Tricky wording

       In the Constitution of the United States of America, there are many times when the term "The people" is used.  This usage was selected to represent "the people" as opposed to "the state" for the reservation of certain individual rights, powers etc.  This usage has always been interpreted to mean "an individual" or "a person".  It means this in the bill of rights, certainly.

       Consider the usage in the fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

       Clearly this does not suggest a collective right to be secure in a collective home, collective personage (wut?) or collective papers, against unreasonable search and seizure.  This, quite clearly, states an individual right, as guaranteed to "the people" as opposed to "the state"

       No other usage of the phrase "the people" however, has proven more problematic than in the second amendment.  While the meaning is perfectly clear, matches the other uses, and in fact has been ruled by the Supreme Court to explicitly mean an "individual" right; there are still those who contest that meaning.  While I do not believe for a single second that any of the people saying this actually think it is true, so much as wish it were true; they do still claim it.  To that end I believe we either need a ruling by the Supreme Court, or better yet, an amendment to the Constitution; that clearly states the following:

       "Wherever the phrase "the people" appears in the Constitution of the United States of America, it will be construed to mean "an individual".

       This should clear up any "confusion" on the part of any who think otherwise.  I wish only that I had a way to get a message back to the Founders, to let them know that their choice of using "a person" and "the people" synonymously would lead to much, unnecessary, legal wrangling.

Save the relativity for physics.

       I've been debating getting back into writing and something today set me on a track.  For future reference, when anyone sees this, today is the day after a man, with no prior history and no indication of this sort of thing happening (so far, anyway) opened fire from a 32nd story window of a casino-hotel in Las Vegas and sprayed automatic weapon fire into a crowd attending a concert.  Then, because the day needed to be somehow worse, "Tom Petty Found Unresponsive".  He may, or may not currently be dead, depending on which news report has it right, but he is at least brain dead, and that is a fine hair to split.  (topic of a future post)

       At any rate, I had read a conversation on Facebook where one person was lamenting the death of Tom Petty, and another was railing against them for complaining about the death of one person, just because he was famous, when so many others had died.  I started a response, then decided it was too long to ever be read on that format.  So I took it here.  That's only half true.  My first thought was: "Because F--K you, that's how," poet laureate that I am.  But then I started the longer post.  If you know that person, or even someone else who said something similar, please show this to them.

       If I mention that people in India are starving, and you respond that people in Ethiopia have it worse; that doesn't mean that the people in India suddenly have food.

       If I say that there is a drought in Brazil, and you respond that it's worse in South Africa; that doesn't mean is started raining in Brazil.

       In physics everything is relative.  Jupiter is large, but not compared to most of the exoplanets we've discovered.  Those comparisons have meaning.  When assigning a value to the impact death has on your life, any such attempts are trite and sophomoric.

       -4 is more negative than -2.  That does not make -2 a positive integer. 

       59 people dying is more than 1 musician.  But that doesn't mean we'll be going to a Tom Petty concert next year.

How to spot fake news.

       I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news.  I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves.  So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news.  Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative.  I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.

       News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting.  Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper.  It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is.  Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer.  It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings.  This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom.  It makes no supposition as to the "why".  Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.

       News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds.  I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life.  Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not.  If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.

       News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story:  I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset.  Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.

       Anything above this point is not "Fake News".   Anything below it is.  Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness.  I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange.  But everything below seems quite familiar.  Put on your chest waders.  The manure truck is unloading...

       News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story.  An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.

       News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.

       News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard.  But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public.  The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true.  Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades.  But you would never know that, reading or watching the news.  This is the most common type of story.

       News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way.  In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws."  (section titled: "Misleading Polls").  In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades.  This may not be their fault.

       News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.      

       News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach.  But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.

       Non-News:  "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark.  If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.

       Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.

The Magnetic Pendulum

I hate politics. Generally, when people say that it is because they do not want to espouse a particular set of opinions that may upset the person they are saying it to. In this instance, however, I am saying it because I am disgusted by the way politics has wormed its way into most aspects of everyday life. As a kid, I actually aspired to be a politician. Civics and government were and are fascinating to me and the thought of public service in the name of furthering the great experiment that is the American Republic, seemed like a laudable goal. Obviously, the idea of engaging in politics now is abhorrent to me and it is mostly because of the magnetic pendulum.

