The words POLITE and POLITICAL are similar in their root and we often see our politicians politely disagreeing with one another on CSPAN or cable news. But with politeness comes blandness where each person comes with their prepared statements giving their little 30 second exchanges on how the country should be run.
While I do not believe we should be name calling or getting into physical altercations with each other on the Senate floor, I also believe we need to speak what is TRULY on our hearts and minds. I believe that in anger and passion we show our true selves to the voters and what we REALLY BELIEVE.
Recently I witnessed such an exchange on the Illinois State chamber by Rep. Mike Post. I would recommend all of you to go and see for yourselves the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ToXX1zPrhgU
Post says what's on his mind and on his heart and I believe also on ours as well. His anger came from the fact that the Speaker had brought a bill to the floor for a vote with little or no time to read and consider what is best. Some believe the bill was a set up and it was known that it would fail, but in doing so it would give democrats an excuse to say "we tried to fix the pension program, but the republicans voted against it".
Now, thanks to Post's tirade, the cat is out of the bag and all who have seen this video and the story are aware of the games being played in the Illinois government.
Thank you Rep. Post for fighting for your people. May Illinois elect more like you in the future.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your MIND
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Is Japan's "girly men" connected to its lack of military?
I saw an article a while back talking about Japan's problem with reproducing itself. If you haven't heard of this before, Japan's culture is suffering an abysmal level of marriage and birthrates. According to CNN, the birthrate in Japan is at all time low of 1.37 (that's means 137 children born for every 100 couples (200 people) and its the lowest of the entire world. To maintain a stable population a country must maintain a 2.00 birth rate, anything less and it begins a downward spiral of more people being supported by fewer and fewer people.
Some point to obstacles to starting families, namely higher taxes, but also many woman point out that their choices in men leave little to desire. Over the course of the last 5 decades, the Japanese male has become more and more feminine. These men are referred to as "herbivorous males" or "girly men", and they are not interested in sex, cars or career, but instead in shopping and "designer labels".
How could this happen to a culture once feared by many countries in the Pacific Rim? How did the country that sparked the second world war in the pacific (Pearl Harbor) find its way to being the laughing stock and possibly the "extinct stock" of the human race?
I think the answer comes what we did to them after WWII. In our own effort to insure our own safety, we stripped Japan of its own ability to defend itself. We replaced their military with ours and no more would Japan build a military. No more would Japanese men serve in a military outfit learning DUTY, HONOR, COURAGE! and over the years, the Japanese male has been feminized. Contrast this to Israel which has a replacement birthrate of 2.97 and requires each Israeli male to serve 3 years in the military from the ages of 18-21.
But its not enough to just look at Japan and laugh at their "girly men" because we in the US are not far behind Japan in this race to the bottom. Recently the US birth replacement rate dropped from 2.08 to 2.01 and has been falling for the last 12 years. We too are fed a steady diet of effeminate men on TV and in movies. Often referred to as the "sensitive man" he is part woman (psychologically) and part man (he has testicles). He is willing to be seen playing tea with his 5 year old daughter, cook the dinners, wash the dishes and shop for groceries while Mom is working in the office earning the wages. The first example of this came in the early 80's called: Mr Mom. In this movie an out of work auto engineer is left to take care of the family (without killing them) while Mrs. Mom makes her way in the big world of advertising showing the "old guys" a thing or two about women. We all laughed and Hollywood prayed it would take hold.... and it did. Today there is an endless list of romantic comedies where hapless, low-testosterone, low-gray-matter (so low you got to wonder why they are even breathing) males try to woo the strong, intelligent, dominant female to ask THEM to be their mate. The most recent example of this I can give is the movie "Love ya man!". In this movie a guy who has spent most of his life around girls needs to find a "best man" for his wedding. He goes on a series of "man dates" to find his match. All I can say is try watching this movie after watching a Dirty Harry movie and try hard not to vomit.
This brings me back to Japan's problem and their lack of a military. Today, we are bombarded with stories about letting woman fight alongside men in the battlefield. Are we also trying to feminize our military and ultimately weaken it? Let me illustrate. Let's say 5% of the military is worried about serving with women in the battlefield because they are concerned about females not being able to hold their ground both physically and mentally. So 95% are OK with it and they are willing to stay, but the other 5% do not wish to be killed so they leave. This leaves a 5% hole in our military that must be replaced. If I replace them with more women, then a larger percentage of men worried about their safety leave (or don't re-enlist). Each time leaving a bigger and bigger hole that we fill with a larger and larger percentage of woman.
In conclusion, we must understand that the purpose of a military in a society is more than just to protect us from external invaders, but it also serves as the primary developer of strong male figures for our young men to be molded into. Without this essential organization we become weak and effeminate and our nation crumbles. Maybe it's time for our country to re-establish the draft and force all men at the age of 18 to spend 1-3 years in the military learning what it means to be "a man".
Some point to obstacles to starting families, namely higher taxes, but also many woman point out that their choices in men leave little to desire. Over the course of the last 5 decades, the Japanese male has become more and more feminine. These men are referred to as "herbivorous males" or "girly men", and they are not interested in sex, cars or career, but instead in shopping and "designer labels".
How could this happen to a culture once feared by many countries in the Pacific Rim? How did the country that sparked the second world war in the pacific (Pearl Harbor) find its way to being the laughing stock and possibly the "extinct stock" of the human race?
I think the answer comes what we did to them after WWII. In our own effort to insure our own safety, we stripped Japan of its own ability to defend itself. We replaced their military with ours and no more would Japan build a military. No more would Japanese men serve in a military outfit learning DUTY, HONOR, COURAGE! and over the years, the Japanese male has been feminized. Contrast this to Israel which has a replacement birthrate of 2.97 and requires each Israeli male to serve 3 years in the military from the ages of 18-21.
But its not enough to just look at Japan and laugh at their "girly men" because we in the US are not far behind Japan in this race to the bottom. Recently the US birth replacement rate dropped from 2.08 to 2.01 and has been falling for the last 12 years. We too are fed a steady diet of effeminate men on TV and in movies. Often referred to as the "sensitive man" he is part woman (psychologically) and part man (he has testicles). He is willing to be seen playing tea with his 5 year old daughter, cook the dinners, wash the dishes and shop for groceries while Mom is working in the office earning the wages. The first example of this came in the early 80's called: Mr Mom. In this movie an out of work auto engineer is left to take care of the family (without killing them) while Mrs. Mom makes her way in the big world of advertising showing the "old guys" a thing or two about women. We all laughed and Hollywood prayed it would take hold.... and it did. Today there is an endless list of romantic comedies where hapless, low-testosterone, low-gray-matter (so low you got to wonder why they are even breathing) males try to woo the strong, intelligent, dominant female to ask THEM to be their mate. The most recent example of this I can give is the movie "Love ya man!". In this movie a guy who has spent most of his life around girls needs to find a "best man" for his wedding. He goes on a series of "man dates" to find his match. All I can say is try watching this movie after watching a Dirty Harry movie and try hard not to vomit.
This brings me back to Japan's problem and their lack of a military. Today, we are bombarded with stories about letting woman fight alongside men in the battlefield. Are we also trying to feminize our military and ultimately weaken it? Let me illustrate. Let's say 5% of the military is worried about serving with women in the battlefield because they are concerned about females not being able to hold their ground both physically and mentally. So 95% are OK with it and they are willing to stay, but the other 5% do not wish to be killed so they leave. This leaves a 5% hole in our military that must be replaced. If I replace them with more women, then a larger percentage of men worried about their safety leave (or don't re-enlist). Each time leaving a bigger and bigger hole that we fill with a larger and larger percentage of woman.
