A timely quote out of the past. Attributable to Margaret Thatcher.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
How very true...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
A Redress of Grievance
Mr. Anthony Dolpies, of the Thomas Jefferson Club, has drafted a Petition for the Redress of Grievance, to be sent to and read by the United States Congress. While I have no hopes of it actually changing anything, if we can get enough concerned citizens to sign the petition perhaps it will at the least serve as a notice of warning to politicians that there are many who are displeased with their reckless abuse of power.
Petition for Redress of Grievance
Please take a few moments to read this eloquently crafted petition patterned after the Declaration of Independence, and if you agree with what is written then sign the petition and pass it on to those you believe would be interested in signing as well.
It seems that an inherent characteristic of libertarians and constitutionalists is cynicism towards the government of today. No doubt this characteristic is caused by the wayward straying of our three branches of government from the principles of individual and economic freedoms upon which our country was founded.
"The stench produced by an abuse of power has befouled every branch of our government"
And it may be a good idea to reread the Declaration of Independence as well, just to remind ourselves of the similarity of situations which they faced and which we face today.
And it may be a good idea to reread the Declaration of Independence as well, just to remind ourselves of the similarity of situations which they faced and which we face today.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Skewed Statistics
It's well known that statistics can be used to prove that which isn't true. The common phrase is 'statistics lie'. However, much like the old computer acronym 'GIGO' (garbage in, garbage out), it's not the statistics that lie so much as it is the people using those statistics to prove what they wish.
It seems sometimes that the world is down on the United States. Even some of those who live here think that we are the great 'evil empire'. The current fashion is to blame the United States for some of the world's ills such as energy use.
The most bandied about statistic is that 'The United States uses 20% of the world's resources (read: energy) with only 5% of the world's population'. On the surface that does indeed seem to make us look like we're energy hogs, using well more than what would be considered a 'fair share', whatever that means, than the rest of the world.
The flaw in that logic is that energy/resource use means nothing if you tie it in relation to population. It's not as if the population of the United States is just sitting around with the lights on while our cars idle in the garage. It would make much more sense to tie energy use to production, since that's mostly for what the energy is being used.
Production is typically measured by what's called GDP, or gross domestic product. For the year 2008, the world's GDP, that is the value of every product or service that the world produced (in so far as it's possible to measure such things) was just under $60.7 Trillion dollars. The GDP of the United States for the same year was just under $14.3 Trillion dollars. (Numbers provided by the International Monetary Fund)
This means that, with 5% of the world's population and using 20% of the world's resources, the United States produced approximately 24% of the world's goods and services. These numbers would indicate that far from using more resources than we should, we're actually more efficient than the rest of the world at producing goods and services.
Of course, this shouldn't come as any big surprise. We've been doing it for more time, and far better than most of the rest of the world. One of the other things these statistics doesn't show is the value of the technological advances the United States provides.
Almost all of the advances in technology in the past 30 years have come from the free market economy of the U.S. and for good reason. We're the ones who don't count the pennies when it comes to making things better. At least, we didn't in the past.
It seems sometimes that the world is down on the United States. Even some of those who live here think that we are the great 'evil empire'. The current fashion is to blame the United States for some of the world's ills such as energy use.
The most bandied about statistic is that 'The United States uses 20% of the world's resources (read: energy) with only 5% of the world's population'. On the surface that does indeed seem to make us look like we're energy hogs, using well more than what would be considered a 'fair share', whatever that means, than the rest of the world.
The flaw in that logic is that energy/resource use means nothing if you tie it in relation to population. It's not as if the population of the United States is just sitting around with the lights on while our cars idle in the garage. It would make much more sense to tie energy use to production, since that's mostly for what the energy is being used.
Production is typically measured by what's called GDP, or gross domestic product. For the year 2008, the world's GDP, that is the value of every product or service that the world produced (in so far as it's possible to measure such things) was just under $60.7 Trillion dollars. The GDP of the United States for the same year was just under $14.3 Trillion dollars. (Numbers provided by the International Monetary Fund)
This means that, with 5% of the world's population and using 20% of the world's resources, the United States produced approximately 24% of the world's goods and services. These numbers would indicate that far from using more resources than we should, we're actually more efficient than the rest of the world at producing goods and services.
Of course, this shouldn't come as any big surprise. We've been doing it for more time, and far better than most of the rest of the world. One of the other things these statistics doesn't show is the value of the technological advances the United States provides.
Almost all of the advances in technology in the past 30 years have come from the free market economy of the U.S. and for good reason. We're the ones who don't count the pennies when it comes to making things better. At least, we didn't in the past.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sweat the Small Stuff
Every civilization has had certain problems. The act of bringing together a large number of people has inherent difficulties regarding how people treat each other and their environment. Such a civilization that desires peace and harmony among its citizens institutes laws governing behaviors which would be a detriment to that harmony. It's not just the big laws that are important. Obviously laws are necessary to protect people from physical harm from others. But it's not the law that plays the biggest part in prevention of crime. The law goes hand in hand with punishment, which can only be enacted after the crime is committed. A law which prohibits assault does not keep the angry person from committing assault. It punishes him after the fact.
