in the right direction? I think that I know why the Black community is far down the economic and quality of life ladder. When Martin Luther King promised that "we shall over come", he was setting up a straw man that the reason that Blacks were so far down the ladder was because some White person was holding down the poor Black person. If you feel that is true, then the solution is simple. All we need to do is to find that bad White person and get them to stop holding down that Black person. The fact that we can never find that White person is because they do not exist. That is just a straw man fraud. Notice that in the above and all discussion is centered around some kind of "central" authority magically moving the Black community up the economic and quality of life ladder. This business of "central" is at the heart of the problem with the whole effort.
What is needed is to get off the whole "central" control logic and think in terms of "distributed" control like honey bees and ants. In a distributed control system, each member controls and directs themselves, not some central King or Queen. What the Black community has to do is for each individual to take control of their own actions and not wait for some kind of magic control to come from some centralized King or President. Dose a Black person need the President to tell them to get out of bed in the morning and go to school, or do they have to just get themselves out of bed and go to school? It is the individual who needs to do the right thing. If every Black as an individual just did the right simple things that Black person would start to take small steps up that ladder. If that individual avoided doing things that brought them back down the ladder, eventually they would end up much higher up the ladder.
Do Blacks need the President to make sure they go to school and study? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from doing crime or drugs? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from knocking up their girl friends out of wedlock? Do Blacks need the President to keep them from killing other Blacks? Do Blacks expect the President to make Whites give Blacks "respect" or do individual Blacks have to conduct themselves in such a way as to earn respect from non Blacks?
The reason that a hive of honey bees works is because each bee takes care of himself and works as an individual bee for the welfare of the hive. It is the same for ants. If this distributed system has worked so well for so many million years for honey bees and ants, why don't you think that it is not the solution for the Black community?
PS----I just listened to Holder's speech about Ferguson. His position was that Blacks do not trust the Ferguson police department and that he is going to investigate to see if the police department is doing every thing possible to get the Blacks to trust the department. He did not seem to be concerned that the department may have followed 100% of every law and he did not seem to be concerned that the Black community just might need to change in some way. It seems the police department follows the law, so is it because Blacks don't like the laws or that they don't understand the law? Given that over 50% of Black males don't finish high school, that maybe one of the reasons.
Holder also said that the Blacks were marching for "justice". Why didn't Holder tell the Blacks that they have had justice under the rule of law of the USA and what they were doing was in violation of the law of the USA? He should have reminded the Black community that his job is see that the laws are evenly enforced and that is exactly what just happened. The reason that so many Blacks are in jail is because Blacks commit most of the crimes.
Friday, November 21, 2014
1,400 Years Of Inbreeding
Did you read any of the posts on "1,400 years of inbreeding" by the Moslems? The posts are loaded with statistics about the impact on Moslems. I support Darwin and how he has advanced the human race. Now we have a group who seem to want to cancel out much of his hard work. I blogged in the past about the Kentucky Derby and the fact that the times have not improved much in over 100 years. It is because of the "inbreeding" of the horses that are allowed to run in the Kentucky Derby. They have what is called a "closed book". That means their horses can only be bread to other horses who are registered in the "book". It is a form of "line breeding" that eliminates "throw backs". The birth of a "throw back" is evidence that their is diversity in the genes of either the father or mother. It is this diversity that many times has allowed a specie to survive a calamity like the Plague or Ebola. If they did not have this diversity, it could mean extermination. It may have been something like this that actually caused the extermination of the caveman.
What the postings about "1,400 years of inbreeding" did for me was to get me thinking about many of the differences in human groups and animal groups. It is a little like compound interest. If the interest is compounded 70 times or more like it has done in the Moslem community, a very "low" interest rate can add up to a very big number. When you contrast what has happened in the Moslem community with the world in general under Darwin and explore the differences, it can give you insight and understanding about the Moslems. In the non Moslem world, many females do "not" have any children. Who are these females who do not have children? Are the different in some way from those who do have children? Are those differences good or bad when it comes to advancing the human race? These are all good questions that we should be asking. One thing that we do know is that there are very few Moslem females who do not have any children. That means that the Moslems to not have the systematic sorting out of those who have the different characteristics that prevent them from having children. After 70 or more generations what ever this difference is, it is going to have an affect. That is my point.
First, look at people who have lived far North of the equator for many generations. Most have blue eyes and light colored skin and hair. We know that these people originally came from Africa and were black. Because of the need for vitamin "D" for survival, people with dark skin were at a disadvantage. There must have been a small amount of genetic diversity in those original black people to allow a few to be born with lighter skin. Like the example above with compound interest, if this process of favoring the lighter skinned people to survive better than those who were black, over time it would breed a groups of people whose genes favored light over dark. Follow that?
Now, here is another one. Why is it that black Africans when mated to non blacks almost always have black children? Because black is dominate, but why? I think it is due to line breeding over a very long period of time. The lighter skin has evolved over a shorter period of time and thus is less dominate. If you breed dogs, cattle or horses, this is all common knowledge, but we often forget that it also applies to us humans.
In the case of modern corn, it has been so line bread that now it can not survive in the wild. You never see corn growing like a weed do you? It only grows with the help of us humans. That should give us a reason for alarm because the lack of genetic diversity could easily mean the end of corn as an important food crop if the right kind of calamity came along. It did for the American Chestnut and the American Elm and you know what happened.
Go an read some of the material on the internet about "1,400 years of inbreeding" and see if it does not get you to thinking.
