Will America ever have another "Reagan"?

    My son once asked me if I thought we would ever see a strong president like Ronald Reagan again.   After thinking about it for some time I said , "It's possible but not highly likely".   The reason I say this is that Presidents are not born that way... they are raised that way.   Reagan was a product of his environment and his education.   He was born in 1911 and saw the economic boom of the 1920's as well as the great depression.   He saw how good at could be and how bad it can get.  Reagan lived at a time when religion was still in high regard and citizenship was still taught in our schools and boys were taught what it meant to be a MAN.  For a Reagan to appear again he would need to survive a gauntlet of assaults.

Gauntlet level #1:  A socialist education system
   When Ronald Reagan was in school, schools still taught a love of country and a hard work ethic.  Children were taught to respect authority and adults and going to church was common place and even encouraged in schools.   Today's education system is more bent on  supporting a socialist ideology of "fairness" and making kids feel good about themselves.   Hard work has been replaced with "trying your best" and B's are the new C's.   For a new Reagan to make it past this level would require him to either attend a private school or be home-schooled.  Given that 90% of all children in the US go to public school that gives a 10% chance of getting past this first level.

Gauntlet level #2:  Hollywood's attack on men
     Watch old movies and compare them to today's movies.   Men were portrayed as strong, no nonsense types who were not afraid to punch a person who insulted them or their family.  Fathers were portrayed as honest, faithful and wise, but today they are all too often portrayed as stupid, womanizing and liars.  Just watch your average commercial where its hard to differentiate the men from the women.   Hollywood often lifts up the "Beta-Male" in their shows and commercials and that is the model our children are given.  Reagan's world was still an Alpha-Male dominated society and Reagan emulated those men in his presidency.  I still believe our boys hunger for that kind of strength but it will not be supplied to them in TV or Movies they watch.   But with our ever changing media Hollywood might not be able control this much longer as the next generating will be getting their input from a large variety of suppliers (mostly on-line streaming) and so there is hope this might change in the near future.

Gauntlet level #3:  Attack on marriage
    Like the saying goes: "Behind every successful man is a strong woman urging him on".  So also, Ronald Reagan would not be Ronald Reagan without Nancy Reagan beside him.   So much of our movies and television shows today portray marriage as a "game" with shows like "The Bachelor" , "The Bachelorette" and "Say Yes to the Dress"   and several other "reality" shows which reduce marriage to nothing more than a Prom-Night-On-Steriods.  Our kids are shown this unrealistic view of dating and what to look for in a man.   As mentioned in the previous section, most of these so-called "men" who are nothing more than "women who shave" and the "women" are nothing more than "low-cost-hookers" who have no self-respect.   Reagan lived at a time when marriage was about having children and raising a family and women were taught to look for qualities in a man that would benefit the raising of a family  (good job, hard working, respectful, honest, protective, intelligent).  Men like Ronald Reagan are made in the marriage process and given that the marriage rate is dropping in our country it will be harder in the future to get past this level.

Gauntlet level #4:  Attack on religion
    Ronald Reagan was a strongly avowed Christian from his youth.  He believed strongly in God and in Jesus Christ.  He was not afraid to make his beliefs known either.  Was he a saint?  No.  But his faith in God and his view that God rewards those who seek justice and truth allowed him to speak truth to acts of evil and call a spade a spade.  Faith gave him the audacity to tell Russia to "tear down this wall!" when no one around him would.   Our politically correct view of religion today were all religions are correct and fine does not provide the fertile spiritual soil to raise up a Reagan today.  When Reagan grew up, religion was honored in movies (for the most part) and good and evil were as different as black and white (rather than shades of grey).   Religious people today are often attacked when they speak up or run for office.  They are dismissed as either "too simple", "too narrow minded", "out dated", "out of touch" or even "racist".   In our world today religion is seen as drawback rather than as a help to many.    It's okay to mention God in a "general way" but don't ever say you draw strength from reading his word on a regular basis.   

Q: What will it take to make another Reagan?

A: Another great depression
   
    I know that is not an answer you will like to hear, but its the truth.  Like Reagan, we need to re-learn that we need to be self-sufficient. Only through a long economic depression will our children learn what really matters in a man.   Cuteness, sexiness,  sensitivity and how he looks in a speed-o will go out the window.  Men will have to grow up and fight to gain the woman they love.  Marriage will become about SURVIVAL and not about having someone to snuggle up to on rainy days.  Men will have to go back to manual labor to earn their keep and those with JOBS will be longed for by woman over girly-men or only sell insurance.   Men will learn to save their money again and not be fooled into thinking that our economy is "un-sinkable" and therefore throw their money away on every stupid technological toy that comes along just for the sake of having it.  And finally, men will learn to trust in God again and not themselves.

