Ten Mile Island

Ever Wonder About Media Bias? Three.

2012-02-23T17:41:00.000-08:00

In 2008, the FCC released information pertaining to the specifics of "localism."

Localism. Sounds harmless. One of the fundamentals for broadcasters, whether radio or television has been "local, local, local." That is, they focus on issues and events that occur within the framework of what they view as the local market. Given the large footprints of Portland's television stations, that view of what is local will include areas as far apart as Lincoln City to The Dallas, north of Longview to Mossyrock or Morton, south to Albany, Lebanon and Corvallis. For a radio broadcaster in Salem or Tillamook, the idea of what constitutes local is going to be greatly constrained, due primarily to the signal strength of a small market radio station. If your station is in Tillamook, local is Tillamook. You might run a news story on Garibaldi or Short Sands, but really, pretty much all you're concerned with is the doin's in T-Mook. Your advertisers are there, their families go to school at Tillamook High School, and chances are you either own a cow, or know someone who does.

So, the FCC wants broadcasters to conform their efforts to serve their local market to rules issued by the Commission. What's wrong with that?

Let's look at KXYZ, a Tillamook radio station. Owned by a man and his wife, he takes care of the day-to-day engineering, she takes care of the bookkeeping and making sure that the spots that will run are scheduled correctly. Maybe they have a couple of folks who work on-air for three hours a day, and sell spots the rest of the day. They are committed to providing local listeners with the highest quality entertainment they are able to provide. And there are a lot of hidden caveats in that statement. It doesn't always work out, as planned. Things break. Tubes wear out. Power outages occur. Then there's the problem of talent. You can have the greatest intention in the world to be an amazing entertainer, and, by buying a radio station you may provide yourself with your own first step to stardom, but really? Some guys are legends in their own minds. So, the quality of the show may be, errm...okay, not so good. Yet, you have a killer playlist, and you know folks are listening for the music, and pretty much without regard for what that playlist is, if your station is recognized for being there, dependably and consistently, with some sort of information about what's happening in your community, high school sports scores, that kind of thing, folks are going to listen.

Is this enough for the Commission? As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (.pdf)outlines, "...some broadcasters devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license.”

Some is not all. "At the same time time, in written comments and testimony received during six related field hearings, many other commenters have raised serious concerns that broadcasters’ efforts, as a general matter, fall far short from what they should be."

A couple of questions form, such as, "who are these "other commenters" and what is their agenda, and, here's a guy and his wife, a couple of employees spinning discs and selling spots in the community, all paid for out of the owner's pocket, and some "commenters" are willing to suggest that Pop isn't doing enough to devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license?

Wouldn't you rather think, that Pop spends most of every waking, and much of his time sleeping, worrying about whether or not the performance of his station is leading to a stable and growing listening audience, and a stable and growing advertiser base? Does Pop spend more time pining for the chili found in Austin, or the Sharp, up the road?

"Specifically, the record indicates that many stations do not engage in the necessary public dialogue as to community needs and interests and that members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."

Necessary. Television stations and radio stations are, in fact, required to demonstrate that they provide "significant" on-air treatment of community needs and interests that have been determined to be worthy of such significance. Public awareness of local problems, areas of need.

Each station is currently doing such things, understood to be an obligation of the holder of a license to use the Spectrum. Necessary public dialogue. Pop and his wife, their two employees, are out in the community each day. Talking to their neighbors and friends. Picking up the phone to ask a question of a school board member, or the director of the port. Getting answers to questions the guy at the flooring store asked about the county highway. Local, local, local. But "...members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."

The Commission must fix this. "Against this backdrop, the Commission proposes certain changes to its rules and policies that will promote both localism and diversity." Yeah. Because Pop doesn't have a clue that having contact with the community, having contact with his audience, and providing a consistent and dependable source for entertainment, news, sports and weather is important. "We also discuss ways to encourage broadcasters to improve programming targeted to local needs and interests, and to provide more accessible information about those on-air efforts to the people in their communities."

All great stuff! And, it looks good on paper. But how to get it into practise?

"Because the centerpiece of localism is the communication between broadcasters and the members of the public that they are licensed to serve, the Report also addresses current efforts undertaken by both broadcasters and the Commission itself to make relevant information concerning broadcasters’ efforts to serve their communities readily available to the public. The record here suggests that the dialogue
between broadcasters and their audiences concerning stations’ localism efforts is not ideal." To the guy writing this. We're asked to come to a mythical place, where a guy who built his radio station with his own hands and money, relies upon his performance to dependably and consistently entertain and inform, who relies upon his relationships with the jobs creators and economic movers and shakers in his market for his survival, doesn't exist. Because there isn't the level of "dialogue" deemed by the Commission to warrant their approval.

And you ever wonder about media bias? How do you avoid the kind of nightmarish schemes proposed by the Commission? Well, you show how you're doing what they want, voluntarily. You go into your community and create a list of community organizations and advocacy groups that you will inform when you plan to hire an additional full-time employee. Of course, that this makes you a potential target for retaliation if you don't hire a referred potential hire is unimportant to the Commission. (Just joking.) "As a result, the actions discussed herein will allow greater diversity in what is seen and heard over the airwaves, and ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming."

Ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming." As you read through the NPR, you'll find these types of slippery slopes all over the place. It isn't enough for Pop to spend his own time and money bringing this unique resource to his listeners, free, at his own expense, but the Commission wants to make sure that the content of his programming meets standards developed by them, not the owner/operator, his listeners, his advertisers.

How to do it? "Creation of advisory boards whereby stations regularly meet with community leaders and individuals from all sectors of the community...Providing for improved access to station decision-makers by the leadership of all local community groups." So, folks who have absolutely no idea of how to run a show, are going to be telling the guys who run the show, how to run the show. Brilliant. Every radio station must sound like KBOO or NPR, or else. "We do tentatively conclude, however, that the same fundamental objectives can be achieved through other means, including regular, quarterly licensee meetings with a board of community advisors and improved access by the public to station decision makers." Ah! The Paris Commune! Of course! It's just what every broadcast executive wants, meeting with a "board of community advisors" in order to further the access goals of the board. Forget the show! Forget entertaining the audience. We must have priorities!

You ever wonder why there's bias in the media?

One last note; none of this applies to newspapers, books and magazines. Broadcasters have no First Amendment rights. The content of what broadcasters may broadcast is regulated. A broadcaster affirms that he will voluntarily abide by the rules of the Commission, as a condition of his licensure. If the Commission wills it, broadcasters must abide.

More, at Broadcast Law Blog.

Ever Wonder About Media Bias? Two

2012-02-22T20:50:00.000-08:00

Broadcasters, even with the best intentions, face incredible pressures to meet the rules and regulations of their Master, the Federal Communications Commission.

Who is it that owns a radio or television station? The costs and expenses of owning a broadcast facility are enormous. To be fair, the costs of owning and operating a radio station are clearly lower than the costs associated with operating a television station. Given, that the television station is in a large market. There are small, rural television stations that make do with budgets that almost unseemly, when compared to major market television stations. But, small market TV does make do. Locally produced shows show the lack of technical quality of the major stations, but they exist. Local television, whether in small markets or LPTV stations exist, and fill a niche for their viewers. Is it "HD" TV? Nope. But, putting pictures together with content is still an important source of information for the viewer. A camera that would have cost $15-thousand dollars fifteen years ago is one helluva camera. Video toasters are a dime a dozen, today. Good shooting, decent graphics, point is, whether you're small market or LPTV, you can perform for pennies on the dollar for what is produced by major market television stations.

And yet, most of the rules, of either television or radio, are the same. The guidelines for what a radio or television must do--repeat MUST DO--are typically the same in each and any occasion. There are a few exemptions, such as the radio or television station that employs fewer than five employees. And yes, I'm sure that there are television stations with fewer than five, full-time employees. (There are some clear bifurcations of the rules governing television and radio, and maybe I'm "stepping in it," but from my past brushes with FCC regs, I don't think I'm mis-characterising the situation. If I am, sorry. Do some research, that at this moment, I'm unwilling to do. Laziness.)

Last post, I wrote about how the FCC required broadcasters to demonstrate their adherence to rules that purport to advance a notion of community outreach. This is an important issue, since it relates to why the media has the bias it has, when reporting current events, or more importantly, how it reports the news. Diversity is the aim of current FCC regs, and the question must be asked, why?

How is it that a broadcaster must address issues of diversity, when that broadcaster is engaged in serving a certain number of viewers/listeners in his broadcast footprint?

