You may have missed the report today that 3 out of every 4 Americans are unhappy with the way we are being governed. 69% being at least somewhat angry. Now aside from the fact that between 40 and 60 percent of Americans can't be bothered to vote, or perhaps in addition to this, it shows we are not happy with our government. So why are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders so popular?
When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders. All three fit this, more or less. When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists. All three, again, fit this, more or less. Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia. Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia. Carson apparently favors theocracy.
The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC. This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation. Sanders has words, Clinton has cash. As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".
But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them. It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce. Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system. (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats). Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.
Do I have a plan to fix this? No. I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though. First, abolish the electoral college. We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century. It's well past time. Next, make all primaries on the same day. Then no one state's votes count more than any others. One person, one vote, is violated by the current process. These two steps address this.
Also, a two term limit for each office. You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions). After that, or before, you would work at the state level. Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators) Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency. The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed. These two measures address this.
There may be a better way to accomplish this. I would hope so. I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas. But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect. Something is terribly wrong here.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Racism is not necessarily hatred
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how racist certain things are. Things like, disagreeing with protesters. Or wanting to lock up all Muslims. While the latter certainly does not reflect enlightened thinking, it isn't racist. Muslim, isn't a race, therefore, while it is a bigoted statement, it is not racist.
But I'm speaking more of the first example. If a group of protesters at a college want to demonstrate, my agreement is not required. That's one of the things that makes this country great. But my disagreement doesn't make me racist, and it certainly doesn't mean I hate them. And to screen the media for agreement, before allowing them to cover a protest, as has recently occurred, and branding them racist if they don't agree, is foolishness. "Racist" isn't a mildly disparaging term to be applied to anyone you disagree with. If the label sticks, it can ruin careers. And if over-used, will lead to semantic satiation, and the word loses all meaning.
Racism, first off, should be defined by what it is, not what it isn't. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race, or the inferiority of another. To the point of my title, hatred is entirely possible without racism, and racism can occur without hatred. You may have read Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. If you haven't, you should. (Note: I know people who have experienced nausea by reading this book, due only to the nature of the frank conversations that occur in it. There is no gore depicted, nor even any violence.)
While it is a work of fiction, it depicts a very real scenario. A man who absolutely believes in the inferiority of those of African decent, while only bearing them good will. He, in fact, considers whites to be their stewards and feels pity for them. This is the type of well meaning racism present in many government programs. It is not to be confused with hatred. It is a much more insidious racism, that comes bearing gifts, instead of burning crosses.
We can all think of hundreds of examples of hatred occurring without the need of racism, so I don't feel any special need to cite examples. But we should begin to see that racism can occur without hatred. So beware the people hiding under white hoods, but be sure to keep an eye on the ones that treat races like species, and try to protect the endangered ones. They are just as racist; just less honest about it.
But I'm speaking more of the first example. If a group of protesters at a college want to demonstrate, my agreement is not required. That's one of the things that makes this country great. But my disagreement doesn't make me racist, and it certainly doesn't mean I hate them. And to screen the media for agreement, before allowing them to cover a protest, as has recently occurred, and branding them racist if they don't agree, is foolishness. "Racist" isn't a mildly disparaging term to be applied to anyone you disagree with. If the label sticks, it can ruin careers. And if over-used, will lead to semantic satiation, and the word loses all meaning.
Racism, first off, should be defined by what it is, not what it isn't. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race, or the inferiority of another. To the point of my title, hatred is entirely possible without racism, and racism can occur without hatred. You may have read Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. If you haven't, you should. (Note: I know people who have experienced nausea by reading this book, due only to the nature of the frank conversations that occur in it. There is no gore depicted, nor even any violence.)
While it is a work of fiction, it depicts a very real scenario. A man who absolutely believes in the inferiority of those of African decent, while only bearing them good will. He, in fact, considers whites to be their stewards and feels pity for them. This is the type of well meaning racism present in many government programs. It is not to be confused with hatred. It is a much more insidious racism, that comes bearing gifts, instead of burning crosses.
We can all think of hundreds of examples of hatred occurring without the need of racism, so I don't feel any special need to cite examples. But we should begin to see that racism can occur without hatred. So beware the people hiding under white hoods, but be sure to keep an eye on the ones that treat races like species, and try to protect the endangered ones. They are just as racist; just less honest about it.
