How To Choose A President

With all the adds on TV by each Presidential candidate, it has to be confusing to most.  How do you know which one to pick?  Before you make your decision, you first need a "plan".  That is what this blog is about.

I look at the problem in "three" sections.
(1)  Does the candidate understand the problem?
(2)  Does the candidate have a solution?
(3)  Can the candidate execute the solution?

Look at Obama as an example.  If he thinks global warming is the most serious and pressing problem that we face, he has failed on point (1).  If he can't get past point (1), there is no need to go on any farther.  Try another one.  Obama, at least, feels that ISIS is a serious problem and thus he passes on point (1).  The fact that he does not have a solution means that he fails on point (2) and again, there is no need to consider Obama any farther.  Starting too see how this works?  A good candidate has to get a "yes" vote on all three points.

Now, let's look at some candidates.  First Rubio.  Have you seen his adds or listened to his speeches?  If you have, you will have noticed that he always gets point (1) right but never gets any farther. Since most of us know what the problem is, all Rubio does is to lecture us on what we already know.  If Rubio knows what the solution is, you have to ask why he is not telling us?  If you assume that he knows the solution (2), then what are the chances that he could be able to execute the solution (3)?  Here, you have to look at his track record of executing complex plans and he does not have a positive track record.  Rubio has never been in a positon to make hard decision.  Most of his experience has been spending someone else's money and we know that when it came to spending his own, he has not done too well.

You could keep this up all the way down the list of candidates and at the end, it would be clear which were good candidates and which one would be best.  Take Trump next.  For my money, he has clearly shown that ISIS, immigration and the economy are the most serious problems, not global warming.  Trump gets and "A" on (1).  Does he have a plan?  Yes!  Some may not like his plan for illegal immigrants, but it is a plan and the other candidates do not have a plan that is really a plan.  Trump gets at least a grade of "B" on (2).  Finally, what has been Trump's batting average on executing complex decisions and plans?  In a very competitive world on both a national and international basis he has executed his plans successfully. I would say that he has a very good batting average and thus an "A" on point (3).

For those candidates who claim as their experience winning an election for a public office, how does that rate compared to someone who has been spending their own money?  Look at it this way.  Here is a state government system or structure that has been operating for about 100 years.  99% of the players are in place and experienced when the newly elected person shows up.  The fact that at least 25 or 30 people have held this same job before would tend to tell one that it is not a very difficult job.  It would be like taking over the controls of a train going from San Francisco to New York for a few miles.  Dose that take the sharpest knife in the drawer?  I don't think so.  How about a giant super tanker?  Even the captain does not take the boat in and out of port.  He gets an experienced "pilot".  The captain only handles the ship on the high seas and often he is in bed sound asleep as happened in Alaska a few years back with the big oil spill.  My objective here is to put into perspective real world experience with elective government experience and I think you can see the difference.

Your job is to compare the candidates on the three points above and vote for the best one!!

PS--Have you noticed that in most of Obama's speeches, all he does is lecture us on facts that we all already know.  He never defines the real problem, the solution or how he is going to execute a successful plan.  Obama is like the guy at the end of the bar who keeps telling people about problems in the world, but never has a solution for any of them.

PS--Here is another thing that any President or good executive needs.  The ability to anticipate problems well enough into the future so that action can be taken to prevent them.  It is a lot easier to prevent kids from playing with matches than it is to put out a home fire!!!  Obama fails on this one too.  More education does not solve this one.  You either have it or you don't!  I think Trump has it.

School Tax And Immigration Policy

I just paid my property tax, how about you?  The biggest item on the bill was the school tax.  It was about 50% of the bill.  Nationally, the school tax ranges between 40% and 55% of the property tax bill.  The reason that it is so high is that the average cost per year per student is $15,000.  This will be my starting point for this blog.

This blog will not focus on the unionization of our school teachers or the fact that most can not be fired for any logical reason.  That is the meat for another blog.  First, I want to look  at the breeding habits and earning habits of different groups within our population. 

The first group is the illegals that are here and who are breeding and sending their kids to our public schools. As a group, their  earnings are well below the median and their number of kids is well above the median.  Try these numbers.  They have twice as many kids at 4 and earn half as much at $25,000.  They consume $60,000 in your school tax while they pay less than $1,000.  We have over 25 million of these illegals here in the USA doing the above.  If they were all sent back to where they came from, it is clear that we would all be better off.  Think about all the billions in school tax money that we would save.  Most of you don't realize how these illegals are screwing you.  If you did, you would be wanting your government to fix the problem!

The next group is the Muslims who we let in because of our "good heart".  The breeding habits of the Muslims is actually higher than the illegal Latin Americans.  For my analysis, I am going to use 6 kids as the average per family.  If you don't agree with my numbers, check the  figures for Minneapolis. Many of these Muslim immigrants have been on welfare from day one and will stay there for most of their lives.  This means that their average family income based on work is actually lower than that of illegals.  I am going to use $20,000 here.  At $15,000 per kid for school, that means the average Muslim family with 6 kids is going to be consuming $90,000 of your school tax money.  Do you really think that they are ever going to pay their own way?  How much richer do you think a city like Minneapolis would be if their citizens did not have to pick up the tab for Muslims?  I remind those of you who don't see a problem with letting in more Muslims that your actions end up by stealing from you neighbors.  I don't think you can be honest and be in favor of more Muslim immigrants for any reason.

The nest group are Blacks.  They rank right in the middle of the above groups, but have most of their kids out of wedlock where many of their kids end up as criminals and school drop outs.  This group not only eat up much more of your school tax money than they pay in, but also welfare cost and law enforcement cost.  The problem is similar to the above, but the solution is not.  I don't know how, but the Black community is going to have to clean up their act and be socially responsible.  It is clear to me that they are not victims, but are leaching on the socially responsible tax payers. The first step in the solution is to admit to the problem and the Black community has not yet admitted they "they" are the problem and have to look within themselves for the solution.  It will not be easy nor fast, but it has to change.

When we compare our quality of life with other countries, we also need to think about how our population is different from them.  I am talking about places like Canada, New Zealand, Finland and Australia.  They don't have a significant portion of their population similar to the above three groups.  The bottom line is, "can you admit that we have a problem in where and how our school tax money is spent"?

PS--Why do we have a tax law that allows a tax discount for each kid?  As it turns out, the people who pay the least taxes also have the most kids.  We don't need more kids or immigrants.  The world is over populated now and the quality of life in the USA goes down with every new birth.  We need to stop paying people to have kids.  If they can't afford kids, they should be responsible enough to not have them in the first place.

Immigrants Built America Myth

Do you really think that immigrants built America?  If you do, I think you must be smoking something.  This blog is going to try to set the record straight.

When the first Europeans came to Jamestown in 1608, 90% of the Native Americans had already died from small pox.  It had been introduced by sailing ships that were trading with the Native Americans for the prior 100 years.  Remember that Columbus discovered this place in 1492.  My family did not come to Jamestown for another 116 years!  It was not until 1790 that the United States was formed and it only included the 13 most Eastern states.  There were near zero Europeans in the other 37 states.

Immigrants did come to the USA, but it was to exploit the natural resources that were here, like fish, fur, timber, coal, farm land and oil.  The other point, what was the type of skill set needed?  To farm, you had to be able to walk behind a mule.  To mine coal, you needed a strong back.  For none of these jobs did they need to be able to read or write and most could not.  I have driven over much of the USA and I did not see any signs for "free land" or "farmers wanted".  I guess that it is because we do not need anymore farmers, miners or loggers.

If immigrants built and made us so rich, why didn't immigrants go to the Sahara Desert and make that place rich?  How about Hatti?  The place has plenty of people and it is not rich?  Look at India, it also has plenty of people and it is clear that they are not rich.  You have to start thinking that it was not the fact that immigrants came to the USA that made us rich, the wealth was already here in the form of our natural resources.  Would more immigrants to Hatti and India make those two countries more wealthy?  I think that you can clearly see that it would not and in fact, it would make both much poorer.  If immigrants would make those two places poorer, why would you think that immigrants coming here would make the USA richer?  I could have thrown in Mexico and the answer would be the same.

Now, look at the other side of the coin.  Would Mexico be richer if a bunch of their low skilled people immigrated "out" of Mexico and into the USA?  I think that you know the answer to that one.  The same would be true of Hatti and India where many of their immigrants who come here send money back home.  Do you think that makes the USA richer?

In a prior blog, I talked about the "objective".  Exactly what is the objective for us citizens of the USA?  I propose that a good one might be "median quality of life".  Remember that there are a lot of people in Mexico, Hatti and India who have a very good quality of life, but for the "median" families, it is very low.  I had a maid and a gardener when I lived in Argentina, but back here in the USA, I can not afford either.  That is why I picked "median".  If you figure income equals quality of life, then the objective could be "median family income".  As it turns out (4th grade math), when you add in a bunch of  immigrants who earn less than the current median income, it lowers the median income for the USA.  Got that?  This points up another way that a country can improve the "median quality of  life".  What do you think that is?  Get rid of those people who do not have the skills or ability to earn more!  Sounds cruel doesn't it?  Well, this is exactly what countries like Switzerland and Japan have done.  They don't have a lot of criminal dead beats at the bottom pulling down the median quality of life like the USA does.

