1. Calling attention to the color of people perpetuates those differences. To you and me the goal is equality. To the politicians, the goal is markedly different. Politicians gain by creating controversy and exploiting it. We would do better by treating each other well, and neutralizing any leader who sees a difference.
2. Communism isn't the problem. The problem is the Communists. Similarly, most "-isms" are harmless. Most "-ists" are not. Do not fear the ism. Communism simply does not work, in the same way that feudalism or racism does not. Therefore there should be no effect. Communists, on the other hand, can do a lot of damage.
3. Many forest fires are now caused by government. Efforts to control the ebbs and flows of nature usually have unintended consequences, and forest management is a good example. The government prevents homeowners from removing decayed bio-matter from their own property, and when it catches fire and burns dozens of houses down, they don't get the connection.
4. After the next black swan event, this economy will be known as the ____________ bubble era. We are now taking nominations to name this particular bubble. I'm thinking we may be looking at the "Corporate Profits" bubble this time. Money is flying in from all directions into a market that has been pumped up by lack of other investment options, plus, foreign escape to a stronger dollar. Corporations are taking low interest money and buying back their own stock with it. Unfortunately, the earnings will seriously underperform the expectations, and when it all comes to light, and the market falls 50%, it will look like all other bubbles through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. We should have seen it coming.
5. People have a remarkable ability to extract nutrients from all manner of animal and vegetable. About 10,000 years ago, we discovered grains, and these things have been modified regularly by anyone who swung a hoe in the early days. Since Gregor Mendel, these things have been modified in a more organized manner. The point is, genetically modified food is not a threat. It has been with us since the early days. More importantly, it is an opportunity to feed millions who might not thrive without it. That said, I'm thinking of going paleo. Why? Because it is the only diet that makes perfect sense in a survey of historical genetics.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
About the Money
America has the best politicians money can buy. -- Will Rogers
Had to wonder: Does it really have to be about the money? I witnessed countless TV commercials in the last election cycle trying to convince me one by one that Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are two different people. That's where all the money went, and it added very little to the discussion. There didn't seem to be much of a difference at all between the two candidates. In that same race, the best candidate was a guy named Adrian Wyllie. In one poll, only 8% of those polled had even heard of him, yet 7% thought he was the best candidate. Why was it so hard for his message to get out?
I recently came across an essay by Mark Brandley, who concludes:
The essay was written just over four years ago, and once again, the season is well underway. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were taking turns standing in the establishment money machine; while other candidates are waiting for their turn in the grab shack.
Had to wonder: Does it really have to be about the money? I witnessed countless TV commercials in the last election cycle trying to convince me one by one that Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are two different people. That's where all the money went, and it added very little to the discussion. There didn't seem to be much of a difference at all between the two candidates. In that same race, the best candidate was a guy named Adrian Wyllie. In one poll, only 8% of those polled had even heard of him, yet 7% thought he was the best candidate. Why was it so hard for his message to get out?
I recently came across an essay by Mark Brandley, who concludes:
... why are scoundrels successful in the political arena? Analyzing the nature of an election provides us with an answer. In order to win an election, candidates need to offer their supporters other people's wealth, and candidates must convince their supporters to vote in spite of the fact that individual votes will not affect the election. Accomplishing these two goals requires deception. Therefore, candidates who are willing to violate property rights — to steal — and be deceptive have an advantage over candidates with stronger moral convictions. So of course elected officials are corrupt. Candidates with moral integrity are at a severe disadvantage in the political sphere. Do not put your hope in political solutions --
The essay was written just over four years ago, and once again, the season is well underway. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were taking turns standing in the establishment money machine; while other candidates are waiting for their turn in the grab shack.
All this money flying around doesn't help the information process, however.
The local TV stations rely on the money machine for their fall commercial spot sells, and therefore, the networks who depend on them do not want to do anything that would accidentally clarify the debate. No, No, No. After all, if there was a real difference between the two candidates, the debate would end prematurely. Keeping them close keeps the money flowing.
What if it weren't about the money? Freedom of speech issues aside, what if the TV spot buys had no real consequence? What if there were enough of a difference among the candidates that advertising was superfluous? Modern political theory requires that the politicians go after the middle of the road; i.e., to the marginal voter. And since both politicians want that same unprincipled voter, they can sway an election on the stupidest of promises.
My personal way of dealing with it is that I no longer vote for politicians. I will only vote for statesmen. And since all Republicans and Democrats are by their nature politicians, I simply don't vote for them any more. It doesn't have to be about the money; especially if each of us take 15 minutes to learn about the candidates on our own.