This is a copy of a coverage map for KGW television (RabbitEars.Info)

What kind of diversity exists within the area described by this map? The Great Northwest! Portlandia!

Not much. Seventy-three percent white. Nine percent Hispanic or Latino. Eight percent Asian. Eight percent Black. About three percent from the Tribes. Three and an half percent, anything else.

But, that's just race. When it comes to sex, men are the minority, with a ration for every 100 women 18+, there are 97.8 males. When it comes to age, those who are between the ages of 25 to 44 are the plurality, with 34.7 percent of the population. 18 to 24, ten-point-three. 45-64, 22.4 percent, and around eleven and a half percent for people 65 and older.

A government mandated policy of diversity would needs include such statistical data. But, what about religious discrimination? What about education discrimination? What about sexual preference discrimination?

What would a "perfectly diverse" company look like? In my opinion, like a zoo. Representative elements from each of these "diverse" populations. It's not my opinion of what a company should even attempt to adopt. What value can there be to a company, to be able to show diversity, without showing that there are elements of cohesion that drive the company? Are those elements of cohesion racial, sexual, gender purity?

Of course not. That's nutty. But the Commission's take on diversity is therefore, nutty, too.That no one is willing to take on the Commission speaks volumes for the power the Commission has over Broadcasters. And as re-licensing time is just around the corner for broadcaster in this state, adherence to the intent of the Commission is firmly in the minds of those who operate broadcast operations within the state.

On the 17th, the FCC announced a new audit for broadcasters. Two-hundred radio stations and 75 television stations are to be audited by the FCC to "assure the FCC" about these stations' compliance with the Commission's EEO rules "requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry." (Broadcast Law Blog.)

Hit the link, and follow the links on their page. And imagine, if you will, the effects of these rules on your business, were you to engage in such simple things as making widgets, shoes, or growing potatoes.

How does the FCC get away with requiring such things as "wide dissemination" and "supplemental efforts"? Because Broadcasters don't have First Amendment Rights. Broadcasters can't defend themselves against intrusive regulations from the FCC behind the cover of the First Amendment. Broadcasters don't have a First Amendment guarantee of freedom. They, instead, have duties. Duties described by FCC regulations. And one of the more important duties of Broadcasters is to insure that they are not complicit with any effort to restrict the diversity of its employees, or of its programming. (Slippery Slope warning; there is not yet a rule in effect that requires Broadcasters to demonstrate that their programming matches their program content with the rules for outreach to diverse groups in their hiring practices. But that step is on the lips of every Commissioner, and every owner of any Broadcast property.)

The camel's nose is in the tent. Broadcasters, and the businesses that they have built to educate, inform and entertain us, stands on the edge of a precipice. Broadcasters, being timid, are attempting to hold at bay the rules that would take from them the principles of good service to their clients, whether viewers/listeners, or advertisers. No Broadcaster of any sense at all would wish to offend any segment of a possible viewer/listener base. But, let's be practical; to be Number One means providing service to the greatest number possible, whether viewers or listeners. That certain segments of the population would, therefore, be under-served speaks not about the failure of Broadcasters to work to provide the best possible service to their communities, but more about the "under-served" population to adopt the values and expectations of the dominant mores of the community that surrounds them.

Pay special attention to the link "Today's Public Notice announcing the audit, containing the form audit letter and listing the stations subject to the audit is here ." Click the link. These radio and television stations must be s*itting bricks. None of the rules promulgated by the Commission gives anyone adequate notice of what compliance is. If you're in a town of five thousand people, most of whom are church going, white folks, what kind of diversity outreach is necessary to comply with the Commission's rules? If there's one gay guy, do you need to have a gay outreach? If there's one embittered Socialist, must you have a Socialist outreach? Do you have an atheist? A retired union representative?

What clear meaning do the rules of the Commission have?

Well...none. But they are the rules. And, the rules must be enforced. And there is no argument with the Commission. They, after all, hold the keys to your license renewal. And all the time, effort and expense the owners of these broadcast outlets are held to the whims of the Commission.

And you wonder why Broadcasters are reluctant to voice clear concerns over the actions and efforts of the elites in our governments? Threaten a Broadcaster's license, and you control the behaviour of the Licensee.

Ever Wonder About Media Bias?

2012-02-21T21:30:00.000-08:00

Why would any broadcast company tend to ignore certain tendencies of our national life?

As newspapers decline in importance, we keep looking toward the electronic media to give us the kind of information that we need to have, in order to make intelligent decisions. And yet, it seems, that every day we find ourselves watching Suzy Cutie and Howie Handsome on the Idiot Box, telling us about kittens caught in trees, and the valiant efforts of local fire crews coming to the rescue.

Is there a dumb pill out there?

No.

There is a reason why major newsrooms fail to provide information that you and I need to have to make intelligent decisions. The reason? The Federal Communications Commission.

Let's look at some of the language found in FCC Form 396 (pdf):

"Broadcast station licensees are required to afford equal employment opportunity to all qualified persons and to refrain from discriminating in employment and related benefits on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.2080. Pursuant to these requirements, a license renewal applicant whose station employment unit employs five or more full-time station employees must file a report of its activities to ensure equal employment opportunity. If a station employment unit employs fewer than five full-time employees, no equal employment opportunity program information need be filed. If a station employment unit is filing a combined report, a copy of the report must be filed with each station's renewal application.

"A copy of this report must be kept in the station's public file. These actions are required to obtain license renewal. Failure to meet these requirements may result in sanctions or license renewal being delayed or denied. These requirements are contained in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.2080 and are authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

"DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS. Have any pending or resolved complaints been filed during this license term before any body having competent jurisdiction under federal, state, territorial or local law, alleging unlawful discrimination in the employment practices of the station(s)?

"If so, provide a brief description of the complaint(s), including the persons involved, the date of the filing, the court or agency, the file number (if any), and the disposition or current status of the matter."

"Discrimination Complaints."

A Silver Bullet. Apply for a broadcast job, and if you find that Lisa Takagawa got the job and you didn't, you may have a case for a discrimination complaint. If your name is Sam Jones. Or Luis Ortega. Or, if you find out that Lisa is heterosexual, and you're not. It was close to thirty years ago, when I got hit with a discrimination complaint. A young man alleged that I gave full-time employment to a young woman, because she would "do me" and he wouldn't. Imagine the embarrassment that a General Manager of any broadcast company would need to feel, to be required to provide a brief description of this complaint?

Why would a federal agency want to have this type of embarrassment filed?

Well, they spell it out later, in their form:

"The FCC is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to collect the personal information we request in this report. We will use the information you provide to determine if the benefit requested is consistent with the public interest. If we believe there may be a violation or potential violation of a FCC statute, regulation, rule or order, your request may be referred to the Federal, state or local agency responsible for investigating,prosecuting, enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation or order. In certain cases, the information in your request may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or a court or adjudicative body when (a) the FCC; or (b) any employee of the FCC; or (c) the United States Government, is a party to a proceeding before the body or has an interest in the proceeding. In addition, all information provided in this form will be available for public inspection. If you owe a past due debt to the federal government, any information you provide may also be disclosed to the Department of Treasury Financial Management Service, other federal agencies and/or your employer to offset your salary, IRS tax refund or other payments to collect that debt. The FCC may also provide this information to these agencies through the matching of computer records when authorized. If you do not provide the information requested on this report, the report may be returned without action having been taken upon it or its processing may be delayed while a request is made to provide the missing information. Your response is required to obtain the requested authority."

A broadcasting license is worth millions of dollars. A broadcast station's newscasts can form a basis for a discrimination complaint. There are a lot more rules about who you can hire, and more importantly, how you can hire, that I haven't posted here. Maybe later.

But you wonder why broadcast TV and radio fail to inform the public?

One last thought; broadcasters have no "freedom of expression" guarantees. Since radio and television stations receive grants of authority to broadcast from the federal government, the language and ideas expressed must meet the standards of communication set out by the Federal Communications Commission.

No wonder they want to control the internet.

Register for Dorchester

2012-02-17T12:05:00.000-08:00

'Standup Economist' to speak during Friday night session

The famous (or is it infamous?) Dorchester Tent Show may not be the funniest nor most provocative part of this year's conference. Why? Because Yoram Bauman, Ph.D, better known as the "Standup Economist," will address the Dorchester Conference during the event's Friday evening session.

Dr. Bauman, "the world's first and only stand-up economist," performs regularly at colleges, companies, and comedy clubs. He has appeared in TIME Magazine, on PBS and NPR, and on YouTube, where his videos have over a million hits.