    Then a new Reagan will come along to lead us to a better future.
  

Economics, Football and Tom Brady

   I am always looking for microcosms to help explain complex ideas and there is no more complex topic than economics.   We need ways to get across to our young people how different economic systems work and don't work and why.

     Last week while watching my favorite team,The New England Patriots, I was intrigued to hear one of the TV announcers mention that Tom Brady doesn't throw to every receiver on the field.   They have to first EARN his trust before he throws the ball to them.  This trust is earned over times of practice by how hard they work and if they perform well on the field.  It was then that it occurred to me that competition on the football field not only occurs between the two teams, but also between the players on the SAME team.  Tom Brady uses this inter-team competition to help influence his players to improve their skills and become better players in the process.

    We could call Tom Brady's method the Capitalism Method of Football Management as he uses competition to improve his players and rewards "results" with more opportunities to show their skills. This helps not only the new players to work harder to earn his trust but it also helps his current "trusted" receivers to continue to work hard because they know that trust can be lost as quick as it can be earned.  This doesn't mean that Brady will stop throwing to Edellman if he drops one pass to him next Sunday, but it does mean that if he drops a long series of passes to him, Tom may be looking to one of his other receivers.   The reason for this is that each dropped pass is like a $1000 dollar thrown down the toilet.  Tom needs to make sure as many passes "count" for them to win their games.  So also companies, like Tom Brady, want to maximize the money they spend.  By using inter-company competition managers insure that their workers are bettering their skills and workers that have earned their trust are rewarded with more opportunities to show their worth to the company.  Giving larger amounts of money (and responsibility) to workers who have earned it insures that less money has the possibility of being lost or wasted.

     Are there other ways for QB's to decide who to throw to? 

     Of course!

     Another way would be for the QB to throw to his friends and those guys he likes to be with.  Call this the Fascist Method.   Tom could throw lavish parties and invite his receivers to these parties.  The ones who show up the most and cozy up to Tom at them and make his parties the most enjoyable would be rewarded the most during the game.  While this doesn't happen at the NFL level (at least not very often), it does happen at the high school level.  The game no longer becomes about winning and losing but instead about who's more popular.   This method is by far the worst method as it doesn't sensitivities the good players or the bad players to do better at receiving as that is not the method used to measure the receiver by and determining who gets the ball thrown to them.  Like Pavlov's dog, the dog only salivated when the bell was rung and not when a whistle was blown so also we react to the event that rewards us and ignore the one that doesn't. In the football scenario, it would cause the good players to stop practicing and spend their time socializing with the QB in order to get what they want (i.e. more passes). For this reason Fascism in an economic sense is a horrible system as it rewards people for things that don't benefit society at all and causes those who do want to work hard to change their behaviors to be unproductive rather than productive.

     A third way for a QB to distribute the passes would be for him to equally distribute them to all of his receivers.  Call this the Socialist Method.   While this method is a step UP from the Fascist Method as at least all the players will get a chance to be thrown the ball, there is no incentive for bad players to try harder for after all they are going to get the same number of chances as the good ones.   This method also hurts the teams chances of winning the game as there will be an increased number of "wasted throws" by the QB as the bad players will undoubtedly drop more balls thrown to them.

       Let's say he has 3 players A, B and C.   A catches 90% of his throws, B catches 50% and C only 20%. If he throws 10 throws to each one, then at the end only 9 + 5 + 2 will be caught (16 total).  He has "wasted" 30-16 = 14 passes by doing it this way.   So also paying all your workers the same will waste lots of money as some workers will be less capable in earning it back. 

     But if he weights his throws with higher numbers to A such as 20, 8 and 2  (The Capitalist/Brady Method),  he will get 18+4+0=22 total receptions and increase the chances of winning.  This is why companies must reward better results with higher pay as they will insure that their money spent is not wasted and the less capable workers either improve their skills or move on to other companies.

Is Jesus a Socialist?

    I remember hearing a story of certain university professors teaching their students that they believe Jesus would associate with the Socialists Party because he was all about taking care of the poor.