The brewery bubble
Much is being made over the craft beer bubble. If it will burst, when it will burst, is it sustainable? While most are focused on the industry, as a whole, and comparing it to the cigar boom, this isn't an accurate comparison. The reason is distribution and availability. While whole dissertations could be written on the faults and merits of the three tier distribution system; it is a moot point, in terms of local brewery's being sustainable. Just to get the Bona Fides out of the way, I have an MBA from Columbia College of Missouri, so I'm not just some random internet guy spouting off. (Well, technically I am, but I'm a qualified, random, internet guy spouting off).
What I will do is compare the craft beer industry to Chinese take out, or other "perfect competition" businesses. The way it works is that, a Chinese takeout place, while each selling a unique version of a product, essentially sells the same things. You may have preferences, and make the drive to a "better" restaurant, because, to you, it's worth it. But in the end, you have a business with functionally identical products, (or at least the capacity to create them, with no change in costs), no barriers to entry, subject to market pricing, and an informed consumer.
Using this as an example, one thing becomes immediately clear, the craft beer boom will only be sustainable if we stop demanding our favorite breweries have national, or even regional, distribution. Requiring this will cause only the least offensive, most watered down versions to survive. I'm guessing your favorite Chinese restaurant isn't Panda Express. Using the same economic principles that apply to that perfect competition, we should not expect craft brewers to distribute at all.
My point is, fellow drinkers, if you want your favorite local brewery to prosper, don't pressure them to distribute package goods until they're ready. Do visit them frequently. And by all means, if you live in a state with its head up its ass about growlers (as do I, in Illinois), write your state representatives about it. But please, please, allow the little guys to be little. The market can only accommodate all of them if they operate like Chinese restaurants, or we'll end up with another beer version of McDonald's. (Not that I won't eat there under the right conditions, but it's not my first choice: like Miller or Bud)
What I will do is compare the craft beer industry to Chinese take out, or other "perfect competition" businesses. The way it works is that, a Chinese takeout place, while each selling a unique version of a product, essentially sells the same things. You may have preferences, and make the drive to a "better" restaurant, because, to you, it's worth it. But in the end, you have a business with functionally identical products, (or at least the capacity to create them, with no change in costs), no barriers to entry, subject to market pricing, and an informed consumer.
Using this as an example, one thing becomes immediately clear, the craft beer boom will only be sustainable if we stop demanding our favorite breweries have national, or even regional, distribution. Requiring this will cause only the least offensive, most watered down versions to survive. I'm guessing your favorite Chinese restaurant isn't Panda Express. Using the same economic principles that apply to that perfect competition, we should not expect craft brewers to distribute at all.
My point is, fellow drinkers, if you want your favorite local brewery to prosper, don't pressure them to distribute package goods until they're ready. Do visit them frequently. And by all means, if you live in a state with its head up its ass about growlers (as do I, in Illinois), write your state representatives about it. But please, please, allow the little guys to be little. The market can only accommodate all of them if they operate like Chinese restaurants, or we'll end up with another beer version of McDonald's. (Not that I won't eat there under the right conditions, but it's not my first choice: like Miller or Bud)
Sunday, September 27, 2015
The value of negativity: or, The justification of my existence.
Today I read an "inspirational" facebook post. It was something along the lines of: A positive life is not possible with a negative mind, or some other happy sounding BS. So I'm going to lay out the reason that negative people are the not only necessary, but the reason positive people can be positive.
The negative primitive man was the one who cooked his meat, even though it was rare anyone got sick from eating raw meat. This led to basic food preparation, which led to surplus, which led to not having to follow the herds of animals. This led to the rise of society. (Obviously there are more steps)
Positive people will contentedly tell you not to make a big deal out of little problems. After all, gas lights were mostly safe. Rain will eventually fall. You can just get fresh food from the field. Except that when gas lights fail, people die. The rain sometimes waits until you die of thirst to fall. Sometimes it snows, and there is no fresh food.
Negative people see themselves, and the world, beset by problems. They invent light bulbs, desalinization methods, and canning, curing, and smoking, to preserve food. Does this make them less pleasant to be around? Absolutely, if you're a positive person. Do we make fun of positive people for failing to recognize the problems biting them in the face? Constantly.