"Dorchester has always been a place where we try to make politics fun," stated Dorchester President Grace Ishida. "We think delegates will enjoy the intellectual sense of humor that Dr. Bauman brings to discussions about economics and public policy."

Bauman is the founder of Non-Profit Comedy, a series of benefit shows that has raised almost $100,000 for local non-profits. He has a BA in mathematics from Reed College, a PhD in economics from the University of Washington, and spends his non-comedy hours teaching in the University of Washington's environmental studies program.

Go here.

My Expectations

2012-02-16T21:17:00.000-08:00

Briefly.

I expect the current financial bubble to burst during the Second Quarter of this year.

There are too many concurrent antecedents to the forthcoming burst to be ignored.

Greece is not going to be the cause of this pop. Greece will be the victim. Liquidity will be blamed. As in, not enough. But this isn't, and won't be true. There is plenty of liquidity. The problem will be, as it was in the Weimar Republic, currency devaluation.

In my last post, I put up a video of a mathematician talking about the simple math that leads to doubling of value; whether that value is one of debt, or growth. The amazing thing is, I heard, tonight, Governor Romney complaining about a sixty percent increase in government spending during Senator Santorum's tenure in the U.S. Senate. Taking a look at the math, it's obvious that government spending, during Senator Santorum's tenure as a U. S. Senator, was less than seven percent, per year.

How effective would Governor Romney's objection had been, if he were to have said, "you know, when Senator Santorum was in the U. S. Senate, growth in federal spending occurred at under a seven percent annual rate!"

Paper tiger.

But, let us not parse the knowable. Let's think about the unknowable.

What will be the value of an ounce of gold next year? What will be the price of gasoline next year?

When President Obama was elected, the price of gold was $700.00 per ounce. The price of gasoline was $2.00 per gallon. The majority holder of debt for U.S. debt was China. Today, it is the United States. Imagine the poverty that has been imposed upon U.S. citizens by the current administration. We have move back, each and every one of us, by more than fifty percent, in JUST THREE YEARS.

Not ten years. Not twelve years.

Three years. And the bad things about monetizing debt are still standing off-shore. We haven't yet experienced the effects of excess liquidity, since the markets have been extraordinarily defensive in their asset allocations. We have parked most of our national economy in deep water, waiting for the flood. (And, worse yet, all of our retirees who have made investments are slowly being robbed of their capital, as markets seek to trade on dips.)

Nobody loves the rich. They have stuff and money, and stuff. It's easy to hate the rich, since, if you hate the rich, chances are you're either the spawn of the rich, or wish to be rich yourself. Envy is a hellofan attitude. "They have stuff that we want to have." Well, yeah! Hella! Want me some rich guy stuff!

I don't know how you're getting ready for the next bubble-burst. I'm planning acquisitions. Why? Because, when bubbles burst, some are able to make money, some aren't. In 2008 I made money. Have for three years. I depend upon my clients to understand why I'm spending their money, and what the benefits for those expenditures are. They are stated. My clients give me their money, freely. I don't have the authority to work in their own best interests as a mandate provided by the government. They can choose not to use my services. They are free.

After years of Solyndras, isn't it time we look at the mandates our government has imposed upon markets, and more importantly with the imposition of ObamaCare, ourselves, that we take a look at the success ratio of government investments to outcomes? Governments suck at investments.

People don't. Unless they are idiots. (See, equity holders in Washington Mutual.)

Time to tuck in. Gold coins that I bought years ago at thirty dollars each are now worth $1700.00 per ounce. Silver I bought for face value is now worth $33.50 for ten dimes. Money has value. Good money drives bad money out. Gresham's Law. I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for an hamburger today.

Be smart. Look for alternatives.

Growth

2012-02-14T20:28:00.000-08:00

Math is a peculiar thing. It can be used to help elucidate (explain) a problem. Take a thing, like a budget. And say you have a budget for projects that don't make any economic sense, but advance an agenda.

Contrast these projects, that don't make any economic sense, with projects that make economic sense. What is the difference between these two projects? For example, let's look at a project that makes no economic sense, and contrast it to a project that makes economic sense.

What would a good example of a project, that works to advance an agenda, be? How about a cellulosic ethanol?

What a grand idea! Instead of relying upon food for alcohol for creating a cheap combustible like gasoline, let's instead create a fuel, less efficient than that of the cheap combustible--gasoline--and give it agenda credits; it is less reprehensible than the production previous agenda. That is, the part of the fuel isn't petroleum-based may have less of a negative impact than the current part of fuel that isn't petroleum-based. Of course, I'm writing about ethanol, not from corn, but what is called "cellulosic ethanol," ethanol from agricultural products that aren't involved in the food chain. In many instances, this cellulosic ethanol would be created from the waste products of the timber industry. Out here, in the Northwest, we call them chips. Chips are important, since that's where we get paper.

The argument against petroleum-based fuels began during the Carter administration. Trends are important, and an important, new trend, that had been discovered during the years leading up to the Nixon administration; the environmental impacts of life.

The impacts of life. That we exist, means we impact the world around us. That would be, in my day, a "no duh" statement. Obvious. Simple. We exist, we impact the world around us.

Living was dirty in the 1960's. Not as dirty as it had been during the rise of the Industrial Age. Not as dirty as it was in the industrial cities of any other country. But taking the trip across the bridge into New Jersey from New York meant one came nose-to-smell in contact with chemical refineries. It was a nauseous moment. If you were living around Albany at the time, you probably remember our friend, Wah Chang. Now, multiply it by an order of magnitude. New Jersey, frankly, stunk. Not the momentary Wah Chang kind of stink. But a malodorous, living, yellow stink. Pollution was a driving force behind a series of laws that were required to gain control over the problem of the Commons.

Portland is an interesting example of how easy it was to gauge pollution in the city. Sundays (for me) required driving cross-town, from Beaverton to the East Side. At the time, the only road available was Barbur Boulevard. And Barbur has one of the nicest views of Mount Hood of any thoroughfare in the city. On bad pollution days (during the early 1960's), you couldn't see the mountain. That is, the pollution in Portland was visible. Advocates of pollution control were simply describing the problem; visibility.

Is the loss of one of our most important views something that should be corrected,through regulation, or not?

In the 1960's, we became aware of the pollutants we were putting into our air, and water.

Issues about water quality were being similiarly addressed. The Cuyahooga River had been a source of environmental concern for years. The various states, in this case, Ohio, failed to act.

(Map from Wiki, here.)

The Cuyahoga was an Ohio River. Prior to the Nixon Administration, riverways were the sole province of the state. And Ohio failed to act. Ohio was an industrial state. Shared costs of the state (public costs), from which industries were thriving under industrial development, included the costs of that industrialisation; that is, while a burning river was obviously a bad thing, local politicians were unable to act.

The problem of a burning river is, you can't ignore the public costs of industrialisation. Some societies deal with public costs (externalities), and some don't. I shudder to think about dousing myself in the Ganges River. There are waterways around the world that I would choose not to swim in. The Cuyahoga was a river that, in the 1960's, met that criterion.

Some of the biggest employers in Ohio were General Motors, Armco, Cyclops, Jones & Laughlin, National, Pittsburgh, Republic, Sharon, U.S. Steel, Wheeling and Youngstown Sheet & Tube

Coal was king, kiddies. And coked-steel was strong. And Ohio made a lot of steel.

The process was a dirty process. States were unwilling to address the problems. And there were competing political problems. Why would a state, or a municipality, attempt to regulate an industry that would put the local, domestic products into an unfavourable competitive state against other states, or foreign sources of steel? The problem of pollution became known as an external cost in the production of steel. In economic analysis, an external cost is one placed upon a person, or persons, who didn't agree to accept the costs imposed. That is, since pollution, especially in the case of the Cuyahoga, was imposed upon people who didn't want their property burned by a river polluted with industrial waste, the cost of the pollution was "externally" imposed upon them.

But no mayor, and no governor, was willing to place their local fief in a less competitive environment, when it came to the production of industrial goods. It would take the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act to place rules that made the protection of our air and water a responsibility of government.

An expansion of the meaning of "interstate commerce." But, in my opinion, based upon fairly decided law. An example of this would be Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. at 241. "The Court indicated that states, having given up the powers of independent sovereigns to make war and to conduct diplomacy, must be able to turn to the federal government for protection from trans-boundary pollution, rather than force their citizens to rely on state private nuisance actions."