I can safely navigate through TV commercials, since they are all for the status quo candidates and my DVR discriminates against all TV commercials anyway. The next thing to do is to become informed by the real candidates; the possible statesmen; the ones you will not regret voting for. Only then will voting be a worthwhile activity again.
.
We're doing this wrong, that has to be obvious. The solution is to make it not about the money.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Life, Death, and Climate
Many of the people demanding action on global warming are not finishing the thought. Warmer climates are responsible for more abundance and easier life management by many underdeveloped economies. A warmer climate has resulted in longer growing seasons, more bountiful harvests, and better living conditions around the world. The fewest weather-related fatalities in history are being recorded each successive year. One study found that 40,000 lives per year in the US alone would be saved by a climate that is 2.5 degrees (C) warmer.
Folks who want to reverse warming are asking the world to take three steps back. Unintended consequences don't matter to these dullards. They stopped thinking right after the protest rally.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Still thinking....
- Does anyone else think that sovereign countries (e.g. Japan) buying equities (i.e. shares of stock in publicly traded companies) is a good idea? It occurs to me that the logical endpoint to this is government ownership of the nation's businesses. Or by it's other name: communism.
- The US Federal Reserve buying up all the debt is just as bad an idea; and for similar reasons.
- What is the moral distinction between torture and targeted killing? There are people who think torture is a problem (because it is associated with one party), yet targeting citizens and combatants by drone is okay (because it is associated with that other party). Shouldn't we have a problem with that, too?
- Civilizations are made up of people. Economies are made up of people who stand to benefit from a division of labor. A builder trading some of his stored wealth with a baker, for example. The government is created solely to protect an economy and by extension, its civilization. When the government starts favoring the Baker or the Builder, distortions are introduced that do more harm than good. But that's how you buy votes. Great system, huh?
- The smallest unit of any civilization is a family. A collection of people acting as one unit for the collective benefit of the family. A collection of families is a community. However, not all aspects of the community can benefit all families, and each family must be free to connect and disconnect at will with the community. Therefore, not only is the family the smallest unit that can call itself a civilization, it is also the largest.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Random thoughts
Happy Christmas Eve. Some topics that I need to get out there, but reserve the right to blog about again someday:
1. A comedy about the assassination of the leader of a sovereign country doesn't strike me as good entertainment. How did we get to the point of making 100 million dollar movies making fun of a government contriving an act of war?
2. People who complain about the US Constitution, calling it an outdated document created by dead people seldom have the same opinion of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act or the Sherman Antitrust Act.
3. A government that repeatedly makes a distinction of any kind with regard to the color of one's skin is perpetuating that distinction, and in the process, institutionalizing racism.
4. The government that announces a 5% rise in GDP, consisting almost entirely of the increase in health care spending as a result of the Affordable Care Act has no credibility, and apparently no need for it.
1. A comedy about the assassination of the leader of a sovereign country doesn't strike me as good entertainment. How did we get to the point of making 100 million dollar movies making fun of a government contriving an act of war?
2. People who complain about the US Constitution, calling it an outdated document created by dead people seldom have the same opinion of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act or the Sherman Antitrust Act.
3. A government that repeatedly makes a distinction of any kind with regard to the color of one's skin is perpetuating that distinction, and in the process, institutionalizing racism.
4. The government that announces a 5% rise in GDP, consisting almost entirely of the increase in health care spending as a result of the Affordable Care Act has no credibility, and apparently no need for it.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Finish the thought
A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking. - Martin H. Fischer (1945)
Sometimes we run out of gas when it comes to thinking things further. Picking a restaurant for dinner, deciding whether to buy a new Christmas tree. Just make a decision, you tell yourself. It matters little. Other times, drawing conclusions without gathering all the facts and thinking it through can be disastrous. Buying the red car because the saleslady is pretty; or even taking a new job, because it's next to the Starbucks. Well, okay, there are plenty of folks who often don't think things all the way through.
If you have recently concluded that government is good, but that the cops are bad, then you missed the truth that the cops are only there to implement the government's laws. If you are one of those who stopped at "government is good", yet still think cops are the problem, well, frankly, you didn't think it through.
When 21 ounce sodas are banned, the only way to guarantee compliance is to send an armed representative. How about when a citizen attempts free enterprise (e.g. selling "loosies") outside of the state tax system. Yep, guys with guns are dispatched to deal with it. If you or your elected representatives weren't all just too tired to think when that law was drafted, perhaps Eric Garner would still be around.
