This is a non political, non rant post. It's just a personal one.
"My life in four, four time" came to me recently as I was reflecting over the past 60 years. Music has always been a part of my life as far back as I can remember, and folks that's a while!
I had an uncle who had his destroyer blown out from underneath him in WWII. He swam for hours pulling along another sailor before he was picked up. Thing is, he was hauling along only the top half of the guy. I guess this had quite an effect on him because as long as I knew him he was a drunk. Nice, and I loved the guy but a drunk non-the-less.
He used to take me to Galveston, this must have been 1948 or so, and we'd walk along the piers and boardwalk and he'd stop in beer joints for a kool one and I'd have an orange soda. In the background was always some jukebox music, Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys singing Rose of San Antone, Waltz Across Texas, or something, or maybe it would be Hank Williams or somebody. All of it was just old "hillbilly" music we'd call it in those days, "Country and Western" as a phrase hadn't been invented yet. And all of it in 4/4 time.
As I grew music remained a part of my life. My mother loved to sing and listen to music and she would buy 78rpm records and play the songs of the day. Doris Day, was big, I remember, with "Que Sera Sera"and so was Jane Froman, with "I'll Walk Alone". When we'd take car trips to Houston or, wherever, it was pretty common for my mom, dad and me to sing as we drove to break up the drive.
Jumping ahead to the late 50's and beyond, I fell in love with "folk" music and the ballads. In each period of my life from year to year there has been a song of some sort, pop, blues, folk, classic that for me defined the day. The balladeers often expressed my mood or feeling or the spirit of t he moment perfectly, soo much better than I was able to articulate.
I don't think I'm unique in this at all. In fact it seems to me to be pretty common among folks in general. So frequently, in other venues, I will post a link to a song and make some brief comment, but what is really happening is that I'm posting a song that expresses the way I feel or felt or expresses a thought or opinion that I share.
I think my life could best be described by the songs I love and listen to.
So,.................... MY LIFE IN FOUR, FOUR TIME. Have a great day.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Federal Reserve Tells YouTube to Take Down Critical Video!!! - MAKE VIRAL!!!! - YouTube
What, if any, is the value of what this fellow is doing in YOUR opinion?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Americans Elect
My thoughts have begun to gel regarding Americans Elect. If you read my posts you know my reservations about "Pure" democracy.
That being said, my research and reading about the organization in their rules and by-laws comforts my reservations substantially. Americans Elect is NOT a third or fourth party. Americans Elect is a PROCESS.
That in and of itself is not enough to allay my reservations, however. Reading through ALL of the material they make available, I have concluded that there are enough process requirements and safe guards to make the system meaningful and not cluttered with nonsense candidates.
I'm now willing to suggest to you that you take the time to look over the site and the information they make available and consider joining the group.
I still maintain that voting for president is the least important vote you cast and that voting for a city council candidate, a state representative or state senator, or a federal representative or senator are much more important and meaningful.
And I still maintain that I/we are responsible for the condition of our government today; NOT our parents generation, NOT the generation behind us but US. We are the group that has elected or allowed to be elected the people whom we rate below used car salesmen as trustworthy and reliable.
SO TAKE SOME ACTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM INSTEAD OF SENDING EMAILS DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM OR RECOMMENDING RIDICULOUS SOLUTIONS WE CAN'T MAKE HAPPEN.
And please remember, this blog is just my HUMBLE OPINION, albeit, very LOUD AND STRIDENT.
.
That being said, my research and reading about the organization in their rules and by-laws comforts my reservations substantially. Americans Elect is NOT a third or fourth party. Americans Elect is a PROCESS.
That in and of itself is not enough to allay my reservations, however. Reading through ALL of the material they make available, I have concluded that there are enough process requirements and safe guards to make the system meaningful and not cluttered with nonsense candidates.
I'm now willing to suggest to you that you take the time to look over the site and the information they make available and consider joining the group.
I still maintain that voting for president is the least important vote you cast and that voting for a city council candidate, a state representative or state senator, or a federal representative or senator are much more important and meaningful.
And I still maintain that I/we are responsible for the condition of our government today; NOT our parents generation, NOT the generation behind us but US. We are the group that has elected or allowed to be elected the people whom we rate below used car salesmen as trustworthy and reliable.
SO TAKE SOME ACTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM INSTEAD OF SENDING EMAILS DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM OR RECOMMENDING RIDICULOUS SOLUTIONS WE CAN'T MAKE HAPPEN.
And please remember, this blog is just my HUMBLE OPINION, albeit, very LOUD AND STRIDENT.
.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Ideas to fix the problem
If you are a routine reader of this blog you know I do not like overly simplistic answers to very complex problems. See, however, if some of the following ideas don't make some sense and are in fact actionable.
For instance, many of you, if feel, sure have seen the following:
Not new and it would astonish me if most of you have not seen this or some version of this.
Most parents know that a child's behavior should carry some consequences, should it not? Our Congress, then, which we openly criticize and praise, could be said to be acting like a spoiled child, could it not? I know I have ranted right here about their behavior.
Term limits: let us look at the positive value of term limits. But first I want to introduce you to a reference book.
This is a $47 book available at Amazon. Maybe your legislator will send you and older copy for free.
If a book such as this is needed for a person to be able to do their job, you have to ask yourself why?
Here it becomes difficult for me to reduce my thoughts to cogent sentences and paragraphs.
Congress, the club, makes its own rules. We here them referred to all the time in the news.But few of us have any idea what the rules are. So we write our congressman or senator and ask them to do this or that or the other. But the "Rules" are strict and they can't just jump up and do something. Most things must go to a committee. And in order for it to get to the committee "Rules" must be followed. Protocol must be observed. The bill must be considered by some group, then placed on some other groups agenda for further consideration and recommendation to be forwarded to the appropriate committee for study and review, etc., etc. I believe I'm correct, in general, on the above.
In order to get any action on the proposal, what do you suppose must happen? Well, the key players, or gatekeepers, at any stage must be persuaded of the merit of the proposal or at least convinced to pass it along. And here is where deals are made
Tenure, yes, tenure. This thought train is about tenure. So the merit of tenure is that a congressman has the time to read the book, and learn the ropes and then be able to actually introduce something of their own.
But why is all of this necessary? Rules; which powerful interests have devised for the purpose of ? Control!
For a couple of centuries now, the cry of the public has been, "throw the bums out" and get a new bunch of ?...... Bums? And that is essentially what we do. Replace republican bums for democratic bums, but regardless of the "sex" they're all from the same litter.
If that is a positive result of tenure, what is an example of a negative? Since rules proved order and control does it not make sense that the person(s) who know them the best and are most adept at their use will have more control over the process than others? Sure it does and you can follow your own train of thought from there about the possible results, good or bad.
In conclusion it seems to me that there are enough examples of special interests, pork and favoritism for us to see that without consequences the behavior is not likely to change. I do not believe that you or I would "...cut off our own nose to spite our face". So the real answer is for us to run for political office or to get appointed to an office. How? well a start is to become politically active. Accept appointment to a committee or group in your city or county government, by actually going to the mayor or whomever and asking to be on the committee, whether it's animal control (dog catcher) or housing and zoning, etc.
If we are not leading we are following or standing still. (<--- Sorry, overly simplistic).
For instance, many of you, if feel, sure have seen the following:
|
Not new and it would astonish me if most of you have not seen this or some version of this.
Most parents know that a child's behavior should carry some consequences, should it not? Our Congress, then, which we openly criticize and praise, could be said to be acting like a spoiled child, could it not? I know I have ranted right here about their behavior.
Term limits: let us look at the positive value of term limits. But first I want to introduce you to a reference book.
Congressional Deskbook: The Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Congress, Fifth Edition (Legislative Series) [Paperback]
If a book such as this is needed for a person to be able to do their job, you have to ask yourself why?
Here it becomes difficult for me to reduce my thoughts to cogent sentences and paragraphs.
Congress, the club, makes its own rules. We here them referred to all the time in the news.But few of us have any idea what the rules are. So we write our congressman or senator and ask them to do this or that or the other. But the "Rules" are strict and they can't just jump up and do something. Most things must go to a committee. And in order for it to get to the committee "Rules" must be followed. Protocol must be observed. The bill must be considered by some group, then placed on some other groups agenda for further consideration and recommendation to be forwarded to the appropriate committee for study and review, etc., etc. I believe I'm correct, in general, on the above.