    First of all I think the whole argument is ridiculous given that Jesus is the Son of God and exists outside the whole realm of stupid politics.  But to play along with these idiots I would have to first remind them of Jesus Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.

¹⁴ “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. ¹⁵ To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,^[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. ¹⁶ The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. ¹⁷ So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. ¹⁸ But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
¹⁹ “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
²¹ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²² “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
²³ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²⁴ “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. ²⁵ So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
²⁶ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? ²⁷ Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
²⁸ “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. ²⁹ For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. ³⁰ And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

     Two things to note with this story

1. The king did not give each man the same amount before he left
2. He  rewarded greater return with a greater reward.

     Obviously the king knew something about the men he was about to leave with his money to invest.  These weren't men strangers pulled off the street.  These men were managers who worked for the king and therefore had a known track record.  The King therefore, wanting to maximize his return, gives the man with the best track record the most money and so forth.  At the same time he gave all of them an opportunity to up their game by giving even the most untrustworthy of the three, one bag of gold.  Then upon their return he doesn't hand out meaningless plastic trophies to them like we do with our kids today.  Instead he rewards each one with the same amount of gold as they EARNED for him when he was gone. 

    Does any of this sound like a socialist?

    Not to me.

     If Jesus followed the socialist point of view his parable would have had the King give the same amount to each of the managers and rewarded all of them the same regardless of what they had earned.  In fact, a true Socialist would have take the earned bags of gold from the best manager and given it to the worst manager who buried his gold and commended all of them for trying to do their best with what they had been given.













Note that in this story, the man who had the LARGEST RESULTS was rewarded with the LARGEST REWARD.  In other words,  the king did not reward them equally, nor did he give the ma

Will God find Faith on the earth when he returns?

Jesus asked this question, "When God returns, will he find faith on the earth?"

The implied answer to the question is: NO.

Recently two stories have come to my attention that reminded me of this verse.   Both stories have at their core the basic question of life.  One story deals with the beginning of life and the other deals with its end and yet both have one common theme:

A lack of Faith.   

The first story is from  a woman who has decided to end her child's unborn life in her womb and rather than do it quietly she pens an open letter posted on Reddit.   Below is what she wrote:

Little Thing:

I can feel you in there. I've got twice the appetite and half the energy. It breaks my heart that I don't feel the enchantment that I'm supposed to feel. I am both sorry and not sorry.
I am sorry that this is goodbye. I'm sad that I'll never get to meet you. You could have your father's eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you.

Little Thing, I want you to be happy. More than I want good things for myself, I want the best things for the future. That's why I can't be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn't be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I've lived. I want you to have all the things I didn't have when I was a child. I want you to be better than I ever was and more magnificent than I ever could be. I can't do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams. Love and spontaneity are beautiful, but they have little merit. And while I have plenty of dreams to go around, dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can't bring you here. Not like this.

I love you, Little Thing, and I wish the circumstances were different. I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom.

   What amazes me the most (other than she refers to the baby as "Little Thing") is how little faith she has either in herself as a mother or in the future for her child.   If she cannot provide, does she not think someone else might be able to?   In referring to "I can't do to you what was done to me..." does she not think her life was worth keeping either?   How does she know what the future will bring?   Is her child's life preordained by the stars?   Beethoven was born to a poor family and was one of 7 children and yet he went on to be one of our world's most famous musical composers.   Both my mother and father were born in the middle of one of our country's worst economic depressions (my mom was born in 1932 and my dad in 1930) and both of their families had very little money to speak of and yet their parents faith in God gave them the strength go forward and raise them.

    The second story is about a young recently married woman by the name of Brittany Maynard who has terminal brain cancer.    She has decided that the day after her husbands birthday, she will end her life rather than try to remain alive.   Her planned date of termination?   November 1st 2014.   Some are heralding her decision to end her life on her terms as "courageous" and "selfless", but I would rather show it to be "faithless".   She has no faith that God (or the universe) might cure her.  She has no faith that she might be able to give some one in her family the right advice for the struggles they are going through.   I understand the pain she is going through.  I too worry about my end as well as my father died of Alzheimer's a few years ago ago and it was difficult to watch his decline.   But even in his last days he was able to give me word's of wisdom I will never forget and will always cherish.