What the postings about "1,400 years of inbreeding" did for me was to get me thinking about many of the differences in human groups and animal groups. It is a little like compound interest. If the interest is compounded 70 times or more like it has done in the Moslem community, a very "low" interest rate can add up to a very big number. When you contrast what has happened in the Moslem community with the world in general under Darwin and explore the differences, it can give you insight and understanding about the Moslems. In the non Moslem world, many females do "not" have any children. Who are these females who do not have children? Are the different in some way from those who do have children? Are those differences good or bad when it comes to advancing the human race? These are all good questions that we should be asking. One thing that we do know is that there are very few Moslem females who do not have any children. That means that the Moslems to not have the systematic sorting out of those who have the different characteristics that prevent them from having children. After 70 or more generations what ever this difference is, it is going to have an affect. That is my point.
First, look at people who have lived far North of the equator for many generations. Most have blue eyes and light colored skin and hair. We know that these people originally came from Africa and were black. Because of the need for vitamin "D" for survival, people with dark skin were at a disadvantage. There must have been a small amount of genetic diversity in those original black people to allow a few to be born with lighter skin. Like the example above with compound interest, if this process of favoring the lighter skinned people to survive better than those who were black, over time it would breed a groups of people whose genes favored light over dark. Follow that?
Now, here is another one. Why is it that black Africans when mated to non blacks almost always have black children? Because black is dominate, but why? I think it is due to line breeding over a very long period of time. The lighter skin has evolved over a shorter period of time and thus is less dominate. If you breed dogs, cattle or horses, this is all common knowledge, but we often forget that it also applies to us humans.
In the case of modern corn, it has been so line bread that now it can not survive in the wild. You never see corn growing like a weed do you? It only grows with the help of us humans. That should give us a reason for alarm because the lack of genetic diversity could easily mean the end of corn as an important food crop if the right kind of calamity came along. It did for the American Chestnut and the American Elm and you know what happened.
Go an read some of the material on the internet about "1,400 years of inbreeding" and see if it does not get you to thinking.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Obama's Last Two Years
Before Obama took office I predicted that he was a Judas in black sheep's clothing and I stand by that position today. In my blog about Jim Jones, Hitler and Allende, I discussed how those Judas' left office. They all committed suicide. I don't know if Obama will commit suicide or not, but I am sure that he is not concerned about his life after he is out of office. I am sure that he does not look forward to going back to his job as a community organizer for the Black community. Here is how I now think Obama is going to go out.
Have you noticed how all the talking heads are concerned about Obama's reputation after he is out of office? Any normal person "would" be concerned about their reputation about what they had done while President, but Obama is "not" a normal person. He is a Judas and the talking heads have not yet come to that conclusion. Now, as a Judas, he wants to leave the office of President with the country as screwed up as possible. Further, he wants to leave such a mess that it could take years to clean up the mess, even if that were possible. We know that the USA has more significant racial, religious and political groups than any other country. If this type of country is going to work, it has to be united and Obama knows that. As a Judas, he wants to leave the USA as polarized as possible and by granting amnesty to Mexicans he well set up a polarizing group that will be here for ever.
Obamacare is a perfect tool to also polarize the country and to squander our wealth. One group gets a hand out paid for by another groups. Anyone knows that an arrangement like this is going to piss off the ones who have to pay and pit them against the free loaders. The fact that Obamacare does not work or do what was promised is no big deal to Obama since all he wants to do is to leave a big mess for the country that he and his wife hate. Medical cost will soon be 25% of our economy and that means at least 25% will be left screwed up.
One of the best things that could happen would be for the Senate and Congress to impeach him. As an impeached of the first Black President, Obama would leave a legacy polarizing the Black community more than slavery has. Why do you think that he is so tight with Black agitators? He wants to encourage them to polarize the Black community. He is not really concerned about the welfare of the Black community. He only wants to use it. If he were really concerned, he would be working on crime, education and out of wed lock births in the Black community and he has "not". Look at what he and the Attorney General has been doing in Ferguson, Mo? How about the Black kid who attacked the community watch person in Florida and ended up being shot? Obama used these to divide and polarize the USA.
How about the Global Warming movement? This was tailor made for Obama. All he had to do was to get on the band wagon. If he could give this movement a push forward, he knew that it would divide and kill the economy of the USA for years to come.
How about the military? He forced the retirement of many of the officers and reduced the size and budget of our military. He has them so pissed off that many officers retried on their own. With a all volunteer military, now no one wants to volunteer under Obama.
How about unions? They were going down hill because people were starting to see the damage that unions were doing to our economy. Now, they are mostly into our schools and most public employment. This is now another big polarized group that is bent on the destruction of the USA, even if the union members claim that they are helping to build the USA.
Remember my blog about median family income? Obama is doing every thing that he can to lower the median family income and the quality of life. Obama is not concerned that he is also lowering the quality of life for his won children. He hates the USA so much that he only wants to destroy the USA by any means necessary.
How about the budget deficit? It is now almost 18 trillion. Again, Obama does not care about keeping the deficit down and controlling spending. He is going to be out of office and wants to leave the USA in the largest financial mess that he can. Just look at what he has done and this has to be crystal clear to anyone with a brain.
Food stamps and extended unemployment insurance are additional examples of looking like he is doing good while at the same time he is setting up the USA for a total collapse. You only have to look at countries like Greece for an example of what happens when you keep borrowing the money to spend on social programs. It only has one ending and that is what Obama wants, even if he is not in office when it happens.
Obama is not a normal American. He is a Judas and needs to be understood in that context. I warned you so you can not bury you head in the sand and act surprised when the chickens come home to roost after Obama is out of office.
Have you noticed how all the talking heads are concerned about Obama's reputation after he is out of office? Any normal person "would" be concerned about their reputation about what they had done while President, but Obama is "not" a normal person. He is a Judas and the talking heads have not yet come to that conclusion. Now, as a Judas, he wants to leave the office of President with the country as screwed up as possible. Further, he wants to leave such a mess that it could take years to clean up the mess, even if that were possible. We know that the USA has more significant racial, religious and political groups than any other country. If this type of country is going to work, it has to be united and Obama knows that. As a Judas, he wants to leave the USA as polarized as possible and by granting amnesty to Mexicans he well set up a polarizing group that will be here for ever.