What do you think would happen if the USA had fewer people committing crimes?  I am talking about all the drug dealing and murders that we see in some of our larger cities.  This is not about getting rid of guns.  I know people who have several hundred guns, yet I do not know one person who has ever shot someone.  What if we eliminated the people who claim disability, but  who are clearly able to work from milking us tax payers?  It would raise the median family income and quality of life.

Every time you listen to a politician or a new government program or policy, ask yourself if it raises or lowers the median income.  If it lowers the median income, you have to speak out against it.  If it doesn't change or changes only slightly the median income, you also have to be against it.  Our government has more important things to do than busy work that does not lead any place.  Realize also that our government always errors on the side of being too optimistic.  Their programs always cost more and provide less.  You have to take that into account.  Look a Obamacare for a recent example.  It would have been better to have done "nothing".

This is getting a little long, but it is all related to what our immigration policy should be.  We need to think more about our own children and less about people around the world who had kids they could not afford to take care of.  We could all do with a little more tough love!

Rubio Vs Clinton

Did you hear that it appears that Rubio would beat Clinton in a head to head contest?  I have been watching this too and have some different ideas.  Rather than focus on Rubio for the answer, I look at the liberal voters for the answer.  What is it about the liberal voters who would vote for Clinton that is significant?  That is this blog.

I look at all the candidates on the Republican ticket and feel that Rubio is totally unqualified to be President of the USA.  Rather than listen to what Rubio has to say, I would prefer to look at his record of prior conduct and actions.  Remember that actions count more than "words".  Based on Rubio's prior actions, I feel that he is one of the least qualified to be President.  Since he has never held a job where he had a competent boss or worked for competent people, there is no way to know that he is competent himself.  Rubio is a light weight among light weights, but he is cute and has a strong voice.

Look at Obama, he was totally incompetent to be President, but liberal voters don't look at competence.  They look for cute, a good smile and a strong voice and Rubio has that.  Do you really think that some one like Trump would impress a liberal voter with his competence and history of dealing with complex situations?  No way!  That is why some light  weight like Rubio would attract liberal voters from Clinton and Trump would not.

If you have noticed, rather than looking at the end of the flow of votes, I look at where they came from.  In this case, most people look at Rubio's attraction and I look at the mental attitude of liberals for the cause of the flow.  Liberal voters are mental light weights and respond appropriately as you can now see.  The number one problem facing our nation is not Global Warming, it is the light weight liberal brains of too many of our citizens and voters.  I think that the "Teacher's Union" is the biggest threat facing our nation, not Global Warming!  Our young voters are one of the most dangerous groups in our country because they have not recovered from the brain washing done by the teacher's union.  Think about it?  Who was the first to endorse Clinton?  Don't know?  It was the "Teacher's Union".  100% of the money from the teacher's union started out as tax money from you and me, so our tax money is financing Clinton.

PS--Did you every think about exactly who the people are who would vote for someone like Clinton?  Well here is who I think they predominately are. 90% of the Blacks, 80% of the Mexicans, 80% of the Jews, 75% of our school teachers, 70% of union members, 75% of high school drop outs and 85% of people on welfare.  Now, do you realize why America is going down the toilet.  Our problems is that the USA is being taken over by free loaders who don't understand that the government does not have any money.  The government gets their money from you and me in the form of taxes and if that is not enough, they borrow from China and send the bill to our children.  Isn't Democracy great???

PS---For the record, it was White males who built the USA and now they are being screwed by those who they helped.  Interesting isn't it how Democracy works in the end?

Terrorism And The Poison Pill

This blog is not a repeat, it is a reminder.  If you did not read my prior blog about the "Poison Pill", you should go back and read it.  Here is a summary.  The human race has had, over time, many different religions that competed for the minds of us humans.  When serious organized religions got started without the aid of a "written language" that produced books that could be passed around, there was little competition between religions.  As the different religions got bigger and bigger the competition for new believers got more intense.  The religions responded by adopting the "poison pill" which taught that their religion was the only true religion and all others were false.  With this new idea, once a mind had been converted, it was unlikely to lose it to any other religion.  Great,  except what happens in the end?

Rather than finding new minds to convert, the focus of religions shifted to keeping the minds that they had converted.  The end was a "war" between all the human religions.  Since the Muslim religion came along "after" the Christian religion, they were first to adapt the "poison pill".  It is  the dogma of the Muslim religion to allow Muslims to kill non believers which includes Christians.  Isn't that what this "poison pill" business has degenerated into?

Like many concepts when taken "too the limit" have very unwanted outcomes.  I could site all kinds of things that look good to simple minded liberals that turn out "in the limit". to be very bad.

PS--The thing about the "poison pill" concept as all religions accept it, is that only one religion can have it right about the "here after" and all others are wrong.  Since they all can not be right a much more probable situation is that "all" are wrong.  The human race needs to get beyond religion and all it destructive aspects.  Religion is like weeds in your garden.  As the weeds start taking over the garden , at some point you have to get out the "Roundup" and kill them off or you will starve. When is the human race had enough of religion?  It will not be soon enough or we are all going to be dead.
Remember Eastern Island and listen before it is too late.

Democrats Are Selling Out America

It is going on right under your nose.  The Democrats are selling out America and this blog will tell you how they are doing it.  In the end, Democrats are not concerned about America, they are only concerned about themselves.  They don't care how America ends up as long as they are running the show.  Remember that, "the ends justifies the means"?  When ever one buys into that concept, it will not be long before the party is over.

Here is how they are doing it.  Immigration.  How can more immigrants be the problem or the means?  Most think that it was immigrants who built America and if it was good back then, it is still a good idea today.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.   Back  n 1790, we did need immigrants to exploit the natural resources of this new America and to man an army big enough to protect the new nation.  After those two things were satisfied, there was no longer any need for more immigrants, but they still came.  On average, those extra immigrants have made us poorer and lowered the median quality of life here.  Those are the facts.

Look at the more recent immigrants.  Most have come from places and from cultures that have either been slow to assimilate or have not assimilated at all.  This has left a once united country broke into factions.  You have to agree with this point. The more serious problem with these new immigrants compared to those of the past is that these new immigrants tend to end up in our larger cities and urban areas.  They have no connection to the land as did those of the past.  Further, they mostly have come from countries that have had failed non-democratic governments.  Most of those governments were dictators or authoritarian and did not provide well for any but those on the top.  When people with that kind of background come here, to a working democracy. they still think in terms of some kind of central control.  Most immigrants have come from countries with a smaller population than America and thus see little problem with a strong centralized government.  This is where the problem starts.

Liberals do not believe in the founding principles of the constitution where the individual is protected from abuse by a strong central government.  The founding fathers envisioned a country where the individual was in control as much as possible and that any central government got its authority at the consent of the individual, not the other way around.  Most of our newer immigrants were just not ready for this revolutionary type of government that we have here in America.  They see the conservative Republican party as advocating "no" strong central government and in their eyes, this means no control or chaos.  For that reason, they naturally favor a strong central government with the "hope" that it will provide them with a good quality of life.  Since, in the beginning, they have not yet given up any of their freedom, they do not see a strong central government as a threat.

The net results is that new immigrants will vote for the liberal Democratic agenda. They see no real problem taxing the rich and giving the money to them since back where  they came from most of the rich became rich by their connections to a central government rather than merit and hard work. With this kind of mind set, new immigrants are sitting ducks for the liberal's pitch. 

Look back at the last 75 or 100 years and see where the new immigrants have come from and you will see that I am right.  The Democrats have a long range plan so it does not matter if the immigrants got here legally or not since their children will be citizens with the right to vote and keep them in power.  It will be like religion where most kids will follow the religion of their parents, only in this case it will be the voting patterns of their parents!!!!


PS---Here is another angle.  Most immigrants fall into either of two groups.  Poor people who will feed at the public trough of American tax payers and lower the median net family income and lower the quality of life.  The better educated people who will earn a lot of money off the American economy and send remittances to family back where they came from. In the end, they will "not" help the American economy.  While all this is happening, these first immigrants will be bringing in their older parents and relatives who will qualify for aid from us tax payers.  We are sitting ducks for this scam and don't even realized that we are helping to sell out our children and grandchildren.

Carbon Foot Print

Did you hear President Obama mention "carbon foot print"?  He will not declare war on radical Muslim terrorists, but he will declare war on things like coal.  You must know that Obama is a Judas who wants to weaken and destroy the USA.  Every action that he has taken, since he was elected by the stupidest voters in the world, has been to weaken and destroy the USA.  If you can't connect the dots on that one, you are as stupid as those who voted for Obama "twice".  It is interesting that we always only look at a problem from one direction.  That is the point of this blog.