That which plays this biggest part in prevention of crime is more fundamental. It is the societal taboo system at work. When society as a whole frowns upon and takes seriously those crimes it considers harmful to itself, societal pressures play a huge part in prevention of those crimes. A person who knows that everyone will think poorly of his actions is less likely to perform a criminal act. When those societal strictures break down, when apathy rears its head and removes those barriers, the pressure to act responsibly is relieved, allowing a greater number of crimes to take place without retribution.
Malcolm Gladwell hits this point quite well in his book, 'The Tipping Point', when he discusses crime and the standard of living in New York City in the 1980's. Mr. Gladwell points out that crime has a certain epidemic quality to it, and much like your chances are increased of getting sick if you don't take care of the little things (washing your hands and bathing regularly, getting enough vitamins daily), when you allow the little crimes to slide without repercussions on the criminals then you run the risk of increasing levels of serious crimes as well.
This can be seen in many places around the United States right now, though we are hardly the only country with these problems. If you wander around any number of cities; Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. you can see the indicators of apathy practically everywhere. On a bright, beautifully sunny day I drove around Stockton, CA for an hour or so. I was looking for interesting architecture to shoot. Instead, I found this:
This is the problem. Not foreclosures, though they certainly contribute. Not unemployment, though that certainly adds to the problem and increases the number of people who feel they have nothing to do. The real problem leapt out at me when I stopped to shoot this scene. Apathy. The lack of concern about the small inconveniences and minor infractions lead to worsening conditions and eventually a society without those bonds which hold the center together.
In spite of advice and admonitions to 'don't sweat the small stuff', therein lies the solution. Sweat the small stuff. Make it go away. Dangerous epidemics are avoided by innoculating the citizenry with a vaccine. The efforts that go into such a widespread solution clearly indicate a desire to keep society as a whole healthy and safe. No less effort should be given to keep people safe from those minor annoyances that diminish the quality of life. Sweat the small stuff. Down with apathy!
Ah, forget it. It's not worth it.
That which plays this biggest part in prevention of crime is more fundamental. It is the societal taboo system at work. When society as a whole frowns upon and takes seriously those crimes it considers harmful to itself, societal pressures play a huge part in prevention of those crimes. A person who knows that everyone will think poorly of his actions is less likely to perform a criminal act. When those societal strictures break down, when apathy rears its head and removes those barriers, the pressure to act responsibly is relieved, allowing a greater number of crimes to take place without retribution.
Malcolm Gladwell hits this point quite well in his book, 'The Tipping Point', when he discusses crime and the standard of living in New York City in the 1980's. Mr. Gladwell points out that crime has a certain epidemic quality to it, and much like your chances are increased of getting sick if you don't take care of the little things (washing your hands and bathing regularly, getting enough vitamins daily), when you allow the little crimes to slide without repercussions on the criminals then you run the risk of increasing levels of serious crimes as well.
This can be seen in many places around the United States right now, though we are hardly the only country with these problems. If you wander around any number of cities; Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. you can see the indicators of apathy practically everywhere. On a bright, beautifully sunny day I drove around Stockton, CA for an hour or so. I was looking for interesting architecture to shoot. Instead, I found this:
This is the problem. Not foreclosures, though they certainly contribute. Not unemployment, though that certainly adds to the problem and increases the number of people who feel they have nothing to do. The real problem leapt out at me when I stopped to shoot this scene. Apathy. The lack of concern about the small inconveniences and minor infractions lead to worsening conditions and eventually a society without those bonds which hold the center together.
In spite of advice and admonitions to 'don't sweat the small stuff', therein lies the solution. Sweat the small stuff. Make it go away. Dangerous epidemics are avoided by innoculating the citizenry with a vaccine. The efforts that go into such a widespread solution clearly indicate a desire to keep society as a whole healthy and safe. No less effort should be given to keep people safe from those minor annoyances that diminish the quality of life. Sweat the small stuff. Down with apathy!
Ah, forget it. It's not worth it.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
D-Day Anniversary
As we pass the 65th anniversary of the Allies' storming of the Normandy beaches I think it fitting that we take a moment to remember not only those brave boys who stepped from their transports into a hail of gunfire but all who would put themselves in harm's way for the principles which make this country great. Bravery in the face of personal loss of liberty is one thing (and a fine thing) but those who would put their lives at risk to preserve the liberty of others are true heroes, which is a word thrown around much too loosely these days.
Omaha Beach in Normandie, France
These small stones were the 'shingles' which troops had to run through to get to the relative safety of the bluffs
There were five beaches the Allies landed on that day. Going from west to east, using their code names, they were Utah and Omaha, where the Americans landed and Gold, Juno and Sword, where the British and Canadians landed. German resistance was much lighter on Juno and Gold beaches. The worst beach for Allied casualties was Omaha beach, whose attacking American soldiers bore the brunt of the roughly 9000 casualties that day.