In conclusion, we must understand that the purpose of a military in a society is more than just to protect us from external invaders, but it also serves as the primary developer of strong male figures for our young men to be molded into. Without this essential organization we become weak and effeminate and our nation crumbles. Maybe it's time for our country to re-establish the draft and force all men at the age of 18 to spend 1-3 years in the military learning what it means to be "a man".
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
New Symbol for the Democratic Party
I believe the following picture should replace the "donkey" as the symbol of the Democratic Party for two reasons. One is that its shape fits right into the "O"bama campaign. The second reason is that is fits with their view that we can live off of eating ourselves (or at least the rich for that matter). Their ideology is that we can simply take from the rich and give to the poor, much like the snake takes from its tail and gives it to its stomach. After the tail is consumed what is left? The mid-section? And after the mid-section?
For example, let's take all of Steve Jobs money ($40B) that he left in his will (they don't need it anyway) and distribute it all Americans. That would give all of us about $120. Just enough to buy you DVD player. Not much when you think about it. In fact, if we took all the money from Forbes top 400 the total amount would be $1.5 trillion dollars. While that may seem like a lot, divided equally among 300 million citizens would come to about $4500. Enough to buy a big screen TV with a Bose surround sound system. But that's it. Nothing more. These people would not be providing jobs anymore and therefore we would have to move to the second level ... the millionaires. And later when the millionaires are all gone we will have to move onto the sub-millionaires.
This is the tricky balance that the Democratic Party seems to be trying to play right now. How do they eat the rich just enough that they stay alive so they can feed off of them another day. Recently this played out on Meet-The-Press with the mayor of Newark Cory Booker saying that the attacks against Bain Capital and other capital investors were "nauseating". Later, after some phone meetings with the Obama Campaign, Cory Booker issued a "correction" on an edited video saying he had no problem with the Obama Campaign investigating Romney's time at Bain Capital and they should look into that. (I guess the Obama campaign gave him some "Tums" to settle his nauseated stomach). The mayor knows he needs companies like Bain Capital to invest in start-ups and struggling companies (and there are lot of them) in his city, but at the same time he must play the Obama game of demonizing such companies.
Reminds me of a sign I saw on my uncle's farm in Illinois. It read: "Don't curse the farmer with your mouth full"
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Education Bubble
As I wrote the title to this blog I realized the double entendre and that you could have a lengthy discussion also, on how our universities live inside of social bubbles and are isolated from the "real world". But for this blog I will concentrate on the economic bubble meaning.
All economic bubbles are the product of easy access to money through credit. For example, the stock market crash of the 1930's was caused much in part by the use of credit to invest in the stock market through a process called "buying on margin" ( I just love how things like this are given such innocuous names like "buying on margin" or "qualitative easing" that sound so "blazay" instead of calling it something like "highly risky investing using other peoples money" or "devaluing our countries savings") . This easy access to money allowed people to be reckless and in the end they lost billions of other people's money. In our decade, easy access to credit allowed people to purchase larger and larger homes even though their incomes did not match their desires. Many people thought they could just own the house for a year or two and then sell the house for a tidy profit all the time hoping that they (like a game of musical chairs) would not be the last one out.
Also, credit contributed to the stock market crash as well. Some economists that I have read don't believe it did, but I think when you look beyond the numbers and into the "psychological factors" you do see it played a very big role. Normally a person who invests their own money into an investment is more willing to stay with a stock over the long hall despite the ups and downs of the market. Margin calls do not have that luxury. In fact, a brokerage may put an automatic sell on a stock called a "margin call" when the stock dips below a set value at which point the person who took out the loan must pay back the amount of the loan. This influx of sell orders triggers more sellers as the stock price drops further due to the influx of sell orders. Even if the stock is not automatically sold, margin buyers might be more quick to hit the sell button than those who bought their stock without credit as they do not want to be put on the hook for too much money.
Now today, education is thought to be the NEXT bubble. The total outstanding student loan debt stands at 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. For comparison, all credit card debt stands at 400 billion dollars. And with many college graduates unable to find jobs one must wonder if that debt will be repaid. Following the same pattern, the access to easy credit is the culprit to why college costs so much. Like the mortgage debt, where we OVER VALUED our homes, student loan debt causes us to OVER VALUE our college education. Is college worth ANY PRICE? Of course, Obama and other democrats want us to believe it is, and they are more than willing to help subsidize our greed. As they pile more money onto the university "table", don't be surprised that our nations universities want to consume that money.
They consume that money in one of two ways. The first is they expand their universities and add more and more useless programs. They see no need to cut staff or programs, because that is counter productive because by keeping course availability limited, students need to stay longer than the normal 4 year schedule and therefore pay more to the college in order to get their desire degree. Additionally, adding programs and buildings takes time and many colleges are land-locked and expanding becomes almost impossible. Therefore many colleges resort to the second method of consuming student loan debt and that is: raising tuition. This is the easiest of the two ways and takes the least amount of time. All one has to do is change a few amounts on the college website and the poor student "lemmings" will go out and retrieve all the money you need. No questions asked. This is where the college economics does not follow real-world economics. While some students may drop out because they cannot afford the increase in tuition. Most students, once they have begun their college degree, feel obligated to bring it to completion. College students in fact, are almost treated like "hostages" and parents are willing to pay whatever fee their "kidnappers" ask to get their child out.
The answer to bringing down college tuition is not making loans more accessible, but instead the opposite. By getting rid of the student loan and other government grant programs, parents will not be able to pay their kidnappers ransom (tuition) and colleges will need to bring down their tuition levels to meet the REAL VALUE parents can afford. To do so, colleges will need to come to grips with their bloated programs and remove unneeded ones. ( Do we really need a degree in 19th century East European Fascist Literature? ).
In short, more credit never fixes the problem since more money leads to higher (over-valued) prices every time.
All economic bubbles are the product of easy access to money through credit. For example, the stock market crash of the 1930's was caused much in part by the use of credit to invest in the stock market through a process called "buying on margin" ( I just love how things like this are given such innocuous names like "buying on margin" or "qualitative easing" that sound so "blazay" instead of calling it something like "highly risky investing using other peoples money" or "devaluing our countries savings") . This easy access to money allowed people to be reckless and in the end they lost billions of other people's money. In our decade, easy access to credit allowed people to purchase larger and larger homes even though their incomes did not match their desires. Many people thought they could just own the house for a year or two and then sell the house for a tidy profit all the time hoping that they (like a game of musical chairs) would not be the last one out.
Also, credit contributed to the stock market crash as well. Some economists that I have read don't believe it did, but I think when you look beyond the numbers and into the "psychological factors" you do see it played a very big role. Normally a person who invests their own money into an investment is more willing to stay with a stock over the long hall despite the ups and downs of the market. Margin calls do not have that luxury. In fact, a brokerage may put an automatic sell on a stock called a "margin call" when the stock dips below a set value at which point the person who took out the loan must pay back the amount of the loan. This influx of sell orders triggers more sellers as the stock price drops further due to the influx of sell orders. Even if the stock is not automatically sold, margin buyers might be more quick to hit the sell button than those who bought their stock without credit as they do not want to be put on the hook for too much money.