What if you owned a dam and a lake on some river and water was flowing into your lake with the possibility of over flowing your lake and washing out your dam?  Isn't that what we have going on with global warming?  Rather than water flowing into your lake, we have carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere.  Same type of thing, right?  Now, in the case of your dam, what are you going to do?  If you were Obama, he would call out the army to stop the rain in the hills around your lake and thus stop the flow of water into your lake.  That is about it isn't t?  I know that most of you have gone to school beyond the 4th grade and know that rather than stopping the rain, you could let more water out of the lake and thus prevent an over flow.  I know that most of you are smart enough to do that.  Now, back to Obama and his war on coal and carbon in general.

Think about this one, what takes carbon out of the atmosphere?  Trick question!  Tree and plants!  You are smarter than you think.  Just like letting water out of the dam, if we had more trees, they could take the carbon out of the atmosphere.  Starting to see the light?  We all know that more people on earth is the problem.  They produce or free up carbon and don't take any out.  If we required all people to clean up their own carbon mess, it would work something like this.  For every kid you created in the back seat of your car, you should be required to have planted and cared for 5 trees for the life of each of those children.  This way, you would have "no" carbon foot print.  If you can't afford to fund 5 trees for 80 or 100 years for each kid, then don't have kids.  Wouldn't that solve the global warming problem?

Here  is another point.  Have you ever been in a real coal mine in West Virginia or an open pit coal mine in Texas, Indiana, Oklahoma or Wyoming?  We have billions of tons of coal in the USA all over the place.  Did you ever think about where it all came from?  I know for a fact that the simple thought never entered your mind.  It came out of the atmosphere.  Plants like trees took in the carbon dioxide and turned it into wood that eventually ended up as coal.  Think about all the coal and oil that started out as plants that took their carbon out of the atmosphere?  You have to agree that there must have been a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long ago.  If that is the case, why don't we hear people like Obama explaining that most of that "old" deadly carbon is still stored in the ground as coal and oil?  He is a con man, that's why.  I already explained that Obama is a Judas.

The bottom line is that the Earth does not need more people.  If that is the case, why do we give a tax write off for each child?  That is stupid!  On the other hand, why do we give tax credits to put wind mills up in your yard that cost more than the electricity that they claim to save?

Here is the action that I think we should take:

(1)  Reduce the population, don't encourage it
(2)  Encourage investment in things that take carbon out of the atmosphere
(3)  Use the cheapest energy even if it is part carbon (coal, natural gas and oil)

This is real easy and in the end does not cost much.  Stronger zippers on men's pants would be a first step.

PS---Here is another case of misguided intentions. I saw on TV that some one figured out a way to grow alge and harvest it for fuel. I am sure that it will put more carbon into the air than it takes out.  If the objective is to "balance" the carbon that goes "in" and "out", why don't they propose something more logical?   Burn coal and grow a tree!  When you harvest the tree, build a house with it or make paper and bury the old news paper in a land fill.  Burning coal is a lot better than burning garbage!!!

PS---Is it better to burn "dung" or "coal"?  It is better to burn coal and put the dung back onto the farm fields where it can aid in growing more plants to take more carbon out of the air.  Over time good farming practices "add" organic material (carbon)  to the soil.  That means that "net" farmers take more carbon out of the air than they put in.  It is when more people eat the food and breath out carbon dioxide and poop that the carbon gets back  into the air.  Bottom line is that we need fewer "poopers".

PS---Did you hear Obama's recent speech on climate change where he was shooting off his mouth that, "climate change has come early for Alaska"?  He said that, "many native villages are being flooded by melting ice and rising sea levels".  If that is the case, don't you wonder why the sea level has not risen in Long Beach, California?  Even a 4th grader knows that the oceans are all connected.

Rules Of Engagement

Have you ever heard of the "Rules Of Engagement"?  They never seen to discuss the "Rules Of Engagement" on the TV news, so I guess it is not common knowledge.  It is my opinion that the "Rules Of Engagement" should be one of the first and most important things that should be discussed when it comes to dealing with terrorism or any other war or battle situation.  If that is the case, then why have we been so silent on the subject?  That is what this blog is all about.

Here is an example of the rules of engagement for two different groups.  It is often the case that the different groups in a conflict do "not" have the same rules of engagement.  Take a Christian and a Muslim.  If you are a Christian and someone draws a unflattering picture of Jesus, you just ignor them.  If you are a Muslim and some draws an unflattering picture of Mohamad, they try to kill you.  Wouldn't you conclude that these two groups have very different rules of engagement?

Look at how we are dealing with terrorism and the civil war in Syria.  Obama has laid down the rules of engagements for our military and they are conducting the  war with in those rules of engagement.  Per Obama, he wants to keep civilian casualties to the lowest level "possible".  Remember some of my prior blogs where I pointed out that liberals only accept decisions or actions that are "perfect"?  That being the case, when one of our bombers sees an oil tanker filled with oil on a road in Syria hauling oil to be sold by the terrorists, Obama wants us to drop leaflets so the driver of the truck, who may or may not be a terrorist, can stop and get out of the truck and hide in a safe place while we drop our bombs on the oil truck.  Do you think that Obama's rules of engagement are totally stupid?  Come on?  You know they are stupid.

Russia dropped more bombs on targets in Syria in one week than we have dropped under Obama's rules of  engagement in two years.  It is a fact that we have flown a lot or "sorties", but 90% of the time, all we dropped were leaflets, not bombs.

In any war there are going to be people killed who are not armed, so get used to it.  Just who is a combatant any way?  Is a farmer growing wheat to feed the soldier a combatant?  I would think so.  What we need is to agree on some  kind of simple "ratio" of bad guys killed vs noncombatants killed.  We could start with "one for one" and go up from there to 10 bad guys per one non-combatant.  Right now we have the ratio at "one bad guy to zero non-combatants" and you know how that is working out.

Our basic legal system has similar rules of engagement, only it is even worse.  Our courts will let a million terrorists go free rather than convicting "one" who is not a terrorist.  This type of rule of engagement may work for people who rob gas stations, but it is no way to deal with terrorists.  Why else would the Radical Muslim Terrorist who shot up Fort Hood still not have been executed?  I hope that you are starting to see how stupid our rules of engagement are when it comes to dealing with terrorists.  Add to this the fact that fear of punishment has zero affect on reducing future acts of terrorism.

What we all need to start doing is to discuss "rules of engagement" with our friends and associates to see if we can get the ball rolling.  In the final analysis, it is really up to us as individuals to get this country pointed in the right direction.

"Going Viral"

I am sure that you know what "Going Viral" means.  We hear it all the time, but did you ever think about the "cost".  What cost, you ask?  You must know that nothing is "free" and that is the idea of this blog.

I think that "going viral" means that over a million people have seen what ever it is.  It could be a mother mouse eating all her babies or something just as weird or stupid, but people tune in and take the time to look at the thing.  Many times things that have "gone viral" have ended up on the national news.  That just gives you an idea of just how far this thing has gone.  If you look at things that have "gone viral", 99.9% are mental zeros and have absolutely no social redeeming value, yet we know  several million people have taken the time out of their lives and wasted it looking at it.

Let's say that it takes two minutes to view one of these "gone viral" things on your computer and that the average items that "goes viral" is viewed by two million people.  With a little of your 4th grade math, that is 4 million minutes of human attention.  If we think about the average person having 10 hours per day of actual mental attention, again with our 4th grade math, that works out to 219,000 minutes a year.  Now let's go back to our average "gone viral" item, which consumed 4 million human attention minutes.  This means that for every item that "goes viral" that it consumes the equivalent of 18.26 years of human mental attention.  Now, this is just the start.

There has to be at least 5 to 10 items per day that "go viral".  Do you agree with that?  Let's just use 5 for the example here.  In a year we would be talking about items that "go viral" eating up 33,325 human year long attention lives.  It would be like this number of people were killed by "gone viral" items since they would have been mentally removed from the  human race.

Now, the whole business of  "going viral" is a new thing in human history, we have to ask exactly what did us humans do with all those minutes of human mental attention in the past?  The fact that the human race has even gotten to this point when so many other animals have gone extinct, we must have been doing something right for all those millions of years.  We have to ask our selves what is the impact of the "going viral" having on the human race and its future if it affectively kills 23, 325 mentally per year?

I think the impact is "bad" and since us humans view it like watching grass grow that it will be a very long time before we realize the negative impact.  My fear is that by then it will be far too late.

PS--Remember the story "Tom Sawyer"?  The first few lines in the book were about "Aunt Polly" calling for Tom Sawyer.  She wanted to know where Tom was and what he was up to.  Like most kids, Tom was out getting into mischief.  Today, when a parent calls for one of their kids, you can bet they are on some kind of computer in their bed room with their "human attention" consumed by a worthless "Gone Viral" image on their computer.  As a human with a brain, I would prefer Tom Sawyer over 90% of our kids today.

Where Does Socialism Or Capitalism Work Best?

We all have a tendency to consider things either "black" or "white'.  no in between.  Here is another way to look at socialism and capitalism.