A Sad Generation

    To me, we are witnessing the beginning of  a new generation I call: Generation-Q (where the Q stands for QUIT).   A generation that has no faith or hope in a future (most of these sadly probably voted for Mr. Hope-and-Change)  and is all to willing to push the big red-button labeled "QUIT" rather than stay and fight.  Each generation following this one will be followed by an even worse generation even more willing than the first to eject itself from life.

    Some would ask:  Why should we allow ourselves to go through such pain?

    Answer: For 2 reasons:
    
1) Because the next generation needs to see how it's done. 

    We owe it to those who follow to see how life is to be lived and every breath fought for until we can breath no more.   We owe it to them to see that it CAN be done and that we CAN persevere. We are modelling for them how life is to be lived. 

2) Quitting can be contagious

       This is true not only of suicide but in sports,  business and even in the military that quitters often give rise to more quitters.   Even at my work I have witnessed the effect of seeing many people I admire suddenly leave the company they have spent so much time working for.   It pulls you down and makes you question your willingness to stay and make it work as well.  So also it is with life as well.  We have seen how teen suicides often cause more teen suicides.   It is for this reason that most TV news stations no longer report on them as far too often they often see increased levels of suicide occur afterward.  Once this avalanche starts it will be very difficult to stop as it will increase under its own momentum.

The writer of Hebrews puts it best in Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"

We need to have FAITH that ....

• Tomorrow will be better than today
• I can be of service to others even if I am lying flat on my back
• That God will be there for us no matter what.

It changes EVERYTHING!

   I was watching TV one night when the commercial for MiO water flavor enhancer (see video here).  For some reason I saw the commercial differently that night.   I thought about how faith in Jesus Christ changes EVERYTHING.   Like the commercial where each time the person adds a little more MiO to their glass of water their personality changes along with it, so also God works INSIDE of us and changes us from within if we let him.   Paul talked about how in Christ we are a NEW creation .. the old is gone .. the new has come.  We have seen story after story of people whose lives have changed because of their faith in Christ.   Some change over night...others take years.   But change comes none the less.  Not the kind of "change" put on election signs or bumper stickers which only entail changes in political rules and control.   This change is REAL and unexplainable.   Like the man in the picture who turns into a black cowboy by the end who has been changed to the core of his DNA so also God through water and the word in baptism changes us.   We are no longer the same.

    Maybe the changes might not be visible to those around us like in the commercial.  They may not even visible to us either.   But God sees it and that is all that matters.

Allergies and Toleration

    A few years ago a study showed that children who are exposed to dirty environments like barns and hay fields are much less likely to develop allergies later as adults  (see allergy study).    The reason for this is that children's immune systems are much more active in their early years and by being exposed to MORE allergens they become less likely to develop allergies (which are really cases where the body over-reacts to an allergen to remove it from the body).   From the study, doctors proposed that putting our children in a allergen-and-bacteria-free-bubble their first 3 years does more harm than good to them (explains why my brother who grew up in the city has more allergies than myself who grew up in the country).

     So also, one could make the same argument in regards to political correctness and the concept of
toleration and being offended.   We all too often hear of cases where school teachers and principals make decisions on ending some school activity or dress code because some child might be offended.   In the effort to protect these children's feelings or emotional states a long list of banned activities is created and enforced with Nazi-like strictness.    This PC-bubble-wrap we engulf our children in will only hurt them more in the future as adults as their minds have not grappled with differences in behavior, style of dress, political views,  religious convictions, language or mannerisms.   Like our bodies re-actions to allergens (foreign substances the body does not recognize), these children will grow up LESS tolerant of differences rather than MORE tolerant.    Our jobs as parents and adults dealing with children is NOT to shelter them from the world, but instead help them to understand it and accept it.    If we take away every opportunity to expose them to these differences then we have done them a major disservice.   After all, wasn't that the whole purpose of the desegregation of schools back in the 60's and 70's?   Wasn't it to expose them to different kids from different neighborhoods?  

All that seems to have been forgotten now.

    Take for example the case of Lt. Col.  Sherwood Baker of Rochester NY who as told he could not walk on school property dressed in his Army uniform.   A school official said that they ban all military uniforms from on campus as it might "confuse some children and some might be offended by it".   (see article here ).   Let's imagine that such a child did exist on the high school campus.  and that boy or girl might be offended by a military person (their parents may be leftists who think all military is bad) and it may cause them to be angry inside as they walked to their next class.   But that boy or girl might realize that in their next class they have a test or quiz coming up and they need to focus their attention on the job ahead rather than on the military person walking down the hallway.   Their minds just re-enforced an important ability to staying on task and staying focused.   They also learned to not let their emotions rule them and to "tolerate others of different views".    Had the father gone home and changed his clothes, that boy or girl would have been robbed of the opportunity to learn those invaluable life lessons and abilities.  