As a Republican of the time, the lack of state and local protection of air and water quality was an obvious error in prior law. And it was clearly an issue that, under our Constitution, was clearly the type of problem that required federal involvement. For me, the clearly Constitutional question was, "does the Constitution allow for Federal involvement in this case?"

There's a good chance that Constitutional doctrine didn't, or wouldn't, have allowed this expansion of Federal authority in this case. It did involve navigable waterways. Navigable waterways were defined in 1824. These are old Commerce Clause cases. Restraint was called for.

But, not the restraint of government. Instead, an extension of government was called for. Authority for trans-state pollution needed to be imposed. The rules of the EPA act were clearly defined, and Constitutional for the act passed in 1969.

What occurred since has been an expansion, based on sound Constitutional and legal theory, that has surpassed the intent of the framers of the original EPA act. What was based upon a theory of waterways, has been extended to embrace all forms of contiguity. It's now not enough to have a clearly defined waterways act, but now the EPA has used its regulatory powers to assert itself over air quality.

I'm not sure that the EPA, which had a limited mandate to provide rules under which certain combustible machinery was regulated, in order to reduce visible pollution, extended to cover the range of possible causes of "pollution," that it wishes to control today. Agencies tend to push the boundaries for their mandates. The greater the control an agency is able to confer upon itself, the greater the funding available, and necessary, for that agency. Imagine being an assistant to the Secretary for Wartime Sourcing for Secondary Products.

If you can assert that Secondary Products are more valuable than Primary Products, you're going to end up with more money for your agency. And, you're going to be invited to more cocktail parties. If, instead, it turns out that being the Secretary for Wartime Sourcing for Primary Products is, instead, more vital, then the Secretary of Primary Products will be invited to more cocktail parties, than the Secretary for Secondary Products.

This is Washington.

It, absolutely, has nothing to do with the needs and concerns of our nation's citizenry. The game being played in state houses and city halls is the same game being played in our nation's capital. Being more important is the goal. Having more authority is the goal. Leadership has been reduced to pandering. "Here's something you should know!" is more likely a pitch, offering more for less, and trading on the worst impulses of the public.

It's called Populism for a reason.

But here is an important point: you cannot extend your promises beyond your ability to pay for them. I'm reminded of the story of a certain frog, and the result of the findings that one particular frog had been filled with shot.

What is the commons?

I've alluded to this a couple of times in this essay, and it's worthwhile for you to find out. The document that the Left refers to when invoking the Commons is an essay by Garrett Harding. The take-away line is this, "Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density."

The narcissism of this statement alone should lead one to condemn the author and his entire thesis.

What a bone-headed statement. What intellectual delirium must this man laboured under to conjecture such a line? For those of us who live in Oregon, only two percent of the state is in a condition that can be called "developed." Fifty percent of this state is defined as "frontier." OMG! Yes, we must begin to kill babies!

And the increase in development projected for Oregon is, by 2024, four percent of our state will be developed.

All of this "sky is falling" rhetoric is boring, it's stupid and uninformed, and is akin to Druid Priests chanting against the darkening sky. Futile, defenseless and moronic. But when you hear these claims on a daily basis, from your newspaper, your television set, what are you to believe? And, when you throw in boring, stupid and uninformed, you end up with a major dose of apathy. WTF care? You know it's propaganda, you know it's probably full of BS. Why make waves disagreeing? Why worry about confronting teachers, elected officials, newspaper guys, the television talking heads, the morons down at the labour hall, the cool chicks at the Women's Center?

Here's why.

Government spending is increasing at a rate higher than seven percent a year. Seven percent federally, seven percent at the state level. And seven percent at most county and local levels. Private sector growth is occurring around one-point-five percent.

What happens when spending growth increases by seven percent for ten years?

Cancelling My Amazon Account

2012-02-13T21:31:00.001-08:00

Ms. Jamie Gorelick has just been added to the Board at Amazon.

I'm done.

Prop 8

2012-02-07T21:58:00.000-08:00

There is nothing that I can see in Proposition Eight, California's act that prohibits marriage between same-sex couples, as violating the principles of the Constitution.

Perversity is not a crime. Being viewed as perverse isn't actionable as a crime. One of the fundamentals of civilization is, that to be a crime, there must be harm. And not just a civil harm, but a criminal harm.

I read Rousseau as a college student. Having the freedom to choose what to do with yourself is a natural freedom. Whether you choose to paint yourself pink and yellow and prance about your bedroom is as natural a right as it is to pray to God. What right have I to tell you not to paint yourself pink and yellow and prance about your bedroom? The freedom to express yourself is a Constitutional right. The freedom to act in a manner that offends, is a Constitutional right. The license to marry is a contractual obligation that is recognized by the state. The state defines the conditions under which such a license is issued. Just as I must be able to pass a vision test, and a driving skills test, the state has under its jurisdiction the authority to issue rules to which one must abide, in order to gain the license of that state, to enter into a state of matrimony.

States don't have the authority to limit our freedom of speech, our freedom to express ourselves, or our freedom to choose much of our own lives. It does have the authority to tell each of us whether or not we can drive a car, build a dam, or shoot our neighbors. It does have the authority to tell us whether or not our children must attend school. It has authority over our lives that we may object to.

And all of this authority comes from the same place; the laws a state passes and then enacts.

Again, the Ninth Circuit attempts to wander from the tested waters of jurisprudence.

Good luck in the majors.

A Lullabye

2012-02-01T21:49:00.000-08:00

Action Alert: Support PERS Transparency

2012-01-29T19:37:00.000-08:00

Here in Oregon, Public Employees have nearly become the ruling class. Hopefully, you and I can do something about it:

Please take action today to support transparency in the Public Employee Retirement System in Oregon!

It is in public’s interest to ensure fiscal discipline and transparency in how the underfunded PERS system operates with full disclosure of individual retiree information. Courts across America have agreed, as judges have rejected the weak arguments of the unions. Even Oregon Attorney General Kroger agrees and has forced PERS to release information that any taxpayer can access.

Click here to send a message to the House Business and Labor Committee Co-Chairs Reps.

Oregon legislators are proposing to limit the public transparency of the Oregon retirement program in LC 43. If introduced and passed as a bill, citizens would no longer have the capability to review who is receiving taxpayer-funded pensions. Full government transparency is imperative. Taxpayers have the right to track where and how their tax dollars are being spent, so that government can be held accountable for the distribution of those dollars.

While the rest of the Country continues to create more transparency in government, Oregon seems to be willing to limit the ability for citizens to hold our government accountable. Please take action now!

Thank you for taking time to take action.

Sincerely,

Karla Kay Edwards
State Director
AFP Oregon

h/t Eugene Rant.

I Don't Have A Bubble

2012-01-26T10:28:00.000-08:00

One of those quizzes I found at Ace's.

"Result

"On a scale from 0 to 20 points, where 20 signifies full engagement with mainstream American culture and 0 signifies deep cultural isolation within the new upper class bubble, you scored between 13 and 16.

"In other words, you don't even have a bubble."

I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I think I want a bubble.

Boobies!

2012-01-21T00:02:00.000-08:00

For those of you who spend time worrying about reality television, I've decided that I need to assuage those concerns, here.

Presto. Boobies.

My name is Joe Biden.

.

Can Anyone Make Sense Of This Statement?

2012-01-20T12:24:00.000-08:00

I received the following from Senator Wyden's office.

“The Keystone Pipeline is an environmentally risky and economically dubious project that would have boosted the balance sheets of oil producers at the expense of American families. If the pipeline had been approved and Canadian tar sands oil producers had been able to sell their oil to customers throughout the world instead of here in the United States, the already high cost of oil would have gone up for Midwest consumers at a time when budgets are tight as it is. I commend the Obama Administration for siding with the American consumer over the oil industry and not approving a pipeline that would have been painful to the wallets of American families and not in our national interests.”

Wha...?

God Won't Let Us Down

2012-01-19T20:17:00.001-08:00

That's the whole post.

Time To Send In The Nerds

2012-01-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

We've already sent in the clowns. That would be our elected officials.

There was a time when I had respect, generally, for those elected to Congress. Now that respect is left to a certain few. These people don't deliberate. They, generally, posture. "Stop on-line piracy." Hey, that sounds good. Environmental Protection Agency. Hey, protecting stuff is good, isn't it? Consumer protection. You bet. (Thanks to Rick Santilli.)

And now, we must protect ourselves from the nets. Why? (Sputter.)

Watch this.

