I think next election I am going to vote for the not-so-intelligent guy. Oh, I know that seems to run against the grain. We think that we want the smartest one up there, running whatever needs to be run.
Really, I mean look at our everyday world. If your car is broken, you want the smartest mechanic working on it, right? If you are ill, you hope your doctor is the smartest person you can get to work on you, right? So, what about when you vote?
Well, I, for one, am tired of the folks who are so intelligent that they think they know how to spend their way out of poverty, or the ones who think that there really isn't any such thing as evil, just misunderstandings. My step-father was taken out of school and sent to work in the mines at age 10, and even he wasn't "intelligent" enough to believe those things.
There comes a time when intelligence leads to arrogance. Other people may not understand how spending more money can pull us out of bankruptcy, but we know. Trust me. I’m doing this for your good. Yes, the rabble may not be able to turn lead into gold, but we elite can.
Ben Franklin once said, “Jack was so intelligent that he could say ‘horse’ in seven languages, but he was so foolish that he rode a cow into town.”
You may disagree with me, but that’s probably just because you’re smarter than I am.
Buz
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
I Said "NO!"
"NO" what an awful sounding word.
"Daddy, can I have an ice cream cone?"
"No."
"Mom, can I go to the Mall with Alex?"
"No."
"Dad, can I use the car Friday night for the game?"
"NO!"
We're all used to the down side of "no". We have all been kids, and had great hopes or plans, only to have them smashed to pieces by that cruel word.
However, if you are or have been a parent, you know the other side of that scenario.
"Daddy, can I have an ice cream cone?"
"No. It is 45 minutes until supper, and if you have one now, it will ruin your appetite."
"Mom, can I go to the Mall with Alex?"
"No. Last time you were with Alex, he left you at the mall and you had to call me to come get you. I don't like him; he is very irresponsible. I am afraid what might happen to you if you go to the Mall with him."
"Dad, can I use the car Friday night for the game?"
"NO! The last three times you took the car to the game on Friday night, you were (1) out until 2:00 AM, (2) got a ticket for wreckless driving, (3) ran over someone's dog."
Maybe next time you hear the word "NO" the first thought should be, "exactly what are they saying 'NO' to?" and the second, "could it be that 'NO' is an appropriate answer to this?"
I am guessing that how you answer those to questions might depend of if you are still a child, or an adult (and I am not basing that on whether you are older than 18 or not, but whether you have taken responsibility for your own life, or if you still rely on others to provide for you.)
Buz
"Daddy, can I have an ice cream cone?"
"No."
"Mom, can I go to the Mall with Alex?"
"No."
"Dad, can I use the car Friday night for the game?"
"NO!"
We're all used to the down side of "no". We have all been kids, and had great hopes or plans, only to have them smashed to pieces by that cruel word.
However, if you are or have been a parent, you know the other side of that scenario.
"Daddy, can I have an ice cream cone?"
"No. It is 45 minutes until supper, and if you have one now, it will ruin your appetite."
"Mom, can I go to the Mall with Alex?"
"No. Last time you were with Alex, he left you at the mall and you had to call me to come get you. I don't like him; he is very irresponsible. I am afraid what might happen to you if you go to the Mall with him."
"Dad, can I use the car Friday night for the game?"
"NO! The last three times you took the car to the game on Friday night, you were (1) out until 2:00 AM, (2) got a ticket for wreckless driving, (3) ran over someone's dog."
Maybe next time you hear the word "NO" the first thought should be, "exactly what are they saying 'NO' to?" and the second, "could it be that 'NO' is an appropriate answer to this?"
I am guessing that how you answer those to questions might depend of if you are still a child, or an adult (and I am not basing that on whether you are older than 18 or not, but whether you have taken responsibility for your own life, or if you still rely on others to provide for you.)
Buz
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Identity Theft
I have not been the victim of identity theft, but I know that fear which comes from misplacing a wallet or credit card, and being worried that it might lead to such. I have also received a letter from the investment firm that my former employer retained to handle the retirement funds which explained that they had "misplaced" some backup media, and that the employees identity records might be at risk. So it is a real concern for almost anyone these days.