Bear with me. Although I hate politics, I love a good metaphor. As I was perusing the news of the day and trying desperately to avoid any mention of politics, I came across an article about local police arresting a vandal that shattered a few car windows. The comments section of the article (I know, why am I reading a comment section on the internet.) quickly devolved into armed camps of pro and anti-police sentiment, Trump bashing, Black Lives Matter supporters and detractors and, conspiracy theorists. Keep in mind that this is a kid, who is not African-American, breaking windows and getting caught. There is nothing here to get worked up about, unless you happen to own a car with a broken window or are this kid’s parents.

This quick trip through ignorance gave me an idea about a way of looking at the new, super polarized American political dynamic. I give you the Magnetic Pendulum.

OK, I did not invent this idea, however I am taking credit for applying it to American politics. The actual Idea is from an experiment done in the 1960s involving an oscillator and a magnet suspended from a pendulum. (Here is a diagram that I got from Kidzsearch, which is about at my level of scientific knowledge).

The idea is that the pendulum will swing further from side to side depending on the amount of energy that the electromagnet gets. I know, what does this have to do with politics? Well Imagine the pendulum is the state of American politics and the electromagnet at the bottom of the platform is rhetoric, social media, regular media, blogs (like this one) talk shows and political caterwauling. The more energy (Extreme political views and rhetoric) that you use to power the electromagnet, the further the pendulum swings to the left or right.

So what causes the pendulum to swing? Obviously the forces of gravity and electromagnetism cannot be blamed for political misunderstandings and extremism, so we have to look at another reason why the pendulum goes from left to right. I do not believe that there is that much difference between what the average American liberal and conservative feels is best for the country. I believe both sides want to do what is best for their fellow man (With some exceptions of course, I am from Illinois, I know a lot about corruption.)

If you think about it, the American Left looks out for the people as a whole and tries to do what is best for the body of the populace, The American right defends the liberties of the individual and defends them from the tyranny of the masses and the government. These two opposing viewpoints should be able to get along even if they disagree on some issues. The average person has both of these viewpoints in their personal, political spectrum.

So what the heck is happening?

I believe this problem exists because people do not like to be told they are wrong. I like to call this the “Oh yeah, I’ll show you principle.” The more that political discussion breaks down into labelling and name calling, the more power we give to the pendulum.

Here is a breakdown of a standard internet political discussion…

Liberal: “We should provide a social service to help people do something”

Conservative: “We shouldn’t make people spend their money to solve other people’s problems.”

Liberal: ”You are Hitler”

Conservative: “Hitler was a socialist, so you are Hitler.”

Liberal: “9/11 was an inside job!”

Conservative: “Obama is a Muslim!”

Ok, so that is hyperbole meant to be ridiculous, but it illustrates a point. The internet allows people to anonymously spout garbage that shame would never let them say in public. However, the media and to a lesser degree politicians, have discovered that frothing at the mouth allows you to attract more hits to your website and fuels your popularity, which in turn, allows you to get better ratings and stay or win elections.

When was the last time we saw this headline?

“Senator offers measured and reasonable solution to a problem after discussing it with the people involved and his opponents.” 

I am sure this still happens, but that headline or news crawl isn’t going to sell adds to beer and pharmaceutical companies. Also that Senator isn’t going to attract hits to his or her website or Super Pac money to his coffers. He or she isn’t “energizing his base”, he or she is just trying to solve a problem, which is their job. That Senator is probably going to do two things, Give up on their idea of solving problems and give in to demagoguery to stay in power. They will justify this backsliding by saying “I have to stay in power to do good things for my constituents,” which of course becomes harder and harder to do as they power the pendulum.

The more elected officials participate in this name calling and rhetoric, the more they disenfranchise the average voter. We then get elections being won by hard liners and people who are good at whipping up anti-the-other-guy sentiment.

This problem also effects political parties themselves. The parties get more and more extreme and the force the average voter to either stop identifying with a party or conform to the new dynamic of hatred and name-calling.