Oppose Anti-Piracy Legislation

2012-01-18T08:07:00.001-08:00

(Censored.)

.

Free Speech and Dita Beard

2012-01-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

1972 was an amazing year.

For those of us who lived in Portlandia, thiis was the year that Mayor Schrunk beat Ivancie. This was a time when I was involved in politics in Oregon, but only as an organizer. It would be later that I became a vocal advocate for politics, and the problem is, by the time I became aware, the landscape had changed.

What had occurred has been a quantum shift in politics. And, the defining moment had to do with Dita Beard. There aren't any moments that can be defined with names. We do have several names. Names like Burr. Aldrich Ames. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Not many. But, who would want to be a traitor to this country?

And, in 1972, Dita Beard's name was added to the list of enemies. Not Mayor Schrunk. For a white boy, living in the 'burbs, the idea that the mob could control politics in the city was silly. The people I knew, as a young, white boy, looking at the city, corruption was the last thing I'd ever think of. Corruption belonged in big cities, like Chicago. There never has been an anti-corruption movement in Oregon. The closest we came to anti-corruption occurred when Governor Goldschmidt was found to have been a child molester. And, there are names of other Democrats who also abused children, and the fight to bring them to justice hasn't ended. Just because you publish a newspaper in Oregon, doesn't mean that folks aren't willing to bring you to justice.

Oregon.

My Oregon.

I worked on the Governor's re-election campaign. Tom McCall. One-ball. Etc. And, I was there, when the Governor and Democrat Rat and Union Boss L.B. Day revealed the proposed bill, Senate Bill 100.

"In the 1973 legislature, essential help came from Senator Ted Hallock of Portland, Representative Nancie Fadeley of Eugene, and L.B. Day, a Teamster's Union official representing Willamette Valley cannery workers and a former director of the state Department of Environmental Quality. Hallock and Fadeley chaired the Senate and House committees on Environment and Land Use. Day was the dominant influence among a task force of lobbyists whom Hallock called together to hammer out necessary compromises." (http://oep.research.pdx.edu/entry/view/senate_bill_100/)

How did all this become acceptable, within months of President Nixon's re-election?

If you weren't there, you wouldn't know. Within weeks of the discovery of the Dita Beard memos, the world changed. The fact that the Democrat Party was a corrupt organization was trumped by revelations that a private company used its influence to achieve an outcome that was beneficial to that corporation.

"Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson receives a memo written by International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) lobbyist Dita Beard; the memo goes a long way towards proving that in return for hefty campaign contributions to the GOP, the Justice Department dropped its antitrust suit against the corporation (see 1969 and July 31, 1971). The memo, written on June 25, 1971 by Beard to ITT vice president Bill Merriam, is entitled “Subject: San Diego Convention.” Beard indicated her distress at the possibility of someone leaking the fact that ITT had quietly contributed $400,000 to the GOP for its 1972 convention in San Diego.

"Two of the few who know of the contribution, Beard wrote, were President Nixon and Attorney General John Mitchell. She asked whether the $400,000 should be donated in cash or in services, then wrote: “I am convinced because of several conversations with Louie re Mitchell that our noble commitment has gone a long way toward our negotiations on the mergers eventually coming out as Hal wanted them. Certainly the president has told Mitchell to see that things are working out fairly. It is still only McLaren’s mickey-mouse that we are suffering.”

"Anderson doesn’t know who “Louie” is, but he is sure “Hal” is Harold Geneen, ITT’s president. ITT had announced a $100,000 contribution, but the real amount is four times that. One of Anderson’s aides, Brit Hume, interviews Beard, and during a night of heavy drinking and Beard’s emotional outbursts, finds out that in May 1971, Beard had gone to a party hosted by Kentucky governor Louie Nunn, the “Louie” of the memo. Mitchell was at the party, and Beard was there to prime Mitchell as to what exactly ITT wants in return for its contribution and its assurance that it can secure San Diego as the GOP’s convention site.

"According to Beard, the deal was hatched between herself and Mitchell at Nunn’s party.

"Anderson quickly publishes a column based on the memo that causes a tremendous stir in Washington and the press. [Anderson, 1999, pp. 194-200] (In his book The Secret Man, Bob Woodward will give the date for Anderson’s column revealing the Beard memo as February 19. This is apparently a typographical error.) [Woodward, 2005, pp. 37] The White House will successfully pressure Beard to disavow the memo (see Mid-Late March, 1972).

Entity Tags: Jack Anderson, Dita Beard, Brit Hume, Bob Woodward, Bill Merriam, Federal Bureau of Investigation, International Telephone and Telegraph, Richard M. Nixon, Harold Geneen, John Mitchell, Louie B. Nunn

I'm not trying to hide anything here. When this broke, and remember, Jack Anderson had just about every newspaper in America, these were damning comments.

The Nunn in these comments is Sam Nunn, Democrat. What we learned was, Republicans who exploited corporate interests in order to gain an advantage with campaign fund-raising was wrong. Democrats who exploited corporate interests in order to gain an advantage with campaign fund-raising was blessed. And most of what has passed as campaign reform has followed this pattern. Large companies have no right to have their corporate interests expressed. Small companies have no right to have their corporate interests expressed. Why? Corruption. And yet we know that Democrats have more corporate ties, more corrupt corporate ties, than any other political party. Why?

Don't know. This should be a no-brainer.

Fortunately, we don't remember shit. Having a memory that exceeds twenty minutes is a diagnosis of brain failure.

Corruption, and the roots of corruption, have been there, for all of us to see, for decades, if not centuries or epochs. We fight the corruption, since that is what keeps us growing. Dita Beard was both an icon and emblematic of something else. What that something else may be, depends upon you.

The Upcoming Race Riots

2012-01-16T18:48:00.000-08:00

The last, notable, race riot that comes to mind follows the antics of a gentleman known as Rodney King.

What sparked the riots were, in the way I see things, dependent upon a video tape showing Los Angeles policemen using force to control a situation created by Mr. King and his buds.

I'm an old guy.

Not only do I remember the Watts Riots and the Harlem Riots, all of these riots have a single, common thread. Police.

Add in the Detroit Riot of 1967, and you have a perfect trifecta. Cops, cops, cops. Cops are pigs. So, riots are okay, since, well, cops are pigs.

Our President is going to lose his office this coming election. The numbers are too large. A President who doesn't have a clue about the role an executive must play is on dicey ground; just re-visit the tenure of 39. Jimmah was clueless, but driven by a combination of Baptist zeal, but a repugnance of the dominant politics of the period, the Republicans. I don't think that a review of the media and Left establishment of the time will be helpful, since too many of us have failed to put on the wall any of the trenchant facts that led to the break-in of Larry O'Brien's office at Watergate. The kicker to all this has been the re-deification of Republican turncoat, John Dean. You probably don't remember the Watergate hearings, but trust me, Mo Dean captured the dicks of any male alive in the world. I mean, duh.

(Credit to some Asian guy.)

So, you've a situation when the entire apparatus of media, politics, the intelligentsia (read college professors and public school teachers) see the inherent wrongness of one crime, and fail to ask the question, why?

Why would anyone attempt the break-in of an office in downtown Washington, D.C.? To the guys who were involved in the break-in, the answer was easy. The corruption of the Democrat Party didn't begin out of thin air. By the 1960's, the Democrat Party really was a pimp organization. So, when Republican counsel John Dean got his dick in a wringer over Mo Binder, there was never a question over how he would flip. I mean, come on; look at her. Her background? Who was she living with before becoming the amusingly Mrs. Dean? Do any of you question whether or not there is a Mob? Are there unions? Didn't you watch On The Waterfront?

Bob Woodward. Deepthroat. These are iconoclastic names. But, did anyone, ever, tell you that Bob Woodward was in the Navy, serving in the White House, at the time these alleged crimes took place? Did anyone, ever, talk to you about his serving Admiral Moorer? Of course not. Nor did they talk about Mo Binder's past.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge, since 1973. A lot of it has been good. We've had some healing attempted by President Ford. We had a moment, under President Ronald Reagan, where we returned to the fundamentals of America. We've had questionable periods, under Presidents Bush and Bush. (I will tell you, I'm a big fan of 41. I believe that we are a part of his Thousand Points of Light. He shouldn't have broken his pledge.)

Burn, baby, burn. A theme recently echoed by Occupy Oakland. Testing the waters. Do you believe that the Van Joneses of America will allow the failure to re-elect the President to go unnoticed? Will they accept the peaceful election of someone other than President Obama to go unnoticed? Will the unions, the environmentalists, the animal rights activists, the violent Left, allow us to elect anybody but Obama?