Now today, education is thought to be the NEXT bubble. The total outstanding student loan debt stands at 1 TRILLION DOLLARS. For comparison, all credit card debt stands at 400 billion dollars. And with many college graduates unable to find jobs one must wonder if that debt will be repaid. Following the same pattern, the access to easy credit is the culprit to why college costs so much. Like the mortgage debt, where we OVER VALUED our homes, student loan debt causes us to OVER VALUE our college education. Is college worth ANY PRICE? Of course, Obama and other democrats want us to believe it is, and they are more than willing to help subsidize our greed. As they pile more money onto the university "table", don't be surprised that our nations universities want to consume that money.
They consume that money in one of two ways. The first is they expand their universities and add more and more useless programs. They see no need to cut staff or programs, because that is counter productive because by keeping course availability limited, students need to stay longer than the normal 4 year schedule and therefore pay more to the college in order to get their desire degree. Additionally, adding programs and buildings takes time and many colleges are land-locked and expanding becomes almost impossible. Therefore many colleges resort to the second method of consuming student loan debt and that is: raising tuition. This is the easiest of the two ways and takes the least amount of time. All one has to do is change a few amounts on the college website and the poor student "lemmings" will go out and retrieve all the money you need. No questions asked. This is where the college economics does not follow real-world economics. While some students may drop out because they cannot afford the increase in tuition. Most students, once they have begun their college degree, feel obligated to bring it to completion. College students in fact, are almost treated like "hostages" and parents are willing to pay whatever fee their "kidnappers" ask to get their child out.
The answer to bringing down college tuition is not making loans more accessible, but instead the opposite. By getting rid of the student loan and other government grant programs, parents will not be able to pay their kidnappers ransom (tuition) and colleges will need to bring down their tuition levels to meet the REAL VALUE parents can afford. To do so, colleges will need to come to grips with their bloated programs and remove unneeded ones. ( Do we really need a degree in 19th century East European Fascist Literature? ).
In short, more credit never fixes the problem since more money leads to higher (over-valued) prices every time.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thank you George Washington
Looking at the various attempts around the world to replicate our countries split from England and comparing what they have with what we had to start with, all I can say is "Thank you George Washington!"
Our founding fathers were not fools. Ben Franklin was asked by a women what the outcome of their meeting in Philadelphia had produced. Franklin replied, "A Republic! If you can keep it!". In those few words, Franklin showed even his lack of optimism in the future of our country. He and others knew from history that Republics are difficult to keep because as time goes, people become lazy and give more and more of their power over to those who promise to take care of them. I think it was Alexander Hamilton that said, "When the people realize they can vote themselves money, it's all over!"
George Washington also knew the natural state of man and that inherently he is evil (not good as our progressive counterparts keep telling us) and like a moth to a flame he will gravitate towards acquiring more and more power. Which is why, I believe, George Washington set the standard SO HIGH! Because, by doing so, our country would take centuries to roll down to the level we have now.
My first poor example of a leader is none other than the president of Afghanistan who accepts bribes and has done little or nothing to stop the corruption his country it is no wonder that all of our efforts there may be for nothing. He has also shown a willingness to make deals with the devil in courting the Taliban and negotiating with them despite their ruthless destruction of the country only years prior.
My second example of a pathetic version of Washington is none other than the leader of Russia , Vladimir Putin. This former KGB leader has NO desire for democracy in his country. After serving 2 terms in office (2000-2008) he put his own nominated replacement in position to keep his seat warm for 4 years so he could become president again in 2012 (and there is little doubt he will lose in 2016 either). Unlike our patriotic forefathers, these men simply replaced their KGB communist uniforms for business suites and ties and became "capitalists" overnight.
I think that in the future, when we decide to try to help build a republic (not a democracy) in another country we must first ask: "Do they have any leader that is can stand up to George Washington in character, honesty, trustworthiness, self-control, integrity and honor? ". If not, don't even bother trying.
As for us, we have the hard work ahead for us to roll this ball back up the hill to the level George Washington first put it. God help us all!
Our founding fathers were not fools. Ben Franklin was asked by a women what the outcome of their meeting in Philadelphia had produced. Franklin replied, "A Republic! If you can keep it!". In those few words, Franklin showed even his lack of optimism in the future of our country. He and others knew from history that Republics are difficult to keep because as time goes, people become lazy and give more and more of their power over to those who promise to take care of them. I think it was Alexander Hamilton that said, "When the people realize they can vote themselves money, it's all over!"
George Washington also knew the natural state of man and that inherently he is evil (not good as our progressive counterparts keep telling us) and like a moth to a flame he will gravitate towards acquiring more and more power. Which is why, I believe, George Washington set the standard SO HIGH! Because, by doing so, our country would take centuries to roll down to the level we have now.
My first poor example of a leader is none other than the president of Afghanistan who accepts bribes and has done little or nothing to stop the corruption his country it is no wonder that all of our efforts there may be for nothing. He has also shown a willingness to make deals with the devil in courting the Taliban and negotiating with them despite their ruthless destruction of the country only years prior.
My second example of a pathetic version of Washington is none other than the leader of Russia , Vladimir Putin. This former KGB leader has NO desire for democracy in his country. After serving 2 terms in office (2000-2008) he put his own nominated replacement in position to keep his seat warm for 4 years so he could become president again in 2012 (and there is little doubt he will lose in 2016 either). Unlike our patriotic forefathers, these men simply replaced their KGB communist uniforms for business suites and ties and became "capitalists" overnight.
I think that in the future, when we decide to try to help build a republic (not a democracy) in another country we must first ask: "Do they have any leader that is can stand up to George Washington in character, honesty, trustworthiness, self-control, integrity and honor? ". If not, don't even bother trying.
As for us, we have the hard work ahead for us to roll this ball back up the hill to the level George Washington first put it. God help us all!
Friday, May 11, 2012
WIN AT ALL COST!
We often hear about how professional athletes who have sacrificed so much to reach their goal of winning a championship. They submit themselves to all kinds of pain and suffering from constant training and workouts. They leave their wives and families for long periods of time to train or compete to get to their goal. They often weep when they reach their goal and hold their medal or trophy above their head because they now know it was all worth it. THEY WON!
My wife and I were doing a Bible study together on 1 Peter. 2&3 when it became obvious Peter felt our goal in life should be .... WINNING! But not winning in a selfish or personal sense like winning an intellectual or physical battle. Instead his goal was to win as many for Christ as possible.... no matter what!
Peter wrote these letters around the time he was already in prison under Nero. Yet here in this letter he tells the church to "honor the Emperor". What? The man who is about to have you crucified upside-down? Honor him? Yes. Why? So some of them might be saved. He didn't want their attitude towards the Emperor or the Roman Empire to get in the way with that effort.
Later Peter advices slaves to show respect even to their masters but "not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh". Many anti-Christians, use this verse as ammunition for their hatred saying "See? Your bible is pro-slavery!" when in fact looking at the whole section you see Peter's purpose. Again it is to WIN as many for Christ as possible. Our sufferings can be used by God to reach those inflicting the suffering! This reminds me of a book I read years ago called "Tortured For Christ!" in which the writer talks about being in a Russian prison and seeing a fellow Christian taken out by the guards and severely beaten for talking to another prisoner for sharing his faith. When the man was brought back in, he pulled him self up from the floor and said "Now where did we leave off at..". The prisoner was amazed and said, "How can you do that?". His answer was, "We have an agreement with the guards, they beat and we bless". Later in the book, the writer saw that one of the new prisoners was previously one of the most harshest guards. He had been converted by what he had seen.