What is the worst that could happen? You receive a letter in the mail some afternoon which recounts that you are in debt to some bank or credit card company for $20K, $30K, or even $50K, and that your credit score is now 52 (out of 850 ... I think my neighbor's dog has a credit score of 200). Can you imagine that? To suddenly wake up one morning and find that you are suddenly in debt $50K, and you had never bought a thing? You never even heard of this company.
Scary, isn't it!
Well, if you are not sitting down, do so.
The national debt just topped $14 TRILLION. That is $14,000,000,000,000.00.
There are about 350,000,000 people in the United States. So, as of this month, every man, woman, and child now ows
$14,000,000,000,000.00 / 350,000,000 = $40,000.00
So, if you are an average family with 4 people, that is $160,000.00 that you owe.
And that is if the government does not spend another penny for the rest of your lives.
The government does not have a stash of money somewhere. Every penny they spend comes out of our pockets, out of our childrens' pockets, out of our grandchildrens' pockets, and at this point, out of our great-grandchildrens' pockets.
If someone came up to me on the street and asked me for a $1 for a cup of coffee, I would not begrudge them $1, I would either give it to them, or take them to McD's for a burger and fries (and I have done both before). However, if someone came up to me and demanded that I dig into my grandchildrens' college fund to buy them a car, I would tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. Oh, unless it was cash for clunkers ... then I would have to give it to them.
Here's how that whole thing works: Ed has $100, Bob and Joe each have $10. Fred comes along and runs for office that he will tax the rich and make everything better. So Bob and Joe vote for him while Ed does not. Fred wins with 75% majority (he voted for himself), and he takes $90 from Ed and gives $5 to Bob, Joe, and Ed, and pockets the other $75. So now Bob, Joe, and Ed each have $15 amd Fred has $75, and everyone is happy except Ed.
That is all fine and dandy until next round, when Bob, Joe, and Ed have $15, and Fred has spent his $75. He comes back to take some more money, but there isn't the big pile that there was the first time through, so he goes to Lou the loan shark and takes out a loan for $90 in Bob, Joe, and Ed's names, and gives them each another $5 and pockets $75. It is a miracle, he has "created" money. Bob and Joe are happy because they got another $5. Ed is a little leary because he knows what happened the first time, and wonders when things will hit the fan.
Things go fine and dandy for a little while, then the loan comes due, and Bob, Joe, and Ed, with $60 between them are now faced with a bill for $100 (that includes intrest), and they don't have the other $40. Lou tells them that they have the choice of selling themselves into servitude or getting shot in the kneecaps.
Folks, in the real world, they just raised the debt ceiling to $14 Trillion ... Fred has just gone to the loan shark and gotten a loan in our names. We have a choice, when Fred comes to give us our $5, we can take it and wait for Lou to come and offer us slavery or amputation, or we can kick Fred out on his can, take back the money in his pocket and pay back Lou before the loan comes due.
Bill Gates is worth something around $50 Billion. If there were 200 Bill Gates, and the government took ALL their monies. That would still only be $10 Trillion. We would still be $4 Trillion short of being able to pay this off. There are just not enough millionaires and billionaires in this country to pay off all that debt.
In the 1980s, the villians used to be the millionaires, they were the "evil rich" who should be the target of the governmental "Robin Hoods" who would, on our behalf, steal from the rich and give to the poor, us. Then, in the 1990s, some brilliant politician reasoned that if you made $250K a year for 4 years, that was a million dollars, so, in essence, you were a millionaire. The new magic number for the evil rich dropped to $250K. (I hesitate to make this following point for fear that some clever politician will pick it up and run with it ...) Do you realize that if you make $100K for 10 years, that also is a million dollars, so those making $100K are then millionaires. For that matter, if you make $20K for 50 years, that is a million dollars, that makes you a millionaire, too (even though that is about $10K below the poverty level). Ergo, we need to raise the taxes on everyone making over $20K per year, because YOU my friend, have now become part of the "evil rich" millionaires' club. Quake in your boots, I heard that the IRS is looking for thousands of shot guns to help them in those difficult-to-collect cases.