Obamacare is a perfect tool to also polarize the country and to squander our wealth. One group gets a hand out paid for by another groups. Anyone knows that an arrangement like this is going to piss off the ones who have to pay and pit them against the free loaders. The fact that Obamacare does not work or do what was promised is no big deal to Obama since all he wants to do is to leave a big mess for the country that he and his wife hate. Medical cost will soon be 25% of our economy and that means at least 25% will be left screwed up.
One of the best things that could happen would be for the Senate and Congress to impeach him. As an impeached of the first Black President, Obama would leave a legacy polarizing the Black community more than slavery has. Why do you think that he is so tight with Black agitators? He wants to encourage them to polarize the Black community. He is not really concerned about the welfare of the Black community. He only wants to use it. If he were really concerned, he would be working on crime, education and out of wed lock births in the Black community and he has "not". Look at what he and the Attorney General has been doing in Ferguson, Mo? How about the Black kid who attacked the community watch person in Florida and ended up being shot? Obama used these to divide and polarize the USA.
How about the Global Warming movement? This was tailor made for Obama. All he had to do was to get on the band wagon. If he could give this movement a push forward, he knew that it would divide and kill the economy of the USA for years to come.
How about the military? He forced the retirement of many of the officers and reduced the size and budget of our military. He has them so pissed off that many officers retried on their own. With a all volunteer military, now no one wants to volunteer under Obama.
How about unions? They were going down hill because people were starting to see the damage that unions were doing to our economy. Now, they are mostly into our schools and most public employment. This is now another big polarized group that is bent on the destruction of the USA, even if the union members claim that they are helping to build the USA.
Remember my blog about median family income? Obama is doing every thing that he can to lower the median family income and the quality of life. Obama is not concerned that he is also lowering the quality of life for his won children. He hates the USA so much that he only wants to destroy the USA by any means necessary.
How about the budget deficit? It is now almost 18 trillion. Again, Obama does not care about keeping the deficit down and controlling spending. He is going to be out of office and wants to leave the USA in the largest financial mess that he can. Just look at what he has done and this has to be crystal clear to anyone with a brain.
Food stamps and extended unemployment insurance are additional examples of looking like he is doing good while at the same time he is setting up the USA for a total collapse. You only have to look at countries like Greece for an example of what happens when you keep borrowing the money to spend on social programs. It only has one ending and that is what Obama wants, even if he is not in office when it happens.
Obama is not a normal American. He is a Judas and needs to be understood in that context. I warned you so you can not bury you head in the sand and act surprised when the chickens come home to roost after Obama is out of office.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Name Of The Game
From time to time we need to ask, "What is the name of the game?" If we do not do this, how are we going to understand or debate the future of the USA. Of all the possible objectives of the USA, there has to be "one" that is on top. If we try to satisfy all the possible objectives, we will get no where. I know that almost everyone would have a different number one objective, but this blog is about my number one. Mine is simple. Higher median family income. I could say quality of life, but that is hard to quantify and median family income is really the same thing. Look around the world and compare quality of life with median family income and you will find that they are one and the same. Countries with the highest median family income have the highest quality of life and those with the lowest median family income have the lowest quality of life. It is as simple as that.
Any mature debate about the above needs to set some time limits or you could come to some strange conclusions. Example, the USA could increase the median family income by borrowing more money from China and not require anyone to pay taxes. This might work for a year or two, but how about 10 or 20 years down the road? See the problem? Look at what Obama is doing, he does not care about the future of the USA, only his next two years.
Obamacare first. This will increase our spending on medical services from the starting point of 17% to well over 20% of our GNP. That will be far more than any country in the world including over 30 who have a longer life expectance than the USA. A fact about insurance is that it "increases" cost, not "reduces" it. Look at any example that you want involving insurance and the story is the same. The FHA insures home loans and the result is that bankers are willing to make riskier and riskier home loans for bigger and bigger homes. Government spending on Obamacare does "not" increase the median family income. It lowers it. It is cheaper to buy things from China rather than trying to make them here with the extra cost of Obamacare. Just based on the "Name of the game", Obamacare is a bad idea. Strike one.
Immigration from Mexico is another one. The skill level of these people is far below that current median of the USA. That means they will earn "less" than the current median family income. If we add more people below the average, it pulls down the average. Isn't that clear as a bell? You can figure that we will be adding most of these Mexicans to Obamacare where they will get a free ride on the USA taxpayers. Strike two.
Global warming and all the mandates from that next. This is the driver behind the war on coal and the pipe line from Canada. !00% of the oil from Canada will go some place on Earth if it is not here and it will be burned and the smoke into the atmosphere. If we go without the Canadian oil, will it actually change the affect on Global Warming? No!!! Obama has squandered billions on renewable energy in one form or another and 100% of that money has been wasted. So far it has cost more to produce the energy than it was worth. By squandering the wealth of the USA, it reduces the median family income. Strike three. (This is not baseball.)
How about the minimum wage? If you go to the store to buy a widget and find one made in China for $5.00 and one made in the USA for $6.00. which one are you going to buy? Clear, isn't it? Now if we increase out minimum wage and you go back to the same store you will fine that ours has a cost of $7.00 and the one from China has increased their price to $5.50, which one are you going to buy? What just happened is that China picked up an extra $0.50 of profit on the widget due to your stupidity. I forgot to mention that we used to have 10 people in your town making widgets and now we only have 5, but the 5 who have jobs make $1.00 more. What did we get? We got 5 people making $1.00 more and 5 on welfare making zero and China with an extra $0.50 profit and an increase in their sales of widgets here in you town. Strike four.