Finally Peter gives a similar piece of advice to wives who are married to non-believers, saying that they should honor their husbands and show respect. Why? So that "they may be WON over without words by the behavior of their wives". I remember a person in the church I grew up in who was married to a truck driver. She was the nicest and sweetest woman you ever met. Her husband was often harsh, never went to church, drank a lot and used foul language. But she stuck with him through it all and prayed for him. Later I found out that he had changed his ways, was attending church and even teaching Sunday school.
Peter's letter can be summed up with this: WIN FOR CHRIST AT ALL COST!
My wife and I were doing a Bible study together on 1 Peter. 2&3 when it became obvious Peter felt our goal in life should be .... WINNING! But not winning in a selfish or personal sense like winning an intellectual or physical battle. Instead his goal was to win as many for Christ as possible.... no matter what!
Peter wrote these letters around the time he was already in prison under Nero. Yet here in this letter he tells the church to "honor the Emperor". What? The man who is about to have you crucified upside-down? Honor him? Yes. Why? So some of them might be saved. He didn't want their attitude towards the Emperor or the Roman Empire to get in the way with that effort.
Later Peter advices slaves to show respect even to their masters but "not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh". Many anti-Christians, use this verse as ammunition for their hatred saying "See? Your bible is pro-slavery!" when in fact looking at the whole section you see Peter's purpose. Again it is to WIN as many for Christ as possible. Our sufferings can be used by God to reach those inflicting the suffering! This reminds me of a book I read years ago called "Tortured For Christ!" in which the writer talks about being in a Russian prison and seeing a fellow Christian taken out by the guards and severely beaten for talking to another prisoner for sharing his faith. When the man was brought back in, he pulled him self up from the floor and said "Now where did we leave off at..". The prisoner was amazed and said, "How can you do that?". His answer was, "We have an agreement with the guards, they beat and we bless". Later in the book, the writer saw that one of the new prisoners was previously one of the most harshest guards. He had been converted by what he had seen.
Finally Peter gives a similar piece of advice to wives who are married to non-believers, saying that they should honor their husbands and show respect. Why? So that "they may be WON over without words by the behavior of their wives". I remember a person in the church I grew up in who was married to a truck driver. She was the nicest and sweetest woman you ever met. Her husband was often harsh, never went to church, drank a lot and used foul language. But she stuck with him through it all and prayed for him. Later I found out that he had changed his ways, was attending church and even teaching Sunday school.
Peter's letter can be summed up with this: WIN FOR CHRIST AT ALL COST!
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Don't bother me... I'm on the phone!
For those of you who read my blogs you will realize that this one is very different from my normal discussions on faith, society or American ideals. The reason for this blog is that just last week I nearly lost my life TWICE while driving home from work. Both incidents had at their very heart one main issue: cell phone usage.
The first issue occurred on a stretch of road where 2 lanes merge into a single lane (for about a 1/4 mile and then magically they split back into 2). I was in the right lane which was disappearing but I had ample room between the 2 cars in the left hand lane to merge. When I decided to merge I saw that that car in the rear had sped up and now was almost side-by-side with me. I sped up to claim my slot only to have the car speed up also. Realizing I was running out of road I either had to slam on my brakes or force my way in. At the last moment the car behind slowed down and let me in. During all of this, I was under the impression that I was the victim of a a--hole driver who "just hast to be in front" , but when I merged I looked back and to my astonishment it was a teenage girl holding up to there face her phone. Her face was one of astonishment and she quickly put down her phone and looked for a turn off to get away from me (I think she could see from my back window that I was not very pleased with her driving and was YELLING at her). I was so angry from this near accident that I had to pull off the road into a parking lot just to give my nerves time to calm down.
The second occurrence came just a couple of days afterward. I was on my way home from work again and was only about 3 miles from my destination. I came to a simple 4-way-stop with no one else waiting. I came to a stop and saw a car coming from the left. I assumed they would stop (silly me) and was about to go, when I suddenly had to apply my brakes. The girl driving the car was talking on her cell phone and had passed right through the intersection as if I wasn't even there. I should have chased her down and yelled at her too but opted for slamming on my horn to wake her up from the cell-phone-induced-slumber.
I have come to the belief that these people should be required to have large yellow signs placed on the tops of their cars (similar to taxis and driving-schools) alerting the rest of us that the driver of the vehicle has more important activities other than driving and might be distracted.
This leads me to my next issue. Is driving not important to us? I work as a computer engineer, and recently I heard that technology is targeting the automobile as the next place to grow. In the near future cars will allow us to get more information from the internet than ever before. This scares the living crap out of me and it sounds like another session of REALLY! (from Saturday Night Live) is in order here...
You want the driver of the car to be able to order Sushi while is driving 70 mph on the freeway? REALLY?!
You think that allowing him to see that latest viral You-Tube video while cars around him are trying to merge onto the free-way is a good thing? REALLY?!
You want him answering his emails with his brother in Boston who is wondering when they are going to come out for vacation? REALLY?!
You want him to be updating his Facebook status with "Driving home from work now..." (when in fact in a few seconds it should read "DECEASED" because that is what he is going to be because he doesn't see that he just crossed the yellow line and is about to come up close with a semi-truck. REALLY?!
You want him watching HULU when he's driving through a road work area with orange cones lining the road and guy standing with a sign saying "STOP" is trying to wave him down? REALLY?!
We, who develop technology, need to start looking at the moral ramifications of what we develop. Does this make sense? Will this cause more people to get hurt or die? Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
I know all the counter-arguments that go along with this. The biggest being "Well if we don't design it someone else will and they will make all the money".
I have one word for this: "Degesch".
Who is Degesch? They were the chemical company in Germany responsible for the large-scale production of Zyklon B (or cyanide gas) used by Hitler to kill 6 million Jews. Imagine, the leader of your country who has documented his hatred of the Jewish people (and other "undesirables") has needs of large quantities of poisonous gas. Did Germany have a rat infestation? No! So what other use could there be? It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out and yet onto the road to hell they went. Were they saying the same thing? Oh well, some chemical company is bound to do his dirty work... might as well as be us so we can make money at it! I know the use of Nazi Germany is over used too. But I believe in this instance it does help make a point about our decisions as engineers and marketing workers. Money should not always be the reason for doing what we do!
The first issue occurred on a stretch of road where 2 lanes merge into a single lane (for about a 1/4 mile and then magically they split back into 2). I was in the right lane which was disappearing but I had ample room between the 2 cars in the left hand lane to merge. When I decided to merge I saw that that car in the rear had sped up and now was almost side-by-side with me. I sped up to claim my slot only to have the car speed up also. Realizing I was running out of road I either had to slam on my brakes or force my way in. At the last moment the car behind slowed down and let me in. During all of this, I was under the impression that I was the victim of a a--hole driver who "just hast to be in front" , but when I merged I looked back and to my astonishment it was a teenage girl holding up to there face her phone. Her face was one of astonishment and she quickly put down her phone and looked for a turn off to get away from me (I think she could see from my back window that I was not very pleased with her driving and was YELLING at her). I was so angry from this near accident that I had to pull off the road into a parking lot just to give my nerves time to calm down.