Every law on the books today is there, probably because some busybody moron convinced you and your neighbors that it was "best for the community". At that point, everybody stopped thinking. But consider this: every law on the books requires force, sometimes violent, sometimes deadly as part of the enforcement action. That's right, people dying for someone's idea of a law. If you are not willing to see someone die for a law. It's a bad law.
And if you have elected representatives who make laws that restrict people from earning a living, or from buying the sodas of their choice, or for heaven's sake what part of the bus you can sit in; then keep thinking; because laws by definition bring duly appointed and armed police officers to the scene. It's a forced conflict with government and legal violence at the logical end.
When you get in practice, you find you can start finishing other peoples' thoughts. If you like government, you have to love the cops. It also works the other way: If you dislike the cops, perhaps it is the government that is the problem.
People who are paid to think about things, call it a root cause analysis. Figure out what is causing the problem and fix it. Ferguson is a symptom. Occupy Wall Street is a symptom. Even the Tea Party is a symptom. The core problem remains. Once we get everybody thinking past their biases and fears, the solution will become much clearer.
The core problem as I see it is that the two parties have every reason to maintain a status quo; and a permanent solution to the problem is not in their plan. Perhaps having more people actively thinking is the way out of the mess.
Sometimes we run out of gas when it comes to thinking things further. Picking a restaurant for dinner, deciding whether to buy a new Christmas tree. Just make a decision, you tell yourself. It matters little. Other times, drawing conclusions without gathering all the facts and thinking it through can be disastrous. Buying the red car because the saleslady is pretty; or even taking a new job, because it's next to the Starbucks. Well, okay, there are plenty of folks who often don't think things all the way through.
If you have recently concluded that government is good, but that the cops are bad, then you missed the truth that the cops are only there to implement the government's laws. If you are one of those who stopped at "government is good", yet still think cops are the problem, well, frankly, you didn't think it through.
When 21 ounce sodas are banned, the only way to guarantee compliance is to send an armed representative. How about when a citizen attempts free enterprise (e.g. selling "loosies") outside of the state tax system. Yep, guys with guns are dispatched to deal with it. If you or your elected representatives weren't all just too tired to think when that law was drafted, perhaps Eric Garner would still be around.
Every law on the books today is there, probably because some busybody moron convinced you and your neighbors that it was "best for the community". At that point, everybody stopped thinking. But consider this: every law on the books requires force, sometimes violent, sometimes deadly as part of the enforcement action. That's right, people dying for someone's idea of a law. If you are not willing to see someone die for a law. It's a bad law.
And if you have elected representatives who make laws that restrict people from earning a living, or from buying the sodas of their choice, or for heaven's sake what part of the bus you can sit in; then keep thinking; because laws by definition bring duly appointed and armed police officers to the scene. It's a forced conflict with government and legal violence at the logical end.
When you get in practice, you find you can start finishing other peoples' thoughts. If you like government, you have to love the cops. It also works the other way: If you dislike the cops, perhaps it is the government that is the problem.
People who are paid to think about things, call it a root cause analysis. Figure out what is causing the problem and fix it. Ferguson is a symptom. Occupy Wall Street is a symptom. Even the Tea Party is a symptom. The core problem remains. Once we get everybody thinking past their biases and fears, the solution will become much clearer.
The core problem as I see it is that the two parties have every reason to maintain a status quo; and a permanent solution to the problem is not in their plan. Perhaps having more people actively thinking is the way out of the mess.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Immigration Song and Dance
If you were watching The president's immigration skit last Thursday, you were treated to his plan to get something done. That will show us who the third branch of government is, by golly. For those of you not watching Univision last week, here's how the plan went down:
Three new bureaucratic task forces tohopelessly confuse strengthen border security. Because there's no problem that can't be made more better by putting a few more friends on the payroll. Also, make sure they don't talk to each other or people already doing that job.
Prioritize deportation of the really bad guys first. Meaning anyone who gets out of line.
Scatter "Secure Communities" because those were really starting to work
Give the ICE officers a fat raise. Because if enforcement is not an option they need a reason to come to work.
Give incentives for all immigrants to get here before they turn 16. That way, you can decouple them from that subversive family oriented support as quickly as possible.
Give preferential treatment to those who've managed to hide effectively for five years, and especially if they have kids while they are here. They need to be dependent on government out of the gate, of course.
Release the detainees who appear to be talented. Don't want any positive examples laying around the community centers. That would ruin everything.
As usual, the politicians are not looking for a real solution, or even to clarify the US policy on immigration. Its a complicated mess, only because thats what they want it to be. The politicos are fond of pointing out our rich heritage in welcoming immigrants. What they leave out is that all the immigrants learned English, took care of their own, and respected our country and our traditions. Instead, our elected representatives are actively supporting dual language programs, in the process guaranteeing non-integration of the newcomers into society. Some melting pot.