While the events of June 6th, 1944 are covered extremely well in Cornelius Ryan's book, 'The Longest Day' (later made into a wonderfully done movie of the same name), one thing that must be remembered is the fact that there were still 11 more months of fighting in the European Theatre remaining. As the Allies tried to push south and east farther inland, German resistance was staggering. The city of Caen a short distance from Sword beach was supposed to be taken by the British General Bernard Law Montgomery within 72 hours of D-Day. In fact, it took almost a month before Caen would fall to the Allies, and only after the almost utter destruction of every building in the city. One of the few still standing was the Caen Cathedral.
Caen Cathedral, in the Normadie region of France
After a month of small gains, the Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to re-institute General George S. Patton, giving him command of Third Army and telling him to break through the German lines. Patton's troops (of which my father was one), along with the rest of General Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group, proceeded to do just that. By the end of the war, Patton's Third Army had liberated over 12,000 towns, villages and cities, taken over 1 million German POWs and to ensure the relieval of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army marched almost 100 miles in the course of two days, going straight into combat on the third day and pushing back the German offensive.
So let's tip our hat to all those who would put their own lives on the line so that others may breathe free air.
Salute!
Omaha Beach in Normandie, FranceThese small stones were the 'shingles' which troops had to run through to get to the relative safety of the bluffs
There were five beaches the Allies landed on that day. Going from west to east, using their code names, they were Utah and Omaha, where the Americans landed and Gold, Juno and Sword, where the British and Canadians landed. German resistance was much lighter on Juno and Gold beaches. The worst beach for Allied casualties was Omaha beach, whose attacking American soldiers bore the brunt of the roughly 9000 casualties that day.
While the events of June 6th, 1944 are covered extremely well in Cornelius Ryan's book, 'The Longest Day' (later made into a wonderfully done movie of the same name), one thing that must be remembered is the fact that there were still 11 more months of fighting in the European Theatre remaining. As the Allies tried to push south and east farther inland, German resistance was staggering. The city of Caen a short distance from Sword beach was supposed to be taken by the British General Bernard Law Montgomery within 72 hours of D-Day. In fact, it took almost a month before Caen would fall to the Allies, and only after the almost utter destruction of every building in the city. One of the few still standing was the Caen Cathedral.
Caen Cathedral, in the Normadie region of FranceAfter a month of small gains, the Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to re-institute General George S. Patton, giving him command of Third Army and telling him to break through the German lines. Patton's troops (of which my father was one), along with the rest of General Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group, proceeded to do just that. By the end of the war, Patton's Third Army had liberated over 12,000 towns, villages and cities, taken over 1 million German POWs and to ensure the relieval of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army marched almost 100 miles in the course of two days, going straight into combat on the third day and pushing back the German offensive.
So let's tip our hat to all those who would put their own lives on the line so that others may breathe free air.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Too Many Solved Mysteries
When I was a boy of 6 or 7 I got my first book on bigfoot. Within a year I was reading about the Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster. Ah, what great days those were. Leonard Nimoy's voice saying what we were 'In Search Of'. The thrill of picturing Sasquatch carrying Albert Ostman to his hidden lair deep in the woods, the wonder at how Flight 19 could just disappear (along with the rescue plane sent to look for them) practically in sight of land. Not knowing if they really did crash (maybe they flew through a time warp!) or where the Titanic was. Not knowing.
It seems clear that the important part about not knowing is that it causes a person's mind to create a probable scenario, an answer that fits the bill. And as children, new in the world and surrounded by mysteries, one seems as plausible as any other. Why couldn't bigfoot exist? How do you know there aren't other dimensions? The child's mind (or at least this child's mind) could believe almost anything if said with enough reverence and awe.
But now look around the world. Bigfoot turned out to be a guy in a monkey suit, Loch Ness was a badly faked photo and a tourist trap and They actually found Flight 19 and the Titantic! Bastards.
I understand the reason why people go searching for the answers to mysteries in life is because they're fascinated by them too. It's the same reason we (collectively) wanted to split the atom. Because we could. But when you take mystery away from a child the world just seems a dull and scary place, with no wonder or amazement to it. It's the mystery which tells the child we don't know everything yet, it's ok not to know some things.
So maybe I was a foolish kid. Maybe even at 10 I knew that those footprints around the earth-moving equipment weren't really from a giant humanoid. Maybe I knew there were no plesiosaurs in a peaty, boggy loch in Scotland. But even at 37 there's one thing I do know. They can't take the Mary Celeste away from me.
It seems clear that the important part about not knowing is that it causes a person's mind to create a probable scenario, an answer that fits the bill. And as children, new in the world and surrounded by mysteries, one seems as plausible as any other. Why couldn't bigfoot exist? How do you know there aren't other dimensions? The child's mind (or at least this child's mind) could believe almost anything if said with enough reverence and awe.