The second occurrence came just a couple of days afterward. I was on my way home from work again and was only about 3 miles from my destination. I came to a simple 4-way-stop with no one else waiting. I came to a stop and saw a car coming from the left. I assumed they would stop (silly me) and was about to go, when I suddenly had to apply my brakes. The girl driving the car was talking on her cell phone and had passed right through the intersection as if I wasn't even there. I should have chased her down and yelled at her too but opted for slamming on my horn to wake her up from the cell-phone-induced-slumber.
I have come to the belief that these people should be required to have large yellow signs placed on the tops of their cars (similar to taxis and driving-schools) alerting the rest of us that the driver of the vehicle has more important activities other than driving and might be distracted.
This leads me to my next issue. Is driving not important to us? I work as a computer engineer, and recently I heard that technology is targeting the automobile as the next place to grow. In the near future cars will allow us to get more information from the internet than ever before. This scares the living crap out of me and it sounds like another session of REALLY! (from Saturday Night Live) is in order here...
You want the driver of the car to be able to order Sushi while is driving 70 mph on the freeway? REALLY?!
You think that allowing him to see that latest viral You-Tube video while cars around him are trying to merge onto the free-way is a good thing? REALLY?!
You want him answering his emails with his brother in Boston who is wondering when they are going to come out for vacation? REALLY?!
You want him to be updating his Facebook status with "Driving home from work now..." (when in fact in a few seconds it should read "DECEASED" because that is what he is going to be because he doesn't see that he just crossed the yellow line and is about to come up close with a semi-truck. REALLY?!
You want him watching HULU when he's driving through a road work area with orange cones lining the road and guy standing with a sign saying "STOP" is trying to wave him down? REALLY?!
We, who develop technology, need to start looking at the moral ramifications of what we develop. Does this make sense? Will this cause more people to get hurt or die? Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
I know all the counter-arguments that go along with this. The biggest being "Well if we don't design it someone else will and they will make all the money".
I have one word for this: "Degesch".
Who is Degesch? They were the chemical company in Germany responsible for the large-scale production of Zyklon B (or cyanide gas) used by Hitler to kill 6 million Jews. Imagine, the leader of your country who has documented his hatred of the Jewish people (and other "undesirables") has needs of large quantities of poisonous gas. Did Germany have a rat infestation? No! So what other use could there be? It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out and yet onto the road to hell they went. Were they saying the same thing? Oh well, some chemical company is bound to do his dirty work... might as well as be us so we can make money at it! I know the use of Nazi Germany is over used too. But I believe in this instance it does help make a point about our decisions as engineers and marketing workers. Money should not always be the reason for doing what we do!
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Nobody vs Somebody
There is a simple story I once heard and I believe it's an illustration of the problem with communism and why it always fails.
This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done
So it goes with communism, as both of these systems transfer the ownership of our societies problems on to invisible and unidentifiable bureaucrats. How often do were hear people lament when some atrocity occurs that could have been prevented if "somebody" had just acted sooner. Of course those in government are all too eager to swoop in and "save the day" with some new reform, law or regulation. Then "everybody" can all go back to sleep, confident that "somebody" is watching out for us and "nobody" will get hurt again. But we know this is not true.
People who live under communism think they are laying all of their concerns at the feet "somebody" when in fact it ends up being done by "nobody". "Somebody" will provide the jobs. "Somebody" will share their wealth and property. "Somebody" will pay all the taxes. "Somebody" will feed us, educate us, clean us, drive us, protect us ....and the list goes on. Recently on Hannity, Sean asked an Occupy Wall Street leader to come on and debate the issues and make an intelligible argument for their cause. During the interview Sean asked him if education should be "free" and the answer was a resounding YES. Should daycare and childcare be free and again a resounding YES was declared. Should housing and healthcare be free and like a person attending a baptist revival the answer was YES YES! All of our basic human needs should be supplied by the government for free.
But who will pay for all these free stuff?
The answer is somebody has to pay for it. Somebody in the central government should be the head over these things and see to it that all of us are taken care of. But in the end nobody will do it and nobody will be held accountable.
Capitalism, on the other hand, allows all of us to look out for each other. A capitalist competes to make their part of the world better at a lower cost (greed can be good!). For example, say we have 2 schools providing K-8 education to a community. Capitalism would cause these 2 schools to compete against each other in the area academics (not just football and basketball) to provide the BEST education at the lower cost to the parent. In this system EVERYONE wins. The parents save money, the child gets a better education and the capitalist makes money.
Capitalism also allows all of us to be societies "watchmen". Which would you rather have? A handful of "smart people" trying to figure out a problem for "the masses" or a large number of people all looking at the problem and coming up with a thousand different experiments to see what works better? Under communism, a handful of people who are unaccountable dictate "fixes" that seem correct to them and if they don't work they have no concern or worry since NOBODY can argue with them or fire them. In contrast, Capitalism allows EVERYONE to be involved and searching for ways to improve our society. SOMEONE may be afraid of burglars and so SOMEONE came up with the idea of home-security-alarms. SOMEONE (elderly people) may be afraid to live on their own so SOMEONE came up with a way for them to get help if they ever need it by pressing a button on a pendent.
Capitalism can be summed up this way:
Somebody had a need for something and was willing to purchase it and so somebody else provided it in order to become rich.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Why do we not listen?
How often do you hear of cases where people who do HORRIBLE things actually tell others (written or verbal) EXACTLY what they are going to do and then they are surprised when they ACTUALLY DO IT? The answer is: all to many times.
Psychologists say that it's the mark of a psycho-path or an ego-maniac. They either internally want to be stopped and so they send out letters and such to hopefully get the help they need. Or they get some sort of sick rush of endorphins knowing that you won't "get it" and have somehow pulled one over on you.
Case in point is Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" (My Dream) where he spells out exactly how he plans to take over the world and kill all of the Jews. Most cast this off as ramblings of a strange person and did not take Hitler for what he claimed to be doing. Except for some people, like Winston Churchhill who did take him seriously and take the necessary steps to get his country to stand up against him, many did not. It was all right there. All you had to do was read them damn book and you knew what was going to happen.
Have we learned our lesson yet?
I don't think so..
Today the Obama administration has come out with there election slogan: Forward!
Now for most of us this is just a word. In fact, it's not that different from MSNBC's slogan of "Lean Forward" so maybe Obama is just taking some direction from his fan-club.
But for those who know the history of communism, FORWARD is a common phrase.
Poster upon poster in Russia showed Stalin and Lenin with a variety of phrases below them
(go to the following link to see them all for yourself)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
Phases like:
Under Lenin's Banner: Forward to Victory!
Forward to Victory for Communism!
Mao's Great Leap Forward!
Forward to Communism!
Not that Obama cannot use the word "forward" and use it in a different way, but combined with the fact that his mother, grandfather, grandmother, mentors (Frank Marshall Davis) and friends (Bill Ayers) were all self-avowed communists) this must give you pause.
Our problem is that we often don't take people on their own words.
Psychologists say that it's the mark of a psycho-path or an ego-maniac. They either internally want to be stopped and so they send out letters and such to hopefully get the help they need. Or they get some sort of sick rush of endorphins knowing that you won't "get it" and have somehow pulled one over on you.