In order to get any action on the proposal, what do you suppose must happen? Well, the key players, or gatekeepers, at any stage must be persuaded of the merit of the proposal or at least convinced to pass it along. And here is where deals are made
Tenure, yes, tenure. This thought train is about tenure. So the merit of tenure is that a congressman has the time to read the book, and learn the ropes and then be able to actually introduce something of their own.
But why is all of this necessary? Rules; which powerful interests have devised for the purpose of ? Control!
For a couple of centuries now, the cry of the public has been, "throw the bums out" and get a new bunch of ?...... Bums? And that is essentially what we do. Replace republican bums for democratic bums, but regardless of the "sex" they're all from the same litter.
If that is a positive result of tenure, what is an example of a negative? Since rules proved order and control does it not make sense that the person(s) who know them the best and are most adept at their use will have more control over the process than others? Sure it does and you can follow your own train of thought from there about the possible results, good or bad.
In conclusion it seems to me that there are enough examples of special interests, pork and favoritism for us to see that without consequences the behavior is not likely to change. I do not believe that you or I would "...cut off our own nose to spite our face". So the real answer is for us to run for political office or to get appointed to an office. How? well a start is to become politically active. Accept appointment to a committee or group in your city or county government, by actually going to the mayor or whomever and asking to be on the committee, whether it's animal control (dog catcher) or housing and zoning, etc.
If we are not leading we are following or standing still. (<--- Sorry, overly simplistic).
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Perspective
You should keep in mind as you read my posts that I am 66 1/2 years old and I speak from that perspective. From May 7, 1945 until now a lot of history has happened and I've lived through and been a part of it along with many of you. So, that being said; that among other things colors and informs my perspective.
The election here in Kentucky is over and we re-elected some incumbents and a few new folks. Our governor is the same, atty general the same, auditor new, treasurer new, etc. Our one independent for governor got less than 15% of the vote, so I guess that speaks to our willingness to try something out of the mainstream. I guess it's "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
"Do no harm" was the general feeling I got from other citizens as the election process dragged along. Seems like the folks felt that the team we had hadn't done anything catastrophic or horrible and generally led us through the period without doing too much harm and even did some real good along the way that they are taking credit for, so I suppose everything is in order this morning.
On the national scene, that circus is just getting rolling. The news media continue to focus on non-issues and "create" news from nothing, guiding our thoughts toward whatever agenda they have in mind. Time for Jack to do his definition thing.
Liberal = progressive = socially responsible = socialist = communist (this is my 66 1/2 year perspective)
Conservative = strict constitutional interpretation = 'right wing' = radical right = bigot = religious fundamentalist = traditionalist = big business = my soul is for sale
Libertarian = crazy people who believe in pure democracy = strict constitutional interpretation (< how can one be true and two be true at the same time?) = believe
words have no nuance when used in a sentence.
Military/industrial complex = quaint notion from decades ago that has no relevance today in our complex and interdependent world (BS).
Capitalism = the basis of our 21st century government (world wide).
Positive social Values = quaint notion devised and developed centuries ago which are no longer applicable in a highly advanced technological society
OMG, my blog post has turned intro a rant !! I'll quit.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Waste of Time
Look, let's just keep this simple. Iowa has 7 electoral votes, New Hampshire 4 out of a total of 538. It takes 270 or more to elect. Simple arithmetic: 7 votes of 538 is 1.3% !
How in the world does this make a difference at this point? It JUST DOESN'T !! Combine Iowa and New Hampshire and you STILL have a NON-event.
This whole business is a creation of the news and infotainment industry/media. Is that so hard to see? I promise you I will NO LONGER watch this nonsense, I promise. Join me in NOT WATCHING this distraction. Make horrible and hurtful comments if you catch me referring to information relating to this stuff that I learned on network/cable news. I'm sure most of you are smarter than me and don't watch that stuff in the first place. I should have spent my time sharpening my chain saw. It would have been a better use of my time.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
United States: Democracy?
Is the United States a "Democracy"?
Well, NO! The form of national government we have is a republic. Specifically a representative republic.
So, this means that of the three branches of government, we the citizens of the nation, are able to directly elect members of exactly ONE branch; the legislative (i.e. congress). Why? I suggest you reference "the Federalist Papers" for the best answer http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ .
In my opinion there were some very sound reasons for organizing our government like this. <--- I just read that previous sentence, it sound much more arrogant than I intended. What I mean to say is, I've NEVER thought I was the smartest guy in the room ( like the ENRON guys did ).
Anyway, the system we have has worked well and I see no reason to misunderstand it, and then promulgate that misunderstanding to others. Our news and information media do a wonderful job of doing just that.
We DO, however, directly elect our city, county and state leaders and representatives. And we directly elect our representatives and senators for congress. When someone says their voice isn't heard, explain the system to them.
How do we hold these people accountable? Two ways that I know of are to write them and tell them how you want to be represented and how you want them to vote, etc. The other way is YOUR VOTE!!
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Mixing Up The Numbers
Listen carefully. The news media and advertising agencies who make political ads have been doing this for years.
Which would you rather have, 25% or even 50% of $1,000 or 10% or even 1% of 10 million dollars. The number, in communication, is the big thing or key element. The media or speaker doesn't want you to focus on the element % or raw number. If I want you to think it's no big deal I put in a modifier, like "only" or "as many as", or "over". These are just clever communication/propaganda linguistic techniques. "Only" 1% of the population reads at least one book a year. Or, "Did you know that over 3 million people read a book a year or more in the United States"? Fact: if that were actually true that wouldn't be that many people when you consider the a total population of 307,000,000+. But how about this: "Only" 1% of the U.S. population reads at least one book a year compared to Canada where the rate is 3%" With a population of "Just" 34,000,000 that means only 340,000 Canadians read 1 or more books a year.
So, the point is this: to really make ANY sense of media numbers, you need to have some idea what the raw number is or the base that the percent refers to*, and you have to listen carefully when the media presenters mix raw numbers and percent because when they do that you are being intellectually manipulated.
(* "...to which the percent refers.", for those of you who prefer correct grammar).
Which would you rather have, 25% or even 50% of $1,000 or 10% or even 1% of 10 million dollars. The number, in communication, is the big thing or key element. The media or speaker doesn't want you to focus on the element % or raw number. If I want you to think it's no big deal I put in a modifier, like "only" or "as many as", or "over". These are just clever communication/propaganda linguistic techniques. "Only" 1% of the population reads at least one book a year. Or, "Did you know that over 3 million people read a book a year or more in the United States"? Fact: if that were actually true that wouldn't be that many people when you consider the a total population of 307,000,000+. But how about this: "Only" 1% of the U.S. population reads at least one book a year compared to Canada where the rate is 3%" With a population of "Just" 34,000,000 that means only 340,000 Canadians read 1 or more books a year.
So, the point is this: to really make ANY sense of media numbers, you need to have some idea what the raw number is or the base that the percent refers to*, and you have to listen carefully when the media presenters mix raw numbers and percent because when they do that you are being intellectually manipulated.
(* "...to which the percent refers.", for those of you who prefer correct grammar).
Silly Waste of Time
This whole Iowa straw poll business is an absolute silly waste of time in my opinion.
7 (seven) electoral votes, and the news media is making such a big deal about it. Give me a break!! Really?
7 (seven) electoral votes, and the news media is making such a big deal about it. Give me a break!! Really?
Filtering out the noise: Rick Perry in the background
"Limit and simplify taxes, eliminate "one size fits all" Obama healthcare, get Americans working again, balance the budget, get tort reform in the legal system, work every day to make Washing, DC inconsequential, big government, spend faster than they can print money"
Super!! Sounds like what I heard Candidate Obama say, and candidate Bush, and candidate Clinton, and candidate Bush, and candidate, etc, etc.
Fact is ... the country is run by 544 folks in Washington. 100 Senators, 435 Representatives = 535, plus 9 supreme court justices = 544; and one (1) President (who can issue executive orders and conduct foreign affairs and a few other things)which makes it 545 if you count him/her.
Tell me again where is the POWER? WHO enacts the budget?, who passes the budget? who passes the spending bills?, who passes the laws?
Rick Perry, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, all seem like OK fellas to me. I mean none of them eat babies.
But let's get REAL, OK? We aren't focusing on the right stuff are we? The news media, the thought shapers, are getting our attention focused on the least important electoral office in the nation. Why? You tell me.