But now look around the world. Bigfoot turned out to be a guy in a monkey suit, Loch Ness was a badly faked photo and a tourist trap and They actually found Flight 19 and the Titantic! Bastards.
I understand the reason why people go searching for the answers to mysteries in life is because they're fascinated by them too. It's the same reason we (collectively) wanted to split the atom. Because we could. But when you take mystery away from a child the world just seems a dull and scary place, with no wonder or amazement to it. It's the mystery which tells the child we don't know everything yet, it's ok not to know some things.
So maybe I was a foolish kid. Maybe even at 10 I knew that those footprints around the earth-moving equipment weren't really from a giant humanoid. Maybe I knew there were no plesiosaurs in a peaty, boggy loch in Scotland. But even at 37 there's one thing I do know. They can't take the Mary Celeste away from me.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Amend That!
I'm convinced that the main reason why the First and Second Amendments have received so much attention for the past several decades is laziness. We, as high schoolers, never really read farther into the Bill of Rights. And it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that these Rights were set down as Rights given to the people by the government.
However, if one reads the entire document it becomes evident that the writers of the Constitution didn't trust government anymore than we should. Each Amendment is written in such a way as to convey the idea that they are not 'Rights bestowed upon the People' but rather inherent rights that the government in no measure may abridge or eliminate. These Articles of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are not even written 'to the People'. It's clear from their wording that they are written to the government, defining the boundaries of power.
Here's a good example:
However, if one reads the entire document it becomes evident that the writers of the Constitution didn't trust government anymore than we should. Each Amendment is written in such a way as to convey the idea that they are not 'Rights bestowed upon the People' but rather inherent rights that the government in no measure may abridge or eliminate. These Articles of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are not even written 'to the People'. It's clear from their wording that they are written to the government, defining the boundaries of power.
Here's a good example:
Article Four
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....."
Charters of Freedom
This is something that's important to remember: the Government doesn't decide what 'Rights' we have, we do. And in Article Nine, the Constitution goes one step further;
This is something that's important to remember: the Government doesn't decide what 'Rights' we have, we do. And in Article Nine, the Constitution goes one step further;
Article Nine
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
making sure that the government doesn't try any funny business. Just because the right isn't specifically granted in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to the People.
It's important for U.S. citizens to know what the Constitution says for a number of reasons. Not least of which is that you don't know when you're being taken advantage of if you don't know your rights. But also because it's bad to base your opinions on faulty and inaccurate information.
Just as the old expression 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' warns against ignorance of the past, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution warn against ignorance of the present.
Of course, there's no question which Amendment is my favorite. It's one that wouldn't even have been needed if it weren't for another Amendment. Guess which one and register as a follower on my blog, and you will be entered to win a free 8x10 contact lith print.
Drawing will be closed and held on June 15th. Odds of winning depend upon number of entries. Winner will be the first to identify correctly my favorite Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Being 'First' will be decided by the internet time stamp of your post.
Just as the old expression 'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it' warns against ignorance of the past, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution warn against ignorance of the present.
Of course, there's no question which Amendment is my favorite. It's one that wouldn't even have been needed if it weren't for another Amendment. Guess which one and register as a follower on my blog, and you will be entered to win a free 8x10 contact lith print.
Drawing will be closed and held on June 15th. Odds of winning depend upon number of entries. Winner will be the first to identify correctly my favorite Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Being 'First' will be decided by the internet time stamp of your post.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Proof most people have a 'fairness' streak
Or, how people act irrationally
There was an interesting social experiment crafted in the early 20th century, designed to show how people related to others on the subject of economic 'fairness'.
The experimentor would place two people in a room together. The rules of the experiment were these:
The two people would share $10 to be given to them. Person A would determine the split of the money, i.e. who of them would receive each percentage, determined solely by Person A.
Person B would then decide whether to accept the percentage split decided upon by Person A. If Person B did not accept, neither person would receive anything. Both parties were aware of this potential outcome.
The results of the experiment (which can be repeated today with much the same results) showed that people valued what they perceived as fairness more than financial gain. For example:
Even if Person A decided on a 90/10 split, that is to say Person A would receive $9 and Person B would receive $1, the rational economic decision for Person B would be for them to accept it, since they would receive $1 as opposed to receiving nothing by rejecting the deal. However, on the few instances where Person A did make such a lopsided proposal, Person B rejected the deal overwhelmingly.
Even more interesting, a vast percentage of people representing Person A proposed splits either 50/50 or very close to the middle split. This showed that either Person A would not take advantage of their power in choosing the split, or that Person A knew that by taking advantage of that power, Person B would punish them by rejecting the offer, presumably because Person A felt that this is what they would do if the situation were reversed.
This is a good example, I believe, of social conceptions of equality overpowering the desire of financial gain.