Consider countries classified according to the follow factors (1)  Population density (2) Natural resources.  These two classification factors will yield "four" groups of countries when it comes to which economic system will work best.  Here are the "four" groups.

(1)  Lots of natural resources and a low population density.

This would be countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Canada.  I like capitalism over socialism for most situations, but I think that socialism could work and do the job in this group of countries.  Most of the wealth comes from the exploitation of natural resources and those can be easily controlled and managed by the state.  Given the low population, all would be rich and thus less greedy.

(2)  Lots of natural resources and a high population density.

This would be country like the USA or Brazil.  They could go either way, but since much of the wealth would have to come from value added work, capitalism would do the best job.  With socialism, the people would not have an adequate incentive to work as hard as needed for a good quality of life, that is why I come down on capitalism here.

(3)  Few natural resources and low population density.

These are the most numerous type countries and they could go either way.  Given that wealth, for these types of countries, has to be generated by value added work, capitalism would be the way to go.  They would not be rich enough countries to be able to afford the cost and low efficiency of a socialized economic system.

(4)  Few natural resources and high population density.

I am not sure there is any real hope for countries like this.  We are talking about most of Africa, India and China.  For these types of countries to provide any level of quality of life would require a very harsh government and I don't think that kind of government would be compatible with any form of capitalism.

The point is that socialism is not dead, it is really only a viable option in a very few places and in those places, capitalism would work as well if not better.  It is your call.

PS---Notice that countries with a dense population seldom can offer a high quality of life for their people.  A country in group (3) is Switzerland.  They have been able to provide a high quality of life for their citizen by having a "zero" immigration policy. Take a lesson President Obama.  Look at Nigeria, who is in group (4).  There is no hope for them except war and starvation. Countries who try to solve their problems by immigration only pull down everybody else in the process.  Look at Hatti!

Objective Of The Human Race

Did you ever think about that?  Exactly what is the objective of the human race?  Are we just a bunch of animals looking out for number one?  If we are, then this blog is a total waste of time.  I am not a religious person, so this has nothing to do with religion, but with our intelligence we should have some kind of purpose or objective.  The objective of this blog is to see if I can start a conversation that will result in some kind of agreement on an objective for the human race.

I was talking to a friend and asking this same question.  He said that the objective was to "progress".  I don't know exactly what that meant, but on further questioning he said, "to get ahead".  I'm not sure that helped either.  What does, "get ahead" really mean?  Ahead of what or who?  What if we were all exactly equal, then no one would either be behind or ahead.  If that were the case, it is clear that we need something better as our objective.

How about something as simple as, "a good quality of life"?  This would imply more than enough to eat and a warm safe bed to sleep in.   I know that each person has their own definition about exactly what is a, "good quality of life", but I can deal with that.  The thing that one notices about, "good quality of life" is that it is base on the "individual".  It is not based on the total number of people on Earth who have a "good quality of life", it is base on the idea that all or most people on Earth would have a "good quality of life".  It makes no difference how many people are here on Earth at one time, so I think we can eliminate the total number of people on Earth as being related to the "objective Of The Human Race".  Once that is done and we can focus on the real or primary objective, we can start to make some progress.

To make this point more graphic, if we had twice as many people living in New York city, would that make the quality of life better or worse?  Anyone with a brain would see that the more people who live in New York city, the lower the quality of life.  It would be the same for any country or city.  If it is clear that the more people we have living on Earth, the lower the general quality life, wouldn't it be a natural conclusion that "less" people is better?

Humans stated out as hunter gatherers and survived that way for millions of years.  If it was so bad, then how did we survive?  The reason was that the Earth had a very low density of  humans.  I was watching a TV show about Alaska and people who lived off the grid and were actually hunter gatherers.  They did OK until some one got the big idea to put in a road so people from New York city could go there for a visit.  When the road came in, people from the outside hunted and fished all the food away that the original people lived off of.  Their quality of life went down.  This is just a small sample, but it is the same world wide.  The more people, the lower the quality of life.

I spent a couple of months traveling around India and it was clear to me that India had far too many people for the productivity of their land.  The Indians were resourceful and were able to feed their people, but they could not provide them with any kind of "quality of life".  Quality of life is a lot more than just having enough food to eat.

I like to fly fish for trout and you can't do that just any place.  For me, being able to go fly fishing is an important aspect of my definition of quality of life.  If we have too many people, there will be no fly fishing for anyone.  I also like to hunt deer and pheasants.  If we have too many people, it is going to make it impossible for me to hunt.  That lowers my quality of life and for anyone else who likes to hunt or fish.

What seems to be the objective on most social and governmental groups is to promote the increase in human population on Earth, not the quality of life of the individual.  Look at the two major religions, Catholic and Muslim, both promote breeding and the production of "more" humans on Earth.  Why do they do that?  Both of  these religions are really "franchises" who want more money and power for their promoters, the preachers and fathers.  These people are sick and do not understand anything about the quality of life for us humans here on Earth.  If we had half the number of people here on Earth that we have now the quality of life would be much better.  Why is that not clear to everyone?

Obama claims that "global warming" is the biggest thing that is going to lower our quality of life, when it is the boom in population that is by far the biggest danger.  The Earth is not running out of fresh water, it is the fact that we have too many people drinking the water that we have.

I hope you have started to get the message that we need some kind of fundamental objective for the human race and that objective should be something like, "quality of life".  If we could agree on the objective, we would then have a means to "test" if our actions helped or hindered.  Simple isn't it?

Beware Of 11/21/2015 In Wisconsin

Saturday 11/21/2015 is the opening of gun deer season in the state of Wisconsin.  On that date, there will be almost a million people wearing "red" hats and sporting high powered rifles in the woods.  Last year there was not one single fatal accidental shooting.  The only people who died were due to auto accidents, heart attacks or from falling out of tree stands.   Interesting!  A million guns and more people were killed with guns in Chicago and New York in that same week.

As I understand it, Obama is going to send "50" military advisors to Syria to help defeat ISIS.  How does that compare with almost a million armed "red" hat wearing deer hunters paying their own way to hunt Whitetail deer in Wisconsin.  What if Obama sent "50" of his hand picked hunters from his "Community Organizer Group" from the South  side of Chicago to eliminate the Whitetail deer in Wisconsin?  So far a million hunters in "red" hats have not been able to do that in 200 years!

Most will be sporting high powered rifles like the popular 30-06 which originated with US Military at the Springfield Armory back in 1906. Can you imagine what would happen if some terrorist with an  AK47's showed up at "Deer Camp"?  They would be out gunned.  The 30-06 has 3315 lb-ft of muzzle energy compared to the AK47 at only 1507 lb-ft and at 100 yards the 30-06 still has 2755 lb-ft of energy while the AK47 is down to only1101 lb-ft.

If you  have been watching the NRA adds on TV, you all know that the best police force or military can not get to a terrorist site in less than 15 minutes, so the only protection that you would have for that 15 minutes is the gun you have under your belt.  !5 minutes is a very long time.  One gunman could easily shot over 500 shots during that time.

Think about how you would protect your family.

Who Will Admit They Voted For Obama?

I have been finding it very difficult to find people who will admit that they voted for Obama.  It seems that they are all running for cover.  There has been no one in American history who has done more damage to the USA.  The concern that I have and most of the people with brains is, how long is it going to take to clean up the mess that Obama has made.  This blog will try to point out a few examples.

I thought that not protecting our borders was one of the biggest screw ups made by Obama, but now I am not so sure.  We will be paying for the damage done by illegal aliens getting into the USA and breeding for many years to come.  Like France, the breeding rate of their Muslim immigrants is much higher than the citizens who actually "own" the country.  If you do your math, France will be run by Muslims and the USA will be run by Latin Americans and Muslims in a few years.

Look at Obama's plan to let in 10,000 Muslims from Syria.  What is it going to take in manpower and taxes to screen those 10,000?  Remember that 94% of the test bombs got thru our airport inspection system.  With that kind of batting average, how many terrorist will get thru, plus how many will decide to become terrorists after they are here?  Rather than waste millions of tax dollars screening these 10,000 Muslims, why don't we take that money and screen the Muslims that are already here or who have gone to Syria and returned?  Obama is not stupid, he is a Judas who wants to destroy the USA from the inside. 

What Obama has done is to promote anything that will either waste or divert out resources and stop or slow down activities that will strengthen our country. You only have to look at Global Warming to see the pattern.  A bunch of nuts got off on the Global Warming thing and all Obama had to do was to get behind it.  It was not his idea, but it satisfied his needs to weaken the USA.  Look a solar and wind energy.  They are clear examples of gross stupidity.  As investments, they will "never" pay back.

Obamacare is another good example.  How could anyone be against providing health care to a poor sick person?  Enter the government who has a track record of screwing up by increasing the cost of every thing that they take on.  This one thing alone, given enough time could sink our economy.  At the start we were spending 17% of GNP on medical, which was the highest in the world and now with the government more in charge, I predict that it will get up to 25%  in a couple of years.