How about college loans? We have spent billions on student loans so far. There is more money owed on student loans than on credit cards. The default rate is worse than any other segment of the economy. What did we get for out money? College teachers make more money than ever before and the cost of a degree has increased. We have twice as many kids in college than we did just 25 years ago, but it is interesting that we graduate less than 45% of the doctors that we need. We graduate about the same number of engineers that we did 30 years ago. I just heard that 17% of graduate students are foreign born. If you look at the technical fields, the percentage can go as high as 90% foreign born. This means that our kids are taking the "fluff" majors and when they graduate they can not find a job or pay back their loan. Foreign born college graduates used to remain here to work and pay taxes, but now can make more by going back home. If they stay, they send money back home every week rather than spending it here. This is a big industry in much of the world and 99% of voters are not even aware of it. Strike five.
The Obama government is laced with agencies who put out regulations that make it more and more difficult to do business. Not only does a company have to comply with the many regulations, they have to hire people just to help them keep up with the never ending flood of regulations. 90% of these regulations are like sand or friction into the gears of our economy. We need oil, not more friction that wastes our time, energy and wealth. Just look at the food regulations. For many thousands of years we did not have any of these regulations and us humans survived. I was in my store and was looking at the food on the shelves and reading the labels. I noticed that over 90% had a "K" or a "U" inside a circle which indicated the it had been checked off by a Rabi some place. Why is that not good enough and it does not cost tax payers a dime? Strike six.
If some one is working this hard to lower the median family income, shouldn't we be concerned? Shouldn't we wonder "why" our President would works so hard to lower the median family income? Don't get fooled by simple growth in the economy. Check how well the median family income is doing. Do you understand how the median family income can go "down" while the economy is actually growing? If you remember your 4th grade math, I am sure you can figure that out. Just look a car made in 1964 compared to one made in 2014, 50 years later. Was the average person able to work on that 1964 car? Yes!! How about the one made in 2014? No!! Why? The world is moving faster than most of you and the result is that you are falling behind even if you are running faster. It is as simple as that. To maintain median family income, we now have to run and if we don't we will fall behind. Further, as long as we have Obama sitting on our backs it will be even more difficult. I only got to "Strike Six" and I could have gone a lot farther, but you can see how Obama is a weight on our median family backs. There is no trick shot that is going to get us out of the hole that Obama has dug us in to.
Any mature debate about the above needs to set some time limits or you could come to some strange conclusions. Example, the USA could increase the median family income by borrowing more money from China and not require anyone to pay taxes. This might work for a year or two, but how about 10 or 20 years down the road? See the problem? Look at what Obama is doing, he does not care about the future of the USA, only his next two years.
Obamacare first. This will increase our spending on medical services from the starting point of 17% to well over 20% of our GNP. That will be far more than any country in the world including over 30 who have a longer life expectance than the USA. A fact about insurance is that it "increases" cost, not "reduces" it. Look at any example that you want involving insurance and the story is the same. The FHA insures home loans and the result is that bankers are willing to make riskier and riskier home loans for bigger and bigger homes. Government spending on Obamacare does "not" increase the median family income. It lowers it. It is cheaper to buy things from China rather than trying to make them here with the extra cost of Obamacare. Just based on the "Name of the game", Obamacare is a bad idea. Strike one.
Immigration from Mexico is another one. The skill level of these people is far below that current median of the USA. That means they will earn "less" than the current median family income. If we add more people below the average, it pulls down the average. Isn't that clear as a bell? You can figure that we will be adding most of these Mexicans to Obamacare where they will get a free ride on the USA taxpayers. Strike two.
Global warming and all the mandates from that next. This is the driver behind the war on coal and the pipe line from Canada. !00% of the oil from Canada will go some place on Earth if it is not here and it will be burned and the smoke into the atmosphere. If we go without the Canadian oil, will it actually change the affect on Global Warming? No!!! Obama has squandered billions on renewable energy in one form or another and 100% of that money has been wasted. So far it has cost more to produce the energy than it was worth. By squandering the wealth of the USA, it reduces the median family income. Strike three. (This is not baseball.)
How about the minimum wage? If you go to the store to buy a widget and find one made in China for $5.00 and one made in the USA for $6.00. which one are you going to buy? Clear, isn't it? Now if we increase out minimum wage and you go back to the same store you will fine that ours has a cost of $7.00 and the one from China has increased their price to $5.50, which one are you going to buy? What just happened is that China picked up an extra $0.50 of profit on the widget due to your stupidity. I forgot to mention that we used to have 10 people in your town making widgets and now we only have 5, but the 5 who have jobs make $1.00 more. What did we get? We got 5 people making $1.00 more and 5 on welfare making zero and China with an extra $0.50 profit and an increase in their sales of widgets here in you town. Strike four.
How about college loans? We have spent billions on student loans so far. There is more money owed on student loans than on credit cards. The default rate is worse than any other segment of the economy. What did we get for out money? College teachers make more money than ever before and the cost of a degree has increased. We have twice as many kids in college than we did just 25 years ago, but it is interesting that we graduate less than 45% of the doctors that we need. We graduate about the same number of engineers that we did 30 years ago. I just heard that 17% of graduate students are foreign born. If you look at the technical fields, the percentage can go as high as 90% foreign born. This means that our kids are taking the "fluff" majors and when they graduate they can not find a job or pay back their loan. Foreign born college graduates used to remain here to work and pay taxes, but now can make more by going back home. If they stay, they send money back home every week rather than spending it here. This is a big industry in much of the world and 99% of voters are not even aware of it. Strike five.
The Obama government is laced with agencies who put out regulations that make it more and more difficult to do business. Not only does a company have to comply with the many regulations, they have to hire people just to help them keep up with the never ending flood of regulations. 90% of these regulations are like sand or friction into the gears of our economy. We need oil, not more friction that wastes our time, energy and wealth. Just look at the food regulations. For many thousands of years we did not have any of these regulations and us humans survived. I was in my store and was looking at the food on the shelves and reading the labels. I noticed that over 90% had a "K" or a "U" inside a circle which indicated the it had been checked off by a Rabi some place. Why is that not good enough and it does not cost tax payers a dime? Strike six.