They would have missed a chance to grow into adulthood. 

All joking aside...

   I love a good laugh as well as the next guy (often my wife and kids make fun of my laugh when I get going... too loud I guess).  Comedians for ages have made fun of their leaders and I think for the most part that is good.   Even in the first century,  Rome joked about their emperors.   Take for example of all people: Nero.  He fell in love with one of his male servants so much so, he had the lad castrated and then performed a mock marriage ceremony between himself and the servant.   The joke around Rome after this was:  "Too bad Nero did not have mother like this" (meaning Nero would never have been born).

   The late great Johnny Carson took mocking leaders to a whole new level.  His late night monologue was heard by millions of people and it was said that when Johnny mocked you in his monologue, your career as a politician was probably over (or at least on its way out).  This was no better shown than when Johnny mocked then President Nixon's Watergate scandal.  It was only a few days later that Nixon was resigning from the office.

   Where I draw the line, however, is when comedians use their comedy to make light of issues that are not light at all.   Having people laugh at the demise of other people who are trying to stay alive is not funny at all.  Recently Stewart used his show to paint the Israeli's as being unfair in their treatment of Gaza.   Making Israel look unfair that they can protect their people with their "iron dome" and Gaza cannot, even though Hamas in Gaza is launching rockets constantly at Israel and using schools and hospitals as human shields to protect their rocket launching facilities.  As the Prime Minister of Israel put it:

"Israel uses rockets (iron dome) to protect its citizens while Hamas uses citizens to protect its rockets".

    By making people laugh at these attacks, Jon Stewart and others like him create an illusion where
everything (including relentless bombing of Israel by Hamas) is a joke and no one is being hurt or killed in the process.  His viewers are thereby lulled into not seeing the real seriousness of the problem.   If  Stewart lived in 1938, would he be making light of  Kritallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") when the Germans forced the Jews out of their homes and businesses into slums?    Would he joke that Jewish window repair people became overnight millionaires??  Would he joke that the Jews were in the process of selling back their new homes in the slums for more than they were bought for?   

     Sadly, we have become a society where it seems that nothing is serious anymore and our young people are so misinformed.  Many of our young people treat shows like Colbert and Stewart's as semi-news shows in which the news anchor presents the days issues in a light hearted format that is easy for their sensitive and drug-infused brains to assimilate.  Sort of like when a mother bird regurgitates its stomach contents into the baby birds mouth so he can more easily digest it so also Stewart and Colbert take very serious subjects and dumb them down for their audience to receive.  To see this, you only need to watch on-line videos of young people being questioned on our college campuses about our world's events and see that many have no clue what-so-ever on what is going on around them.  Many of these young people will say with pride that they get their news from watching Jon Stewart on Comedy Central.

  To them the world is a joke and their audiences laugh as the world burns.

Jetsoneers are growing in numbers

     I always laughed when I watched "The Jetsons" and saw George Jetson go off to work where he did nothing but push buttons all day.  His actions were almost mechanical in nature in that they seemed to require no real thinking on his part, yet he considered it to be "work".   He would just sit at is desk pushing the same damn button over and over again until it was time to go home and then complain how worn out his button pushing finger was at the end of the day.


   Now as an engineer I think we are starting to see the beginning stages of George Jetson coming into real life.   I am amazed how little engineers these days come out of school knowing.  I have interviewed countless candidates and all to often I see a real lack of knowledge and logical reasoning.  I often want to ask these candidates "What are they teaching you these days in school?".   Not only do so many come out not knowing basic engineering principles but also lack any ability to "think outside the box".    It's like as if they have gone through college filling out "multiple-choice" type tests (you know the type where you darken in the little oval and a computer grades it) and never really having to think.  That is the problem with these computer-graded tests is that it GIVES the student the answer and all they have to do is deduce the BEST possible answer from the 4 given.   Life is not like that.  It does not always give you the answers.  Most of the time you must think through the problem at hand and determine the answer for yourself without any help.