The Advertisement below shows up on some of my personal pages.
"Stop Voter Suppression
action.democraticgovernors.org
Republicans stole Florida for George Bush in 2000. Don't let the GOP steal another Presidential election. Sign the DGA petition today." <--- If you follow my blogs and thinking:
I'm all for "voter suppression". We have let too many people who only feed at the public trough have the vote. No wonder we keep voting in the congress we do. Why would I vote for someone who wanted to cut my public benefits and make me prove I was needy and wanted me to go to work. To keep the public trough full, we need to give the franchise (vote) to illegal immigrants, and anyone else who breathes. And let's make sure we have plenty of absentee ballots at the prisons, too and let convicted felons vote. <----- If you didn't understand this is sarcasm then you definitely need to go back to the beginning and read ALL of my bogs.
I understand how frustrating it is to try and turn around a big ship. It takes time and uncommon amounts of effort but it can be done. There is a new notion about how to elect a president that is beginning to float around. An old high school acquaintance of mine introduced me to it.
It is americanselect.org . I don't know if it will take root and live or not but I subscribed just to be able to stay in the loop. Frankly I have serious reservations about selecting a presidential candidate like this, but have no alternative to offer at the moment.
A process like americanselect.org would definitely get my attention at the local and state level. That is where I believe the change we need has to start.
At this level I have more faith in "democracy". Here's my logic: if a local community elects some slick talking snakeoil salesman to office then they deserve him/her. They can correct their mistake and not damage the entire nation. Still, I think this americanselect idea is a very interesting one and worth a try. Let's see what kind of a candidate we come up with for November 2012.
Ok, I'm looking forward to some comments on this post. js
Super!! Sounds like what I heard Candidate Obama say, and candidate Bush, and candidate Clinton, and candidate Bush, and candidate, etc, etc.
Fact is ... the country is run by 544 folks in Washington. 100 Senators, 435 Representatives = 535, plus 9 supreme court justices = 544; and one (1) President (who can issue executive orders and conduct foreign affairs and a few other things)which makes it 545 if you count him/her.
Tell me again where is the POWER? WHO enacts the budget?, who passes the budget? who passes the spending bills?, who passes the laws?
Rick Perry, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, all seem like OK fellas to me. I mean none of them eat babies.
But let's get REAL, OK? We aren't focusing on the right stuff are we? The news media, the thought shapers, are getting our attention focused on the least important electoral office in the nation. Why? You tell me.
The Advertisement below shows up on some of my personal pages.
"Stop Voter Suppression
action.democraticgovernors.org
Republicans stole Florida for George Bush in 2000. Don't let the GOP steal another Presidential election. Sign the DGA petition today." <--- If you follow my blogs and thinking:
I'm all for "voter suppression". We have let too many people who only feed at the public trough have the vote. No wonder we keep voting in the congress we do. Why would I vote for someone who wanted to cut my public benefits and make me prove I was needy and wanted me to go to work. To keep the public trough full, we need to give the franchise (vote) to illegal immigrants, and anyone else who breathes. And let's make sure we have plenty of absentee ballots at the prisons, too and let convicted felons vote. <----- If you didn't understand this is sarcasm then you definitely need to go back to the beginning and read ALL of my bogs.
I understand how frustrating it is to try and turn around a big ship. It takes time and uncommon amounts of effort but it can be done. There is a new notion about how to elect a president that is beginning to float around. An old high school acquaintance of mine introduced me to it.
It is americanselect.org . I don't know if it will take root and live or not but I subscribed just to be able to stay in the loop. Frankly I have serious reservations about selecting a presidential candidate like this, but have no alternative to offer at the moment.
A process like americanselect.org would definitely get my attention at the local and state level. That is where I believe the change we need has to start.
At this level I have more faith in "democracy". Here's my logic: if a local community elects some slick talking snakeoil salesman to office then they deserve him/her. They can correct their mistake and not damage the entire nation. Still, I think this americanselect idea is a very interesting one and worth a try. Let's see what kind of a candidate we come up with for November 2012.
Ok, I'm looking forward to some comments on this post. js
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Rick Perry in the Background
"Limit and simplify taxes, eliminate "one size fits all" Obama healthcare, get Americans working again, balance the budget, get tort reform in the legal system, work every day to make Washing, DC inconsequential, big government, spend faster than they can print money"
Super!! Sounds like what I heard Candidate Obama say, and candidate Bush, and candidate Clinton, and candidate Bush, and candidate, etc, etc.
Fact is ... the country is run by 544 folks in Washington. 100 Senators, 435 Representatives = 535, plus 9 supreme court justices = 544; and one (1) President (who can issue executive orders and conduct foreign affairs and a few other things).
Tell me again where is the POWER? WHO enacts the budget?, who passes the budget? who passes the spending bills?, who passes the laws?
Rick Perry, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, all seem like OK fellas to me. I mean none of them eat babies.
But let's get REAL, OK? We aren't focusing on the right stuff are we? The news media, the thought shapers, are getting our attention focused on the least important electoral office in the nation. Why? You tell me.
Congress is where the lawmakers are, they are the important candidates.
Super!! Sounds like what I heard Candidate Obama say, and candidate Bush, and candidate Clinton, and candidate Bush, and candidate, etc, etc.
Fact is ... the country is run by 544 folks in Washington. 100 Senators, 435 Representatives = 535, plus 9 supreme court justices = 544; and one (1) President (who can issue executive orders and conduct foreign affairs and a few other things).
Tell me again where is the POWER? WHO enacts the budget?, who passes the budget? who passes the spending bills?, who passes the laws?
Rick Perry, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, all seem like OK fellas to me. I mean none of them eat babies.
But let's get REAL, OK? We aren't focusing on the right stuff are we? The news media, the thought shapers, are getting our attention focused on the least important electoral office in the nation. Why? You tell me.
Congress is where the lawmakers are, they are the important candidates.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
WRONG, WRONG WRONG
What changed on Friday? NOTHING!!!
The American business economy is STILL just the same as it was on Friday August 5th.
The HIGHEST GDP of any single country in the world.
The US fiscal policy is not great but our economy is fine, fine, FINE!!!
We have a chance in a short while to deal with the fiscal policy. Vote in a new congress and 1/3 of the Senate.
A final thought; and here I speak of the "Tea Party". If you ACTUALLY believe in acting on your beliefs and principles then be prepared for pain. Personal pain. There are COSTS associated with standing up for what you believe in. So if you voted for "Tea Party" candidates then stop your whining about the drop in the DOW, and the downgrading of the US debt by Standard & Poors, because THEY are the ones who facilitated the happening of all of this. Argue if you want, but that's a fact.
So, in spite of the discomfort and pain, this MAY not be such a bad thing. Our fiscal house desperately needs to be put in order and if this is the pain we have to suffer, well, we'll just have to grin and bear it.
The American business economy is STILL just the same as it was on Friday August 5th.
The HIGHEST GDP of any single country in the world.
The US fiscal policy is not great but our economy is fine, fine, FINE!!!
We have a chance in a short while to deal with the fiscal policy. Vote in a new congress and 1/3 of the Senate.
A final thought; and here I speak of the "Tea Party". If you ACTUALLY believe in acting on your beliefs and principles then be prepared for pain. Personal pain. There are COSTS associated with standing up for what you believe in. So if you voted for "Tea Party" candidates then stop your whining about the drop in the DOW, and the downgrading of the US debt by Standard & Poors, because THEY are the ones who facilitated the happening of all of this. Argue if you want, but that's a fact.
So, in spite of the discomfort and pain, this MAY not be such a bad thing. Our fiscal house desperately needs to be put in order and if this is the pain we have to suffer, well, we'll just have to grin and bear it.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Is there reason within all of the noise?
Yes, I would say there is. Can we find it? Well, it's not easy, that's for sure.
Two reasonable people can have the exact same facts and arrive at completely different conclusions, wouldn't you agree?
We (the "baby boomer" generation) are the ones who created the situation we're in now and that is a fact, in my opinion. Oh, true the groundwork and infrastructure was in large measure laid by preceeding generations, but WE used it to create today.
So, how do you find sense in the noise. It seems to me the difficulty is not a lack of information or information resources but a lack of time on the part of the public. What I mean by this, is that I'm retired and have the inclination and TIME to seek out alternative and often disagreeing sources of information.