If some one is working this hard to lower the median family income, shouldn't we be concerned? Shouldn't we wonder "why" our President would works so hard to lower the median family income? Don't get fooled by simple growth in the economy. Check how well the median family income is doing. Do you understand how the median family income can go "down" while the economy is actually growing? If you remember your 4th grade math, I am sure you can figure that out. Just look a car made in 1964 compared to one made in 2014, 50 years later. Was the average person able to work on that 1964 car? Yes!! How about the one made in 2014? No!! Why? The world is moving faster than most of you and the result is that you are falling behind even if you are running faster. It is as simple as that. To maintain median family income, we now have to run and if we don't we will fall behind. Further, as long as we have Obama sitting on our backs it will be even more difficult. I only got to "Strike Six" and I could have gone a lot farther, but you can see how Obama is a weight on our median family backs. There is no trick shot that is going to get us out of the hole that Obama has dug us in to.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Amnesty And Global Warming
According to our President and resident Judas, the number one problem facing the USA is global warming. If you believe that, you have a real mental problem. Now, how does amnesty relate to global warming? Read on and you will see.
Look at these facts. The higher the standard of living the more energy you consume and 90% of that energy has a global warming or pollution component. Look around the world and you will see that this is true. Poor people do not have cars or big homes with air conditioning. They don't fly on airplanes either. Poor people do not eat as much meat as richer people. The production of meat requires more energy than things like grains and potatoes. As more and more people around the world attain a higher standard of living, they will require more and more energy and that will contribute to global warming and pollution. If we help poor people around the world get richer, either by allowing them to immigrate too the USA with amnesty or economic help, they will make global warming and pollution worse. Isn't that clear? This is the first point and you can see how it relates to amnesty.
The other fact is population growth. The more people we have in the world or here in the USA, the more we will have global warming and pollution. Notice that there were more Native Americans here in North America than in Europe when Columbus discovered America, yet there was no pollution here. This was because the small number of Native Americans compared to the size of America and their low standard of living and consumption of energy. They burned wood for most of their energy and that was renewable. Poor countries if left alone will eventually get their populations down and into balance with the capacity of their countries. This happened on Easter Island and it would have happened in Africa if we had just left them alone and not let them into the USA. Letting millions of Mexicans into the USA thru amnesty is only going to make the situation worse. It will allow more Mexicans to breed more children back in Mexico and move Mexicans with a lower standard of living here where they will have a higher standard of living and will use more energy than before. Are you getting this?
I think that you can see that amnesty and global warming are "not" independent concepts. I know that most voters here in the USA now have zero understanding of the relationship between energy consumption and quality of life and that is the problem. We have too many short sighted "do gooders". It is one thing to be a do gooder with your own money and another to vote to take my money for your entertatinment. Do gooders need to look ahead at how their actions will affect their children and grandchildren and yours.
PS---Why do so many poor Mexicans want to get into the USA? There are too many poor people in Mexico. Too simple. Why are there so many poor people in Mexico? Now we are onto the real problem. Before the Catholic church got into Mexico, they did not have too many people. It is the objective of the Catholic church for their members to "breed" more members so the church would have more power. Why don't we ask the Catholic church how they are now going to fix the problem in Mexico that they created in the first place? Notice how the Moslems are doing the same thing in other places. You have been warned!!!
Look at these facts. The higher the standard of living the more energy you consume and 90% of that energy has a global warming or pollution component. Look around the world and you will see that this is true. Poor people do not have cars or big homes with air conditioning. They don't fly on airplanes either. Poor people do not eat as much meat as richer people. The production of meat requires more energy than things like grains and potatoes. As more and more people around the world attain a higher standard of living, they will require more and more energy and that will contribute to global warming and pollution. If we help poor people around the world get richer, either by allowing them to immigrate too the USA with amnesty or economic help, they will make global warming and pollution worse. Isn't that clear? This is the first point and you can see how it relates to amnesty.
The other fact is population growth. The more people we have in the world or here in the USA, the more we will have global warming and pollution. Notice that there were more Native Americans here in North America than in Europe when Columbus discovered America, yet there was no pollution here. This was because the small number of Native Americans compared to the size of America and their low standard of living and consumption of energy. They burned wood for most of their energy and that was renewable. Poor countries if left alone will eventually get their populations down and into balance with the capacity of their countries. This happened on Easter Island and it would have happened in Africa if we had just left them alone and not let them into the USA. Letting millions of Mexicans into the USA thru amnesty is only going to make the situation worse. It will allow more Mexicans to breed more children back in Mexico and move Mexicans with a lower standard of living here where they will have a higher standard of living and will use more energy than before. Are you getting this?
I think that you can see that amnesty and global warming are "not" independent concepts. I know that most voters here in the USA now have zero understanding of the relationship between energy consumption and quality of life and that is the problem. We have too many short sighted "do gooders". It is one thing to be a do gooder with your own money and another to vote to take my money for your entertatinment. Do gooders need to look ahead at how their actions will affect their children and grandchildren and yours.
PS---Why do so many poor Mexicans want to get into the USA? There are too many poor people in Mexico. Too simple. Why are there so many poor people in Mexico? Now we are onto the real problem. Before the Catholic church got into Mexico, they did not have too many people. It is the objective of the Catholic church for their members to "breed" more members so the church would have more power. Why don't we ask the Catholic church how they are now going to fix the problem in Mexico that they created in the first place? Notice how the Moslems are doing the same thing in other places. You have been warned!!!
Friday, November 7, 2014
Amnisty And 4th Grade Math
With the Judas, Obama, in the White House the future of the USA as we have known it is at stake. His plan to grant amnesty to illegals will have a major impact on the country that law abiding citizens have built. Obama's father and stepfather did not contribute to building this country and now he wants to tear down what we have built. To understand the impact, let's use some 4th grade math.