Note though, that when this experiment has been done in different societies around the globe, the outcomes varied widely. In various parts of the world, Person A would indeed offer a 90/10 split, and more times than not, Person B would accept the offer. These acceptance percentages went to nearly 100% when Person B was told that Person A was of a higher social class than Person B.
Food for thought.
The experimentor would place two people in a room together. The rules of the experiment were these:
The two people would share $10 to be given to them. Person A would determine the split of the money, i.e. who of them would receive each percentage, determined solely by Person A.
Person B would then decide whether to accept the percentage split decided upon by Person A. If Person B did not accept, neither person would receive anything. Both parties were aware of this potential outcome.
The results of the experiment (which can be repeated today with much the same results) showed that people valued what they perceived as fairness more than financial gain. For example:
Even if Person A decided on a 90/10 split, that is to say Person A would receive $9 and Person B would receive $1, the rational economic decision for Person B would be for them to accept it, since they would receive $1 as opposed to receiving nothing by rejecting the deal. However, on the few instances where Person A did make such a lopsided proposal, Person B rejected the deal overwhelmingly.
Even more interesting, a vast percentage of people representing Person A proposed splits either 50/50 or very close to the middle split. This showed that either Person A would not take advantage of their power in choosing the split, or that Person A knew that by taking advantage of that power, Person B would punish them by rejecting the offer, presumably because Person A felt that this is what they would do if the situation were reversed.
This is a good example, I believe, of social conceptions of equality overpowering the desire of financial gain.
Note though, that when this experiment has been done in different societies around the globe, the outcomes varied widely. In various parts of the world, Person A would indeed offer a 90/10 split, and more times than not, Person B would accept the offer. These acceptance percentages went to nearly 100% when Person B was told that Person A was of a higher social class than Person B.
Food for thought.
Monday, May 11, 2009
2nd week of May, 1770
It was 239 years ago. Lieutenant James Cook, in charge of HMS Endeavour on a voyage of science and exploration, had just spent time charting the coastline of New Zealand for the first time in history. His charts would be so precise that they would be used by mariners until the mid 20th century. Determined to follow his orders to find the mysterious 'southern continent' if one should exist, he sailed west, maintaining the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere.
It was inevitable that he would rediscover a land whose borders and shores with which no living man was familiar. He had found the east coast of modern day Australia. Named New Holland at the time, an excerpt of Cook's journals follows:
It was inevitable that he would rediscover a land whose borders and shores with which no living man was familiar. He had found the east coast of modern day Australia. Named New Holland at the time, an excerpt of Cook's journals follows:
Sunday, May 6th, In the evening the yawl return'd from fishing, having caught two Sting rays weighing near 600 pounds. The great quantity of New Plants &c M Banks and D Solander collected in this place occasioned my giveing it the name of Botany Bay.
Cook would go one to chart the east coast of Australia, get caught in the maze that is the Great Barrier Reef, and sail home a year later. He would return to the South Pacific twice more, charting and exploring new lands until finally meeting his demise in Kealakakua Bay in Hawaii.
Truly one of the greatest explorers in history, James Cook would go on to inspire a short lived science fiction television show and a long lived series of movies about exploration. James Kirk would borrow a quote from Cook, and though the words were slightly different, the meaning stayed the same.
James Cook wrote in his journal that he:
"...had ambition not only to go farther than any one had been before, but as far as it was possible for man to go."
His determination, intelligence and fortune held him in good stead until that bad day in Hawaii. During his three voyages he sailed more than 70,000 miles in a wooden vessel which, for the bulk of their time at sea, would move no faster than a man could walk.
Patience. A virtue, indeed.
Cook would go one to chart the east coast of Australia, get caught in the maze that is the Great Barrier Reef, and sail home a year later. He would return to the South Pacific twice more, charting and exploring new lands until finally meeting his demise in Kealakakua Bay in Hawaii.
Truly one of the greatest explorers in history, James Cook would go on to inspire a short lived science fiction television show and a long lived series of movies about exploration. James Kirk would borrow a quote from Cook, and though the words were slightly different, the meaning stayed the same.
James Cook wrote in his journal that he:
"...had ambition not only to go farther than any one had been before, but as far as it was possible for man to go."
His determination, intelligence and fortune held him in good stead until that bad day in Hawaii. During his three voyages he sailed more than 70,000 miles in a wooden vessel which, for the bulk of their time at sea, would move no faster than a man could walk.
Patience. A virtue, indeed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tatoos
When I was young, which wasn't all that long ago, the only people who were branded with tatoos were sailors and bikers. While I can't say I ever admired them, tatoos served a useful purpose in that they let me know the person wearing one was either military or someone whose sister you didn't want to date and then forget to call. No thought was given as to whether the tatoo was attractive or not, it simply served as a warning to others that the tatooed was a person to be given a wide berth.
But for some reason, the popularity of tatooing has grown exponentially with the younger population today. Everywhere you look, teenage girls are bending over, revealing their 'tramp stamp', the tatoo just below the small of the back, presumably put there for the viewing pleasure of their 'beau du jour'.