An example would be the rating agencies; Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. ONLY Standard and Poor's has downgraded the US Bond rating. So let's see now; each day we see the DOW, the NASDAQ, and so forth. But NOT the Moody's and the Fitch: the other two dominant rating agencies. And Standard and Poor's was the agency that was giving AIG, Fanni Mae and Fanny mac the AAA ratings, etc just before the current financial crisis.
So why the big deal about the downgrade. "If it bleeds; it leads" and it's really that simple. "Debt Crisis" is news, "Political theater" isn't. Stating facts like the USA is the second largest economy in the world (Eurogroup is the first, that's all of the common market combined) China is third. Our GDP is only slightly less than that of the EuroGroup, and almost twice that of China (source, CIA world fact book).
I know some really, really smart and educated people and I'm EMBARRASSED when I see the sources they use to inform themselves. They are so far above my feeble attempts to inform myself I'm ashamed. Non the less, my attempts exceed those of many others.
TV is the worst place to look for news and information, in my opinion. I use it as a bellwether to signal to me where my attention is trying to be directed so I can focus it elsewhere.
So getting back to the "noise" and "reason". The noise was the "debt crisis". The reason was a fundamental difference between political parties. And the difference in my view was the one that has existed since the founding of your country: the difference between "Federalism" (the Federal Government controls the majority of affairs of all sorts for the citizens of the Nation), and "States Rights" (the states control the majority of affairs of it's citizens).
This is a difficult division to explain simply, without some historical and sociological background. Some forms of federalism make sense: provide for the common defense, foreign affairs, national treaties, common currency,etc, they're mostly enumerated in the US Constitution (original document).
As a culture we have collectively agreed to increase (gradually and over many decades) the amount of federal involvement into our personal lives.
Certainly, along the way there has always been disagreement. But the end result is what we have today and where we are. Still the fundamental disagreement remains and was framed it in it's latest iteration as the "Budget Crisis".
Ultimately MONEY is the issue, regardless of what the argument is.
Let me offer an example. In my business career I was responsible for employee health and safety programs. This effort is NEVER seen as any more that an "expense" or "burden" line in a business budget. The facts are over my career I saved the companies I worked for millions of dollars in worker's compensation expenses. These expenses were the most valuable money a company had because they came off the bottom line.
But I always saved much more than my programs cost. At some point it was essential for me to find out how much was "a lot" in terms of worker's compensation expense. Usually the company president would come to me and ask if the $$ number he/she saw was correct. I'd say yes. He'd say, "Damn Jack THAT'S A LOT". I'd say, thanks Bob, that was the missing information I needed to know. "How much is 'a LOT' in this company.
So if a lifting device we needed cost $15,000 and could be amortized and expensed, by preventing future $100,000 back injuries that caused the "a lot" number, then $15,000 pales in significance. It usually amounted to "pay me now or pay me later".
When I made my budget, it was always "a lot" and I'd be asked to justify it. My response was always the same. "Look, it doesn't matter to me, personally, what number you want me to have. Just tell my, what in my budget DON'T YOU WANT. All of the programs, devices, services, etc, work together as a system are responsible for the savings you are enjoying. Just tell me what you DON'T WANT.
Federalism, a large central government, costs a lot of money. The only place a government has to get money is through taxes.
And my case was made this morning on Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN.
One of the noteworthy comments was that "American citizens" want both, low taxes and more government programs.
Well, that's fine, but the fact that this is an untenable position is obvious, isn't it?
So, now we're beginning to filter out some of the noise.
Can you agree that PERCEIVED needs tend to outweigh functional reality when it comes to paying for a social program? We justify the perceived need for the social program in terms of "right thing to do", "it just makes sense", "how can we in good conscience NOT do it, and so forth. A large number can agree on the rhetorical case FOR. Few will agree on how to pay for it or WHO will pay.
But the most important point to get from this post is that: to NOT be honest and say the debate is about Federalism v. States Rights is just deceitful.
Without some sort of specie (gold, silver, or whatever) on which to base the value of a currency any country, the US, can always just print it's way out of debt. We've done it before, more than once.
The case against "printing" our way out of debt is really (IMHO) just as simple as realizing that at some point that "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government" is just a hollow phrase that gets more and more diluted.
Two reasonable people can have the exact same facts and arrive at completely different conclusions, wouldn't you agree?
We (the "baby boomer" generation) are the ones who created the situation we're in now and that is a fact, in my opinion. Oh, true the groundwork and infrastructure was in large measure laid by preceeding generations, but WE used it to create today.
So, how do you find sense in the noise. It seems to me the difficulty is not a lack of information or information resources but a lack of time on the part of the public. What I mean by this, is that I'm retired and have the inclination and TIME to seek out alternative and often disagreeing sources of information.
An example would be the rating agencies; Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. ONLY Standard and Poor's has downgraded the US Bond rating. So let's see now; each day we see the DOW, the NASDAQ, and so forth. But NOT the Moody's and the Fitch: the other two dominant rating agencies. And Standard and Poor's was the agency that was giving AIG, Fanni Mae and Fanny mac the AAA ratings, etc just before the current financial crisis.
So why the big deal about the downgrade. "If it bleeds; it leads" and it's really that simple. "Debt Crisis" is news, "Political theater" isn't. Stating facts like the USA is the second largest economy in the world (Eurogroup is the first, that's all of the common market combined) China is third. Our GDP is only slightly less than that of the EuroGroup, and almost twice that of China (source, CIA world fact book).
I know some really, really smart and educated people and I'm EMBARRASSED when I see the sources they use to inform themselves. They are so far above my feeble attempts to inform myself I'm ashamed. Non the less, my attempts exceed those of many others.
TV is the worst place to look for news and information, in my opinion. I use it as a bellwether to signal to me where my attention is trying to be directed so I can focus it elsewhere.
So getting back to the "noise" and "reason". The noise was the "debt crisis". The reason was a fundamental difference between political parties. And the difference in my view was the one that has existed since the founding of your country: the difference between "Federalism" (the Federal Government controls the majority of affairs of all sorts for the citizens of the Nation), and "States Rights" (the states control the majority of affairs of it's citizens).
This is a difficult division to explain simply, without some historical and sociological background. Some forms of federalism make sense: provide for the common defense, foreign affairs, national treaties, common currency,etc, they're mostly enumerated in the US Constitution (original document).
As a culture we have collectively agreed to increase (gradually and over many decades) the amount of federal involvement into our personal lives.
Certainly, along the way there has always been disagreement. But the end result is what we have today and where we are. Still the fundamental disagreement remains and was framed it in it's latest iteration as the "Budget Crisis".
Ultimately MONEY is the issue, regardless of what the argument is.
Let me offer an example. In my business career I was responsible for employee health and safety programs. This effort is NEVER seen as any more that an "expense" or "burden" line in a business budget. The facts are over my career I saved the companies I worked for millions of dollars in worker's compensation expenses. These expenses were the most valuable money a company had because they came off the bottom line.
But I always saved much more than my programs cost. At some point it was essential for me to find out how much was "a lot" in terms of worker's compensation expense. Usually the company president would come to me and ask if the $$ number he/she saw was correct. I'd say yes. He'd say, "Damn Jack THAT'S A LOT". I'd say, thanks Bob, that was the missing information I needed to know. "How much is 'a LOT' in this company.
So if a lifting device we needed cost $15,000 and could be amortized and expensed, by preventing future $100,000 back injuries that caused the "a lot" number, then $15,000 pales in significance. It usually amounted to "pay me now or pay me later".
When I made my budget, it was always "a lot" and I'd be asked to justify it. My response was always the same. "Look, it doesn't matter to me, personally, what number you want me to have. Just tell my, what in my budget DON'T YOU WANT. All of the programs, devices, services, etc, work together as a system are responsible for the savings you are enjoying. Just tell me what you DON'T WANT.
Federalism, a large central government, costs a lot of money. The only place a government has to get money is through taxes.
And my case was made this morning on Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN.
One of the noteworthy comments was that "American citizens" want both, low taxes and more government programs.
Well, that's fine, but the fact that this is an untenable position is obvious, isn't it?
So, now we're beginning to filter out some of the noise.
Can you agree that PERCEIVED needs tend to outweigh functional reality when it comes to paying for a social program? We justify the perceived need for the social program in terms of "right thing to do", "it just makes sense", "how can we in good conscience NOT do it, and so forth. A large number can agree on the rhetorical case FOR. Few will agree on how to pay for it or WHO will pay.