In short, a positive outlook will keep you from recognizing a problem, and therefore keep the problem from being solved. A negative outlook sees the problem. And while not all negative people will solve problems, they see them. If you don't acknowledge a problem, you can't solve a problem.
So call us jerks, killjoys, buzzkills, whatever. But research some inventors, innovators, and visionaries. (da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Ford, Jobs) Their contemporaries called them all manner of synonyms for "Negative". They may have envisioned a brighter future, but it was because they clearly saw the problems of their day.
If you only see the positive, you are happy with how things are. If you are happy with how things are, you aren't working to change them. Negativity innovates; Positivity stagnates. The negative thinkers may not be happy, but if "ignorance is bliss" then bliss (positivity) is ignorance. That would be the symmetric property. (http://www.mathwords.com/s/symmetric_property.htm) See how a negative person sees a problem before it manifests (like someone disagreeing) and acts to solve it?
So make room for the negative people. The world would be very worse off without us.
The negative primitive man was the one who cooked his meat, even though it was rare anyone got sick from eating raw meat. This led to basic food preparation, which led to surplus, which led to not having to follow the herds of animals. This led to the rise of society. (Obviously there are more steps)
Positive people will contentedly tell you not to make a big deal out of little problems. After all, gas lights were mostly safe. Rain will eventually fall. You can just get fresh food from the field. Except that when gas lights fail, people die. The rain sometimes waits until you die of thirst to fall. Sometimes it snows, and there is no fresh food.
Negative people see themselves, and the world, beset by problems. They invent light bulbs, desalinization methods, and canning, curing, and smoking, to preserve food. Does this make them less pleasant to be around? Absolutely, if you're a positive person. Do we make fun of positive people for failing to recognize the problems biting them in the face? Constantly.
In short, a positive outlook will keep you from recognizing a problem, and therefore keep the problem from being solved. A negative outlook sees the problem. And while not all negative people will solve problems, they see them. If you don't acknowledge a problem, you can't solve a problem.
So call us jerks, killjoys, buzzkills, whatever. But research some inventors, innovators, and visionaries. (da Vinci, Edison, Tesla, Ford, Jobs) Their contemporaries called them all manner of synonyms for "Negative". They may have envisioned a brighter future, but it was because they clearly saw the problems of their day.
If you only see the positive, you are happy with how things are. If you are happy with how things are, you aren't working to change them. Negativity innovates; Positivity stagnates. The negative thinkers may not be happy, but if "ignorance is bliss" then bliss (positivity) is ignorance. That would be the symmetric property. (http://www.mathwords.com/s/symmetric_property.htm) See how a negative person sees a problem before it manifests (like someone disagreeing) and acts to solve it?
So make room for the negative people. The world would be very worse off without us.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Office how to 3:
I will begin by saying this is not a political post. This is a very targeted post, with a very general message.
In any business, there will be conflict. Sometimes this is a personality clash, sometimes a competitive one. Sometimes the conflict is based purely out of frustration, and the anger is completely misdirected.
If you ask any service department you will hear the same story, with different names, over and over. A piece of equipment, designed to last 10 years, that has lasted 25, and was no longer supported by the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) as of 10 years ago, has failed. (or 3,6, and 2 years for computers) Parts are not immediately available, if at all.
The service department worker cannot, in this one instance, produce a miracle from their posterior, as they have done hundreds of times before. The equipment is down. Productivity, production, surgery, cleaning, food prep; whatever it is, stops. Then the conflict starts.
Someone (presumably with a degree of authority, but not always) becomes upset and lashes out at the people around them. When service is called in, the person who was previously yelled at, treats them worse, because the most productive thing you can do with abuse is pay it forward, right? Nevermind that the service department personally recommended that piece be replaced, every year since the OEM stopped supporting it. Even though the piece went down yesterday, and the affected users were advised to schedule around it, and didn't. And certainly, it is the service department's fault that something failed. Heaven knows that machines and electronics always work forever, and never fail.