I suppose I' m just old-fashioned. I can't see how permanently disfiguring one's body can be seen to be attractive. The purpose of the tatoo is still the same, however. To make a declaration to the viewing world. It used to be that a person got a tatoo to be considered a 'rebel', someone outside of mainstream culture. Nowadays, it's the in thing to do. In the past, people got tatooed to show that they were different, and often times to show that they cared little for the opinions of the general public. Now, it seems like it's done for no other reason than to conform with peer pressure. It's an announcement that you are part of the group.
Does this phenomenon show a change in cultural thinking? In the Seventies, tatoos made a statement that you were independent, didn't need or care about society and valued individuality. In the Oughts, it seems like collectivism is being valued and prized, that fitting in means more than standing out. This seems to be born out by the direction that voters have taken in regards to their preferred government. The hive, or sheep mentality is in full effect.
Overall, I think I preferred the biker tats of the bygone era. At least with those guys, you knew where you stood. You stood behind them, and preferrably at a distance. Of course, nowadays, you still stand behind the tatooed. It's just, with tramp stamps, you stand a little closer.
But for some reason, the popularity of tatooing has grown exponentially with the younger population today. Everywhere you look, teenage girls are bending over, revealing their 'tramp stamp', the tatoo just below the small of the back, presumably put there for the viewing pleasure of their 'beau du jour'.
I suppose I' m just old-fashioned. I can't see how permanently disfiguring one's body can be seen to be attractive. The purpose of the tatoo is still the same, however. To make a declaration to the viewing world. It used to be that a person got a tatoo to be considered a 'rebel', someone outside of mainstream culture. Nowadays, it's the in thing to do. In the past, people got tatooed to show that they were different, and often times to show that they cared little for the opinions of the general public. Now, it seems like it's done for no other reason than to conform with peer pressure. It's an announcement that you are part of the group.
Does this phenomenon show a change in cultural thinking? In the Seventies, tatoos made a statement that you were independent, didn't need or care about society and valued individuality. In the Oughts, it seems like collectivism is being valued and prized, that fitting in means more than standing out. This seems to be born out by the direction that voters have taken in regards to their preferred government. The hive, or sheep mentality is in full effect.
Overall, I think I preferred the biker tats of the bygone era. At least with those guys, you knew where you stood. You stood behind them, and preferrably at a distance. Of course, nowadays, you still stand behind the tatooed. It's just, with tramp stamps, you stand a little closer.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Econ 101: Opportunity Cost
One of the principles of economics that confuse people to no end is actually fairly easy to understand. Opportunity cost is simply the idea that, if you use your resources to obtain something, you can't use those same resources to obtain something else.' It seems that the United States Congress, the people who actually hold this nation's purse strings, can't quite grasp the concept, either.
It's easy when dealing with numbers as large as the U.S. budget to assume that there's money for everything. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is what lead to the U.S. budget being as large as it is. And in the end, the amount of money is finite (supply), while the amount of wants(demand) is infinite. So we can't afford to buy everything after all. American politicians seem to think that they can give the majority of people something for nothing, simply by taxing the rich minority. That will only work for so long.
This makes it all the more important to choose prudently what we spend our money on. If we make 400 dollars a week and go out Friday night to blow $50 on booze and another $100 on a hooker, one could make the argument that we were being less than responsible with our money. But our rent is only $100 a week so we've still got some money left over for unimportant things like lunch. And at least it was our money with which we were being irresponsible.
Now let's say we, as the U.S. government, make 6 trillion dollars a year. That is, we took money from all our citizens (only the ones who make more than a certain amount, anyway) for no reason other than we are the U.S. government. Now, we've got this 6 trillion dollars sitting in our lap, and every now and then we dump it on the floor and roll around in it, and it comes time to spend it. There's a knock at the door. We get up to answer it and lo and behold it's Jim Anyman, saying that for only 30 million dollars he will perform a study to determine why prisoners don't want to be in jail. That seems like a sensible outlay of money to us (does it, really?) so we hand Jim 30 Million and tell him to report back to us when he figures out this Gordian Knot of a stumper.
That 30 million dollars was much lower, as a percentage of income. than the $150 a week we blew on booze and floozies. Does that make it a more responsible expenditure? At least for the $150 we got drunk and laid. Although, from a certain point of view, I guess we got f**ked by Jim Anyman, too.
If you're in the mood for a horror/thriller sometime, do yourself a favor. Get a copy of the U.S. Federal Budget for any of the last 10 years (or any of the last 40, for that matter) and take a look at what expenditures the Congress authorizes. Don't look at the costs as a percentage of the overall budget. Look at it as, how much space would that much money take up if I had it in $100 bills.
This country was once known as the 'Land of Opportunity'. I suppose it still is. After all, Jim Anyman got 30 million dollars for his 'study'. And there's thousands of Anymans making money off the Federal Government. Just remember, it's our money they're spending, and we're footing the bill with opportunity cost.