If your child has a piggy bank, I recommend that you hide it quickly, before the census takers get a look at it and report you to the IRS for possible undeclared income.
Buz
What is the worst that could happen? You receive a letter in the mail some afternoon which recounts that you are in debt to some bank or credit card company for $20K, $30K, or even $50K, and that your credit score is now 52 (out of 850 ... I think my neighbor's dog has a credit score of 200). Can you imagine that? To suddenly wake up one morning and find that you are suddenly in debt $50K, and you had never bought a thing? You never even heard of this company.
Scary, isn't it!
Well, if you are not sitting down, do so.
The national debt just topped $14 TRILLION. That is $14,000,000,000,000.00.
There are about 350,000,000 people in the United States. So, as of this month, every man, woman, and child now ows
$14,000,000,000,000.00 / 350,000,000 = $40,000.00
So, if you are an average family with 4 people, that is $160,000.00 that you owe.
And that is if the government does not spend another penny for the rest of your lives.
The government does not have a stash of money somewhere. Every penny they spend comes out of our pockets, out of our childrens' pockets, out of our grandchildrens' pockets, and at this point, out of our great-grandchildrens' pockets.
If someone came up to me on the street and asked me for a $1 for a cup of coffee, I would not begrudge them $1, I would either give it to them, or take them to McD's for a burger and fries (and I have done both before). However, if someone came up to me and demanded that I dig into my grandchildrens' college fund to buy them a car, I would tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. Oh, unless it was cash for clunkers ... then I would have to give it to them.
Here's how that whole thing works: Ed has $100, Bob and Joe each have $10. Fred comes along and runs for office that he will tax the rich and make everything better. So Bob and Joe vote for him while Ed does not. Fred wins with 75% majority (he voted for himself), and he takes $90 from Ed and gives $5 to Bob, Joe, and Ed, and pockets the other $75. So now Bob, Joe, and Ed each have $15 amd Fred has $75, and everyone is happy except Ed.
That is all fine and dandy until next round, when Bob, Joe, and Ed have $15, and Fred has spent his $75. He comes back to take some more money, but there isn't the big pile that there was the first time through, so he goes to Lou the loan shark and takes out a loan for $90 in Bob, Joe, and Ed's names, and gives them each another $5 and pockets $75. It is a miracle, he has "created" money. Bob and Joe are happy because they got another $5. Ed is a little leary because he knows what happened the first time, and wonders when things will hit the fan.
Things go fine and dandy for a little while, then the loan comes due, and Bob, Joe, and Ed, with $60 between them are now faced with a bill for $100 (that includes intrest), and they don't have the other $40. Lou tells them that they have the choice of selling themselves into servitude or getting shot in the kneecaps.
Folks, in the real world, they just raised the debt ceiling to $14 Trillion ... Fred has just gone to the loan shark and gotten a loan in our names. We have a choice, when Fred comes to give us our $5, we can take it and wait for Lou to come and offer us slavery or amputation, or we can kick Fred out on his can, take back the money in his pocket and pay back Lou before the loan comes due.
Bill Gates is worth something around $50 Billion. If there were 200 Bill Gates, and the government took ALL their monies. That would still only be $10 Trillion. We would still be $4 Trillion short of being able to pay this off. There are just not enough millionaires and billionaires in this country to pay off all that debt.
In the 1980s, the villians used to be the millionaires, they were the "evil rich" who should be the target of the governmental "Robin Hoods" who would, on our behalf, steal from the rich and give to the poor, us. Then, in the 1990s, some brilliant politician reasoned that if you made $250K a year for 4 years, that was a million dollars, so, in essence, you were a millionaire. The new magic number for the evil rich dropped to $250K. (I hesitate to make this following point for fear that some clever politician will pick it up and run with it ...) Do you realize that if you make $100K for 10 years, that also is a million dollars, so those making $100K are then millionaires. For that matter, if you make $20K for 50 years, that is a million dollars, that makes you a millionaire, too (even though that is about $10K below the poverty level). Ergo, we need to raise the taxes on everyone making over $20K per year, because YOU my friend, have now become part of the "evil rich" millionaires' club. Quake in your boots, I heard that the IRS is looking for thousands of shot guns to help them in those difficult-to-collect cases.