And please, always assume that when we don't scream at you, like you are doing to us, that you are in the right. It couldn't possibly be that we are better people, or know how unproductive arguing is. It could not possibly be that the only reason we aren't yelling back is that it is everything we can do not to laugh at how ignorant you are acting. It could not be that we understand your frustration and being shown a very small glimpse into the problems we are forced to deal with every single day, without complaint. It cannot be that we know that prolonging an unproductive argument keeps us from addressing the very problem you are screaming about.
So please, remember a few points:
1. Everything eventually breaks.
2. It isn't the fault of the person who just walked in to fix it.
3. Arguing about it is keeping them from trying to help you.
4. Despite your behavior, not because of it, they still want to help.
5. It is in your best interest to let them.
In any business, there will be conflict. Sometimes this is a personality clash, sometimes a competitive one. Sometimes the conflict is based purely out of frustration, and the anger is completely misdirected.
If you ask any service department you will hear the same story, with different names, over and over. A piece of equipment, designed to last 10 years, that has lasted 25, and was no longer supported by the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) as of 10 years ago, has failed. (or 3,6, and 2 years for computers) Parts are not immediately available, if at all.
The service department worker cannot, in this one instance, produce a miracle from their posterior, as they have done hundreds of times before. The equipment is down. Productivity, production, surgery, cleaning, food prep; whatever it is, stops. Then the conflict starts.
Someone (presumably with a degree of authority, but not always) becomes upset and lashes out at the people around them. When service is called in, the person who was previously yelled at, treats them worse, because the most productive thing you can do with abuse is pay it forward, right? Nevermind that the service department personally recommended that piece be replaced, every year since the OEM stopped supporting it. Even though the piece went down yesterday, and the affected users were advised to schedule around it, and didn't. And certainly, it is the service department's fault that something failed. Heaven knows that machines and electronics always work forever, and never fail.
And please, always assume that when we don't scream at you, like you are doing to us, that you are in the right. It couldn't possibly be that we are better people, or know how unproductive arguing is. It could not possibly be that the only reason we aren't yelling back is that it is everything we can do not to laugh at how ignorant you are acting. It could not be that we understand your frustration and being shown a very small glimpse into the problems we are forced to deal with every single day, without complaint. It cannot be that we know that prolonging an unproductive argument keeps us from addressing the very problem you are screaming about.
So please, remember a few points:
1. Everything eventually breaks.
2. It isn't the fault of the person who just walked in to fix it.
3. Arguing about it is keeping them from trying to help you.
4. Despite your behavior, not because of it, they still want to help.
5. It is in your best interest to let them.
Monday, February 23, 2015
How to design medical equipment.
First, I want to warn you that this one might ramble. It might go long. Bear with me. Second, For the sake of full disclosure, I am not a designer. I do not get paid to design smoothly arcing lines on a case. If I did, there would not be any, but I'll cover that later. What has been the source of my income, for the last decade and a half, has been fixing all the things that get broken, BECAUSE someone who does get paid to design them spent too much time making the case "sexy" and not enough studying how the damned thing would be used. I am focusing on medical equipment, because that is my field, but I suspect there will be a host of technicians in every area nodding their collective heads to this.
We will begin with a cute little anecdote I have. A nurse, in the nursery, broke off a piece of the bassinet on an infant warmer. She did this by pulling on it. She was pulling on the bassinet because the designer apparently thought handles ruined the lines of their product. The salesman came to see us and said: "Well, that isn't covered under warranty." I said: "I know the nurse was negligent and should have just used the handle." The idiot says: "Exactly". The look on his face when I asked him to show the nurses, who were all gathered around, where the handles were, still makes me laugh. (We got our parts covered, BTW).
But that brings me to a point of explaining, how exactly, to design medical equipment. First, if it isn't, literally, bolted to the floor, it is portable. That is a fact of life. Second, because it will be transported, it needs either a full internal frame, or a case equally as rigid as a full metal frame. This is primarily because: Third, the highest, and outermost points of all equipment are handles.
What!? You didn't design handles there. Well let me just go and change every single human being's habits. Let me just put a sign on it that says "NOT A HANDLE", that will change thousands of years of habit. Or, just maybe, you could watch how things are used before you start drawing. And by the way, that handle better be part of the framing system. I have seen this not be the case. It went exactly like you'd expect.