No one wants to contemplate the eruption of violence that has been hinted at by our current President. No one wants to contemplate the violence being advocated by the Occupy Movement. No one wants to contemplate the anemic response our largest cities mayors have had, in the face of the Occupy Movement. No one wants to contemplate the thuggery of the Left.

Why is that?

There are racialist attacks happening all over the country. It is happening now, and it's happening today. Check the major cities' newspapers. Check the Oregonian. People are getting beaten up because they are of a different colour than the victim. Have you heard of it? No. Newspapers aren't reporting the basics. Radio and television stations don't report the facts. There is increasing violence against persons of different colours, creeds and religions, but we don't get the facts. Why is that?

I think it is because, it's hard to write that the oppressed in this country are becoming the oppressors. That simple liberty and freedom are easy to discard, when the promise of social justice is at hand. The anger of the oppressed is understandable. The victimization of normal is to be expected. The normal is oppressive.

Don't you get it?

What value does law have, if it only serves to serve the status quo?

Don't you get it?

This is the line being drawn. Either to serve the status quo, or to destroy the status quo. Or didn't you actually read any of the OWS literature?

The stage is being set.

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

What Does Freedom Mean?

2012-01-14T13:40:00.000-08:00

I visited Moscow in the 1990's and spent time talking with Russians.

One particularly smart and well-educated woman, who I hired as a translator and guide, revealed to me her hope and wish for a return of the Communist Party.

(This was my hotel, the Cosmos. Below, the view from the main entry. Russians love their statues, and this was dedicated to,what else, the Russian Space Program.)

My hotel was built as part of the Olympic Village, intended for foreign visitors, and access to the grounds involved a simple walk to ramble through the grounds that had been the site, itself. One thing you don't want to do is attempt to cross any of the streets in this part of the world, without an assurance of traffic control. So, pedestrian sub-street crossings were built, similar to the subway where you watched Harry and his cousin attacked by a Dementor. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these became the area where new entrepreneurs were setting up shop, selling anything and everything of value. And some of it was quite pathetic. Most had next to nothing. One man had a shallow box with a neck-strap, selling parts from plumbing fixtures. Here and there were beggars. At another spot, three men with jeans.

(Kiosks were set up on a first come, first served basis. If you were in a building, there was no permanent landlord-tenant contract. You moved in and hoped that the Mafia left you alone.)

Finally making it through, you're there. The Olympic site. Ticket sheds converted into sales outlets, offering drinks. Typically, vodka. And men, in an amazing level of cold, standing and sitting around drinking. Moving from building to building, swarms of squatters had set up shops, carving up buildings into individual kiosks, the only architectural consideration imposed was available space, and leaving enough space unused as to allow shoppers access to the stalls populated by hopeful merchants.

(When someone had something special to sell, it could draw a crowd. But, normally, when I saw groups of people standing around, they were simply drinking.)

One vendor I spoke with had family outside of the city, who manufactured the nesting dolls and chessboards that were his greatest money-makers. Another had come from a village where his cousins sculpted rocks into art; from eggs to crocodiles. One man had found a hoard of high-tensile wire, and was selling wire toys that changed shapes as you manipulated them. All of these men and women were happy and excited to see me. American. Cash. Rubles and dollars. I was lo-o-o-o-oaded-d-d-d.

(Guy snags a Korean-made T.V. Transportation meant planning, and everyone in this picture has one or more plastic bag in their pockets.)

It's important to point out, that prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, the Ruble had been pegged to the dollar. For purposes of commerce, you could purchase any item in any store with either a ruble or a dollar. By law, they were equivalent. Another economic fact, because Capitalism was the enemy of the People, there were no banks. So people kept their cash. Individuals with millions of rubles saved up, their retirement plan. And then, overnight, rubles were exposed to market pricing. All across Russia, millionaires were reduced to poverty. How rich was I? As I recall, I was able to trade $600.00 for a million rubles.

(Wearing mink isn't just a status symbol, though it is. Anyone living there would prefer mink to anything else.)

So, if you had a pension that promised you 15-hundred rubles a month, you had to learn to live on a buck a month. Sure, you still got the fifteen hundred, but these were rubles. I was tempted to purchase both a mink coat and/or mink chapka. The coats were ridiculous. I found one at GYM for $450.00 that would sell in this country for thousands. Quality mink. But the culture in Russia is quite different from our quaint culture. The utility of mink becomes apparent when one finds oneself walking through Red Square on a brilliant December day. Our anemic, polyester-wear is a joke. And while looking successful in Moscow, wearing a chapka at the beach is just too affected for the ordinary American. And I am ordinary.

(If it looked like Levi's, they were close enough. Except for the quality, of course.)

(This pic is a composite of the next two, courtesy of our friend, Inno.)

(I'd love to have these last two edited side-by-side. If you can do it, I'll repost these photos as a single photo. And, Inno did it.)

Everywhere you looked in Moscow, you saw signs of entrepreneurship. Outside GYM were street vendors, with carts or boxes with shoulder-straps.

(Taken, standing in Dzerzhinsky Square, opposite the headquarters of the former KGB. To the left, out of picture, is McDonald's and Children's World.)

Across from KGB headquarters was a McDonalds. Next door, Children's World, converted into a hodge-podge of vendors. It looked more an automobile showroom than the mythical place of the Soviet child's dreams. (By the way, that McDonald's had the best fries I've ever eaten at a McDonald's in years.) I could order a Big Mac, fries and Coke for around eight bucks. Watching Russians, they would come in and order froocktii, apple or cherry pies. Yep. Hot and tasty, just like here in the States.

So, back to my guide/interpreter. We were sitting in a restaurant across the street from the Aftobus, eating American quality salads from a salad bar that cost me about thirty dollars per person. It was a good salad bar. I pulled out a five dollar bill and a 10-thousand ruble note and asked which she would prefer?

(On August 21, 1991, this bus formed part of the barricade that stopped infantry fighting vehicles from entering the city, in order to storm the White House, and depose Mikhail Gorbachev. By Boxing Day, the Communist Party would no longer run Russia. Boris Yeltsin would move into Gorbachev's old office.)

She said she would prefer the five dollar bill. Okay.

Then I asked, if she had both, which would she prefer to spend?

She said she would prefer to spend the ruble note. Okay.

She was a college student, her English was superiour to my Russian, and so I asked if she had ever heard of Gresham's Law? Okay. I said, now you have.

She was young and idealistic. Living in Moscow following the demise of the former Soviet Union was frightening. She, and her family, had been driven to poverty by the collapse of the ruble. She was living in an apartment building that was owned by the state, rent-free. But the condition of the building was terrible. There was water, more of a lake, in the entryway. Condensate was dripping everywhere. Her room was a twelve by twelve foot space she shared with a room mate. They relied upon a communal bathroom. Thankfully, palettes can serve dual-duty. They can keep you from walking in wet stuff. Of course, the notion that the building should repair drains and leaks seemed to have left the consciousness of management and staff. And this was a nice building, close to a Metro station, in a nice part of town.

We continued to talk over lunch. "You and your fellow Russians are now free. You can choose to do the work you choose to take up, earn your own bread, make your own name. You weren't allowed any such freedom, just months ago. You are now free to speak your mind. Tell others the truth. You have a chance to live freely, with the freedom to speak, to choose for yourself, what you wish to do, and avoid that which you choose to avoid."

This, she told me, terrified her. Okay.

I asked her to remember some of the people we had seen and spoken with. Standing behind makeshift counters, selling bogus bluejeans or crafts and wares from their home villages. Disorganized, opportunistic and most importantly, optimistic.

Moscow at the time was a case-study in market economics and capital formation. Yes, I have several friends who invested in Russia at the time, and made some money. It was almost impossible not to. I helped a Russian friend set up the first privately-owned radio station in Vladivostok. The problem, of course, was the Mafia. Squatters rights move in both directions. If you can take it, you most hold it. And the mob bosses in Vladivostok, like all mob bosses, like bright, shiny things. After her brother was killed, friend lost interest in defending the fruit of her labours. When you have the power to take, you take.

Russia is quite different today. And the same as it was eighty or two-hundred years ago. Thuggery doesn't make for stability. Quite the contrary. Most of you are unaware of the election shenanigans that took place recently. If it isn't the Kardashians, it isn't interesting. Likewise, most Americans aren't really aware of what is taking place, right now, under our own noses. When all people are protected, when their property is protected, equally, societies like ours can grow and prosper. When the thugs move in and begin to claim rights as "stakeholders," then the little guys like you and me are up a rope.