If your child has a piggy bank, I recommend that you hide it quickly, before the census takers get a look at it and report you to the IRS for possible undeclared income.
Buz
Friday, December 18, 2009
Beyond I.Q.
I.Q. (intelligence quotient) ... we're all familiar with the concept. It is measure of raw intelligence.
But, is it a good predictor of how "smart" someone really is? We're all familiar with the stereotype of a "geek" who can multiply two seven-digit numbers in his head, but doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. Ben Franklin said, "Jack was so smart he could say 'horse' in seven languages, but so foolish that he road a cow into town."
We call that ability, the one that says, "come in out of the rain," "common sense." Another word for that is "wisdom." You don't even have to be particularly "smart" to be wise. Sometimes all you need is a bit of experience ... "last time it rained, I got soaked to the bone, and caught a bad cold ... so this time, I'll go inside when it starts raining."
Perhaps, when it comes to our leaders, we need to stop focussing so much on I.Q. and instead look at their W.Q. (wisdom quotient). Rather than ask what grades they got in Econ 510 at Harvard, we need to ask do they balance their checkbooks at home and can they keep to a household budget. Maybe how many languages they speak is less important than how often they stick their foot in their mouthes.
We have eleven months before we have to choose our next set of leaders, I think it would be wise of us to listen more to WHAT they say and less to HOW they say it. Maybe next round we can have at least a few who either know what they are doing, or at least enough not to screw up things that they know nothing about.
Buz
But, is it a good predictor of how "smart" someone really is? We're all familiar with the stereotype of a "geek" who can multiply two seven-digit numbers in his head, but doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. Ben Franklin said, "Jack was so smart he could say 'horse' in seven languages, but so foolish that he road a cow into town."
We call that ability, the one that says, "come in out of the rain," "common sense." Another word for that is "wisdom." You don't even have to be particularly "smart" to be wise. Sometimes all you need is a bit of experience ... "last time it rained, I got soaked to the bone, and caught a bad cold ... so this time, I'll go inside when it starts raining."
Perhaps, when it comes to our leaders, we need to stop focussing so much on I.Q. and instead look at their W.Q. (wisdom quotient). Rather than ask what grades they got in Econ 510 at Harvard, we need to ask do they balance their checkbooks at home and can they keep to a household budget. Maybe how many languages they speak is less important than how often they stick their foot in their mouthes.
We have eleven months before we have to choose our next set of leaders, I think it would be wise of us to listen more to WHAT they say and less to HOW they say it. Maybe next round we can have at least a few who either know what they are doing, or at least enough not to screw up things that they know nothing about.
Buz
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
We've Been Framed
It's an old cop story. The police have a suspect that they are "just sure" committed a crime, but they don't have any solid evidence, so they plant some evidence on him and arrest him. The end of the story goes one of two ways ... (1) his defense attorney is able to prove that the evidence was planted and the case is thrown out of court and the police are shamed, or (2) he is convicted, but then, the police later find the true perpetrater, and when he is brought to justice, the person who was framed is exhonorated, and again the police are shamed.
It would appear that the same has been done with scientific data regarding human caused climate change. Evidently there have been some who are so sure that this is happening, but they just don't have any supporting evidence, so they framed us. (Un?)fortunately, the fact that things have been tampered with has come out. And they have been shamed.
If this were a police show on TV, it is time for the judge to throw the case out. However, this may not be the case here. In the U.S. we have always stood on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, in scientific endeavors, the burden of proof of a theory initially rests with the person or group that proposes a theory. Even as proof mounts up, it still only takes a small amount of proof to the contrary to disprove a theory (i.e. if you claim that all cars are Fords, you can count Fords all day, but all I have to do is show you one Chevy.) It seems that the interim leader of the group in East Anglia, Peter Liss (his predecessor stepped down due to the apparent falsification of evidence) believes:
"LISS: [...] I think it’s very hard to be a denier. And in some sense, you might say it’s really up to the deniers to explain why it is when we’re pumping so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, why it wouldn’t have such an effect. [...]"
which sounds to me a lot like "we JUST KNOW you are guilty, but we can't prove it ... so it is up to you to prove you are innocent."