Most of you don't know this, but many farmers are being over regulated by liberal environmentalist from the Obama administration.  Obama has killed the coal industry in the USA and others are not far behind.  How many Portland Cement plants have been forced to close by Obama's regulations?  We now buy much of our Portland cement from Mexico and China where China uses the coal we sold them that we can't burn here!    Those are just a drop in the bucket.

What happened to our national spirit and team work under Obama?  For Obama, it is his way or the highway.  It is clear that he is not the smartest person in the room, but he is our President and very few can come to grips with the possibility that he is also a Judas.

What you all should do is to "assume" that Obama is a Judas and make your own list of the things that any good Judas would do and see just how many of those that Obama has done.  If you are honest, the list has to convince you because there is no statistical way that Obama could do so many things to destroy this country "randomly".  Remember that he referred to the stabbings by Muslim on the West Bank as "random events"?

Did you vote for Obama?

Radical Muslim Terrorists

Are you convinced, now, that Obama is a Judas?  What is it going to take for you to see the light?  It looks like you and Obama have watched too many cheap movies where the cops get the bad guys and bring them to justice.  Every time you hear Obama or Clinton say that they are going to bring those who killed Americans or Frenchmen to "justice", you know that they are stupid or some kind of Judas.

Here is a little story that might help you understand.  You live on an island where there are a lot of wild lions and one day one of those lions killed and ate one of your children.  You and you wife have two guns and are considering the best action you should take to protect your other children.  You have two choices.
(1)  Go find the lion that killed and ate your child and shoot him.
(2)  Go out and shoot as many lions as you can.
What do you think is the correct decision?

Here is some help.  There are actually 100 lions on your island that want to kill and eat you and your children.  Does it make sense to go after just that one lion when there are 99 other lions just waiting to kill  and eat your children.  Wouldn't it be much more logical to start killing off all the lions rather than just trying to bring that one lion "to justice"?  While you were searching for just that "one" lion, you could have kill most of the lions.

Have you noticed that Radial Muslim often kill themselves in the process of terrorist acts?  Do you really think that any Radical Muslim Terrorist would be discouraged from terrorism by the threat of bring them to justice?   If you do, you are dangerous to yourself and others.

Did you pick up on Obama's speech in Turkey where is said that "Muslim are not doing enough to rid themselves of the terrorist and "we" should do more".  It sounded to me when he said "we" that he was showing that, down deep, he is a Muslim.  Obama could have said "they", but he did not.  He said "we"!!

As I listened to Obama's new conference, he seemed to never answer about "what he would do".  He tried to run out the clock with long drawn out rhetoric about facts about the situation that we all already knew and never said what he would do.  He also challenged us with rhetorical questions and tried to lecture us rather than tell us what he was going to "do"!!!

PS--Notice that Obama is the only one in the world who can not say the words, "Radical Muslim Terrorists"?

What's Been Our Batting Average On Immigration?

What we need is to look back at history and see what our batting average has been on our "good hearted" immigration actions of the past.

First, the Cubans.  I think that on balance, we did not do too bad.  The ones who came here were mostly people who were rejected by the communists and not ones who came here primarily for economic reasons.  Cubans still have a problem with integration into the USA society.  They tend to live by themselves in their own neighborhoods.

Second, the Hungarians.  They also came here much like the Cubans, but most have seemed to mix in with our general population better.  Most Hungarian immigrants have done well enough that few are on welfare.  They had to learn English because very few people here spoke Hungarian.  This was not the case with the Cubans who found islands in the USA where they could remain separate.

Third, people from Syria.  They have been coming here in large numbers and have not mixed in very well.  They have taken over Dearborn, Mich. and now have multiplied to the point that they run the city.  It is not a welcoming place for the original American residence who speak only English.  It is my opinion that Dearborn is a much worse place because of the immigration of Syrians who came here mostly of economic reasons.  They have taken advantage of the free lunch and our wood will.

Fourth, Muslims from North Africa.  Many of these have ended up in Minneapolis and live in isolated groups, not mixing with the general population.  Most of these people came here for economic reasons and like the Syrians had no incentive to mix in and become real Americans.  The idea of the melting pot never took hold with any of  the Muslim groups.  Here again, it is my opinion that Minneapolis is a "worse" place due to the immigrants from North Africa.

Fifth, the Mongs from Asia.  No country in Asia wanted these people , so we allowed them to  immigrate here by the thousands.  Many ended up in Wausau, Wi area.  Like the Muslims, they have not melted into the general population of Wisconsin either.  They have a breeding pattern faster than the Muslims and have taken over Wausau.  It is my opinion that Wausau is a much worse place to live in that it would have been without the Mongs.

Sixth, the Mexicans.  California has gotten the most and they are mostly located in the LA area and the  Central Valley.  Having been born in Bakersfield, I have had a chance to observe the general decline in the quality of life in the areas mentioned above.  Mexican and Latin American immigration has lowered the median income, net worth and quality of life in California.  Most immigrated here for economic reasons too.

Seventh, those who immigrated here from 1608 to 1875.  During this period most immigrants came here for economic reasons and at that time there was a need for more people to help exploit the rich natural resources and well as to defend that "land" stolen from the Native Americans.  Once that was accomplished, there was no more a need for immigrants who did not bring anything to the party.  In human history there has only been one period like that between 1608 to 1875.  This should include New Zealand and Australia too.  Both of those countries have a much higher median quality of life, income and new worth than does the USA.  The difference is that both New Zealand and Australia were smarter than the USA and restricted the mass immigration into their countries once they had enough people to exploit their natural resources.  Interesting isn't ?

Look at Switzerland?  They also have a high median quality of life, income and net worth than we do and they have followed the same policy as New Zealand and Australia.  You would think that we might get the message after looking at these examples.

PS---Ask Sweden what they now think about their good hearted policy of letting thousands of African Muslims immigrate into Sweden?  It is my opinion that if Sweden had not found oil in the North Sea  that Sweden would be in the toilet today.  The lesson is that suffering and economic reasons are not good enough reason to allow immigrants to take food from the mouths of your own children and grand children and that is exactly what has happened.

Kasick Says He Would Save The Banks Again

I am getting very tired of candidates from both parties making statements that are either partly wrong or out right lies and not being called out on them.  Kasich said that if a big bank was failing that he would, as President, bail it out to "prevent mom and pop's savings from being wiped out".  As I understand it all banks have government deposit insurance to protect savings up to $250,000.  If you have accounts in multiple banks, you could be protected for millions in savings.  Further, how many families (mom and pop's) have more than $250,000 deposited in a bank?  Not very many!  If you had more, when a bank fails, like  a bankruptcy, it is not a 100% loss.  In the worst case, you could lose no more than about 10%  on your deposit over $250,000.  Why isn't this fact pointed out or why is the public so  stupid that they don't know this.  Kids should learn this in their freshman year of high school.

When Kasick  said that "mon and pop's savings" would be wiped out, it was total BS.

PS--The only reason that banks needed government money was that the government changed the rules and required them to hold larger reserves.  As it turned out they had enough reserves to handle the crisis.  They have now all paid the money back with interest.  It was all just political smoke and mirrors. 

I was just reading that 50% of households can not raise $5,000 cash in 24 hours.  Does that tell you something about how a big bank failure would affect them?

Republicans Have No Perfect Solution For Deportation

If you watched the recent Republican debate, you heard several candidates say that there is no way to deport "all" the illegal aliens here in the USA.  Their logic was based on the fact that there are millions of illegal aliens here in the USA.  Most of you did not notice that they chose their words very carefully. By adding "all" to their statement, it made their idiotic statement  true.  Once they had a "true" statement on the table, all they had to do is to continue down that path and most of you just followed along.  It was like the Pide  Pipper leading the fools to their end.

Why didn't the candidates state that, "we can't prevent "all" bank robberies, so why try to prevent any".  This is that same logic that they were using regarding illegal immigration.  If you can't follow this simple correct logic, stop reading this blog right now.

Rubio proposed that we let those who have been here the longest stay and just deport those who came here recently.  This logic would be like allowing bank robbers who have been robbing banks for the most years to go free and only those who recently robbed their first bank go to jail.

With regards legal and illegal immigration, we have people going both ways.  Have you noticed that when confronted with a problem like this, in most cases, we start with a moratorium while the problem is solved and things are sorted out?  I think that it would be a lot more logical to put a moratorium on immigration and take all the government people who are now administering legal immigration and assign them to help with deportation.  I would keep the moratorium in place until we had deported a few million illegal aliens and "stopped" the in flow of new illegal aliens.  If we are not willing to do something like this, then we are not serious about solving the problem.

Unlike people like Bush and Rubio, I would  deport the oldest persons first who have been here illegally.  If they have children or property, I would  confiscate their property under "RECO".  Regarding any kids born here, they should have thought about this when they broke the law coming here.  They can leave the kids or take them back to where they came from.  It is not our problem.

The demented logic of most of the candidates sounded a lot more like "liberals" who wring their hands if they do not have a "perfect" "one move" solution for any problem.  They try to solve the problem of people who are poor by giving them your money.  How has that worked?