Case in point is Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" (My Dream) where he spells out exactly how he plans to take over the world and kill all of the Jews. Most cast this off as ramblings of a strange person and did not take Hitler for what he claimed to be doing. Except for some people, like Winston Churchhill who did take him seriously and take the necessary steps to get his country to stand up against him, many did not. It was all right there. All you had to do was read them damn book and you knew what was going to happen.
Have we learned our lesson yet?
I don't think so..
Today the Obama administration has come out with there election slogan: Forward!
Now for most of us this is just a word. In fact, it's not that different from MSNBC's slogan of "Lean Forward" so maybe Obama is just taking some direction from his fan-club.
But for those who know the history of communism, FORWARD is a common phrase.
Poster upon poster in Russia showed Stalin and Lenin with a variety of phrases below them
(go to the following link to see them all for yourself)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
Phases like:
Under Lenin's Banner: Forward to Victory!
Forward to Victory for Communism!
Mao's Great Leap Forward!
Forward to Communism!
Not that Obama cannot use the word "forward" and use it in a different way, but combined with the fact that his mother, grandfather, grandmother, mentors (Frank Marshall Davis) and friends (Bill Ayers) were all self-avowed communists) this must give you pause.
Our problem is that we often don't take people on their own words.
Its all about the children
Have you noticed that every liberal cause always starts with "the children". Here is a short list of campaigns that focused initially on the children
These are just a few that come to mind. Each of which was highlighted in the media (Good Morning America, 20/20 , 60 minutes, Night Line, etc..) for days and weeks on end. Many time advocates for these causes would bring their own children on the set to use them as center-pieces for their arguments. After all, who is going to argue with a mother or father with their children standing by them. Also the children serve a untouchable advocates as they will be asked probing questions like: How do you feel about this? or What do you think of your father? Have you ever been the victim of this? etc..
Recently, even on Fox News, Sean Hannity interviewed the parents whose child died from being bullied. Of course I feel bad for this couple. I have children of mine own and I would feel terrible if this happened to one of them. However, at the same time, I believe their cause (which is an honorable one) is being hi-jacked by the left as a way to shut down political and religious free speech as it could be called being a "bully". And a question I have for this family is: "How far do you want this taken?". Do you just want to inform parents and teachers of the severity bullying? Do you want laws passed to restrict bullying? If so...
Like most jokes that use a "Geni-in-a-bottle" as the theme, parents need to "be careful what they ask for" when others wish to use their pain to promote their own agenda.
- Anti-Obesity campaign - control what we eat
- Anti-Bullying campaign - control what we believe
- Anti-Smoking campaign - control what we breath
- Anti-Violence in Media - control what we see
- Anti-Hate-Speech - control what we say
These are just a few that come to mind. Each of which was highlighted in the media (Good Morning America, 20/20 , 60 minutes, Night Line, etc..) for days and weeks on end. Many time advocates for these causes would bring their own children on the set to use them as center-pieces for their arguments. After all, who is going to argue with a mother or father with their children standing by them. Also the children serve a untouchable advocates as they will be asked probing questions like: How do you feel about this? or What do you think of your father? Have you ever been the victim of this? etc..
Recently, even on Fox News, Sean Hannity interviewed the parents whose child died from being bullied. Of course I feel bad for this couple. I have children of mine own and I would feel terrible if this happened to one of them. However, at the same time, I believe their cause (which is an honorable one) is being hi-jacked by the left as a way to shut down political and religious free speech as it could be called being a "bully". And a question I have for this family is: "How far do you want this taken?". Do you just want to inform parents and teachers of the severity bullying? Do you want laws passed to restrict bullying? If so...
- What is bullying? Like "hate-speech" its undefined and nebulous.
- Where is it to be restricted to? Schools only? Places where children meet? Homes?
- Who should it be restricted to? Teenagers only? < 21 , 25 any age?
- What should be the punishment? Fines? Community service? Jail?
- Are there exceptions? Police? Military? Family?
Like most jokes that use a "Geni-in-a-bottle" as the theme, parents need to "be careful what they ask for" when others wish to use their pain to promote their own agenda.
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Baseline
Working in engineering we are faced with problems that effect how efficiently we can get our work done. Computer programs or models we use slowly overtime grow and become less efficient and make our work harder and more expensive. We call this "efficiency creep". The problem starts with areas that start out fast but over time they get modified (new features etc..) and affect how they run and function. A test may take 60 seconds to run at the beginning of project A, but by the end of the project A its now running 75 seconds (25% slower). The next project team takes over and they never saw the original 60 second time and so the 75 second time becomes the new "baseline". Over the course of the second project B it slows down to 90 seconds (20% slower). Not bad but nothing to worry about either. Project C takes over and the 90 seconds is the new baseline and it slows down to 120 seconds (33% change). It may be of some concern to some in the group, but no one has time to fix it (too busy) and so they say they will address it later. It doesn't. After several projects the test is now running 250 seconds (over 4 times slower than when it started). This costs the company large amounts of money because we don't just have 1 test, but instead we have 1000's of tests just like that are all running 4 times slower and so we need 4 times more hardware (equipment) to get the tests done in the same amount of time). Below is a graph illustrating the problem:
As you can see each project doesn't see that the test used to run in 1 minute at the beginning of project A. Instead of comparing to Project A, they only compare to what they saw at the beginning of their project and by the send of 7 projects, the problem has "compounded" itself (like interest on a loan) to where its a "bloody mess".
The same holds true for us as a country. Without going back to the original government, each subsequent generation only thinks their government is only a little worse than the prior generation. Some call this "boiling a frog alive" but that is more folklore than fact and is often dismissed since "who wants to boil frogs?". This I think better illustrates our problem as its not so much an organized effort (though there may be some of that element as well), but instead its a lack of historical reference.
Using this illustration, the way engineers keep this from happening is that we must constantly go back to the original baseline and proactively fix problems so they do not compound over time
As seen above each project compares constantly to the baseline and makes THAT its target or goal and so proactively fixes the problem throughout the project.
This is why teaching our children REAL HISTORY is so important. Our schools are not doing an adequate job. They are effectively erasing the baseline hoping we will forget how it used to be. How politicians put COUNTRY before SELFISH-AMBITION. How real people like George Washington said NO TO POWER (he could have made himself king). How our federal government was set up to be small and limited and not all-powerful and controlling.
Let's get back to the baseline and show our children what America was supposed to be about: limited government, free-enterprise, and self-control.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Perestroika for the US?
Recently, the former COMMUNIST leader of Russia, Mikhail Gorbachev, endorsed our current President Obama in his re-election. The phrase "with friends like these, who needs enemies" comes to mind. Gorbachev also went on to say he felt that the United States could use a period of Perestroika to make things better. You know things have gotten bad, when the former leader of the system you destroyed tells you that you have adopted many of the same policies you had tried to eradicate.
So what is Perestroika?
According to Gorbachev, perestroika was the "conference of development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and disciple, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity."
The Soviet economy was in shambles. Importing most of their goods and unable to compete with other countries they were stagnated. So to encourage "initiative and creative endeavor", they began to allow ownership of property (mine) and also more freedom to criticize their government and say what is wrong.
So is this what we need more of in the United States?
To quote a famous Alaskan Governor, "You Betch'ya".
The fear however for our President to take Gorbachev's advice is not from where the advice hails, but that the advice might work!