How words are used, and what they mean, are important. Just recently it was pointed out that when The Media talks about Republicans, the words Republicans choose to utter are "claims." As in, "Republicans claim that reducing regulations will result in increase private sector investment and jobs." When reporting on Democrats, the words Democrats choose to utter are "beliefs." Such as, "Democrats believe such claims are false." Pretty neatly done, that.

Choosing liberty, economic, political and religious liberty, can be frightening to the young. It can be frightening to the old. From polling I remember, a majority of Russians over sixty would prefer a return to Communism. It's what they were accustomed to, not so much for what you lacked, but for what it provided. Not much, but that dependably.

What a horrid existence. But one many, I fear, would choose today.

Our Liberal Masters

2012-01-13T09:07:00.000-08:00

Just don't get teh ironing.

Stolen from Ace.

Greta Again

2012-01-12T19:25:00.000-08:00

Tonight, Rick Perry was on Greta's show.

I'll look for video, but really, Governor. Reducing waste in the Pentagon by reducing the number of civilian staffers?

What was that old show? "Not Ready for Primetime"?

The introduction of civilian staff into the Pentagon was one of the most successful cost controls ever introduced. I know, it was a long time ago. But, before you proffer a change in policy, shouldn't you do at least some minimal research into the topic?

Our candidates are revealing themselves. Ron Paul is nuts, even if his concerns about sound money may end up by our simply asking ourselves questions about how our banking system, and our government's fiscal and monetary policies affect us. It isn't bad. It's a good thing. Few of us can handle the kind of level of examination that macro-economic theorists work in, every day. Esoterica is not a trait of the fundamental American. Is it fast? That's good. Is it easy? That's good, too. Is it cheap? Bingo!

But, when a candidate drives down into questions of policy, don't you expect something that approximates some level of considered evaluation? Cost cutting, by reducing the civilian workers in the Pentagon is a ridiculous idea. Maybe, the idea of Private Beetle Bailey conducting at $47.00 a week doing the job of a civilian contractor at $123-thousand a year is a common sense solution to the task at hand; reducing the government payroll.

But this isn't good thinking, or serious thinking.

Sorry Governor. But please, don't assert a knowledge of how our federal government works without some idea of how it works.

It looks bad.

UPDATE: Transcript here.

Gingrich Lost

2012-01-11T19:30:00.000-08:00

There's a difference between candidates.

They aren't all bad.

Last month, taking my car in for a new top, I had the chance to spend the day with my mom. Mater was, as always, looking forward to her time with me, since I'm the only one of my siblings who has an ounce of sense. She wanted to talk about Romney. I didn't talk to her about my reservations, since contradiction tends to diminish openness. She talked. I listened.

She liked Romney. She liked his family values. We aren't Mormons. Not even close. The Mormon Church is an adversary in many regards, like ownership of farm lands. It's a lot easier to make money farming when you don't have to pay property tax.

But she liked Romney, and his belief, and the Mormon Church's belief, in the sanctity of the family.

It struck a note.

Catholics like talking about things like family, Catholics don't like being described by others--Protestants--as a cult. I have a better sense about Catholics, and that is, that there is a certain sophistication that Catholics are blessed with, that Mormons aren't. Like most things, when end points are concerned, I like to view process versus product.

The product, faith in family, the sanctity of human life, political and economic liberty, all these are part of faith, for Catholics, Mormons and Christians.

(Pic stolen from Blunt Object)

But it also applies to anyone of any type of faith, even that of a mustard seed, that there are going to be disagreements over what is the appropriate article of faith for each specified belief system. And, while we're worrying about internecine squabbles, the battle is being lost due to triviality. Who the *8ck cares whether you're a Mormon, Catholic or Christian? If you were Jewish and running for President, would you worry about whether, or not, you attended a reformed synagogue? You know how many Americans know about the divisions that exist within the Jewish faith? And trust me, you don't know about the divisions within the People of Israel.

But, yet, and wait for it...tonight Speaker Gingrich lost me.

Here's the difference between Republican sects: some actually have experience in the real world, where paychecks are signed, people are hired and fired; and those who have not and don't.

Professor Gingrich was revealed tonight. And a lot of tumblers clicked, when listening to him on Greta's show. Romney's take on hiring and firing is more in line with my day-to-day experience; I rely upon my service to others for my paycheck. Trust me, if I fail, I lose and account. They are hard to re-gain. Getting fired is a big deal. That's why I'd rather not be hired for a bad client. If I cannot meet or exceed the requirements of my "new" account, I'm better off not asking for his business. It's better for both of us. Likewise, if I hire you, you better meet or exceed my expectations. If you don't, guess what happens?

You're fired.

Newt's reaction tonight to Greta's questions was appalling. The old college prof shown through. Sure, he's glib. Yes, he's bright. But he don't know s*it. Would you hire this guy to run your business?

Would you hire Mitt?

Well?

UPDATE: Transcript of interview here.

A Good Find by Max

2011-12-29T10:38:00.000-08:00

As far as parodies go, this was a pretty good rip.

Christmas Post

2011-12-23T18:07:00.000-08:00

I remember when this album crossed my desk in 1990. I took the entire staff into Production to listen. There are songs from this album, Every Christmas, that I can't locate on the intertubes, or I would have posted them all here.

If you ever want to hear a man share his soul's love for Christ and Christmas, this is the guy you want to do the job. It is not candy cane Christmas. It is a man's love for Christ. And through Christ, for men.

Christ was born to die for our sins. And he had the choice; and one who was willing to guide Him to make another choice. And at the penultimate it can be argued nearly made that choice. The Christmas Season is the beginning of the story of a man's life who has changed the world, and continues to change individuals on a daily basis.

Merry Christmas to each and every one of you, thanks for sharing with me over the years.

Atheism and Christmas

2011-12-20T20:16:00.001-08:00

If I was an atheist, why would I care?

Noted In Passing

2011-12-19T13:36:00.000-08:00

2011-12-15T20:00:00.000-08:00

My fourth grade Sunday school teacher was a cellist. I fell in love with her immediately. If you attended Rose City Park Presbyterian in the early '60's, you know what I'm talking about.

The woman I lost my virginity to? A cellist.

There is something about the cello that is absolutely, no intersection of any members of any set, that applies to women who play the cello with any mordant characteristic of any type, figurative or literal.

This song is one of the most beautiful ever written. And now, you can listen to the product of that mind.

Merry Christmas.

Busy, But There Is This

2011-12-13T18:36:00.000-08:00

One of the world's most beautiful pieces of music.

By the way, Merry Christmas.

"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

This Is What A Radical Republican Thug Sounds Like

2011-12-08T12:57:00.000-08:00

h/t:RKOF

Licking Ones Own Balls

2011-12-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

The paradigm of a dog's ability to lick its own private parts has been suggested as an aim for each and everyone of us.

"If you could do it, you'd do it, too."

Short-term pleasures have been able to supplant any idea of long-term investment. Even the trading floors have been, until recently, trading in the 9950 to 10950. 12150 is the new number. Nobody thinks this is a new floor. Markets are still trading, hoping for short-term gains in frequency; have you looked the the volatility index? None of this is new stuff. Our economy continues to shed long-term investment opportunities through start-ups and new investment, and yet the current administration is attempting to call its policies winners, since more people are leaving the market for employment.

To date, the information you can access is still out there. You can still find out what the U-3 level of employment is. It is abysmal. Our country's macro-economic policies are propping up companies like General Electric, and failing companies like Pete's Country Store. The difference is not only in scale, but in intent.

Today's screed by our elected Commander-in-Chief was the most hateful screed ever elicited from a national figure, outside of general world war. And the enemy? Any man or woman who lived, not for the betterment of the community, but, for the selfish pleasure to benefit him- or herself.

America. The Land of the Free. Home of the Brave. And now, we are told, those who seek only to improve their own life is an enemy of the State.

Fifty years ago, this would have been recognized for what it is; the advocacy of Socialism in America. Fifty years ago, the worst possible thing that could have happened, occurred; Albert Shanker. (2:24)

Now, we have a President who tells us, "Lick Your Balls!"

I'm busy, but I think, shouldn't we have a President who understands that licking one's own balls isn't productive, even though it would be--theoretically--pleasurable?

Barrack "Balls" Obama.

Yeah.

I'll vote for him.
.

Sarah

2011-11-29T21:20:00.000-08:00

Yeah. I know. This is what we want.