Now I have to share a bit of the inner workings. Hospitals are required to have all equipment inventoried, and periodic maintenance performed on nearly every piece. Some items require stickers detailing the tested vs. expected outputs. To that end, one would think these items would be designed with enough flat space to place these stickers. Nope. That would be a flat, boring, un-sexy case. We can't have that.
So the case must be flat, or have sufficient flat space, to accommodate the required labeling. The case should, while we are on the topic, be made of dyed plastic, or stainless steel. This is because it also needs to resist the types of chemicals which are capable of killing today's super-bugs. MRSA, C.diff, etc, are tough little buggers. The things that can kill them, can also remove printing, paint, and most coloring from cases. They will melt the bottoms of some shoes. That is not a joke, I've seen it. The accessories, and cables, also need to be made to resist these chemicals.
In the interest of not being destroyed by harsh cleaners, any open ports need to have a hinged, water resistant cover. All bearings should also be weatherproof. This is both to keep the chemicals out, and not give germs a place to hide.
Lastly, as a favor to the poor saps who get stuck working on your equipment, design it to be worked on. It will break. All things break. Design it so we don't have to waste an hour taking it apart just to get to a fuse. (Again, based on a real case).
Now there are a few companies that get it right, or at least mostly right. But there are many more that don't. And no, I'm not going to give an opinion, or name names. Not here anyway.
So there you have it. A comprehensive guide to correctly designing, and building, medical equipment. I have given this out free of charge, in the hopes that some designer, somewhere, will think of what the thing is supposed to do, rather than how it looks. This can be balanced, I've seen it done.
Friday, February 20, 2015
10 Amazing facts you didn't know about the internet!!
See how that misleading title made you click this link. That is just the type of disingenuous nonsense that litters social media. But since you have read this far, I will give you ten tips to not look like an idiot, online or elsewhere.
10. If you see the terms "amazing", "incredible", "unbelievable", or anything like that, used in conjunction with: "Facts", "truths", etc. everything you are about to read is complete crap. (yes, including this)
9. If the accompanying article appears to not be crap, in that they list sources; look at those sources, and see if they support the conclusion.
8. It's the internet. You are already online. Search the items yourself.
7. If the article seems legitimate, but has no source listed, it is inherently false.
6. Use collegiate rules: Wikipedia is not a source.
5. When a genetically isolated group shows no signs of a particular disease, it IS NOT because of their diet.
4. If a post says it was "verified by snopes"; click the link. Either it won't work, or will take you to a site saying the story is false.
3. If you are about to post something, and haven't checked that it is accurate, you are helping spread a lie.
2. There is nothing, aside from eating less and exercising, that will make you thinner. That doesn't always work, either.
1. Listen to your mother. Just because everyone else is posting illogical, non-factual BS, doesn't mean you have to.
Bonus: Coconut oil is tasty, and solid at room temperature. It will not cure anything, make you lose weight, or save the planet. It will make a very tasty filipino garlic rice, and excellent popcorn.
10. If you see the terms "amazing", "incredible", "unbelievable", or anything like that, used in conjunction with: "Facts", "truths", etc. everything you are about to read is complete crap. (yes, including this)
9. If the accompanying article appears to not be crap, in that they list sources; look at those sources, and see if they support the conclusion.
8. It's the internet. You are already online. Search the items yourself.
7. If the article seems legitimate, but has no source listed, it is inherently false.
6. Use collegiate rules: Wikipedia is not a source.
5. When a genetically isolated group shows no signs of a particular disease, it IS NOT because of their diet.
4. If a post says it was "verified by snopes"; click the link. Either it won't work, or will take you to a site saying the story is false.
3. If you are about to post something, and haven't checked that it is accurate, you are helping spread a lie.
2. There is nothing, aside from eating less and exercising, that will make you thinner. That doesn't always work, either.