PS--When I was a kid, we needed to dig an irrigation ditch.  Here is how we did it.  My brother and I took two shoves out and dug one shovel full of dirt at a time.  In two weeks, we had dug an irrigation ditch a quarter mile long.  As Mark Twain once said, "a trip around the world starts with the first step".  Deportation starts with the "first" person and I recommend that it be the person who has been here the longest illegally.  I don't care how old they might be.  Too bad!

Good Role Models

We hear a lot about the need for more or better role models for the Black community, but I think we are all missing a very big aspect of the business of role models and that is the point of this blog.

I was just listening to the political debate and particularly Dr. Ben Carson and Bernie Saunders.  Both pointed out their child hood in some way with the idea that they were good role models and I think that both are.  In the case of Carson, he pointed out how he was born poor and Saunders pointed out that his father came here from Poland without anything.  Each went on to describe how they worked hard.  In this world, there are a lot of people who have worked hard who are not good role models.  So what does it take to be a good role model if it is not hard work?

What all these guys are missing and are most people is that they never consider the "null set".  What is the "null set".  It is every thing else!  What do I mean?  Look at it this way.  It isn't "not working hard".  It is that set of things that are the opposite of responsible hard work, like dropping out of school, like knocking up your girl friend or doing or selling drugs.  If you do any of these things in the "null set", it cancels out any hard work.  I know people who are very hard workers, but are drunks.  These people are not good role models and I think you would agree.

If a person robs a store and goes to jail, no amount of hard work is ever going to make them a good role model.  Look at the Black community during and after slavery was eliminated in the last few states where it was legal?  I think that at that time 99% of Black males and fathers were good role models and as a result their first generation did very well.  Any reading of the history of the time will point this out.  As time went on, the Black male community went down hill in terms of being good role models.  Many still worked hard as I have pointed out above, but during the years after slavery Black male community started doing all the bad things in the "null set" that canceled out any hope that they might have had to be good role models.  Don't you see that? 

for reasons that I don't fully understand, the decline started to accelerate with Lynden Johnson and his "great society".  On the surface, the "great society" sounded like a very good idea.  The idea was to single out the Black community as a special protected class and give them special benefits. Rather than the Black community taking this opportunity to work even harder and get ahead, many chose to live what they saw as the "good life" of drugs and irresponsible out of wed lock breeding.  They saw no need to work hard in school since they were a protected class with special benefits that they felt were owed them because the English imported their parents here from Africa before the USA was formed.  This is a little off the subject, but I think that it needs to be pointed out that some where along the line Black males stopped being good role models and there has to be a cause and a reason for the change.

I hope you can see that a true good role model has to both "do" and "not do" things and we need more attention to the "not do" and no one is talking about this most important point.  That is the object of this blog, to see if I can get some dialog started on the "null set".

PS---Another point.  We are all role models whether we want to be or not.  This includes football players, singers and everyone else.  If the percentage of good role models goes down in a community or a country, the quality and character of the next generation will follow as night follows day.

My estimate today is that less than 50% of Black males are good role models.  That means it is going to get worse for Blacks before it gets better.  My estimate is that at least 95% Asian males are good role models and that tracks with the success of Asians in America.

Are Low Oil Prices Good Or Bad?

Today, a lot of people are asking if "low oil prices are good or bad".  Like most simple minded people, they think that there is one simple answer for all questions.  In the real world, most things are both good and bad and we hope that combined that they are good.  that is the point of this blog.

To understand the question, we have to first understand "real" economics and not the BS that is taught in most of our colleges and universities.  Value that supports our quality of life comes from two basic things.  First, the added value of our human labor and second from the exploitation of the natural resources within each counties borders.  Before I jump too far ahead, we need to talk about basic sales of our resources and value added labor.  If their is no market for those, as you can see, they have  very little "value".  All good salesmen know that the first thing that they need to do is to "qualify" their potential customer.  If the person does not have any money or means to buy your product, they are "not" a potential customer.  Simple, we can all understand that point.  You will need to remember this for later.

I have picked three countries for my analysis.  First, the USA.  We have a lot of resources compared to the number of people we have.  That means the source of more of our individual wealth will be from the exploitation of our natural resources, like "oil".  For a country like France, they are a net importer of oil and thus will pay less for their needed oil.  It helps them.  Russia is a net exporter of oil and thus they will not be getting as much for their oil.  The USA  is neither an importer or exporter of oil, so compared to  those other two, we would be in the middle.

Next, let's look at the economy that is based on just the value added labor.  We know that the only component of value added labor that is in demand today is the intellectual type.  The world is in a wash with low skilled labor.  How does Russia, France and the USA stack up on intellectual labor?  To answer this question, all you need to do is to look at the education level of these countries.  In math and science, Russia is on top in terms of the percentage of their population who are competent in the math and sciences.  France is next and the USA is last among these three.  China has more actual people with high math and science skills, but they are a lower percentage of their population.

Now back to the "qualified customer".  The USA, today, is the world's most qualified customer and China is taking advantage of that fact.  The average family in the USA can afford a car, but the average family in China can not.  This means they can sell to us, but we can not sell to them.  With lower oil prices the cost of products from China cost less.  They by less oil from Russia, but they can still sell the same amount of stuff to the USA.  France is  much like China, but have products that are less competitive.  When was the last time you were in Walmart and purchased something made in France?  Can't remember can you?  Same with Russia.  We don't need their oil.

Isn't it clear that if oil prices were higher it would hurt countries who did not have oil, like France and China.  I know this is a little off my topic, but it is food for thought,  Russia has a population on just 142.0 million and a population density of 22 per square mile.  Nigeria, in Africa has a population of 173.6 million.  If Nigeria is so large, why are they not  world power like Russia?  For starters, they have a population density of 509 people per square mile.  The USA is 75 per square mile and the county that I live in only has 18 people per square mile.  Nigeria does have oil and that is about the only thing that they have.  Low oil prices are going to "kill" Nigeria, plus they are not qualified customers for anything made in the USA.   Global warming is not the biggest problem for Nigeria and most of the world, so what do you think it is?  It is not oil prices either.

Over Ripe Democracy

Did you ever hear of an "over ripe democracy"?  I did not think so.  It is something that I just made up, but I feel that it describes what happens with most democracies.  This blog is about that very point.

Think about it this way.  There is a type of life cycle about many things and democracies are just one.  Think about how a democracy starts in the first place.  They have all started as a change from some kind of king, dictator or religious group.  How fast they ripen from the starting point depends on a lot things.  Look at Greece.  Here is a situation where a democracy started from a king and dictator where the population was already mature.  What I mean by mature, all  the land was owned by someone and the same people had lived on the land for many generations.  In a situation like this the democracy matures and ripen very rapidly.  The only thing that changes is that the people want and expect more from their new governmental democracy.  They already know what the did not have before and thus know what the new democracy "owes" them.  In the case of Greece and many other countries in Europe, most are now "over ripe". 

Exactly what does "over ripe" mean?  It means that the voters have figured out that they can just "vote" and make their government give them things that they want even if their government can't afford those things.  When something gets over ripe, the next phase is "rot" and I mean "rot" from the inside out.  Isn't that what has happened in Greece?  It is the same in other counties in Europe.

This has been a long build up, but my main points is actually what happens to a democracy after it has over ripened and rotted from the inside?  We don't have many examples, because most democracies are very new in human history, but we do have a few.  Take Chile!  Here is a country that had a democracy modeled after the USA and almost as old, but it over ripened and failed when Salvador  Allende was elected President.  He selectively enforced the laws he like, just like Obama has done here in the USA and in just 3 or 4 years, he accelerated the ripening and rotting that happened in Chile.  The democracy in Chile failed and when the army tried to arrest Allende, he shot himself.  To clean up the mess that Allende created in just those few years has taken over 30 years to repair.  When a democracy over ripens, it can be very difficult to repair.

Look at the USA.  This place is unique in human history since there was no real government here before.  It is true that England tried to govern the place like they ruled England with a King determined by birth right, but it did not work.  As for the ripening of the USA, because of its unique origin the process has take a lot longer than for a country like Greece, but the end is still the same.

We all know how this game is going to end and the picture is not nice, but beyond that, how are we going to fix the damage?  What is it going to be or look like?  Isn't it a lot more logical to avoid the over ripening rather than trying to fix the problem after the fact?  Do you want the army to take over like what happened in Chile?  I don't think so.  I think that if Sweden had not found oil in the North Sea, that they would look a lot like Greece today.  The same might be said for the USA under Obama if we had not figured out how to "frac" for oil and natural gas here.  That bought some time, but the basic story has not changed.  What are we going to do?  Too many voters and polititions have figured out how to "game" a democracy to get the short term goodies they want, not realizing or being concerned that they are killing the very goose that has provided for them all these years.