   It frustrates me to have people ask me what I perceive as the most basic of questions when they have a problem.   Take for example compiling a C program.   I have had countless encounters with engineers who have come out of college who seemingly have forgotten their C/C++ training in school (it's a required language to learn in all engineering colleges).   They will compile some C code and get an error like:

     error:  undeclared variable: count

     Now for those who don't know C, you have to declare any variable you use in C and tell it what type it is.  Is it an integer, a floating-point-number, or even a string of characters.   This is the MOST basic of error messages and it practically tells you what is wrong.  Yet I get countless calls from engineers (I now like to call  Jetson-eers), who need help understanding these basic problems.  (note: I have NEVER taken a C class in my life and have become proficient in it by learning it on my own)

     Another example just happened as I was writing this blog.  A Jetson-eer instant-messaged (IM) me to help with a problem.  A program was aborting (exiting from an error) and giving a error message



#0  0x00002aaaab4ddd90 in strlen () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1  0x00002aaaab4afdb0 in vfprintf () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2  0x00002aaaab4b5458 in fprintf () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3  0x00000000006dbd6e in dpi_IdiPcuRegisterAccess (rxwb=1 '\001', 
    address=0x7ffffffdd4a0, beb=0x7ffffffdd490, wdata=0x7ffffffdd480, 
    rdata=0x153f008, rdecode=0x7ffffffdd470)
    at /nfs/fm/disks/fm_cnlgt_00431/sle.gen10/pipegt.DISK6/src/units/pcu_bfm/pcu_bfm.cpp:3112
#4  0x000000000095d09e in bhv__CheckCallerFunctions ()
    at tbx.dir/c_files/tbxbindings_cview.cxx:68557

this is the path to the model

 
Looking at the file it references (it even tells you what line to look at. line# 3112)

if (fp != NULL) {
      fprintf(fp,"TIME=%12llu ns: %s addr=0x%08x rdecode=%d, beb=%x wdata=%08x  rdata=%08x_%08x\n",
                  GetTime(),         address[0], rdecode[0], beb[0], wdata[0],  rdata[1], rdata[0]);

      fflush(fp);
      }

     The problem area I have highlighted and put in bold font.  The fprintf function wants a "string" argument printed, but none of the arguments given is a string variable (granted the C compiler should have thrown a flag but it didn't).    This problem took me under 20 seconds to figure out and yet it seems I am the only one who can do this.

     I think we are training engineers to just do repetitive tasks and not to think anymore.   When I first started at this company I was:

• building models
• synthesizing designs
• fixing design problems
• writing programs and scripts
• designing test boards (designed 3 in 1 year)
• developing bus functional models
• finding ways to run hardware at slow speeds (I do hardware emulation)
• finding ways to interface TTL logic to non-TTL logic devices
• modifying BIOS assembly language code
• helping debug problems
• plan new projects

And that was just in 1 year.

But today, most engineers I see would only have 1 or 2 things to list for their years accomplishments and that seems fine to many managers.  They are happy I guess that all they have are well trained monkeys to press their computer buttons (hopefully in the right order) to get their jobs done rather than forward thinking engineers developing new innovations to advance the field.

    It is this reason that I agree with most educators that our current system of computerized testing is negatively influencing our next generation of thinkers.  We need our schools to get back to teaching our kids HOW to think and not WHAT to think.  Common-Core only takes our current system and puts it on steroids with even more testing and even less thinking involved which if it does unchecked will only result in more ....

Jetson-eers

I desire mercy.... not sacrifice

     I have been thinking about this a lot this week and then this morning at church as we heard Jesus say,

"Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'

  In today's sermon we heard the story of the 'Good Samaritan' and now a man who was not Jewish had taken care of stranger who was Jewish and beaten down by robbers and even paid for the mans needs out of his own pocket.    In our world today you could maybe replace the characters with "tea partier" and "democrat" or  "gay" and "straight people" or "Jewish" and "Muslim" or any other combination of people who don't agree.   

    Too many Christians today seek to "sacrifice" themselves for the faith thinking it will earn them points with God even though it is Christ's sacrifice on the cross that has earned for us all the points with God we would ever need.   Recently I read an article about a couple who owned a bakery who did not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple feeling it would infringe on their faith and they would be sinning against God.   Like the story of the Good Samaritan where a priest and levite both pass by the beaten man on the road.  To touch a man bloodied and possibly dead would possibly make them unfit to serve in the temple until they had gone through a long process of cleansing.   So also this couple felt it would sully them as well.   Jesus commanded us to be "in the world but not of the world".  Would baking a cake make them guilty of being gay?   Of course not.    Instead, it would give them a chance to share their faith.