What I tell my friends is, "if it wasn't for global warming, we'd be sitting on a glacier by now."
Buz
It would appear that the same has been done with scientific data regarding human caused climate change. Evidently there have been some who are so sure that this is happening, but they just don't have any supporting evidence, so they framed us. (Un?)fortunately, the fact that things have been tampered with has come out. And they have been shamed.
If this were a police show on TV, it is time for the judge to throw the case out. However, this may not be the case here. In the U.S. we have always stood on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, in scientific endeavors, the burden of proof of a theory initially rests with the person or group that proposes a theory. Even as proof mounts up, it still only takes a small amount of proof to the contrary to disprove a theory (i.e. if you claim that all cars are Fords, you can count Fords all day, but all I have to do is show you one Chevy.) It seems that the interim leader of the group in East Anglia, Peter Liss (his predecessor stepped down due to the apparent falsification of evidence) believes:
"LISS: [...] I think it’s very hard to be a denier. And in some sense, you might say it’s really up to the deniers to explain why it is when we’re pumping so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, why it wouldn’t have such an effect. [...]"
which sounds to me a lot like "we JUST KNOW you are guilty, but we can't prove it ... so it is up to you to prove you are innocent."
What I tell my friends is, "if it wasn't for global warming, we'd be sitting on a glacier by now."
Buz
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A Fable
Once upon a very long time ago, before the animals had lost their ability to reason, a dispute arose between the bear and the snake. The bear was willing to settle the problem by brute force, but the snake, knowing that he would be ripped to shreds in seconds was less willing to fight without some rules. So they went to the council of animals. The council consisted of the donkey, because he was a hard worker, the dog because he was very loyal, the tortoise because of his age, the elephant because of his gentle strength, and the owl because of his wisdom. However, the owl was visiting a sick friend, so only the donkey, the dog, the tortoise, and the elephant were on hand.
“Here is my concern,” voiced the snake. “If the bear is permitted to settle this dispute by force, then we will dissolve into anarchy. I am willing to fight, but the bear has huge claws and sharp teeth. The fight would not be fair, and I should lose in a moment, as would any other animal who would come up against the bear. He could easily become a tyrant.”
“What is your suggestion?” asked the donkey, speaking for the entire council.
“If animals must fight, then I propose that we have a rule. Since not all animals have huge claws or sharp teeth, I submit that no animal be permitted to use these in fights.”
The council thought about this for a moment, and since it seemed fair, they agreed. This especially appealed to the donkey, because he had neither claws nor sharp teeth.
“Furthermore, since some animals, like myself, do not even have arms with which to hit, or legs with which to kick, I also propose that these be banned in fights, also,” added the snake. “Since all animals have bodies, I propose that bodies be the only things which animals are allowed to fight with.”
At this suggestion the council began to voice concern. Even the relatively unarmed donkey still had his ability to kick. To deny him this simple defense seemed to be too much. “Since the owl is not here, I believe that we should wait on ruling on this matter until he returns, sir snake.”
But the snake replied, “surely, something so simple as a fair fight should not require the owl’s great wisdom. I am not asking for some great ruling on complex matters, only a simple ruling on having fair fights in the animal kingdom.” The snake continued to cajole the council trying to force a ruling.
Finally the council conceded that since every animal had a body, the only fair fight would be body to body.
The snake then told the bear he was ready to fight. But, it was no fight. Without his claws and teeth, the bear was quickly crushed in the snake’s coils. The snake then challenged any other animal who might dispute him. He quickly became the tyrant he portrayed the bear to be.
When the owl returned, he found that the snake had deposed the council and was now ruling the forest. Since he was no match for the snake, he fled to the top of a high cliff.