I don't have good numbers for the impact on median income of Obama's plan so I will focus on averages. The average family income in the USA is higher than the median because there are a lot of people who do not produce enough value at the bottom. To increase the average and median income, we need more families who are above so they can pull the other numbers up. That is really simple math. We all know that illegal immigrants are the lowest skilled and least qualified to create value. If we add a lot of people who are below the current average, it will pull down the average. The best measure of quality of life is family income. Look around the world and see which countries have the highest and lowest family incomes and you will see clearly which have the higher and which have the lower quality of life. There is no way that a small country like the USA can save the world by letting all the poor people around the world to move here. You all have to realize that you only own a piece of the USA for a short time, the length of your life. After you are dead, someone else will own their piece of the USA. If you screw the place up by letting a bunch of illegal's children steal a portion of the USA, you will also be screwing the future of your children. You can spend your earnings to help anyone that you want, but you can not give anyone part of the USA because you do not own it. You only own the value that you have produced.
I have seen ducks and geese that are more concerned about their chicks than many people are about the future of their own children.
I don't have good numbers for the impact on median income of Obama's plan so I will focus on averages. The average family income in the USA is higher than the median because there are a lot of people who do not produce enough value at the bottom. To increase the average and median income, we need more families who are above so they can pull the other numbers up. That is really simple math. We all know that illegal immigrants are the lowest skilled and least qualified to create value. If we add a lot of people who are below the current average, it will pull down the average. The best measure of quality of life is family income. Look around the world and see which countries have the highest and lowest family incomes and you will see clearly which have the higher and which have the lower quality of life. There is no way that a small country like the USA can save the world by letting all the poor people around the world to move here. You all have to realize that you only own a piece of the USA for a short time, the length of your life. After you are dead, someone else will own their piece of the USA. If you screw the place up by letting a bunch of illegal's children steal a portion of the USA, you will also be screwing the future of your children. You can spend your earnings to help anyone that you want, but you can not give anyone part of the USA because you do not own it. You only own the value that you have produced.
I have seen ducks and geese that are more concerned about their chicks than many people are about the future of their own children.
If I Were A Judas
If I were a Judas who wanted to destroy the USA from the inside, what things would I do? That is the subject of this blog.
Any good Judas needs a plan and here is my plan. To be the most affective Judas, the best position for me would be President of the USA. From that position I would be able to have the greatest negative affect on the USA. To get elected President, I would need to have several things working in my favor. Being Black would help as well as having the backing of the major news media and the trade unions. The school teachers union would be one of the best to have on my side. Since getting elected would be the most important factor, I would need a minimal personal history that could not be used against me. I would do anything to prevent competitors from digging up dirt on me. I would block all may school records. I would not vote on any legislation in my home state except those that would have easily passed anyway. I would just vote "present" on issues that were contested. To prevent making any speaking mistakes, I would use a "teleprompter" and just "read" the speeches. Once I was elected President, I would surround myself with Blacks who were more loyal to other Blacks than to the USA.
Next, I would start to put my plan into affect. Here is how I would destroy the USA from the inside. First, I would try to divide the citizens and destroy any sense of unity. Once I had them divided, I would try to pit each group against the other. I would help some groups and not others and thus make them hate me as well as each other. I really don't care if a group hates me as long as I destroy the unity of the USA. I would expand food stamps to promote Blacks and Latinos and further separate them from other groups.
Next, I would squander as much of the wealth of the USA as I could. I would spend money on worthless things like renewable energy and student loans for worthless majors. As I said above, I would expand food stamps and other forms of welfare so that people would not need to work or get an education to live well. Rather than increase taxes to pay for these programs, I would borrow as much money as I could. This way people would see these new programs as free without any pain.
Next, I would try to weaken the basic economy. Since energy is the basic driver of any advanced economy, I would do every thing that I could to increase the cost of energy. I would promote a war on coal as a first step and not allow any more drilling for oil or gas on public lands. If that were not enough, I would implement regulations by departments who report to me that would make energy and all forms of production more expensive. I would do things like "mandating" clean air, water, renewable energy, or mileage standards. The beauty of this approach is that I would not have to increase taxes to pay for anything. The cost would be hidden, but the negative affect on the economy would be the same.
Since one of the biggest costs in our economy is medical, I would do every thing that I could to increase both the cost and the percentage of the GNP spent on medical. It was 17% before Obamacare and that will now go higher. Rather than work on efficiency of medical, I would put as much sand into the gears as I could. This will be a hidden cost that few will pick up on. This will also act like a Red Herring and keep the focus off other things that I will be doing.
Now to foreign policy. I want to lower our standing around the world. Since I was raised as a Moslem, I know a lot about how they think. The USA has always had a large group of people who were against any kind of war so I would build on that attitude by pulling 100% of the troops out. I would next trade 5 of the worst prisoners at Guantanimo for a 1 deserter. I would try to over throw any dictator in a Moslem country so that the Moslem mulas could take over and run those countries. I would pretend that I wanted these countries to become democracies knowing that this would actually be impossible. I would reduce the size of the military and piss off every officer and soldier in the process.
When a person with a brain connects the dots on all the things that I have done, it will be clear to anyone that I am a Judas.
The question for all of you is how I plan to slip out the side door just before all the "sheep" go on to be slautered.
PS---Here is an update on student loans. The federal government now has $1.6 trillion dollars worth of student loans outstanding. This is more than all credit card charges combined. It amounts to $4,700 for every man, women and child in the USA or about $18,800 per every family. As a Judas, I would want even more student loans with even lower interest rates. I would even extend them to community colleges and foreign students.