Here's the Wizer's plan. Drop all the bi-lingual support and force all immigrants to learn English. It's the compassionate thing to do. Term limit the benefits so that the immigrants know it is a safety net and not a hammock. Tell them this is the land of opportunity, and they are free to be part of it. If they
want to come here it has to be for the right reasons. Finally, yes, they should read the constitution. In fact, we all should. It might change a lot of things for the better.
Three new bureaucratic task forces to
Prioritize deportation of the really bad guys first. Meaning anyone who gets out of line.
Scatter "Secure Communities" because those were really starting to work
Give the ICE officers a fat raise. Because if enforcement is not an option they need a reason to come to work.
Give incentives for all immigrants to get here before they turn 16. That way, you can decouple them from that subversive family oriented support as quickly as possible.
Give preferential treatment to those who've managed to hide effectively for five years, and especially if they have kids while they are here. They need to be dependent on government out of the gate, of course.
Release the detainees who appear to be talented. Don't want any positive examples laying around the community centers. That would ruin everything.
As usual, the politicians are not looking for a real solution, or even to clarify the US policy on immigration. Its a complicated mess, only because thats what they want it to be. The politicos are fond of pointing out our rich heritage in welcoming immigrants. What they leave out is that all the immigrants learned English, took care of their own, and respected our country and our traditions. Instead, our elected representatives are actively supporting dual language programs, in the process guaranteeing non-integration of the newcomers into society. Some melting pot.
Here's the Wizer's plan. Drop all the bi-lingual support and force all immigrants to learn English. It's the compassionate thing to do. Term limit the benefits so that the immigrants know it is a safety net and not a hammock. Tell them this is the land of opportunity, and they are free to be part of it. If they
want to come here it has to be for the right reasons. Finally, yes, they should read the constitution. In fact, we all should. It might change a lot of things for the better.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Scattershots and tight groupings
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Upton Sinclair
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ― H.L. Mencken
Remember something, if you will, about voting: Voting is not a horse race, you're not going there thinking "Gee, I gotta pick the winner so I can brag to my friends 'Oh, I picked so-and-so and he or she won'". Voting is voting your heart and voting your conscience and when you've done that, don't ever, EVER let a Democrat or Republican tell you that you've wasted your vote because the fact is, if you DON'T vote your heart and conscience then you HAVE wasted your vote.
― Jesse Ventura
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ― H.L. Mencken
Remember something, if you will, about voting: Voting is not a horse race, you're not going there thinking "Gee, I gotta pick the winner so I can brag to my friends 'Oh, I picked so-and-so and he or she won'". Voting is voting your heart and voting your conscience and when you've done that, don't ever, EVER let a Democrat or Republican tell you that you've wasted your vote because the fact is, if you DON'T vote your heart and conscience then you HAVE wasted your vote.
― Jesse Ventura
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The Future of Nature, Part 1
Nature conducts its business without regard to what we think. Does the squirrel in central park care about human misery in Ferguson, Mo? Can the Florida alligator shed a tear over events in Oklahoma City? Of course not. Nature does what it does, it ebbs, it flows, it proceeds in an utterly predictable way. We know that there will be storms, and volcanos, and earthquakes. There have been since before our recording of it, and will be long after we have left this planet (or, more likely, evolved). Further, nature cares nothing about the human condition.
There are a number of things one can observe about nature that are important right now. They have nothing to do with our view of how much carbon dioxide there is in the air, and nor much should there be.These axioms of nature don't depend on some ideal measure of global temperature, high or low, or where the shoreline starts and stops. Sometimes we can't see the trees for the forest. Sometimes we believe that our purpose is grander than it really is.
Consider the mosquito. The mosquito has evolved in such a way that it requires blood from a mammal, which it detects by the exhalation (carbon dioxide, in fact) of the mammal's respiratory system. In return, it dispenses some feedback to the host, in the form of an irritant. The host is thus warned that more stings could be in its future. This warning allows the mammal-host to find an alternate path that is less painful. Does the mammal consider the universe of mosquitoes as a condition to be destroyed? No, it is probably thankful for the gentle warning, and moves along. The mosquito is served by the fact that the host is not completely consumed by a swarm of mosquitoes, and can live to serve some future mosquito. Thus the mosquito and the mammal are both served. It's natural.