Look at Argentina.  Back in the 1940's, they were the richest people in the world, but now they rank about 175th.  There was a democracy that clearly got over ripe.  Their problem is that they have kept getting worse, not better.  I think that you can see that it is very difficult to "reverse" a democracy that has gotten over  ripe without some kind of major revolution.

Let's Keep It Simple

Did you notice that it is only when you "don't" understand something that you think it is complicated?  How about long division or fractions?  When you were a kid, many people felt that long division and fractions were complicated, but not after the teacher showed them how simple they were.  It is the same with most other things too.  Did you also hear someone say that this or that was "not rocket science"?  The implication was that rocket science was very difficult to understand, but it is not.  We have also seen kids who picked up long division and fractions much faster than others.  These kids were "naturals", right?  No, they were just smarter than the other kids and would be for the rest of their lives.  Believe it or not, but this brings me to Donald Trump and most polititions that we are all familiar with.

Donald Trump was one of those kids who picked up on long division and fractions the very first time the concept was presented to him.  I have a grandson who figured out how to read all by himself when he was only three years old.  No one taught him or knows how he figured out reading on his own.  There are people like this while most others have to be taught.  No matter how many years most of the other kids stay in school, they "never" catch up to those few.  Now look at the people in Washington DC and see how many feel that the decisions that they have to make are "complicated"?

They are all trying to  convince us that the decisions that they have to make are complicated.  Right?  If they feel that their decisions are complicated, then you know that they are not very smart and thus do not understand the factors that affect their decision.

I knw a lot of you do not like the attitude of Donald Trump and the fact that he sees most of the decisions that need to be made in Washington DC as simple.  The fact that he see them as simple should tell you that he might be the only one who really understand the whole decision process.  Trump has also been playing the game with his own money and has done very well.  Do you think that you learn more from a decision if you play with your own money vs the house's money?  I think that is an easy one.  I think that I told you the story about the 8 year old kid who treated the money that he worked to earn differently from the free birthday money.  Even 8 year olds know the difference.

The problem that we have is that most people are not very smart and thus fall for the idea that most things are complicated.  It is on this point that religion got started so that preachers could calm the nerves of people about the "complexities" of live that they did not understand.  "It is a work of God" satisfied most people when if they really understood thunder and lightning, they would have had no need for religion.  It is  much the same with politics today.  Liberals are much like the preachers of old selling bull shit to the masses.  When is it going to end?

All Work Is Piece Work

Did you ever hear of "piece work"?  I did not think so.  I was talking to a younger person the other day and I could not seem to get him to think about work other than "by the hour".  He seemed to have it fixation in his mind that the only measure of work was "by the hour".  If that is the case, what did people do before there were clocks or before they could afford one?  That is the point of this blog.

First, how about a story.  When I was a kids about age 9, I picked cotton after school and on Saturdays.  I was a good cotton picker and very competitive about it.  On my best Saturday, I picked 200# of cotton.  We were paid by "piece work" or by the amount of cotton we picked.  The farmer did not care how many hours you spent picking cotton, he paid for the work that you actually did.  Some kids goofed off and did not pick very much cotton and the farmer paid them accordingly. The farmer paid "the going rate" or the price per pound that it took to get people like me to come out and pick his cotton.  If he paid less than "the going rate" no cotton pickers would show up at his farm.  Why should he pay more than "the going rate" if he could get all his cotton picked at "the going rate"?  This type of system has worked for thousands of years and even after the clock was invented.  For the record, "the going rate" at the time was 3-1/2 cents per  pound of cotton.  That meant that I earned $7.00 picking cotton on my best Saturday.

The next year, "the going rate" changed.  It seems that the automatic cotton picker was invented and some of the people who were picking cotton by hand invested in these automatic cotton pickers and were willing to pick the cotton for just 2 cents a pound.  The new "going rate" was now only 2 cents a pound.  I could still hand pick cotton on Saturdays, but I would be paid at "the new going rate" of just 2 cents a pound.  Before my labor was worth $7.00 per day and nowI was only worth $4.00 per day.  This was a simple case of efficiency.  Cotton was now cheaper and more people could afford clothing made from cotton. Isn't this how we all expect the economy to work?  Not quite.

If you are one of those people who have a mental blockage and think that "all" work should be measured by a clock, then you have a problem.  Think of me, this poor kid who picks cotton on Saturdays and was earning almost a dollar an hour having a reduction in pay so that I now make less than 50 cents per hour.  To protect me, you would advocate some kind of minimum wage around a dollar per  hour.  I know that this would help your ego, but would it actually help me?  No!   I could not find a single farmer who would hire me to pick his cotton.  I would be totally out of work and pocket money to go to the movies or buy popcorn.  I know that it is a cut in pay, but if there was no minimum wage I could still go out on Saturdays and pick cotton and make $4.00.

How about the farmer?  How is he paid for his work?  He takes the cotton to the cotton gin and runs it over the scales to get the weight.  The cotton gin pays the farmer based on the number of pounds,  not the time he spent planting or cultivating.  The farmer was paid on "piece work" just the way he has been paid for the last few thousand years.  Starting to see where this is going?

The young person that I was talking to seemed overly concerned about Mexicans in California who were picking some of the fruit and other crops.  He was concerned that they were not being paid enough to take care of all their kids.  He felt strongly that we needed some kind of higher minimum hourly wage.  If the farmer was paying me and the other kids for picking cotton on Saturday based on the number hours that we were out picking, I think you know what would have happened.  I know that I would not have worked as hard as I did to pick that 200# knowing that the other kids who were goofing off were going to earn as much as me.  When people talk about some kind of "fair" wage per hour, exactly who is it fair for?  Not me nor the farmer.

Think about this one.  When I went to school, we had about 30 kids in the class with one teacher.  Our test scores were better back then than the test scores are today.  Now the teacher only teaches 20 kids and the test scores are worse.  If this were done on the basis of "piece work", most teachers would make much less, but some would actually make more.  Just like I earned more than the other kids picking cotton.

If piece work is so much better, why do we now pay mostly by the hour?  That is a very good question.  Number one, it is easier to administer.  Second, poor performers feel good and we know that we have a lot of poor performers.  Most of the good performers adjust their work downward so that they don't feel so bad and try to improve their skills so that they can get a promotion.  Over time, the good performers move up and out and leave the mass of poor performers doing the work.

What we need to do is to consider "all" jobs as "piece work" and then only shift to "by the hour" after we have found that we can't administer a "piece work" pay system.  Look at most of the high paying sales jobs?  They get paid on "commission".  This is actually "piece work".  Look at pro football, They are paid on "piece work", rushing yardage, passing yards, tackles, interceptions, etc.  Some how we have to  break the cycle of thinking that all work should be "by the hour", if we don't our economy will continue to go down hill.

Simple isn't it?

Truth About A Consumer Economy

Have you heard this one?  The USA has a "Consumer economy".  What drives the economy is consumption.  Did you ever think to look behind the curtain?  If you did, then you would know that this whole concept does not add up.  That is the objective of this blog.

Let's keep this simple so that we can understand it better.  My first case is that we have two people who bake bread.  Person "A" bakes a loaf of bread and sells it to person "B", and person "B" bakes a loaf of bread and sells it to person "A".  Now let's look at this picture.  Is either of these two people any better off or do they have a higher quality of life because of their "consumption"?  No!  It would have actually been better if they had just baked their own bread and eaten it.

What if we had the same two people above and person "B" did not know how to bake bread and the government gave him money to buy bread from person "A"?  We have a problem here because, now person "A" has no bread.  He goes out and finds person "C" who is a baker and has a loaf of bread to sell him.  Next, you have to ask where the money came from for the government to give to person "B"?  The government taxed both person "A" and "C" at 50%, that's how. Now look at the picture.  Person "B" is happy and votes for the liberal politition while both "A" and "C" can not afford shoes for their children.  I'm not done yet.

Rather than the example above, person "B" finds that he can buy a loaf of bread from China for 50% of what both person "A" and "C" want to charge.  Person "B" is now very happy because he has money left over from the government to buy shoes for his kids.  When the government tries to collect taxes from persons "A" an "C", they have no money and can not pay the tax.  The government then goes to China and borrows enough money to pay person "B".  When the interest comes due on the loan from China, the government does not have any money so they borrow more from China to pay the interest on their loan.  Are you starting to see where this is going?  Eventually China will own the USA and all it ever cost them was one loaf of bread.

I could have put the farmer into this model and you would see that he grew the wheat that he sold to China for them to make the loaf of bread.  Eventually the farmer would get very rich by the exploitation of our rich natural resources if the government does not tax him to death. 

What I am trying to do  is to point out the importance of natural resources and to put value added in its proper place.  Of the three examples above, there is only one situation where the USA gets any wealthier and that is when the farmer sells wheat to China.  The other examples are like chain letters of Ponzi schemes that always go bust in the end.  The end is closer than you think!!!