Finally, the fox came to dispute the snake’s tyranny. As they prepared to fight, the snake struck out at the fox. The fox grabbed the snake’s neck with his teeth and began to rip the snake’s body with his claws.
“Unfair!” cried the snake. “You are ignoring the council’s ruling and using your teeth and claws on an animal who has neither teeth nor claws. I am defenseless.”
“Ha,” replied the fox. “You tried to ensure victory by making sure that all animals fought only with their bodies, but our weapons are teeth, claws and hooves. Your body is your weapon. We cannot fight with our bodies, but yours is made for fighting. I will not give up my weapons while allowing you to use yours. The council may have been duped by your cunning words, but I am not.” With that, he finished off the snake.
“Here is my concern,” voiced the snake. “If the bear is permitted to settle this dispute by force, then we will dissolve into anarchy. I am willing to fight, but the bear has huge claws and sharp teeth. The fight would not be fair, and I should lose in a moment, as would any other animal who would come up against the bear. He could easily become a tyrant.”
“What is your suggestion?” asked the donkey, speaking for the entire council.
“If animals must fight, then I propose that we have a rule. Since not all animals have huge claws or sharp teeth, I submit that no animal be permitted to use these in fights.”
The council thought about this for a moment, and since it seemed fair, they agreed. This especially appealed to the donkey, because he had neither claws nor sharp teeth.
“Furthermore, since some animals, like myself, do not even have arms with which to hit, or legs with which to kick, I also propose that these be banned in fights, also,” added the snake. “Since all animals have bodies, I propose that bodies be the only things which animals are allowed to fight with.”
At this suggestion the council began to voice concern. Even the relatively unarmed donkey still had his ability to kick. To deny him this simple defense seemed to be too much. “Since the owl is not here, I believe that we should wait on ruling on this matter until he returns, sir snake.”
But the snake replied, “surely, something so simple as a fair fight should not require the owl’s great wisdom. I am not asking for some great ruling on complex matters, only a simple ruling on having fair fights in the animal kingdom.” The snake continued to cajole the council trying to force a ruling.
Finally the council conceded that since every animal had a body, the only fair fight would be body to body.
The snake then told the bear he was ready to fight. But, it was no fight. Without his claws and teeth, the bear was quickly crushed in the snake’s coils. The snake then challenged any other animal who might dispute him. He quickly became the tyrant he portrayed the bear to be.
When the owl returned, he found that the snake had deposed the council and was now ruling the forest. Since he was no match for the snake, he fled to the top of a high cliff.
Finally, the fox came to dispute the snake’s tyranny. As they prepared to fight, the snake struck out at the fox. The fox grabbed the snake’s neck with his teeth and began to rip the snake’s body with his claws.
“Unfair!” cried the snake. “You are ignoring the council’s ruling and using your teeth and claws on an animal who has neither teeth nor claws. I am defenseless.”
“Ha,” replied the fox. “You tried to ensure victory by making sure that all animals fought only with their bodies, but our weapons are teeth, claws and hooves. Your body is your weapon. We cannot fight with our bodies, but yours is made for fighting. I will not give up my weapons while allowing you to use yours. The council may have been duped by your cunning words, but I am not.” With that, he finished off the snake.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
I'm back ...
Well, I had two hard drive crashes in succession. That, along with a heavy work schedule have put me out of the blogging business for several months. But, since I have gotten no comments, am I to conclude that:
- everyone is perfecly satisfied with the status quo,
- no one wants better representatives, we all want worse ones,
- we want better representatives, but we want them without the personal burden of being a better person, or
- you think that I am way off base, and the people that we are has nothing to do we the leaders we elect?
I don't see any other choices in the matter ... do you?
Buz
- everyone is perfecly satisfied with the status quo,
- no one wants better representatives, we all want worse ones,
- we want better representatives, but we want them without the personal burden of being a better person, or
- you think that I am way off base, and the people that we are has nothing to do we the leaders we elect?
I don't see any other choices in the matter ... do you?
Buz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)