1. Listen to your mother. Just because everyone else is posting illogical, non-factual BS, doesn't mean you have to.
Bonus: Coconut oil is tasty, and solid at room temperature. It will not cure anything, make you lose weight, or save the planet. It will make a very tasty filipino garlic rice, and excellent popcorn.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Free speech culture
In order to shine a light on a certain brand of hypocrisy; I will be writing a paragraph from the perspective of an outraged liberal. I have read several such articles explaining to all the "Sheeple" that "American Gun Culture" is the reason why we still have gun rights, which should, due to the actions of a few be taken away. (By the way, if you ever want people to immediately tune you out, use the word "Sheeple") Instead of using the term "Gun-Culture" however, I will be using the term "Free Speech Culture. (the only differences will be a lack of spelling errors, and a lack of egregious grammatical errors). I hope that this will show just how flimsy, and frankly how Anti-American, those arguments are.
Well, here we go again. Another day another incident of someone causing pain and suffering because the Free Speech Culture wont allow the government to protect us by taking away these idiot's right to disagree. As long as people have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, this will keep happening. Certain places are not even safe anymore because these sociopaths get to spread their idiocy wherever they choose. How many lives have to be lost, just because someone wants their individual freedom preserved. How many children need be injured or die, just because a selfish few, feel a need to speak freely. Distracting billboards, political speech on the radio. I can't even concentrate on driving! People protesting gets in the way of emergency vehicles and causes economic disruption! By disagreeing with necessary policy choices, children won't have access to free services. By speaking out against these things, children die. Think of the children. And how dare they impose this disease of theirs on the rest of us. I'm not saying that these people can't practice their free speech in appropriate places, like designated lounges, but they should not be allowed to shove their beliefs in our faces. I should not have to feel threatened by their disagreement. When can we just ignore this Free speech culture and do what is best for society? We should really just round up all the transmitters and printing presses and take them away so no one would have them. Free speech is not a guaranteed right when children get hurt.
Now I hope I don't need to point out that the above paragraph is farcical in nature. But this is how the arguments against the second amendment go. It cannot be said enough: My rights should never be curtailed due to someone else's actions. That isn't gun culture. That is one of the founding principals of our country. To say that my firearms pose a threat to someone, because an illegally obtained pistol in Chicago was used in a crime, is erroneous thinking. There is no gun culture in America. We have a culture of being at liberty. We have a culture that allows divergent viewpoints to peacefully coexist. When my rights are eroded because someone else committed a crime, we have a fundamental violation of civil liberties.
To put things another way, when someone is arrested the 15th time for drunk driving, or road rage, no one hesitates to blame the local DA for not keeping them in prison. No one blames the car, or the road, or sues GM; no matter how many people this person killed. They blame the person. To do otherwise is ridiculous. Why then, do we blame an inert piece of machinery when there is a shooting.
Bonus, in case you missed it: Bloomberg admits his racism, and that the problem is the shooter, not the gun. Of course he is asking the press not to distribute the video of him saying it. (Not that he controls a significant potion of the press) Bloomberg's Hypocrisy
Well, here we go again. Another day another incident of someone causing pain and suffering because the Free Speech Culture wont allow the government to protect us by taking away these idiot's right to disagree. As long as people have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, this will keep happening. Certain places are not even safe anymore because these sociopaths get to spread their idiocy wherever they choose. How many lives have to be lost, just because someone wants their individual freedom preserved. How many children need be injured or die, just because a selfish few, feel a need to speak freely. Distracting billboards, political speech on the radio. I can't even concentrate on driving! People protesting gets in the way of emergency vehicles and causes economic disruption! By disagreeing with necessary policy choices, children won't have access to free services. By speaking out against these things, children die. Think of the children. And how dare they impose this disease of theirs on the rest of us. I'm not saying that these people can't practice their free speech in appropriate places, like designated lounges, but they should not be allowed to shove their beliefs in our faces. I should not have to feel threatened by their disagreement. When can we just ignore this Free speech culture and do what is best for society? We should really just round up all the transmitters and printing presses and take them away so no one would have them. Free speech is not a guaranteed right when children get hurt.
Now I hope I don't need to point out that the above paragraph is farcical in nature. But this is how the arguments against the second amendment go. It cannot be said enough: My rights should never be curtailed due to someone else's actions. That isn't gun culture. That is one of the founding principals of our country. To say that my firearms pose a threat to someone, because an illegally obtained pistol in Chicago was used in a crime, is erroneous thinking. There is no gun culture in America. We have a culture of being at liberty. We have a culture that allows divergent viewpoints to peacefully coexist. When my rights are eroded because someone else committed a crime, we have a fundamental violation of civil liberties.