So what can we do? I believe, as a voter, we need to not look for the loudest guy in the room but rather the person with the best idea. We can push for term limits and campaign finance reforms and we can take a second to think about what the other person is saying before we condemn them and shout at them to tell them how right we are.

Then again, I hate politics so what do I know?

Who decides constituionality?

I am not addressing the ongoing idiocy of the Illinois legislature.  No deep thinking or soul-searching is required to see that they are all voting against the wishes of their constituency.

A Judge (note the title) in South Florida (note the place) ruled that the legislature's revision to the "Stand your ground" law was not constitutional, because the legislature doesn't have the authority to make and alter laws.

The story being referenced is here:
(http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/miami-judge-new-stand-your-ground-law-unconstitutional-n779436)

First some detail.

1.  The revised law stated that prosecutors must provide clear and compelling evidence that someone was not defending themselves, before they could bring charges against them.  That is, it clarified that the burden of proof is on the state. You know, the same legal principle that applies to all criminal charges.

2.  We have judges who make decisions about constitutionality.  They are called "Justices".

3.  Despite certain media outlet claims, Zimmerman's attorneys did not use the "Stand your ground" law in his defense.  They didn't need to.

4.The constitution of the state of Florida, like all states, follows the federal version fairly closely.  Specifically that the different branches of government have separated powers.  In short, the executive can veto, the legislative passes laws, and the judiciary enforces and interprets those laws.

        4a.  Judges enforce.  Justices interpret and rule on constitutionality.

5.  The judge ruled that the Florida Supreme court should have adjusted the law, not the legislature.

        5a.  That is not in their authority.


So in this case: an unqualified judge (not a justice, who by the way, rule as a team) gave a ruling he has no legal authority to, was one hundred percent wrong in the decision, (the legislature makes laws, all the supreme court can do as approve, reject, and interpret) and was trying to "legislate from the bench".

This is literally the reason we have a separation of powers.

Happy Independence Day.

Using a right to be wrong. The Colin Kaepernick story.

       As much as I am loathe to give an idiot more free press than they deserve, I don't believe my readership numbers will have much of an impact on the story.  So by now you've heard more than you care to of the story of the Big Time Football Star using his celebrity as a Bully Pulpit.  What more can be said, really?

       Well, I am of the opinion that he has a right to protest by sitting during the National Anthem.  We all have a right to freedom of expression.  That right does not require that the person exercising it have any facts straight, or even any point to make.  Which in this case is fortunate.

       Since it is his right to protest, he should not be criticized for doing so.  However, there is plenty of criticism to go around about not having a reason to complain.  It's not like he knows the pain of struggling.  Colin Kaepernick was adopted by a loving family after his father abandoned him and his mother.  As a youth he had a gigantic pet tortoise.  Let's face it, he had more money than me before he ever started playing football.

       So, we will assume at least a middle class upbringing.  Not exactly a kid who could possibly relate to the street life.  I would add to this, that his making a judgement of every American, based on the actions of a few police officers, makes him more bigoted than those few police officers.  In fact, given that the stories that made the news almost exclusively exonerate said police officers (outside the city limits of Chicago, of course) One could assume he is either ill informed or...

       He is the type of immature tool that was despondent over not being in the news lately for his, played-out, signature touchdown display, and felt the need to do something to draw attention to himself.  It is also the right (obligation) of his employer, and the National Football League, to fine him for his silliness.

       Hell, if he were in the NHL, NBA or MLB he would be fined, and possibly suspended.  Why do we tolerate so much bad behavior from football players?  I mean really, at least he's not in the news for rape, domestic abuse, or substance abuse.

       Sp while I will defend his right to be an immature, ill-informed, protesting moron; I would remind him that there are better ways to make a point.

The Death of Physical Media.

       There are a lot of items in the news, currently, that bear some deep thinking:  Cops being murdered in Dallas in retaliation for things that happened in two places that are certainly not Dallas, Bernie selling out to Hillary, Why now, more than ever, we need a viable third party candidate.  I will not be addressing these.  Sadly, when examined, they are exactly what they appear.