Gorbachev's reconstruction lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union, for freedom isn't something you can contain or keep bottled up. Freedom creates its own demand and a little freedom in one area leads to a demand for freedom in all areas of life and society. For like a virus, it spreads by word of mouth from one citizen to the next, taking root in the soul and giving hope and energy to the whole body.
So YES Mr. President. Please take the advice of your communist comrade, Mikhail Gorbachev, and give your citizens more freedom to live their lives as they wish. The results will astound you!
So what is Perestroika?
According to Gorbachev, perestroika was the "conference of development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and disciple, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity."
The Soviet economy was in shambles. Importing most of their goods and unable to compete with other countries they were stagnated. So to encourage "initiative and creative endeavor", they began to allow ownership of property (mine) and also more freedom to criticize their government and say what is wrong.
So is this what we need more of in the United States?
To quote a famous Alaskan Governor, "You Betch'ya".
The fear however for our President to take Gorbachev's advice is not from where the advice hails, but that the advice might work!
Gorbachev's reconstruction lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union, for freedom isn't something you can contain or keep bottled up. Freedom creates its own demand and a little freedom in one area leads to a demand for freedom in all areas of life and society. For like a virus, it spreads by word of mouth from one citizen to the next, taking root in the soul and giving hope and energy to the whole body.
So YES Mr. President. Please take the advice of your communist comrade, Mikhail Gorbachev, and give your citizens more freedom to live their lives as they wish. The results will astound you!
Monday, April 23, 2012
An honest graduation commencement speech
It's getting around that time of year again when many parents will witness the culmination of years of hard work and watch their son or daughter take that long walk up to the stage to receive their high school diploma and feel a sense of relief. "We did it!" many will be saying to themselves. But before they receive that Kinko's printed and fake gold-paper embossed sign of achievement, they will most likely sit through a short speech given by a teach, administrator, local politician, businessman or even a minister. That person will talk about all the work that went in getting here and give appreciation to their parents. He or she will talk about how anyone in this great country can make it and that laid out for them is a golden road on which they will travel into the future... blah blah blah. Or as I put it .. BS BS BS!
To bad they won't be told the truth. (Maybe as Jack Nicholson put in the movie "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the TRUTH!".)
So how would I address the class of 2014?
To the Class of 2014 ........................... You did it!
To the Parents of the Class of 2014 .... You did it!
But just what did you "do" ?
According to the DoE, the US ranks 25th in math and 17th in science in world wide ratings. In these two subjects California ranked 40th out of 50. So welcome to the bottom of the bottom. Those of you how graduated with honors.... welcome to the top of the bottom of the bottom.
To be honest .... we lied to you.
And now you are entering the REAL world...
A world where:
Just know that the cap you throw up in the air must come down and hit the cold hard earth in the end.
To bad they won't be told the truth. (Maybe as Jack Nicholson put in the movie "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the TRUTH!".)
So how would I address the class of 2014?
To the Class of 2014 ........................... You did it!
To the Parents of the Class of 2014 .... You did it!
But just what did you "do" ?
According to the DoE, the US ranks 25th in math and 17th in science in world wide ratings. In these two subjects California ranked 40th out of 50. So welcome to the bottom of the bottom. Those of you how graduated with honors.... welcome to the top of the bottom of the bottom.
To be honest .... we lied to you.
- We gave all of you, gold-stars for attendance and large plastic gold trophies for "participation". Your coaches told all of you how each you was as good as the other and gave long speeches over pizza about how important YOU WERE to the team.
- We gave you "passing" and "needs a little improvement" marks, rather than As,Bs,Cs,Ds and Fs. We told you no ever FAILS! We just all achieve different levels of competence!
- We made your playgrounds so safe that no one no matter how stupid or careless would EVER, EVER get hurt. If someone did happen to get hurt that activity was BANISHED from the playground for ALL ETERNITY so no other child would experience the pain or humiliation again.
- And speaking of humiliation, we made sure teams during PE or recess were chosen randomly so no one would have to experience the "humiliation" of being chosen last.
- We massaged your egos and told all of that you can ALL BE ROCK STARS. To do this we provided you with an endless array of groups and events to show off "your thing" and make your "mark on the world".
- When you failed, WE took the blame for it. It was because the city didn't provide enough funding or education. We argued that we didn't understand the adolescent mind, or we should have stopped you in some way with better police enforcement or adult supervision. It was because we started you to soon or not soon enough in school. It was because we didn't give you the right tutoring, attention or medicine.
- We gave you TV programs showing kids taking matters into their own hands and that even their mistakes are rewarded with good outcomes. When you became obese, we blamed the giant corporations and the fast food industry for making you that way, instead of pointing you out the door to play kickball with your friends.
- When it came to SEX we educated you on how WONDERFUL it all is and how ADULT it is. We made you grow up faster and faster each year and in the process we STOLE your childhood.
- We lied to you and told you that ANY college degree is better than NO degree at all and that college is a place to "find yourself".
And now you are entering the REAL world...
A world where:
- Very few ever get trophies for their achievements.
- Some will get ahead in this life and others won't. And who does and who doesn't won't be based necessarily on who is popular or not. Some of it will be based on how hard you work, on what your priorities are, on what opportunities you look for, on where your willing to go or not go. And yes, sometimes on how lucky your are.
- Where you do get a failing grade...it's called a "pink slip" (ask your parents, chances are they know what this is)
- Where people can get hurt and often do from their own stupidity. (just ask someone whose house is worth half as much as when they bought it)
- 99.9999999% of us will never be Rock Stars. But we will raise children and help in our communities and churches without recognition. We won't have thousands of fans chanting our name and telling us how much they love and adore us. But maybe some day we will be surrounded at our bedside with children, grand-children and maybe even great-grand-children telling us how influential we were in their lives.
- You will fail at some point in your life and you will have to face your own participation in that failure, be it in work, marriage, family or society at large. There won't be anyone else to blame but you yourself. You did that! You said that! And these failures probably won't have good outcomes like on Disney. Instead, they will have ramifications for years to come.
- More and more people are wanting to live off of fewer and fewer. Where some people are unashamed to be takers and not givers. Where its all about what you can get away with. Which group will you be in?
- A $18T government debt that is about to eclipse our annual GDP and will need increasing amounts of taxes JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT! Most of this debt will be to pay for the health and retirement of the baby-boomer generation (the most selfish generation on earth) and you will be the ones left with the bill! Yes we all had a great party and now someone has to pay the tab! We will all be dead and gone, but our legacy will live on as you look at your weekly pay stub and see more and more of your hard earned money taken out.
- College tuition is rising at 3-4 times the rate of inflation and that colleges are so overcrowded that there is no longer a 4 year degree, but instead it will take you 5 or even 6 years to graduate. Compounded, you will all leave college with more debt than our parents had when they bought their first house. And that college degree in East European 19th Century Fascist Literature won't mean a thing to the 50 year old manager looking to hire an assistant sales accountant.
Just know that the cap you throw up in the air must come down and hit the cold hard earth in the end.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The Good of the ONE ...
For those who remember the movie: "Star Trek 2", there was a scene in which Spock says he does not understand why Captain Kirk would risk the entire crew to
come in and save HIM. Captain Kirk replies: "Sometimes the good of the one outweighs the good of the many". So to it is with our Supreme Court. The ONE
out weighs the MAJORITY.