PS--Just think about what would happen if the government imposed a minimum wage for bread bakers?  The bread made in China would then cost even less than the bread baker here.  The only ones who would make out would be those with no competition.  Who do you think those people are?  Try government workers, like  teachers or lawyers and doctors.  Why else would our school teachers be the best paid in the world and produce the worst educated product?  Same for doctors.  We pay by far the most in the world and rank about 35th  in life expectancy.  We don't export doctors, we import them.  Same for teachers and lawyers.

Cheaters

The name of this blog is "Cheaters".  No one like a cheater and that will be the point of this blog!

There was a baseball game on TV this past week where a runner slid into second base and tripped the baseman with his leg so that he could not make the double play to first.  In the process the runner broke the leg of the baseman.  Everyone who saw this happen on TV thought that the runner "cheated" by tripping the baseman with his leg on purpose.  This simple event shows clearly that no one likes a "cheater".  We all expect others to play by the rules and not cheat.  It is the only fair way that we can all live together.  We teach our children from a young age that it is wrong to cheat and for good reason.  No one likes a cheater and if you want to be liked or respected, you can't cheat.

Now, exactly what is cheating?  We all know it when we see it.  Everyone knows that it is "not playing by the rules" so as to take advantage of others who do play by the rules.  Stealing is a clear form of cheating.  When you get something by not playing by the rules, you are a cheater.  We all know someone who is or was a cheater and we do not like them.  It is human nature to feel that way.  I ask again, "exactly what is cheating"? You could look up the word in the dictionary, but I am not going to do that.

Here are some examples of cheaters.  When a person forces their way to the head of a line, that is cheating.  They should follow the rules and wait for their turn.  We know people who have done this and again, we don't like it because it is wrong.  If a person does not graduate from high school and now they can't get a job and then they expect you and me to give them money for food, is that cheating?  You know that it is.  If a person has a child out of wedlock or that they can not afford to feed and care for and then they expect you and me to provide for their welfare, is that cheating?  If a person robs a convenient store, is that cheating?  Sure!  If a person violates our immigration laws and sneaks across our border ahead of a person who is on the waiting list, is that cheating?  It clearly is!

Finally, what do we call the people who do the things above?  We call them "cheaters".  Why would we call people "undocumented" if in fact, they are really just "cheaters"?  What are illegal aliens?  They are "cheaters".  They cheat all of use who play by the rules when they cheat our systems and laws by crossing the border ahead of others who are playing by the rules.  They cheat you and me and our children too.  You would not allow one of your own children to cheat and get away with it would you?  If that is the case, why do we look the other way when so many people cheat by crossing our borders?  I don't like these people because they are cheaters, not because they are Black or Brown and I want them "all" sent back to where they came from.  I don't want to live with or be around cheaters.  Do you? 

There is another point about cheaters that we all can agree on and that is that once you become a cheater it is almost impossible for that person to ever become totally honest again.  That is a fact.  I have know a lot of cheaters and no matter what ever happened later, I still do not trust them as being honest.  If we let cheaters come into our country and stay, it will not be long before our country will become a bunch of cheaters.  Many honest people can become cheaters when they think that they can get away with it and you know that.  I don't think that you would like to live in a country or a community with a bunch of cheaters and if we do not stand up and be counted on this point, we will be  living in a country with a bunch of cheaters.  When someone cheats our government or our laws, what they have done is to have cheated you and me. 

If you don't like cheaters, then start doing something about it.  Don't just sit by and complain.  The biggest danger that we face is doing nothing when we see cheaters of any kind.

PS---Do you think people who "game the system" are cheaters?  The bottom line is that the "system" is us tax payers.  Gamers cheat you and me!  We need to get rid of all cheaters and gamers.  Cheaters defend their actions by pointing to other cheaters who they claim are worse.  Do you think that makes cheating right?  I don't!

Unification Theory For Global Warming

I think that most of us are familiar with Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity, but did you know that most of Albert's work was devoted to his Unification theory.  Albert felt that all branches of science could be linked together, much like Newton's Laws.  I agree with that thinking and when I form a new theory, it can not break any of the proven physical laws.  If it does, my theory is not valid and I have to try again.  This blog will "link" many know facts and paint a much clearer picture of what people are calling "global warming".  Here we go.

I start with the Earth starting to be formed at the "big bang".  That was an explosion that transformed energy into mass or matter.  It started as a pin point and has expanded out from there.  The point that can be draw from this is that the universe is getting larger just like any explosion gets larger.  In the process of getting larger, the density of matter goes down.  That means the particles of matter keep getting farther and farther apart, while at the same time some particles of matter, due to its gravity, form globs or stars.  Some stars might end up closer together, but most stars get farther and farther apart. To us humans who have little sense of time think the stars in the sky are fixed and not moving.  I will come back to this point later.

Somewhere along in time a glob is formed that ends up as our Sun and another glob as Earth.  The glob  of Earth is speeding along when it comes into the gravitation grasp of the Sun and rather than shooting on past it is captured and circles the Sun.  If the Earth had less speed, it may have been pulled into the Sun and crashed, but it didn't.

Next, the Earth is spinning because it would be almost impossible for it not to be spinning.  Try throwing a baseball with out it spinning.  It is almost impossible.  Since there is little matter in space, there is little friction.  So once spinning, the Earth tends to keep right on spinning.  At first the Earth is not very dense, because it only has its small gravity to pull particles of mass together.  The Earth starts out soft and actually larger than it is now.  It is like feathers compared to rocks.  Here is a law you need to remember.  Entropy!  It is the concept that every thing tends to the lowest energy state.  Notice that old buildings tend to tumble down and water runs down hill.  You have to add energy to get water the run uphill.  This means that over time the Earth will tend to get smoother, the mountains worn down and the oceans shallower and that is exactly what has been happening.

Now, look at the oceans.  Their size and level is a function of the amount of water on Earth and the average depth of the oceans.  Hydrogen was the most common element formed right after the big bang and it likes to grab any oxygen that it can find and turn it into water.  Water is one of the most common compounds in the universe.  We know that most of the planets had a supply of water at one time, but now it is gone. Why?  When the universe was formed it was very dense and water was close by to the globs that formed, but as time went by and the universe expanded and things got farther and farther apart.  With Earth's small amount of gravity, it got harder had harder to ;pull in particles of water from space.  Due to the differences in molecular activity of water molecules some had enough energy to escape Earth's gravity.  As time went on the Earth went from a net gainer of water to a net loser of water.  We are losing water to outer space, but since the oceans are getting shallower, the shore line does not change much.  Got that?

Now to another point, the spinning of the Earth.  The Earth is slowing down!.  Remember that originally the Earth was soft like a car's under inflated car tire and took more force to rotate.  The Earth got hot just like driving on an under inflated tire tends to get hot.  The affect of that added heat is that the Earth had to slow down.  On your car, you noticed how soon you coast to a stop when you have a flat tire.  It is the same with the Earth.  Now, as the Earth has gotten harder and has lost water, it is still slowing down, but not as fast as back in the beginning.  Got that?

If the Earth rotates faster, it still gets the same amount of heat from the Sun, but the affect is to make the temperature of the Earth more even between night and day.  Now, why is this a big deal?  What if the Earth rotated very slowly?  The Sunny side would get very hot and the dark side very cold.  The Sun would boil all the water away during the day and what was left would freeze during the night.  Another point.  The boiling point of water is a function of the air pressure and so with a denser atmosphere the boiling point would be higher.  As pointed out above, the rotation of the Earth is slowing down and the atmosphere is getting thinner.  Combine these two and you have an Earth that getting hotter and dryer.  Sounds like global warming to me.  Did you notice that I did not bring up carbon dioxide or Indians building camp fires?

We know from research that there was a lot more vegetation on Earth than there is today.  How else would we have all this coal, oil and marble?  The Earth is a lot different now than back then and why is that?  It is not global warming as currently defined.  This has be going on for millions  of years, not just the last 75 years.  If you have any understanding of molecular activity, you know that not all are at the same pressure.  We know that the Earth does not have enough gravity to hold 100% of hydrogen.  Most hydrogen escapes into out space.  The same is true for all the gases in our atmosphere, but since they are heavier than hydrogen not as much  escapes.  This is going on all the time and it is getting worse every day by a small amount.  You have to get your head around that point.  To have had all the vegetation that we know  we once had, we would need a lot more water and a lot denser atmosphere.  Humans can't breath at 20,000 feet.  Some even get winded at sea level.  Think about the monster dinasours getting enough oxygen at sea level today with our thin atmosphere?  They would all be dead.  This is just more proof that the change we see now has been going on for a very long time.

At one time the Earth could support a lot more plants and animals, but not now.  We all know that from looking back at history.  Now for us humans.  The Earth can not support the current human population either.  What we are doing is using coal and oil to run factories and build tractors for faming to grow enough food for the people that we  now have on Earth.  We all know that we can not keep this up for ever.  To get things back into balance, we need to use less energy of any kind and that means fewer people.  I rest my case when you look at the number of countries who can not produce enough food to feed their people now.  Further, the quality of life is going down for the average person here on Earth.  If that is the case, then the average quality of life for use humans must have been higher in the past!  How far back do you think that was?  I leaver you to work on that one.