Any good Judas needs a plan and here is my plan. To be the most affective Judas, the best position for me would be President of the USA. From that position I would be able to have the greatest negative affect on the USA. To get elected President, I would need to have several things working in my favor. Being Black would help as well as having the backing of the major news media and the trade unions. The school teachers union would be one of the best to have on my side. Since getting elected would be the most important factor, I would need a minimal personal history that could not be used against me. I would do anything to prevent competitors from digging up dirt on me. I would block all may school records. I would not vote on any legislation in my home state except those that would have easily passed anyway. I would just vote "present" on issues that were contested. To prevent making any speaking mistakes, I would use a "teleprompter" and just "read" the speeches. Once I was elected President, I would surround myself with Blacks who were more loyal to other Blacks than to the USA.
Next, I would start to put my plan into affect. Here is how I would destroy the USA from the inside. First, I would try to divide the citizens and destroy any sense of unity. Once I had them divided, I would try to pit each group against the other. I would help some groups and not others and thus make them hate me as well as each other. I really don't care if a group hates me as long as I destroy the unity of the USA. I would expand food stamps to promote Blacks and Latinos and further separate them from other groups.
Next, I would squander as much of the wealth of the USA as I could. I would spend money on worthless things like renewable energy and student loans for worthless majors. As I said above, I would expand food stamps and other forms of welfare so that people would not need to work or get an education to live well. Rather than increase taxes to pay for these programs, I would borrow as much money as I could. This way people would see these new programs as free without any pain.
Next, I would try to weaken the basic economy. Since energy is the basic driver of any advanced economy, I would do every thing that I could to increase the cost of energy. I would promote a war on coal as a first step and not allow any more drilling for oil or gas on public lands. If that were not enough, I would implement regulations by departments who report to me that would make energy and all forms of production more expensive. I would do things like "mandating" clean air, water, renewable energy, or mileage standards. The beauty of this approach is that I would not have to increase taxes to pay for anything. The cost would be hidden, but the negative affect on the economy would be the same.
Since one of the biggest costs in our economy is medical, I would do every thing that I could to increase both the cost and the percentage of the GNP spent on medical. It was 17% before Obamacare and that will now go higher. Rather than work on efficiency of medical, I would put as much sand into the gears as I could. This will be a hidden cost that few will pick up on. This will also act like a Red Herring and keep the focus off other things that I will be doing.
Now to foreign policy. I want to lower our standing around the world. Since I was raised as a Moslem, I know a lot about how they think. The USA has always had a large group of people who were against any kind of war so I would build on that attitude by pulling 100% of the troops out. I would next trade 5 of the worst prisoners at Guantanimo for a 1 deserter. I would try to over throw any dictator in a Moslem country so that the Moslem mulas could take over and run those countries. I would pretend that I wanted these countries to become democracies knowing that this would actually be impossible. I would reduce the size of the military and piss off every officer and soldier in the process.
When a person with a brain connects the dots on all the things that I have done, it will be clear to anyone that I am a Judas.
The question for all of you is how I plan to slip out the side door just before all the "sheep" go on to be slautered.
PS---Here is an update on student loans. The federal government now has $1.6 trillion dollars worth of student loans outstanding. This is more than all credit card charges combined. It amounts to $4,700 for every man, women and child in the USA or about $18,800 per every family. As a Judas, I would want even more student loans with even lower interest rates. I would even extend them to community colleges and foreign students.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Jim Jones, Hitler, Allende and Obama
What do all these people have in common? Not much you say? Read on and see if I have connected a few dots. I have known a lot of people over a long period of time and with all that observational data, I think that I have the right to draw some conclusions. Of all the successful business people who I have known, most of them have a very focused and bull headed nature. Like wise, I have known many people who tried, but who were not successful and most lacked the focus and hard headedness needed in business. I have also seen several people who were successful who did not know when to stop because of their bull headedness and eventually lost all they had gained. To make these observations, you have watched people over a long period of time, not just a few weeks or years. Now onto my blog.
First look at Jim Jones. He was the preacher from Northern California who took all his followers down to South America and eventually murdered all of them along with himself. You read all about it in the news. Jones was a good looking, good speaking White guy, like many preachers that you have known. Most of his followers were Black people from the Bay Area. His plan for them was to have all of them pool their welfare checks and go to a place where it would be cheap to live so that they could enjoy a higher quality of life. The story had a good ring to it, but there were problems. Jones got most of his "flock" or "sheep" down to South America, but got into financial trouble in a type of "Ponzi" scheme. When it looked to Jones like he would be exposed and possibly go to jail, rather than losing all that he had put together, he killed his followers and himself. That is the short story.
Now look at Hitler. He also had this big plan to help Germany with him on the top running things like Jim Jones. He was also a good speaker and was willing to do what ever it took to gain his vision. His plan started with the youngest Germans because he knew if he could poison their minds at an early age that he would have them for most of their lives. Sounds a little like the teacher's union here in the USA and "Head Start". For Hitler, the ends justified the means and that allowed him and his followers to do the most repugnant things to gain his vision. You know most of the rest of the story, but when Hitler saw that his plan had failed, he killed himself rather than face the fact that he was wrong. He was so bull headed in his belief that he would rather die and allow many of his followers to die rather than admitting that he had been wrong from the beginning.. Had he not had that bull headed attitude from the very beginning, he would have given up long ago like most normal people. To lead a bunch of "sheep" the leader has to think that they are "smarter" than the "sheep". Starting to sound familiar?
Now look at Allende. He was the President of Chile which has a government similar to that of the USA. I think that they are the second oldest democracy in the world, next to the USA. Allende had been in government for years and finally go hold of the reins of power. When he did, he started putting into affect all of his ideas, many with just the "telephone" and his "pen". Does that sound familiar? Allende only enforced the laws that he liked and ignored the others. He went around the congress and the courts. Allende tried to build a legacy of followers (sheep) by taking the wealth of people who did not vote for him and giving it to those who did vote for him. Once his followers got used to the handouts he knew that it would be difficult to take them back or cut them off. This was his long term plan and he worked on the principle that the ends justified the means too. It got so bad in Chile that the military decided to arrest Allende for violation of their constitution and put an end to what he was doing to the country. When they went to arrest Allende, rather than face the trial and the damage to his ego, Allende shot himself. I was not there the day he shot himself, but I had been there and listened to him address his "sheep" a few weeks before.