But the most important point to get from this post is that: to NOT be honest and say the debate is about Federalism v. States Rights is just deceitful.
Without some sort of specie (gold, silver, or whatever) on which to base the value of a currency any country, the US, can always just print it's way out of debt. We've done it before, more than once.
The case against "printing" our way out of debt is really (IMHO) just as simple as realizing that at some point that "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government" is just a hollow phrase that gets more and more diluted.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Fact Processing
How would YOU process some of these facts:
Social Security was never conceived as a retirement plan/system. What was it seen to be at the time?
The average life span has significantly increased in the U.S. since the initiation of Social security. Is it still sensible to have an eligibility age of 65?
The death rate has decreased.
Our economy has changed form Industrial to "Knowledge" based for the most part. How will we sustain a growing workforce and shrinking job availability?
Social Security was never conceived as a retirement plan/system. What was it seen to be at the time?
The average life span has significantly increased in the U.S. since the initiation of Social security. Is it still sensible to have an eligibility age of 65?
The death rate has decreased.
Our economy has changed form Industrial to "Knowledge" based for the most part. How will we sustain a growing workforce and shrinking job availability?
Monday, July 25, 2011
How to take over a country without firing a shot
Immigrate there, reproduce, get some education, attain political office or vast sums of money and there you are: job done.
Just ask the folks in the southwest United States.
Alternatively: if you don't mind killing, ask a native American Indian.
Just ask the folks in the southwest United States.
Alternatively: if you don't mind killing, ask a native American Indian.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Change
This is my response to a facebook friend who made a comment with which I agreed: " Excellent point, Eric, as usual. Wouldn't our time be better spent joining some political group(s) and searching within for someone to support for election; local, state, federal? Or teaching our youth the importance of being politically active. Change comes over decades and generations. We didn't get where we are during the Bush admin OR the Obama admin. The infrastructure to allow us to be where we are has taken all of the decades since the country was founded. An drastically long time horizon but the "longest journey" begins with someone getting kicked in the ass, as the saying goes."
One of the obvious things I seem to NEVER hear is that the people who disagree with a more "centrist, libertarian, or conservative" point of view are just downright more effective at getting their legislation enacted at every level of society, local, state and federal.
Rather than huffing and puffing and railing about how the "liberals" are TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY, wouldn't the adult thing to do be to shout out at every opportunity that those who believe differently are GIVING IT TO THEM.
I am NOT politically correct. I'm polite and respectful of other's point of view. But I do NOT mince words or parse every thought I have in the most non offensive language I have at my disposal. Doing so, leads, in my opinion to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I have a pretty good vocabulary and use it to express myself. You do NOT have to "read between the lines" with me. It will only lead you to the WRONG conclusion.
Because of this, I have been "dressed down", insulted, corrected, and "put in my place". Usually justifiably so. So I accept these outcomes as the price of my behavior. But I am rarely misunderstood.
So, having said all of the above ..... if you aren't satisfied with the world as it is, what (TF) are you doing to change it?
I am politically active, write this blog to myself because nobody else reads it, and keep myself informed of issues important to me my city, county, state and country and take action to support or not support the things that are within my sphere of influence by being on appointed city committees, and occasionally running for political office.
I am open to any reasonable suggestion as what more I can do or how I can be more effective.
One of the obvious things I seem to NEVER hear is that the people who disagree with a more "centrist, libertarian, or conservative" point of view are just downright more effective at getting their legislation enacted at every level of society, local, state and federal.
Rather than huffing and puffing and railing about how the "liberals" are TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY, wouldn't the adult thing to do be to shout out at every opportunity that those who believe differently are GIVING IT TO THEM.
I am NOT politically correct. I'm polite and respectful of other's point of view. But I do NOT mince words or parse every thought I have in the most non offensive language I have at my disposal. Doing so, leads, in my opinion to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I have a pretty good vocabulary and use it to express myself. You do NOT have to "read between the lines" with me. It will only lead you to the WRONG conclusion.
Because of this, I have been "dressed down", insulted, corrected, and "put in my place". Usually justifiably so. So I accept these outcomes as the price of my behavior. But I am rarely misunderstood.
So, having said all of the above ..... if you aren't satisfied with the world as it is, what (TF) are you doing to change it?
I am politically active, write this blog to myself because nobody else reads it, and keep myself informed of issues important to me my city, county, state and country and take action to support or not support the things that are within my sphere of influence by being on appointed city committees, and occasionally running for political office.
I am open to any reasonable suggestion as what more I can do or how I can be more effective.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Uncommon sense
I was just exposed to an "article" about an appropriations bill that had some very emotive and provocative items in it. I won't list the stuff, it's the usual $500 hammer stuff.
But my reaction is the same as it always is; WE elected the men and women who made these bills into law.
If it upsets you, you know what to do.
PHILOSOPHY:
Here are some of my personal thoughts on things:
I've never actually experienced successful PURE democracy
Democratic Republics (like the United States) work but not with extreme efficiency
Apathy (oh, what the hell) is perhaps our greatest social disease
You can't legislate morality
The Declaration of Independence declares that men (and WOmen of course, and I suppose hermaphrodites, transgender people, and anything else that fogs a mirror) are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And when the rights of one of these "endowed" individuals or groups infringes on the rights of another, then we send democracy packing and resort to Biblical justice, THE LAW. Here we ask a judge (surrogate God) or jury of our peers (collective surrogate God)to resolve the issue.
Well, these aren't all of my thoughts on the topic but some. And they are my thoughts and opinions and therefore NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE. This is America. I'm ENTITLED to my opinion and ENTITLED to express it. Even if it is patently wrong, based on a misreading of facts, uninformed, short sighted, stupid and ridiculous.
And that my dear reader(?) is democracy in action. I'm over 18, and I breath. Therefore I can vote. Scared? You should be. I am.
But my reaction is the same as it always is; WE elected the men and women who made these bills into law.
If it upsets you, you know what to do.
PHILOSOPHY:
Here are some of my personal thoughts on things:
I've never actually experienced successful PURE democracy
Democratic Republics (like the United States) work but not with extreme efficiency
Apathy (oh, what the hell) is perhaps our greatest social disease
You can't legislate morality
The Declaration of Independence declares that men (and WOmen of course, and I suppose hermaphrodites, transgender people, and anything else that fogs a mirror) are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And when the rights of one of these "endowed" individuals or groups infringes on the rights of another, then we send democracy packing and resort to Biblical justice, THE LAW. Here we ask a judge (surrogate God) or jury of our peers (collective surrogate God)to resolve the issue.
Well, these aren't all of my thoughts on the topic but some. And they are my thoughts and opinions and therefore NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE. This is America. I'm ENTITLED to my opinion and ENTITLED to express it. Even if it is patently wrong, based on a misreading of facts, uninformed, short sighted, stupid and ridiculous.
And that my dear reader(?) is democracy in action. I'm over 18, and I breath. Therefore I can vote. Scared? You should be. I am.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Education
In our country we make education available to everyone. No that's wrong. We REQUIRE that everyone go to school. There they may get educated or not, the choice is largely up to them, isn't it?
Doesn't everything else follow from that?
In an ever increasing population, even if it is only at a maintenance level there will always be a similar percentage of stupid people. A similar percentage but a rising raw number. Our current law will let all of them vote when the reach 18 years and can fog a mirror.
Doesn't everything else follow from that?
In an ever increasing population, even if it is only at a maintenance level there will always be a similar percentage of stupid people. A similar percentage but a rising raw number. Our current law will let all of them vote when the reach 18 years and can fog a mirror.
We have a great social dilemma, don't we? We want to make education available to everyone, including "mentally challenged", autistic, behavioral miscreants, and severely physically disabled along with "dull", "stupid" and outstanding mentally and intellectually. Separate but equal isn't acceptable, apparently. Segregation (not racial but intellectual) is out of the question, we've already rejected that.
Law doesn't seem to help either. We've made, have, and are making lots of laws in this area but things don't change for the better, do they?
I would like to take us back about a century ago. Schooling was heavily influenced in those days by the social philosopher William James ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/#1).
Additionally, the "industrial revolution" was in full swing. Industry needed workers who could read, write and add and subtract. So schooling was designed to fulfill that need. Besides, it fit nicely with preparing students to be able to read the Bible, the hymnal, the political propaganda, and prepare them to be in their own business (unlikely).