It's easy when dealing with numbers as large as the U.S. budget to assume that there's money for everything. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is what lead to the U.S. budget being as large as it is. And in the end, the amount of money is finite (supply), while the amount of wants(demand) is infinite. So we can't afford to buy everything after all. American politicians seem to think that they can give the majority of people something for nothing, simply by taxing the rich minority. That will only work for so long.
This makes it all the more important to choose prudently what we spend our money on. If we make 400 dollars a week and go out Friday night to blow $50 on booze and another $100 on a hooker, one could make the argument that we were being less than responsible with our money. But our rent is only $100 a week so we've still got some money left over for unimportant things like lunch. And at least it was our money with which we were being irresponsible.
Now let's say we, as the U.S. government, make 6 trillion dollars a year. That is, we took money from all our citizens (only the ones who make more than a certain amount, anyway) for no reason other than we are the U.S. government. Now, we've got this 6 trillion dollars sitting in our lap, and every now and then we dump it on the floor and roll around in it, and it comes time to spend it. There's a knock at the door. We get up to answer it and lo and behold it's Jim Anyman, saying that for only 30 million dollars he will perform a study to determine why prisoners don't want to be in jail. That seems like a sensible outlay of money to us (does it, really?) so we hand Jim 30 Million and tell him to report back to us when he figures out this Gordian Knot of a stumper.
That 30 million dollars was much lower, as a percentage of income. than the $150 a week we blew on booze and floozies. Does that make it a more responsible expenditure? At least for the $150 we got drunk and laid. Although, from a certain point of view, I guess we got f**ked by Jim Anyman, too.
If you're in the mood for a horror/thriller sometime, do yourself a favor. Get a copy of the U.S. Federal Budget for any of the last 10 years (or any of the last 40, for that matter) and take a look at what expenditures the Congress authorizes. Don't look at the costs as a percentage of the overall budget. Look at it as, how much space would that much money take up if I had it in $100 bills.
This country was once known as the 'Land of Opportunity'. I suppose it still is. After all, Jim Anyman got 30 million dollars for his 'study'. And there's thousands of Anymans making money off the Federal Government. Just remember, it's our money they're spending, and we're footing the bill with opportunity cost.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Republicans vs. Democrats
It's been clear for years that both political parties have been moving away from the center and attempting to cater to their more extreme bases. The Democrats seem to be unsatisfied with anything less than socialism and the Republicans seem sure that if you don't believe in God and support G.W. Bush then you don't deserve to live in this country. These are the politics we've been used to for at least a decade.
But recently it's been even more skewed than usual. With the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the majority of voting Americans spoke and spoke loudly. The trouble is, I'm not sure they know what they're saying.
President Obama's campaign slogan of 'Yes We Can' doesn't actually mean much. And it doesn't seem to address the much more important question, "Should we?". In fact, the slogan 'Yes We Can' along with 'Hope' seems to me a ploy that teeball coaches use to encourage their 6 year old players. It seems that President Obama really did want to try and bring people together with a unifying theme to his candidacy. At the very least, Obama wanted to push his popularity up to the point where he had plenty of political 'capital' to spend. But to spout platitudes such as these just seems cheap. But hey, people bought it by the millions. P.T. Barnum was right.
Surely Obama knew that as long as he didn't screw anything up that he would be elected president. The writing was on the wall at the end of the Bush presidency. McCain was 4 years too late (at least). The Democrats had won handily in the Congressional elections of 2006, clear sign that the people wanted a party change. The media certainly thought Obama would win. They did everything in their power to all but ensure it. By the tone of their voice, the viewpoint of their stories and the selected coverage, much of the media seemed to be the biggest cheerleaders.
And the Republicans had to have known there was practically no way they were going to win. Naturally, they used what little ammo Obama gave them, such as the famous Preacher speech, but there really wasn't that much there for them to use. Obama had been in the political field for so short a period of time that he hadn't accumulated many skeletons in the closet.
But when the elections were over and Obama sworn in, not too much changed. Our budget deficit nearly tripled, and we threw billions (trillions, eventually) at companies that should have been allowed to fail, but a lot of that happened under Bush's watch. Obama simply raised the stakes.
We're still in Iraq, and will be for the forseeable future. Yes, there's a timeline now, but there was a timeline before, it simply wasn't made public. So not much of a change there. We are putting more troops into Afghanistan, though. I see that as a good thing.
We're still not doing anything about North Korea except stamping our feet on the ground and telling them that they just aren't playing nice. So I don't see too many things that have changed.
But we might see a lot of changes, and soon. Arlen Specter's flip to the Democrat ticket is plainly a move to save his political life. He realized that there was no way he would win next year in the Republican primary, so he decided to switch parties. Of course, I've said Specter was a Democrat for years. The most amazing thing regarding this whole broohah is this: With Specter giving the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and the Minnesota race still in the courts, do you know who could give the Democratic Party a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Al Franken, that's who.