    At the same time I begrudge the gay couple for suing the Christian couple for obeying their consciences.  Will everyone agree with you all the time?  Should you take to court everyone who disagrees with you on every point?  Of course not.   You would be spending your entire life in the courtroom if that were so. 

    What this world needs more of on both side is this...

     GRACE!

    Grace says I disagree with you but that is okay.  Grace says I am willing to accept those differences and move on in my life.   Grace says I will still be there for you even though we are different. 

    Does it mean that homosexuality (or other sexual sins) no longer matters?  Absolutely not.  It's all about context.  Paul writes in I Corinthians 5:12

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

     The context being whether or not that person considers themselves to be a member of the body of Christ or not.   If they don't (and they are outside the church), then we are not to pass judgement on them and be loving towards them for they don't know any better.   If they are inside the church then they are not being true to the faith and we should in love expel them so they might come to their senses.   In fact in the very same book of I Corinthians Paul has them do this to a man who is sleeping with his father's wife (most likely a second marriage) and then in 2 Corinthians he has them restore the man after he has relinquished the relationship. 

    In both cases, inside the church and outside, we are to always act in love to reach them for Christ so GRACE may abound.






    

GIVE IT BACK!

   GIVE IT BACK!
  
   This is something heard by parents in their homes or teachers on the playground by children who
have been robbed of something that belongs to them.   It could be a ball, a toy or even an item of clothing such as a hat or coat.   The command often goes unheeded by the one who currently holds the item.   Often that person tries even harder to withhold the item even more until hopefully an adult steps in to right the wrong.

    While that is all good for childhood playgrounds and backyards, it has now made its way into the world of adults as we see people picketing businesses with signs demanding their "fair share" of the profits the company has acquired.  
  
Adults are the new children of the 21st century

     Personally, I have come to loath the phrase
    
             "Give back to the community".

      I see it everywhere these days as countless corporations are pushed to spend more of their own profits to help the communities they reside in.  You can't watch a WalMart or Target commercial these days without there being some reference to this slogan.  Some ads exist solely to tout what they are spending their money on.  Whether its planting trees, fixing up homes, providing money for schools or giving food to shelters its all done under this premise.   While these are all noble causes and I have nothing against us helping our neighbors,  I detest this phrase for multiple reasons. 

    First of all, the implication something was "taken from the community" for you cannot "give back" unless first you "took it from".   This phrase implies that the company stole the money from the community and in its generosity it has decided to pay some of its ill-gotten goods back.  But unless you are a con-artist who sold an empty bag of goods,  your customers did not get ripped off at all.  In capitalism, both the seller and the buyer come away with more than they left with.  This may seem
implausible but its true.   Say I am hungry and I go into Wendy's and by a single hamburger and a soda.   The bill comes to $5.78 and I pay the amount and receive what I had requested.  I am better off because I have staved off starvation and have more energy to continue my day.  Wendy's is better off because they have my $5.78 added to their profits from which they can satisfy the needs of their stockholders.  I win.  They win.  We both win.   No where in the transaction did Wendy's pull out a gun and force me to give $5.78 for nothing.  We both willingly went into the transaction.  Only in the case of the worker not putting what I requested in the bag would I demand Wendy's "give back" my money.

   Another reason they should not be shamed into "giving back" is because they have already given to the community in the first place.  They have already provided our communities with programs that stimulate our citizens and keep them out of trouble.  Its called:

JOBS

  By providing JOBS to our communities we are supplied with work (which keeps us productive as humans) and money to spend in our communities.  Let's consider that first perk of "jobs" : productivity.   We don't often realize that work in itself, regardless of income level, is beneficial to us because it helps fill our time and stimulates our egos.  This benefit cannot be measured in dollars and cents, a stock market chart or even a government report.   We have seen cases in the news of people who became wealthy over night by a lottery or hitting it big at Vegas.  Often these people are found later to have ruined their lives because they filled their purpose as humans with consumption rather than with production.  The ones who didn't ruin their lives could be found still working at their "day job" even though monetarily they did not need it.   A job helps fill the soul in ways no government handout could ever do.  It says "I did this today!"  whereas a welfare check says "You did nothing today".   These companies supply our citizens with personal pride and self love and for that we should be thankful.