To put things another way, when someone is arrested the 15th time for drunk driving, or road rage, no one hesitates to blame the local DA for not keeping them in prison. No one blames the car, or the road, or sues GM; no matter how many people this person killed. They blame the person. To do otherwise is ridiculous. Why then, do we blame an inert piece of machinery when there is a shooting.
Bonus, in case you missed it: Bloomberg admits his racism, and that the problem is the shooter, not the gun. Of course he is asking the press not to distribute the video of him saying it. (Not that he controls a significant potion of the press) Bloomberg's Hypocrisy
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
A new word for it...
I have had many conversations with a close friend about whether greed ruins things for everyone. He always has asserted that it has. I have stated that it does not. We argued a few times before I noticed that we weren't talking about the same thing.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
Monday, January 19, 2015
The cost of everyone winning.
A recent conversation with someone got me thinking. See, this person was insisting that they could be good at their job, despite not knowing anything about it. Now this was not a doctor, thank God, but still a position that REQUIRES a degree of knowledge. I will not spill the profession, because it might embarrass the person, (see, I can grow), but essentially this would be someone claiming they could be a chef, because they know how a microwave works, and no one ever orders eggs Benedict anyway.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
This person was boastful about the depths of their ignorance, and unfazed by the fact that this not only makes them bad at their job, but speaks volumes about their character. Someone who refuses to even crack a book, open a web page, or listen to a book on tape, about their current position, will likely never be good in any position. "Been doing this for years, and only needed to know that stuff a few times": kind of thing. Possibly it isn't needed, possibly word got out that this person was not able to perform. Either way, I was reminded of two things.
First, this was someone raised in the generation of participation trophies. You know, 35 kids in a competition, it would hurt someone's feelings if they didn't win something, so everyone gets the same trophy. First off, you aren't fooling the kids, they know if they did a good job or not. Second, not only does this reinforce to the ones who would not have won, that losing is just as good, there is a, much worse, more insidious effect.
Also, from the perspective of someone who performed well enough to win: why did they bother? If all rewards are the same, regardless of performance, there is no incentive to try. Ask a human resources person if this attitude is reflected among people of a certain age and you will hear a resounding: "Yes". I've talked to small business owners who will not hire anyone under 30, because of this groomed, generational, defect.
"What business does this have on a mostly political blog?", I can hear you asking. What type of quality production was the old Soviet Union known for? What quality are Chinese-made goods now known for? Is there an incentive to do better when everyone gets the same reward? We have a generation that was groomed to have the same work ethic as someone from a communist country. Since they had the idea reinforced at a young age, most have never given anything enough effort to see it disproved as adults.
As a parent, I am seeing this trend now reversing. Children are being rewarded when they do well, not just for showing up. So there is hope. But we will have a lost generation of people quite happy to never try, to never know success, and never know failure, which is what makes the success worth trying for. They will happily never achieve success, and be critical of those in their generation who do. (Note, if you are one of the ones who do try, it doesn't take much to shine).
I will leave you with the words of a much more inspirational, and likely smarter, certainly braver, man than myself: Theodore Roosevelt.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
How we got here, and how to keep it going. The long view.
Prior to the Baby Boom, America was much like any other civilized country. We had multiple generations living under one roof, many industrialists making the lion's share of the money, and the working poor staying that way. Something changed with the second world war though.
The Deaths
So in looking at the lovely chart compiled by our friends at Wikipedia, you will note some statistical oddities. First, that Allied civilian deaths far outstrip military ones. That says something for how the Axis fought. Next, you will see that Axis military deaths far exceeded civilian ones. That says something about how we fought.
But this is all academic to the point. Due to our remote location, (relative to Europe) and our late entry to the war, and frankly our technological advantage, we lost relatively few people. The numbers to reference to see this are the deaths as a percentage of the country's 1939 population. Of all the major powers in the world, we lost the lowest percentage of our population.