Now, I'm sure Al's a nice guy. I liked his writing when he was with Saturday Night Live. But do we really want him being the decider as to what passes through the senate? We'll end up with lutefisk on every plate.
With a filibuster-proof Senate, Obama may decide it's time to make Hillary happy and push through socialized medicine. Talk about a lot of people out of jobs. Oh, and taxes will go up, but don't worry, it'll just be on the top 20% income earners. Hmm, I wonder if they'll keep their money in this country when that happens...
In short, it seems that Republicans and Democrats are the same. Except when they're different. I have just one question for all: What the hell are the Libertarians doing? Get off your asses, people!
But recently it's been even more skewed than usual. With the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the majority of voting Americans spoke and spoke loudly. The trouble is, I'm not sure they know what they're saying.
President Obama's campaign slogan of 'Yes We Can' doesn't actually mean much. And it doesn't seem to address the much more important question, "Should we?". In fact, the slogan 'Yes We Can' along with 'Hope' seems to me a ploy that teeball coaches use to encourage their 6 year old players. It seems that President Obama really did want to try and bring people together with a unifying theme to his candidacy. At the very least, Obama wanted to push his popularity up to the point where he had plenty of political 'capital' to spend. But to spout platitudes such as these just seems cheap. But hey, people bought it by the millions. P.T. Barnum was right.
Surely Obama knew that as long as he didn't screw anything up that he would be elected president. The writing was on the wall at the end of the Bush presidency. McCain was 4 years too late (at least). The Democrats had won handily in the Congressional elections of 2006, clear sign that the people wanted a party change. The media certainly thought Obama would win. They did everything in their power to all but ensure it. By the tone of their voice, the viewpoint of their stories and the selected coverage, much of the media seemed to be the biggest cheerleaders.
And the Republicans had to have known there was practically no way they were going to win. Naturally, they used what little ammo Obama gave them, such as the famous Preacher speech, but there really wasn't that much there for them to use. Obama had been in the political field for so short a period of time that he hadn't accumulated many skeletons in the closet.
But when the elections were over and Obama sworn in, not too much changed. Our budget deficit nearly tripled, and we threw billions (trillions, eventually) at companies that should have been allowed to fail, but a lot of that happened under Bush's watch. Obama simply raised the stakes.
We're still in Iraq, and will be for the forseeable future. Yes, there's a timeline now, but there was a timeline before, it simply wasn't made public. So not much of a change there. We are putting more troops into Afghanistan, though. I see that as a good thing.
We're still not doing anything about North Korea except stamping our feet on the ground and telling them that they just aren't playing nice. So I don't see too many things that have changed.
But we might see a lot of changes, and soon. Arlen Specter's flip to the Democrat ticket is plainly a move to save his political life. He realized that there was no way he would win next year in the Republican primary, so he decided to switch parties. Of course, I've said Specter was a Democrat for years. The most amazing thing regarding this whole broohah is this: With Specter giving the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and the Minnesota race still in the courts, do you know who could give the Democratic Party a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Al Franken, that's who.
Now, I'm sure Al's a nice guy. I liked his writing when he was with Saturday Night Live. But do we really want him being the decider as to what passes through the senate? We'll end up with lutefisk on every plate.
With a filibuster-proof Senate, Obama may decide it's time to make Hillary happy and push through socialized medicine. Talk about a lot of people out of jobs. Oh, and taxes will go up, but don't worry, it'll just be on the top 20% income earners. Hmm, I wonder if they'll keep their money in this country when that happens...
In short, it seems that Republicans and Democrats are the same. Except when they're different. I have just one question for all: What the hell are the Libertarians doing? Get off your asses, people!
First things first...An Intro
Welcome to my new space. Here I try to make some sense out of the nonsense that passes for news these days. We will discuss hot topics, current events, politics, religion and just about everything else that pisses people off when you don't agree with them.
We'll be open to suggestions here, too. So if you have a special hot-button issue that is really bugging you, bring it up here and we'll cover it in the next daily blog. After all, the customer is always right, most of the time.
One of the little 'extras' that you'll get with my blog is fancy artwork. I'm a bit of a photographer hack, so from time to time I'll intersperse my diatribes with my own pictures. Why? Because I can. After all, it is my blog.
And off we go! I will try and update this every day, and all you have to do to find out what we're talking about today is move on to the next post...
We'll be open to suggestions here, too. So if you have a special hot-button issue that is really bugging you, bring it up here and we'll cover it in the next daily blog. After all, the customer is always right, most of the time.
One of the little 'extras' that you'll get with my blog is fancy artwork. I'm a bit of a photographer hack, so from time to time I'll intersperse my diatribes with my own pictures. Why? Because I can. After all, it is my blog.
And off we go! I will try and update this every day, and all you have to do to find out what we're talking about today is move on to the next post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