    Secondly, taxes collected by our communities from these companies fills their coffers and is used to pay for schools, roads, parks and clinics.  The "give back" campaigns therefore amount to a second level of taxation.  Call it a "voluntary tax".   Those in Chicago are familiar with these "voluntary taxes" as small businesses would often be besieged by mobsters who would come in and offer a deal for them to buy "insurance".  Referred to as a "shake down" businesses would comply for fear that their business would be burned down in the night.  These tactics are used by progressives who visit

these companies and offer their "give back" programs as a insurance against possibility that groups of citizens may organize and campaign against the company and destroy their standing and reputation.  They are the REAL bullies in our world and they TAKE from our companies with no intention of ever GIVING BACK.

    Like the childhood bullies who stole our basketballs,  the best way to diffuse their power is not to demand they give it back, but instead to pretend we don't have need of it anyway.  Often the bully will drop the item in frustration as they can clearly see you are not playing their little game.  So also, companies should tell these bullies to go away and pretend they don't matter.  Eventually they will see that their power is gone and go away
  

Better ONE man should die....

  In the gospel of John (John 11:50) the high priest says of Jesus,

"You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

   It is nothing new for people to think that a little evil can make the world a better place to live.  Back during the cold-war many liberals felt we could make a deal with Russia and accept their form of government as being just as legitimate as ours.  They called their policy "accommodation" and it sacrificed the rights and freedoms of those behind the iron curtain for our own peace and prosperity.  Reagan said of this in 1964,

"We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters."   

    Today, some feel that their peace and prosperity is threatened by those in the Middle East.   Arabs in those countries tell us to not stand with Israel and to leave their side.   They say to the world "Let Israel die and we will go away and leave everyone in peace".   Sadly, many have believed their message of "Peace thru Annihilation" and want the US to look the other way for in their view:

"Better for one COUNTRY to be annihilated than for the whole WORLD to go into chaos and war."

Let me leave you with the time honored words of Alexander Hamilton,

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

I see a pattern emerging

   Pattern matching is an important ability in engineering (or really any job for that matter).  The ability to spot patterns of behavior can help in debugging a problem in the lab for example.  Sometimes you are looking at a pattern of memory that has been written in correctly and you need to use that information to deduce where the data or address is getting messed up.  Or another area is if the problem only occurs on a certain machine or network but no where else.  Doctors use pattern matching as well to deduce what causes things like allergic reactions or outbreaks of flu or other diseases.  Bank auditors use pattern matching to see illegal activity that occurs in their systems.

    Patterns are common place.  Even in human behavior.  Because we often are in a hurry we do things the same way without even knowing it.  We drive the same route to work.   We shop at the same stores.  We get gas from the same stations.   It simplifies our life and we don't have to think as much.   Patterns for the most part are helpful and save time and energy.

   But some patterns can be destructive.  You may think I am going to discuss patterns like addictions to porn, drugs , alcohol, work etc..  but I am not (although it would make for a good blog later).  Instead the patterns I want to discuss primarily concern the behaviors of our DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder.  It seems to me that when things get tough on the White House, out comes Eric Holder to "re-ignite the race discussion".   This causes the media to take their focus off of what is currently under discussion (border issues, VA scandal, etc).   I say this because it happens too often and without provocation.   Take for example the most recent occurrence in which Holder is being interviewed on ABC News.   With all that is going on in the border and terrorism threats to our country, Eric Holder decides that a discussion on race is more applicable at this time and especially in regards to those who oppose him and President Obama.  He claims to be able to look into the hearts of these opponents and extract the real reason for their dislike of the presidents policies... racism.  Oh he says its very "subtle" and "hidden" from view but its there.   It may not be as obvious as the Clippers owner Donald Sterling... but its there ... and he knows it.  

    Those who have fought in war know the use of creating a  distraction when you are under fire.  The enemy is attacking a friend who is pinned down and often the best way to get them out is to launch some grenades in another location to cause the enemy to change their position and their attention to another area so your guy can get out.

   This is the tactic Eric Holder is using and the media is only more than glad to help him use it.  No one ever calls him on it either in the media.  Why didn't ABC in their interview stop Eric Holder and say "That's interesting.. but what about what is happening on the border?  Why aren't we stopping this influx of Central Americans from coming in?"     Instead they take the bait and change the discussion just as Eric Holder wanted them to.

   Eric Holder doesn't really care about racism.  He only wants change the conversation to something else.... ANYTHING else.