Our schools still do the same thing. I just heard Mark Zuckerburg and President Obama say they needed more scientists and engineers in silicon valley, or we'd have to continue to hire foreigners with the skills we need. That's their argument not mine.
Well, you can question or doubt my position but I believe I'm correct.
So, we essentially have a school system based on a 19th century needs model trying to serve a 21st century culture. Isn't that like clinging to a model "T" when a Ford Fusion is available? (pardon the stupid analogy).
At this point I need to say; I know I'm expounding on a single issue of a much broader and more complex universe of problems than I should be. But I just want to isolate some of the more critical elements of the education dilemma as I see them. So, I will not discuss family educational impact, cultural and societal impact or any of that important and relevant stuff at this time.
Here is the kind of system I believe would benefit the society the best and have the most positive impact.
Require education, as we do now, thru high school, say grade 12. From grades 8-12 kids would be allowed to drop out if they wished. Failure to complete 12th grade would automatically make a person inelligible to vote in ANY local, state or national election.
Think that's harsh? Well, it gets worse.
A person MUST be able to demonstrate that they are a law abiding, tax paying citizen of the country. Yep, law abiding. If convicted of a felony you can't vote. Law breakers can't vote for law makers. NO EXCEPTIONS. If you aren't subject to pay taxes you can't vote. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Think that's harsh? Well, it gets worse.
A person MUST be able to demonstrate that they are a law abiding, tax paying citizen of the country. Yep, law abiding. If convicted of a felony you can't vote. Law breakers can't vote for law makers. NO EXCEPTIONS. If you aren't subject to pay taxes you can't vote. NO EXCEPTIONS.
We have got to come to grips with the fact that by extending the voting franchise to anyone who breathes and is 18 we are perpetuating a welfare society. And this is DEMOCRACY pure and simple. There are fewer people on welfare than not, and fewer uneducated than educated. If that's the case then how do you explain the way we vote in this country? The better off and better educated folks aren't voting is how you explain it. It would seem like I'm defeating my own argument. But I believe that at a certain point you reach "critical mass" where the majority WILL vote and assume their responsibility as a citizen.
Our education system really needs some reform, and it needs to be reformed with an eye to the needs of the 21st century not the 19th, and with a full awareness of just how education fits into our over all system of a representative democracy.
Our education system really needs some reform, and it needs to be reformed with an eye to the needs of the 21st century not the 19th, and with a full awareness of just how education fits into our over all system of a representative democracy.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Our Liberty
As we contemplate whether or not we should support a "No Fly" zone in Libya or even direct intervention in support of the "Rebels", we should remember this month of February and March 2011 when the Chinese, or Russians, or Canadians, or French, or whoever it is, the Muslims, come to our shores to "LIBERATE" the non-smoking, non-meat eating, non-swearing, politically correct left wing, liberal, law writing,bed wetting, whining, socialists, constitution interpreting liberal crowd.
Because when we continue to blatantly ignore countries National Sovereignty we cannot hope to protect our own or have it honored by others. IMHO
I do NOT support or sympathize with people who blow up our buildings, and airplanes and threaten and try to terrorize us. I just believe we must live by the same laws and behaviors we impose on other nations.
Because when we continue to blatantly ignore countries National Sovereignty we cannot hope to protect our own or have it honored by others. IMHO
I do NOT support or sympathize with people who blow up our buildings, and airplanes and threaten and try to terrorize us. I just believe we must live by the same laws and behaviors we impose on other nations.
What's Fair?
I may make a false comparison but just forgive me.
We have an all volunteer "core" armed forces.
I say "core" because I'm not including "contractors".
We pay them little to be willing to give their lives for whatever "adventure" our representatives get us involved in.
When they become "broken" or "damaged" in the line of duty, we must not skimp on the services or devices we provide them. I'm talking about MY sense of fairness. It's only fair.
If we can give wall street "fat cats" trillions to keep up their lifestyle, we must surely be willing to pay what we must to the men and women who made it possible.
Anything else is a horrible abomination and
and goes against every principle of civilized humanity.
We have an all volunteer "core" armed forces.
I say "core" because I'm not including "contractors".
We pay them little to be willing to give their lives for whatever "adventure" our representatives get us involved in.
When they become "broken" or "damaged" in the line of duty, we must not skimp on the services or devices we provide them. I'm talking about MY sense of fairness. It's only fair.
If we can give wall street "fat cats" trillions to keep up their lifestyle, we must surely be willing to pay what we must to the men and women who made it possible.
Anything else is a horrible abomination and
and goes against every principle of civilized humanity.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Federal Budget (Vulgar version)
You can't understand or talk about the budget unless you can comprehend the numbers.
A billion is a THOUSAND MILLION (spend a million dollars every year for a thousand years).
A TRILLION is a THOUSAND BILLION (spend a billion dollars every year for a thousand years).
If you talk about cutting the budget by say a few million, or a few billion, maybe 14 or 64 billion, you are >vulgar expression>> picking the fly shit out of the pepper. Do the arithmetic and it is an incredibly small percent of the Multi-Trillion dollar budget.
Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) and Erskine Bowles (D-under B. Clinton) agree that you have to talk about some big numbers ... Trillions in cuts.
WE, YOU and ME have to write and write again our Representatives and Senators and TELL them they have to make meaningful budget cuts. NOT symbolic trash like trimming their own budget by 5% but cuts in the High Rise Neighborhood of TRILLIONS.
They have to have a goal of making 1000 budget cuts of 1 billion dollars to even make a small dent and they MUST do it.
Divide that up however you want. Seniors have taken a 7-14% hit over the last year or so by not getting a SS COLA increase. Big deal, we're talking about a few millions or a few low billions. Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Those are the big cows that need to be trimmed.
BTW, I'm 65, have been drawing SS since I was 63 and use medicare. I don't have a huge trust fund, large investment portfolio, a large bank account or a job. So I'm not asking anybody to suffer cuts I won't be sharing with you.
We are all in the same leaking boat. Water is coming in faster than we can bail it out.
Congress.org is a source of all your representatives contact information and voting history.
A billion is a THOUSAND MILLION (spend a million dollars every year for a thousand years).
A TRILLION is a THOUSAND BILLION (spend a billion dollars every year for a thousand years).
If you talk about cutting the budget by say a few million, or a few billion, maybe 14 or 64 billion, you are >vulgar expression>> picking the fly shit out of the pepper. Do the arithmetic and it is an incredibly small percent of the Multi-Trillion dollar budget.
Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) and Erskine Bowles (D-under B. Clinton) agree that you have to talk about some big numbers ... Trillions in cuts.
WE, YOU and ME have to write and write again our Representatives and Senators and TELL them they have to make meaningful budget cuts. NOT symbolic trash like trimming their own budget by 5% but cuts in the High Rise Neighborhood of TRILLIONS.
They have to have a goal of making 1000 budget cuts of 1 billion dollars to even make a small dent and they MUST do it.
Divide that up however you want. Seniors have taken a 7-14% hit over the last year or so by not getting a SS COLA increase. Big deal, we're talking about a few millions or a few low billions. Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Those are the big cows that need to be trimmed.
BTW, I'm 65, have been drawing SS since I was 63 and use medicare. I don't have a huge trust fund, large investment portfolio, a large bank account or a job. So I'm not asking anybody to suffer cuts I won't be sharing with you.
We are all in the same leaking boat. Water is coming in faster than we can bail it out.
Congress.org is a source of all your representatives contact information and voting history.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Sloppy journalism
An example of sloppy or misleading or writing as propaganda.
"Most U.S. onshore blowouts occur at gas wells. Tracking them falls to the states. The Texas Railroad Commission lists nearly 100 blowouts in that state since 2006. Louisiana has had 96 onshore blowouts since 1987."
"False comparison" is the technique.
"Most U.S. onshore blowouts occur at gas wells. Tracking them falls to the states. The Texas Railroad Commission lists nearly 100 blowouts in that state since 2006. Louisiana has had 96 onshore blowouts since 1987."
"False comparison" is the technique.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Where is the Outrage??
A voice in the wilderness. It would be beyond presumption for me to suggest that this humble blog can influence anything in the universe. It is one of the few things I can do, however, to try!
Why today's title, "Where's the Outrage??".
In fairly simple terms there are three or four global situations which desperately require attention. Food, water, money, and governance are probably the top four in my view this morning (02/27/2011).