I bring this up because a few days ago, the President made some non-scripted remarks about the Supreme Court possibly throwing out the entire Healthcare law and saying that such a move would be "unprecedented". The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one level below the Supreme Court), requested the DOJ to answer some questions. They gave the AG a two-day homework assignment to write a 3-page-single-space paper detailing what the President was indicating by the word, "unprecedented".
The word, unrepresented, in the dictionary says "unique, extraordinary, exceptional, novel". This would seem to indicate the the President was meaning that such a move by the Supreme Court would be unique or exceptional, or even never been done before. To those whose job is to watch and report what the Supreme Court does, must have been difficult for them to keep their eyes from popping out of the sockets. It may be one thing for the President to lie about his past (he was the only one there to actually see it), but its entirely a whole different matter to LIE about history of the Supreme Court!
Here is the actual track record for the Supreme Court:
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):
1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional................................158
1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional............................................935
1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional.......................................222
1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.........................224
Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional..............1,315
Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224
Total Laws Overturned, all governments..................................................1,539
So just looking at the first line (Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional), the Healthcare bill will have good company with the other 158 other acts of congress where our government attempted to overstep their powers provided to them and limiting them in the Constitution. In fact all of these "laws" were passed by "democratically elected members of congress" as was the Healthcare bill. But they, like Obamacare, did not meet the standard enshrined in our Constitution.
So just what is the purpose of the Supreme Court? Reading the Federalist Papers you will find that the Supreme Court has one fundamental purpose: to stand up for the minority. The framers of our Constitution were afraid of 2 things:
1) An overly powerful Federal Government
2) Mob Rule
Their concern was not these happening separately, but in tandem. They knew and understood that a controlling central government could use mob-rule in their favor, as was the case in the French Revolution, to take power of the country and abuse the minority. To balance this power, the framers provided the Supreme Court with the power to repeal laws passed by "a democratically elected MAJORITY" (as the President put it) if such laws hurt the individual citizen either directly or indirectly. This is why the writers of the Healthcare bill put the "tax/penalty" after 2014 so that the bill could not "harm the citizen" until 4 years into the bills implementation, so by that time, there would be too difficult to repeal the law. Thankfully the Supreme Court saw through this and decided that it was not going to wait until 2014 to hear the case.
To illustrate this the use of this power one does not have look to back far in history. Recently the Supreme Court weighed in on an issue with a family in Idaho that was being prevented from building a house because the EPA had incorrectly labeled their property a "wet-land" (a clogged drainage ditch was the culprit). Rather than admit they were wrong (even though the local court had sided with the family on the matter), they threatened the family with $34,000 per day in fines if they did not do what they asked (put the land back to its original state and plant "wetland" plants, even though it wasn't a wetland). The family brought the matter to the Supreme Court because under the EPA jurisdiction, we do not have a right to meet them in court to confront them. The Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 in favor of the family that they could not be fined by the EPA without the right to face them in court.
But those who rail against the Supreme Court believe the "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!" and "The 99% should over-rule the 1%". They say, "Forget the Supreme Court! We know whats right for you! You are just too ignorant to know the difference". And this is not just something the left does either. I must admit, that I too sometimes get frustrated when laws that I voted for are thrown out. Here in California we had Prop-8 which was the law to say that marriage in California would only be between a man and a woman. Passed by a slim majority, the law was brought to the State-Supreme-Court for review. If struck down, it would be for the same reason as Obamacare would. If so, should we call for the abolishing of the State-Supreme-Court? Should we riot in the streets and demand their resignations? No. Absolutely NOT! They have same mandate as the Supreme Court:
THE GOOD OF THE ONE OUTWEIGHS THE GOOD OF THE MANY!
I bring this up because a few days ago, the President made some non-scripted remarks about the Supreme Court possibly throwing out the entire Healthcare law and saying that such a move would be "unprecedented". The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one level below the Supreme Court), requested the DOJ to answer some questions. They gave the AG a two-day homework assignment to write a 3-page-single-space paper detailing what the President was indicating by the word, "unprecedented".
The word, unrepresented, in the dictionary says "unique, extraordinary, exceptional, novel". This would seem to indicate the the President was meaning that such a move by the Supreme Court would be unique or exceptional, or even never been done before. To those whose job is to watch and report what the Supreme Court does, must have been difficult for them to keep their eyes from popping out of the sockets. It may be one thing for the President to lie about his past (he was the only one there to actually see it), but its entirely a whole different matter to LIE about history of the Supreme Court!
Here is the actual track record for the Supreme Court:
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):
1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional................................158
1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional............................................935
1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional.......................................222
1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.........................224
Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional..............1,315
Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224
Total Laws Overturned, all governments..................................................1,539
So just looking at the first line (Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional), the Healthcare bill will have good company with the other 158 other acts of congress where our government attempted to overstep their powers provided to them and limiting them in the Constitution. In fact all of these "laws" were passed by "democratically elected members of congress" as was the Healthcare bill. But they, like Obamacare, did not meet the standard enshrined in our Constitution.
So just what is the purpose of the Supreme Court? Reading the Federalist Papers you will find that the Supreme Court has one fundamental purpose: to stand up for the minority. The framers of our Constitution were afraid of 2 things:
1) An overly powerful Federal Government
2) Mob Rule
Their concern was not these happening separately, but in tandem. They knew and understood that a controlling central government could use mob-rule in their favor, as was the case in the French Revolution, to take power of the country and abuse the minority. To balance this power, the framers provided the Supreme Court with the power to repeal laws passed by "a democratically elected MAJORITY" (as the President put it) if such laws hurt the individual citizen either directly or indirectly. This is why the writers of the Healthcare bill put the "tax/penalty" after 2014 so that the bill could not "harm the citizen" until 4 years into the bills implementation, so by that time, there would be too difficult to repeal the law. Thankfully the Supreme Court saw through this and decided that it was not going to wait until 2014 to hear the case.
To illustrate this the use of this power one does not have look to back far in history. Recently the Supreme Court weighed in on an issue with a family in Idaho that was being prevented from building a house because the EPA had incorrectly labeled their property a "wet-land" (a clogged drainage ditch was the culprit). Rather than admit they were wrong (even though the local court had sided with the family on the matter), they threatened the family with $34,000 per day in fines if they did not do what they asked (put the land back to its original state and plant "wetland" plants, even though it wasn't a wetland). The family brought the matter to the Supreme Court because under the EPA jurisdiction, we do not have a right to meet them in court to confront them. The Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 in favor of the family that they could not be fined by the EPA without the right to face them in court.
But those who rail against the Supreme Court believe the "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!" and "The 99% should over-rule the 1%". They say, "Forget the Supreme Court! We know whats right for you! You are just too ignorant to know the difference". And this is not just something the left does either. I must admit, that I too sometimes get frustrated when laws that I voted for are thrown out. Here in California we had Prop-8 which was the law to say that marriage in California would only be between a man and a woman. Passed by a slim majority, the law was brought to the State-Supreme-Court for review. If struck down, it would be for the same reason as Obamacare would. If so, should we call for the abolishing of the State-Supreme-Court? Should we riot in the streets and demand their resignations? No. Absolutely NOT! They have same mandate as the Supreme Court:
THE GOOD OF THE ONE OUTWEIGHS THE GOOD OF THE MANY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)