       Instead I will address the death of physical media, and why it is a bad thing.  Two items conspired to put me on this track.  First, one friend has decided to do a blog reviewing obscure albums and bands.  Its worth visiting. (Flagrant free plug).  The other item was that another friend called while I was loading a Blu ray for the kids, and commented on how odd it was that I still used physical media.  It is odd, actually.  But a few days later I was truck by an epiphany... or a bread truck... something made me start thinking, anyway.

       See physical media has an intrinsic value.  I do not mean the mere ability to barter it.  But that it exists in an unaltered form.  Like the strange albums reviewed on the site above.  In a the modern world these records would be removed from the servers to make more room for Taylor Swift's newest album.  (Nothing against her, really, but the world needs Captain Beefheart too.  Now more than ever)

        Not only do we run the risk of only being able to select from pre-screened corporate rock, movies, and books, but there is a more insidious trouble lurking here.  Do you own an unaltered copy of Star Wars?  Nope.  Not even that dust covered VHS is the same as the original print.  Wouldn't you like to own a copy of that?  Now what do you think would have happened if you owned a unaltered copy, but on a cloud server, and Lucas Film wanted to "improve" it to the new version.  Guess which copy you would now own.

       I hear many of you yelling at your screens: "But anyone can publish anything they want now.  Virtual publishing works."  Sure, right up until someone needs server space, or someone decides we should be offended by it, or a media conglomerate sends a DMCA takedown request, you can find it.  But where are those things in ten years?  Twenty?

       I'm not saying we shouldn't be using virtual media, but there are inherent problems with it.  Physical media has it's share of problems as well.  The best use of virtual media would be archiving physical media, as virtual media has the capacity to be permanent.

How Britain got it's groove back.

        Right now the markets are reacting to Britain's leaving the EU (European Union) in a very predictable way.  Markets hate instability, and England leaving not only creates it's own instability, it could act as a bellwether for other countries departing.  I would keep my eyes on France and possibly Germany.

        Scotland too is planning a vote to secede from the UK, (Britain) in order to rejoin the  European Union.  If you are voting for independence, just to join another super national group who will rule over you; clearly you don't understand what the word means.  But I digress...  This action would cause further instability.  Ireland and Northern Ireland are already talking re-unification.

        But I see a quick end to this nonsense.  The markets, and the fat cats who run them will quickly realize that a Britain not encumbered by the, mostly insolvent, countries of the EU is a more stable, more prosperous country.  Most likely the major players already see this and are buying British stocks and Pounds so they can enjoy the huge surge to come.

        The downturn will be driven by panicky investors who fear any change, while the older, smarter investors are laughing and preparing to become even wealthier.  It's what they've been doing for generations, after all; waiting for panicky people to panic, and taking advantage of the low buy in now, and high sell off later.

        This is the best thing for Britain financially, even though the vote was mostly centered on retaking sovereignty.  Maybe we can learn from this.  It is best to put self-rule, liberty itself, ahead of all other concerns.  Prosperity will follow.

Your bias is showing.

       Recently I've seen an image circulating.  You know the kind, someone tried to force a meme by putting words over an image.  Normally I ignore these things, as they are thoughtless ignorance encapsulated; but this one bothered me.  It represented the culmination of assumptions feeding confirmation bias, feeding assumptions, in a vicious circle.  Rather than direct traffic to the site hosting it; I, armed with the fair use doctrine, am posting it here.

       Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here.  First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all.  They may simply have been walking down the street.  This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly.  Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country.  Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base.  Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army".  Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature.  This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.

       The first assumption is the funniest.  Ever run into armed people just wandering around?  Me neither.  That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting.  This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there.  It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen.  This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.

       These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly.  Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool.  At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone.  That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.

       I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias.  It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.

        See how this can be turned around.  These people are engaged in the same activity.  A collective agreement to protest.  Unlike the protesting people carrying rifles, however, their right to intimidate is protected.  (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).  Paints a different picture now doesn't it?

Donald, Ben, and Bernie. Why are Americans so drawn to them.

       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.

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.

     

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)

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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

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.

     

     

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.

       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.

“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.”

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.