What was the initiator of the current uprisings in the middle east, beginning in Tunisia? Several credible reports have laid it at the feet of intolerable increases in food prices. The link below will get you to some information.
Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/ )
Why do I so often refer to Fareed Zakaria? IMHO he is an "Opinion Maker". Beyond his CNN program and it's audience, it is pertinent to examine who some of his friends are. George Soros is a personal friend. They have dinner together. So is Henry Kissinger. And Zbigniew Brzezinski. The list goes on and is extensive. Highly educated and incredibly well regarded among high level opinion makers he obtained his education at arguably liberal institutions. However, I would posit that that does NOT diminish his influence as an opinion maker. He is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations ( http://vimeo.com/10260395 ).
So, Food is number one, with a side trip to the CFR.
Second is water. Here I refer you to "Blue Gold" for an insight as suggested in previous postings on this blog. ( http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/ ) with links for free viewing.
Third, money. Again, as mentioned in posts elsewhere, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin is an excellent resource for explaining money, albeit a confessed conspiracy theory book, the explanation of money is nonetheless valid.
And, finally, fourth, governance. Democracy, liberty, freedom and group dynamics or mob control are the key elements here along with propaganda and semantics. Democracy is tossed around much too Cavalierly without an understanding or definition of what it means for, my taste.
Call it a "Democratic" uprising or revolution and the "west" cheers it! Is that really best, I ask? What is the most efficient form of government (again, arguably)?
What is the most messy or least efficient?
I think our country represents the longest lasting democracy in modern history, does it not? It has taken us quite a number of years to get where we are today. For countries attempting to change their government from autocracies and theocracies and dictatorships to something else requires some patience on the part of everyone.
In my opinion "Think Tanks" (like CFR and others) serve the value of concentrating some of the best and brightest minds we have and allowing them to assimilate data and discuss and propose.
I'm not suggesting WE don't have to think, but what we say has less influence, usually, than what the think tank folks have to say. Maybe this is wrong, I'm not sure.
If you are not well informed about the global water crisis, or food crisis, or monetary crisis, or government crises it might be a good idea to start trying to improve your knowledge in these areas. You can write your senators and representatives and become involved locally in these issues and exercise your informed influence.
What do you think or have to say about this posting? I'm interested in your comments and want to learn. Jack
Why today's title, "Where's the Outrage??".
In fairly simple terms there are three or four global situations which desperately require attention. Food, water, money, and governance are probably the top four in my view this morning (02/27/2011).
What was the initiator of the current uprisings in the middle east, beginning in Tunisia? Several credible reports have laid it at the feet of intolerable increases in food prices. The link below will get you to some information.
Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/ )
Why do I so often refer to Fareed Zakaria? IMHO he is an "Opinion Maker". Beyond his CNN program and it's audience, it is pertinent to examine who some of his friends are. George Soros is a personal friend. They have dinner together. So is Henry Kissinger. And Zbigniew Brzezinski. The list goes on and is extensive. Highly educated and incredibly well regarded among high level opinion makers he obtained his education at arguably liberal institutions. However, I would posit that that does NOT diminish his influence as an opinion maker. He is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations ( http://vimeo.com/10260395 ).
So, Food is number one, with a side trip to the CFR.
Second is water. Here I refer you to "Blue Gold" for an insight as suggested in previous postings on this blog. ( http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/ ) with links for free viewing.
Third, money. Again, as mentioned in posts elsewhere, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin is an excellent resource for explaining money, albeit a confessed conspiracy theory book, the explanation of money is nonetheless valid.
And, finally, fourth, governance. Democracy, liberty, freedom and group dynamics or mob control are the key elements here along with propaganda and semantics. Democracy is tossed around much too Cavalierly without an understanding or definition of what it means for, my taste.
Call it a "Democratic" uprising or revolution and the "west" cheers it! Is that really best, I ask? What is the most efficient form of government (again, arguably)?
What is the most messy or least efficient?
I think our country represents the longest lasting democracy in modern history, does it not? It has taken us quite a number of years to get where we are today. For countries attempting to change their government from autocracies and theocracies and dictatorships to something else requires some patience on the part of everyone.
In my opinion "Think Tanks" (like CFR and others) serve the value of concentrating some of the best and brightest minds we have and allowing them to assimilate data and discuss and propose.
I'm not suggesting WE don't have to think, but what we say has less influence, usually, than what the think tank folks have to say. Maybe this is wrong, I'm not sure.
If you are not well informed about the global water crisis, or food crisis, or monetary crisis, or government crises it might be a good idea to start trying to improve your knowledge in these areas. You can write your senators and representatives and become involved locally in these issues and exercise your informed influence.
What do you think or have to say about this posting? I'm interested in your comments and want to learn. Jack
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Unions
Starting at the beginning, a union forms a contract with a company/organization. That contract is negotiated by and agreed upon by both parties.
Why have unions gotten such a negative reputation among some groups? Probably because they want something for the people they represent that some others don't want the people to have, because they just don't, or because they say they can't afford it.
The real answer is this: the party that negotiates the best deal (often, if not, usually the unions) gets their way.
So the "cry-baby" corporations go wah, wah, wah, I don't wanna pay for this, or the "cry baby Unions" go, wah, wah, wah, you're being mean and unfair cause I can't have this, and eventually one side or the other gives in, or asks the govt. to mediate for them. I know, I've been there and I've done it, I'm not just talking out of my ....
Are there trade offs to be made? Sure! Labor has to decide how long it can go without pay. Organization has to decide how long it can survive w/o labor.
What have I left out? That, historically, unions have done a much more effective job of negotiating for their members than the organizations have done of negotiating for their shareholder owners? Well, yeah, I left that out, because I believe it's the topic of it's own blog.
Am I wrong or what? Please comment, I want to learn.
Why have unions gotten such a negative reputation among some groups? Probably because they want something for the people they represent that some others don't want the people to have, because they just don't, or because they say they can't afford it.
The real answer is this: the party that negotiates the best deal (often, if not, usually the unions) gets their way.
So the "cry-baby" corporations go wah, wah, wah, I don't wanna pay for this, or the "cry baby Unions" go, wah, wah, wah, you're being mean and unfair cause I can't have this, and eventually one side or the other gives in, or asks the govt. to mediate for them. I know, I've been there and I've done it, I'm not just talking out of my ....
Are there trade offs to be made? Sure! Labor has to decide how long it can go without pay. Organization has to decide how long it can survive w/o labor.
What have I left out? That, historically, unions have done a much more effective job of negotiating for their members than the organizations have done of negotiating for their shareholder owners? Well, yeah, I left that out, because I believe it's the topic of it's own blog.
Am I wrong or what? Please comment, I want to learn.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Budget Reminder
Just a reminder, the president proposes and the congress disposes.
The power of the nation rests with the Congress NOT the president.
The power of the nation rests with the Congress NOT the president.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
Not everyone is a critical or deep thinker, nor do they want to be. And in the USA and many other countries we are all entitled to our opinion and entitled to express it whether it is an informed one or not. That's what blogs are all about isn't it?
However, as a person with a bias toward "behaviorism" and "behavior modeling", I would say that when you want someone or a group to change their behavior, YOU must model the correct behavior you want them to adopt.
So, by way of example, if we all need to "tighten our belts" to make the country's economy better, then what better place to start than Government itself.
If the governor of Wisconsin wants unions to sit with him and talk about cuts, he should be willing to put something of his own on the table, IMO.
That is slightly more complicated than just saying "Maybe the people are fed up". Offering solutions is usually more complex than offering an opinion.
This blog entry, is itself, an example of a simplistic approach to a more complicated problem and should incite some critical and well thought out responses in reaction; showing me where I have missed the point or not thought through the situation adequately before typing. I hope so, anyway.
Below is a positive action you can take if you want to.
**********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Let me do you, the reader, a favor and reserve my "history of unions" speech for another time
However, as a person with a bias toward "behaviorism" and "behavior modeling", I would say that when you want someone or a group to change their behavior, YOU must model the correct behavior you want them to adopt.
So, by way of example, if we all need to "tighten our belts" to make the country's economy better, then what better place to start than Government itself.
If the governor of Wisconsin wants unions to sit with him and talk about cuts, he should be willing to put something of his own on the table, IMO.
That is slightly more complicated than just saying "Maybe the people are fed up". Offering solutions is usually more complex than offering an opinion.