This had an immediate impact on our country. (On a historic timeline). The low number of American civilian deaths, compared to the rest of the world players, meant that when the post-war world needed goods manufactured, we were the only ones left who could do the job. When the needs of the world outpaced our workforce, we effectively doubled it, by re-adding women. (They got a taste of the working world during the war and apparently enjoyed it)
Suddenly, (in historic terms), every generation was living separate from each other, there was the option for both partners to work, and a relatively high amount of wealth for working-class families, compared with the rest of the world. So in historic terms, what our grandparents, parents, and ourselves experienced was a brief period of unusually high prosperity.
WWII eliminated the competition, essentially. While I would not advocate the same method of doing this today; this is what we need to do, as a country. How do we put ourselves ahead? Unlike the mid-east we do not have a monopoly on a scarce good. Unlike China and India, we do not have so many laborers that it is cheaper to hand build, as opposed to automation. (Also we mostly enforce our environmental laws...) Our advantage is our inventiveness, When you take in all the ideas of the world, and put them together in one place, it is a natural fit. Yet, we are not the clear-cut technology leaders that we should be.
So here is my suggestion. The President (Obama as of the writing of this article) has recently suggested that community college be "Free". Again, that word is misused, but I have been shouting that same idea at anyone who can hear (and writing it down for those who can't) for decades. I would not limit this to community college, though. But there is one single condition...
The only taxpayer funded post secondary schooling you could get, would be things that benefit the country. (I know, that sounds socialist, but hear me out). No one is saying you can't get that degree in underwater basket-weaving, you just have to pay your own way. If you want Joe and Jane taxpayer to foot the bill, you need to pick a field in which there is either an essential need, or one that would improve the competitiveness of America, in the international market.
This would eliminate the need for protectionist policies, as it would draw business here. It would also provide a benefit to taxpayers. (unlike most government programs). Even those who can't, or who choose not to, go to college would benefit, as the available jobs would be better, due to the influx of manufacturing, and technology.
The Deaths
So in looking at the lovely chart compiled by our friends at Wikipedia, you will note some statistical oddities. First, that Allied civilian deaths far outstrip military ones. That says something for how the Axis fought. Next, you will see that Axis military deaths far exceeded civilian ones. That says something about how we fought.
But this is all academic to the point. Due to our remote location, (relative to Europe) and our late entry to the war, and frankly our technological advantage, we lost relatively few people. The numbers to reference to see this are the deaths as a percentage of the country's 1939 population. Of all the major powers in the world, we lost the lowest percentage of our population.
This had an immediate impact on our country. (On a historic timeline). The low number of American civilian deaths, compared to the rest of the world players, meant that when the post-war world needed goods manufactured, we were the only ones left who could do the job. When the needs of the world outpaced our workforce, we effectively doubled it, by re-adding women. (They got a taste of the working world during the war and apparently enjoyed it)
Suddenly, (in historic terms), every generation was living separate from each other, there was the option for both partners to work, and a relatively high amount of wealth for working-class families, compared with the rest of the world. So in historic terms, what our grandparents, parents, and ourselves experienced was a brief period of unusually high prosperity.
WWII eliminated the competition, essentially. While I would not advocate the same method of doing this today; this is what we need to do, as a country. How do we put ourselves ahead? Unlike the mid-east we do not have a monopoly on a scarce good. Unlike China and India, we do not have so many laborers that it is cheaper to hand build, as opposed to automation. (Also we mostly enforce our environmental laws...) Our advantage is our inventiveness, When you take in all the ideas of the world, and put them together in one place, it is a natural fit. Yet, we are not the clear-cut technology leaders that we should be.
So here is my suggestion. The President (Obama as of the writing of this article) has recently suggested that community college be "Free". Again, that word is misused, but I have been shouting that same idea at anyone who can hear (and writing it down for those who can't) for decades. I would not limit this to community college, though. But there is one single condition...
The only taxpayer funded post secondary schooling you could get, would be things that benefit the country. (I know, that sounds socialist, but hear me out). No one is saying you can't get that degree in underwater basket-weaving, you just have to pay your own way. If you want Joe and Jane taxpayer to foot the bill, you need to pick a field in which there is either an essential need, or one that would improve the competitiveness of America, in the international market.
This would eliminate the need for protectionist policies, as it would draw business here. It would also provide a benefit to taxpayers. (unlike most government programs). Even those who can't, or who choose not to, go to college would benefit, as the available jobs would be better, due to the influx of manufacturing, and technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)