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.