Humans are also natural, meaning they are and act as an integral part of nature. Some aspects of nature are made more useful by humans (food, shelter), just as the beaver and the paper wasp will change their environments. All of these creatures, humans included will act in their own self interest. Simply, and powerfully. Humans will do what they do in the effort to improve their living condition, their chances of survival, and their future prosperity. Or stated another way: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. --- Ample evidence that people have been thinking about these things for a very long time...
Sometimes, humans will place some of their independence in the hands of other people, in the hopes that their situation can be improved. It doesn't always work out that way, but when a community appoints a sheriff, and allows him some authority, they at times have a better chance of preserving life, liberty, and happiness. Assuming that arrangement works out for the better, other town officials can be appointed, and so on until finally, there's a mayor, a city council, a water works board, etc. In a generation or so, this is believed to be a normal way to run a society.
In some future generation, this authority invariably takes on a life of its own, and creates a situation that is no longer net positive; however by then it is not possible to unwind it, because the citizens have not prepared for such a change. I believe most of society is thus afflicted.
When power is consolidated it tends to be used in ways not required or desired, and its cabal enacts laws that are not related to the task at hand. Multiply it by 10,000 times, and this is how we get to an overarching federal government, located many miles away, seemingly uninterested in the needs of your community. It's sole purpose since Woodrow Wilson's time is starting and managing wars many many more miles away, having no positive impact on our lives, but taking more and more of its resources for the purpose.
What does a war in a middle east desert do for our lives, our liberties, and our pursuits? Indeed what does Washington do for us at all, that we can't do considerably better for ourselves? And how did we get this way. How did we become so dependent on a faceless entity whose goals are in no way aligned with our own?
It's not natural.
There are a number of things one can observe about nature that are important right now. They have nothing to do with our view of how much carbon dioxide there is in the air, and nor much should there be.These axioms of nature don't depend on some ideal measure of global temperature, high or low, or where the shoreline starts and stops. Sometimes we can't see the trees for the forest. Sometimes we believe that our purpose is grander than it really is.
Consider the mosquito. The mosquito has evolved in such a way that it requires blood from a mammal, which it detects by the exhalation (carbon dioxide, in fact) of the mammal's respiratory system. In return, it dispenses some feedback to the host, in the form of an irritant. The host is thus warned that more stings could be in its future. This warning allows the mammal-host to find an alternate path that is less painful. Does the mammal consider the universe of mosquitoes as a condition to be destroyed? No, it is probably thankful for the gentle warning, and moves along. The mosquito is served by the fact that the host is not completely consumed by a swarm of mosquitoes, and can live to serve some future mosquito. Thus the mosquito and the mammal are both served. It's natural.
Humans are also natural, meaning they are and act as an integral part of nature. Some aspects of nature are made more useful by humans (food, shelter), just as the beaver and the paper wasp will change their environments. All of these creatures, humans included will act in their own self interest. Simply, and powerfully. Humans will do what they do in the effort to improve their living condition, their chances of survival, and their future prosperity. Or stated another way: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. --- Ample evidence that people have been thinking about these things for a very long time...
Sometimes, humans will place some of their independence in the hands of other people, in the hopes that their situation can be improved. It doesn't always work out that way, but when a community appoints a sheriff, and allows him some authority, they at times have a better chance of preserving life, liberty, and happiness. Assuming that arrangement works out for the better, other town officials can be appointed, and so on until finally, there's a mayor, a city council, a water works board, etc. In a generation or so, this is believed to be a normal way to run a society.
In some future generation, this authority invariably takes on a life of its own, and creates a situation that is no longer net positive; however by then it is not possible to unwind it, because the citizens have not prepared for such a change. I believe most of society is thus afflicted.
When power is consolidated it tends to be used in ways not required or desired, and its cabal enacts laws that are not related to the task at hand. Multiply it by 10,000 times, and this is how we get to an overarching federal government, located many miles away, seemingly uninterested in the needs of your community. It's sole purpose since Woodrow Wilson's time is starting and managing wars many many more miles away, having no positive impact on our lives, but taking more and more of its resources for the purpose.
What does a war in a middle east desert do for our lives, our liberties, and our pursuits? Indeed what does Washington do for us at all, that we can't do considerably better for ourselves? And how did we get this way. How did we become so dependent on a faceless entity whose goals are in no way aligned with our own?
It's not natural.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Borders? What borders?
News item: The U.S. hasn’t decided whether to attack Islamic State targets inside Syria and won’t ask President Bashar al-Assad for permission if it does, a White House spokesman said. Bloomberg
If we can't respect borders, our own borders will never be respected. #Consequences.
If we can't respect borders, our own borders will never be respected. #Consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)