This blog entry, is itself, an example of a simplistic approach to a more complicated problem and should incite some critical and well thought out responses in reaction; showing me where I have missed the point or not thought through the situation adequately before typing. I hope so, anyway.
Below is a positive action you can take if you want to.
**********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Let me do you, the reader, a favor and reserve my "history of unions" speech for another time
Federal Budget 2012
This is not a rant blog about the Federal Budget. Below is a link to the appendix to the budget; that is where you find the line items that get so much media play regarding waste,etc. As important as it is, I don't have the time, patience or intellect to read through the whole thing, the appendix, much less the budget. But if anybody stumbles onto this blog, that does have those skills/abilities, here is the link to get you started.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The effect of "Progress"
Let me begin by saying forcefully! I am NOT a back to nature environmentalist or anything else radical. Read this before going on,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0215/West-Africa-Rising-Could-rising-food-prices-spark-Egypt-style-revolt-in-Africa?cmpid=ema:nws:World%20Daily%2002162011&cmpid=ema:nws:Njg3OTY0NDk0NQS2
Follow my logic. The internal combustion engine and technological progress eventually led us to where we are today. One of the results of this has been our ability to move from the rural areas to cities, to use money to buy food and shelter, to be able to transport food to places that wouldn't normally have much, etc. You should see that each new event has built on top of the last. Same story with water. Without engines and motors, no water for central and southern California, right?
So where am I going with all of this obvious information? Well, without Water and Food (in that order of importance) we die right? The following link lists famines over time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines.
Try and correlate the famine dates with significant world events i.e. Irish potato famine and migration to United States, and Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Note the # of estimated deaths.
Back to today. With our modern transportation system hungry/thirsty people can get from famine to food much more easily than the Irish did if they want to.
While I've been ranting for a couple of decades the need to live where there is natural water and enough space to grow something to eat, only my son will know this.
And the point is? Save and preserve seeds for food. With roughly 10 humans being born and 6 who die every minute world wide, the arithmetic is against a decreasing population.
Is there a fix? Well, if there is it seems to escape me this morning. Maybe you've got some ideas. If so feel free to share them here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0215/West-Africa-Rising-Could-rising-food-prices-spark-Egypt-style-revolt-in-Africa?cmpid=ema:nws:World%20Daily%2002162011&cmpid=ema:nws:Njg3OTY0NDk0NQS2
Follow my logic. The internal combustion engine and technological progress eventually led us to where we are today. One of the results of this has been our ability to move from the rural areas to cities, to use money to buy food and shelter, to be able to transport food to places that wouldn't normally have much, etc. You should see that each new event has built on top of the last. Same story with water. Without engines and motors, no water for central and southern California, right?
So where am I going with all of this obvious information? Well, without Water and Food (in that order of importance) we die right? The following link lists famines over time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines.
Try and correlate the famine dates with significant world events i.e. Irish potato famine and migration to United States, and Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Note the # of estimated deaths.
Back to today. With our modern transportation system hungry/thirsty people can get from famine to food much more easily than the Irish did if they want to.
While I've been ranting for a couple of decades the need to live where there is natural water and enough space to grow something to eat, only my son will know this.
And the point is? Save and preserve seeds for food. With roughly 10 humans being born and 6 who die every minute world wide, the arithmetic is against a decreasing population.
Is there a fix? Well, if there is it seems to escape me this morning. Maybe you've got some ideas. If so feel free to share them here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Budget Numbers
Oh, I see!! I want it to sound like a big deal so let's see... what sounds best?
4.6 Billion a year
No, that sounds too little. How much time is left on my term. Let's see about 2 years.
That would be 9.2 billion to the end of my term. Still a little lite I think.
Hummmm? 46 billion, now that sounds good. Ok then, 46 billion over 10 years then.
Yeah, I like that, it sounds like a lot.
4.6 Billion a year
No, that sounds too little. How much time is left on my term. Let's see about 2 years.
That would be 9.2 billion to the end of my term. Still a little lite I think.
Hummmm? 46 billion, now that sounds good. Ok then, 46 billion over 10 years then.
Yeah, I like that, it sounds like a lot.
Monday, February 14, 2011
At Last, Bernie Madoff Gives Back - NYTimes.com
The article below is well worth reading, IMHO. Before reading further I urge you to "Google" crepuscular, and obfuscate. IMO we are victims of "If you can't convince them with Logic, Baffle them with bullshit". Each crisis over which we MIGHT have some control is obfuscated by a "crisis" over which we HAVE NO CONTROL. Egypt, while very significant, does not have to overshadow the report. Derivatives are not that difficult to understand or explain to someone with simple math skills, i.e. add, subtract, multiply and divide. If Jami Dimond is sick of hearing "Bankers, Bankers, Bankers!!" I'M sick of hearing bankers, brokers and financiers and regulators say "it's not my fault". Bullshit!! it IS YOUR FAULT!!! Every bit of it is YOUR FAULT BANKER!! If you're not personally responsible for the crime, you're guilty of poor or no due diligence, poor leadership and management and just down right stupidity (<-- Against which there is no law but should be, IMO)
At Last, Bernie Madoff Gives Back - NYTimes.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
At Last, Bernie Madoff Gives Back - NYTimes.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Thursday, February 10, 2011
What is Anarchy?
Here is MY practical working definition for/of Anarchy:
The LACK of; the ABSENCE of .... fill in the blank with, Leadership, rulership, authority, government, rules, etc.
Anarchy seems to be a word to describe the absence of something.
MY OPINION
Anarchy is, IMHO, a misused and overused word in too common use today. I would say that while more "wordy" than anarchy but more descriptive of a situation might be words like, disruptive mob, rebellious crowd, lawless behaving group, etc. This gives a descriptive adjective to some sort of group behavior.
And why would I say this is important; because if you use a word with legitimate multiple meanings, then you leave it up to me to choose the one I want. What I choose may NOT be what you mean. Therefore true, effective communication hasn't occurred.
The LACK of; the ABSENCE of .... fill in the blank with, Leadership, rulership, authority, government, rules, etc.
Anarchy seems to be a word to describe the absence of something.
MY OPINION
Anarchy is, IMHO, a misused and overused word in too common use today. I would say that while more "wordy" than anarchy but more descriptive of a situation might be words like, disruptive mob, rebellious crowd, lawless behaving group, etc. This gives a descriptive adjective to some sort of group behavior.
And why would I say this is important; because if you use a word with legitimate multiple meanings, then you leave it up to me to choose the one I want. What I choose may NOT be what you mean. Therefore true, effective communication hasn't occurred.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Really Random
Why do we care what other people think about subjects like, religion, politics and sex?
When I ask for an opinion or thoughts on a subject, it's usually from someone whom I consider to be smarter or better informed than me on a topic. OR from someone that I would say represents a "common" or general opinion; not necessarily a literate or well informed one. The only interest I have in knowing what, say, Jennifer Aniston has to say about the Obama administration is in hearing her view with the thought in mind that she may influence SOME people.
Does the idea of a six year one term presidency make sense? What are the pros and cons? Sense nobody reads this blog, I'll prolly never know what others think. For me? It might make sense if it were in the context of some other broad govt changes. Democracy is messy, but the Office of the President is by and large the weakest branch of the govt. Unfortunately it gets the most press, but really it isn't a very powerful position from a governing standpoint. So would it be ok to give the office a longer time in place to try and persuade the electorate and congress to support a particular agenda? Wouldn't that sort of approach also give US more time to allow us to hear and process information relating to particular legislation.
When I ask for an opinion or thoughts on a subject, it's usually from someone whom I consider to be smarter or better informed than me on a topic. OR from someone that I would say represents a "common" or general opinion; not necessarily a literate or well informed one. The only interest I have in knowing what, say, Jennifer Aniston has to say about the Obama administration is in hearing her view with the thought in mind that she may influence SOME people.
Does the idea of a six year one term presidency make sense? What are the pros and cons? Sense nobody reads this blog, I'll prolly never know what others think. For me? It might make sense if it were in the context of some other broad govt changes. Democracy is messy, but the Office of the President is by and large the weakest branch of the govt. Unfortunately it gets the most press, but really it isn't a very powerful position from a governing standpoint. So would it be ok to give the office a longer time in place to try and persuade the electorate and congress to support a particular agenda? Wouldn't that sort of approach also give US more time to allow us to hear and process information relating to particular legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)