Notice that all three of these people were so bull headed about their vision of their world that all were willing to kill themselves rather than to have been exposed. Their egos were so big that they never compromised a single one of their ideas. I know that they must have all looked into the mirror and said to themselves that they were the smartest one in world. Why else would so may "sheep" be flocking to see and hear me speak. Why else would they cheer so loudly? It is like these three kept building a tower high and higher, but to do that the tower had to get narrower and narrower. There was no way down, only up so that is the way they kept pushing. They would take to heart expressions like, "if I can't get my way, I am willing to die trying".
Now to you. How many of you predicted that the three above would "die trying"? What was this vision in their heads that drove them? How did their bull headedness turn against them in the end? Why did they all buy into the idea that the ends justified the means? We all know that it takes a much different set of abilities to climb to the top of a mesa than it does to survive on the top of that flat mesa. You see it in business all the time, so why don't we see that in government. The ability to get elected is much different from the ability to manage the office of President. As the voters here in the USA, we have responded to those with the ability to get elected without any consideration of what it takes to manage a country of over 300 million. It is our fault that we now have Obama and is he just another Jim Jones, Hitler or Allende? Will Obama leave the mess that those three did?
I don't know how Obama will go out, but I can assure you that it will not be orderly like all of our Presidents in the past. I don't how long it is going to take to clean up the mess that he has created, but I am sure it will take several generations if it does ever get cleaned up. All of you will have the distinction of having the mess happen on your watch. How are you going to explain the mess to your children and grandchildren? Never thought about that did you?
First look at Jim Jones. He was the preacher from Northern California who took all his followers down to South America and eventually murdered all of them along with himself. You read all about it in the news. Jones was a good looking, good speaking White guy, like many preachers that you have known. Most of his followers were Black people from the Bay Area. His plan for them was to have all of them pool their welfare checks and go to a place where it would be cheap to live so that they could enjoy a higher quality of life. The story had a good ring to it, but there were problems. Jones got most of his "flock" or "sheep" down to South America, but got into financial trouble in a type of "Ponzi" scheme. When it looked to Jones like he would be exposed and possibly go to jail, rather than losing all that he had put together, he killed his followers and himself. That is the short story.
Now look at Hitler. He also had this big plan to help Germany with him on the top running things like Jim Jones. He was also a good speaker and was willing to do what ever it took to gain his vision. His plan started with the youngest Germans because he knew if he could poison their minds at an early age that he would have them for most of their lives. Sounds a little like the teacher's union here in the USA and "Head Start". For Hitler, the ends justified the means and that allowed him and his followers to do the most repugnant things to gain his vision. You know most of the rest of the story, but when Hitler saw that his plan had failed, he killed himself rather than face the fact that he was wrong. He was so bull headed in his belief that he would rather die and allow many of his followers to die rather than admitting that he had been wrong from the beginning.. Had he not had that bull headed attitude from the very beginning, he would have given up long ago like most normal people. To lead a bunch of "sheep" the leader has to think that they are "smarter" than the "sheep". Starting to sound familiar?
Now look at Allende. He was the President of Chile which has a government similar to that of the USA. I think that they are the second oldest democracy in the world, next to the USA. Allende had been in government for years and finally go hold of the reins of power. When he did, he started putting into affect all of his ideas, many with just the "telephone" and his "pen". Does that sound familiar? Allende only enforced the laws that he liked and ignored the others. He went around the congress and the courts. Allende tried to build a legacy of followers (sheep) by taking the wealth of people who did not vote for him and giving it to those who did vote for him. Once his followers got used to the handouts he knew that it would be difficult to take them back or cut them off. This was his long term plan and he worked on the principle that the ends justified the means too. It got so bad in Chile that the military decided to arrest Allende for violation of their constitution and put an end to what he was doing to the country. When they went to arrest Allende, rather than face the trial and the damage to his ego, Allende shot himself. I was not there the day he shot himself, but I had been there and listened to him address his "sheep" a few weeks before.
Notice that all three of these people were so bull headed about their vision of their world that all were willing to kill themselves rather than to have been exposed. Their egos were so big that they never compromised a single one of their ideas. I know that they must have all looked into the mirror and said to themselves that they were the smartest one in world. Why else would so may "sheep" be flocking to see and hear me speak. Why else would they cheer so loudly? It is like these three kept building a tower high and higher, but to do that the tower had to get narrower and narrower. There was no way down, only up so that is the way they kept pushing. They would take to heart expressions like, "if I can't get my way, I am willing to die trying".
Now to you. How many of you predicted that the three above would "die trying"? What was this vision in their heads that drove them? How did their bull headedness turn against them in the end? Why did they all buy into the idea that the ends justified the means? We all know that it takes a much different set of abilities to climb to the top of a mesa than it does to survive on the top of that flat mesa. You see it in business all the time, so why don't we see that in government. The ability to get elected is much different from the ability to manage the office of President. As the voters here in the USA, we have responded to those with the ability to get elected without any consideration of what it takes to manage a country of over 300 million. It is our fault that we now have Obama and is he just another Jim Jones, Hitler or Allende? Will Obama leave the mess that those three did?
I don't know how Obama will go out, but I can assure you that it will not be orderly like all of our Presidents in the past. I don't how long it is going to take to clean up the mess that he has created, but I am sure it will take several generations if it does ever get cleaned up. All of you will have the distinction of having the mess happen on your watch. How are you going to explain the mess to your children and grandchildren? Never thought about that did you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)