Their Inherent Self-Contradiction

2011-11-17T11:08:00.000-08:00

"That seems like a good thing to have happening when it’s a child, of the age of three, or five, or twelve. We want kids to feel like they’re a part of what’s going on."

Here.

Bonamici Campaign Manager Punts

2011-11-15T00:01:00.000-08:00

It's pretty clear from this story, that the Bonamici campaign doesn't know all the players.

Did Big Unions pay for the hatchet job? The question was asked, but the campaign manager for Bonamici didn't answer anything. Ask her a question. You get a question.

Is this the transparency you were hoping for? I'm not impressed with either the non-answers, or the denials.

"The polling firm, Luce Research, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is making calls in the first Congressional District, in what are purported to be part of a voter preference poll.

"What starts out as a seemingly fair series of questions which is divided into three parts, each section asks questions about the acceptability, or un-acceptability, of positions held by the two congressional candidates, Susan Bonamici and Rob Cornilles. It isn’t until the third part of the survey occurs, that the real intent of the survey is revealed, the denigration of one of the candidates in that race, Rob Cornilles.

"What had been the suggestion of impartiality of polling questions is replaced with what is best known as “push-polling” questions, that tend to represent, or, in the case of Rob Cornilles’ candidacy, mis-represent, the views of the candidate, Mr. Cornilles, to show him in the worst possible light.

"The final section of the poll is spent mis-representing the Republican candidate, Rob Cornilles, as being anti-feminist, anti-employment, a pro-crony capitalist, and, as a Tea Party radical.

"None of which positions, from what we can ascertain, are true.

"Contact was made with Bonamici campaign Manager Carol Butler, but the questions of whether or not the campaign had hired Luce Research, or whether or not the campaign had conducted push research was answered with questions about whether or not such activities had occurred. She never clearly issued a denial.

"It is possible that outside firms may be responsible for these phone survey calls. But the Bonamici campaign refused to point out whether or not these calls were performed by such outside groups, or what outside committees.

“'Whoever is behind this, this is dirty, divisive politics at its worst and offensive to Oregon voters…' said Mary Anne Ostrom, Cornilles campaign manager."

The polling firm, Luce Research has not returned our calls.

When asked, Senator Betsy Johnson stated, “Are you surprised that they are using push-polling?”

The Pornography of Push Polling

2011-11-14T19:40:00.000-08:00

I just received a call from Luce Research.

It was balanced at first, and then, when the pollster asked if I wanted to discontinue the poll, I iterated that I would continue.

I'm glad I did. The following questions were invective raised against congressional candidate Rob Cornilles.

Susan Bonamici is engaging in unscrupulous campaign tactics. The charges raised by this phone call were wrong, deliberately wrong, and intentionally misleading. It is an act of poisoning the well.

The polling firm, Luce Associates, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is making calls in the first Congressional District, in what are purported to be part of a voter preference poll.

What starts out as a seemingly fair series of questions which is divided into three parts, each section asks questions about the acceptability, or un-acceptability, of positions held by the two congressional candidates, Susan Bonamici and Rob Cornilles. It isn’t until the third part of the survey occurs, that the real intent of the survey is revealed, the denigration of one of the candidates in that race, Rob Cornilles.

What had been the suggestion of impartiality of polling questions is replaced with what is best known as “push-polling” questions, that tend to represent, or, in the case of Rob Cornilles’ candidacy, mis-represent, the views of the candidate, Mr. Cornilles, to show him in the worst possible light.

The final section of the poll is spent representing the Republican candidate, Rob Cornilles, as being anti-feminist, anti-employment, and pro-crony capitalist. And, as a Tea Party radical.

None of which positions, from what we can ascertain, are true.

At this moment, the Cornilles campaign has no comment. The polling firm, Luce Research and, the Bonamici campaign has not returned our calls.

Why The Phenomenal Failure of Today's Test Doesn't Bother Me

2011-11-09T20:29:00.000-08:00

Inside game, outside game.

The world, in the 1930's, was entirely different from the world we face today. The intercontinental railroad had its first intercontinental railroad completed in 1869. Just twenty years earlier, Morse code was developed, shortening, again, intercontinental distances. (The first intercontinental that worked, was laid in 1866.)

So, in the 1930's, the first rules of wired and wireless communication were adopted. In 1934, the Communications Act was passed. Here is where I adopt a statist solution. Wireless transmission occurs because there are parts of the Spectrum that are good for different things. Some spectra are better suited for light emission. Some spectra are better suited for radio transmission. Without regulation of spectra usage, some of the benefits of electronic communication would be lost in a hash of noise. Imagine road builders without a regulator. Anyone can build a road, at any place, at any time, at any location. I own fifty acres, want to build homes and decide to put my roads in without any sense of current traffic patterns. I may rate my new roads as "safe" and/or "dangerous," but the fact is, some roads should not be built. It's why we pay governments. To regulate certain activities. With radio communications, which include television, communication links that you may not be aware of (since you don't own a receiver on those frequencies), fire and weather signals, and wireless internet, imagine a world where anyone could build a transmitter on any frequency chosen, without any central coordination.

The Spectrum also is used by such things as radar. If you fly, you would want to know that the part of the spectrum that is used by radar isn't being used simultaneously by an entrepreneurial broadcaster. Attempting to play his (or her) idea of socially conscious radio. Without some type of agreed upon regulation, spectra could be used that can kill others. As we move into adopting greater applications of digital media, the use of spectra increases, and there are definite advantages to adopting digital technologies. For one, digital technologies that make sense require less bandwidth. The usable Spectrum, being limited, is being challenged for use by alternative technologies, some of which haven't even been created.

What was attempted today, was pure, political hubris.

What was attempted was, a national activation of the Emergency Alert System.

It was, as predicted, a total cluster. Of the worst possible kind.

It was an attempt to both exceed the capabilities of the system, and an attempt to further the idea that centrally controlled information was better than that of its constituent parts. An example:

On March 11th, of this year, a Tsunami Warning was issued for the West Coast. The warning was issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What most of us know of as, the weather guys. Under the rules of NOAA, the warning was issued once.

That was sufficient. At that point, radio stations and television stations across the country were informed of an impending tsunami event. Television and radio stations turned their eyes and ears on the forthcoming, possible disaster, and began sharing with their viewers and listeners information on the dangers of the impending tsunami. In my home town, the tsunami was predicted to occur between 0725 and 0730 hours. Until 0720 hours, we retained control of our studios, which were locate on the possible tsunami zone. We transmitted information about the possible size and intensity of the potential event, up to the edge of personal threat. (During past tsunami events, given the source and intensity of the event, we've maintained studio presence up to and including the estimated time of event.)

Two thoughts occur; one, privately owned broadcasters gave the most, current, usable information in the market, for the longest period of time possible, free; second, we used current, contemporaneous information in the pursuit of providing our listeners, or viewers, the greatest possible amount of information available, again, at no cost. This is why the effort to provide a national Emergency Event Activation is a horse with no legs. Market forces will determine whether or not the radio or television station you're listening or watching is worth listening or watching.

Because, responsible operators will make sure that the mission of either a television station or radio station is, to serve the community interest. And somehow, kids, the imminent destruction of ones local community seems to be of paramount importance.

I've been through a couple of wars. The last two, which involved the Middle East, were well carried by all of my broadcast stations. For those of you who forget, following the decision to correct the Iraq invasion into Kuwait, my stations went to a wartime footing, with twenty-four hour coverage of events in the Middle East. Were we required to do so? No.

Then, after 9/11, we had the invasion of Afghanistan. Again, twenty-four hour coverage. Required? No.

Then the invasion of Iraq.

Can you guess what happened? Of course you can. People want information, and under the Rules promulgated in the 1930's, broadcasters are required to provide information in the "community interest." But if you had a television station, or radio station, would you ignore the perils facing your community? People love information, and the internets aside, there are only two mediums suited to provide you with local information, twenty-four hours a day; television and radio. Television and radio have the resources, the connectivity and the reliability to provide you with the information you need, now. The attempt to impose a centrally produced "message" was idiotic at its inception. Broadcasters, whether television or radio, know what their responsibilities are. In the past week I've spent more than twenty hours of my personal time in the last week, preparing for this national event. Should it have worked? Prolly not. It would have been faster to have called press conference. Or, sent an e-mail to some folks. Who would have called other folks.

The desire to demand compliance from the broadcast community is comic. Since using the community is easier than that attempted today. If you have a message, you announce the message. As the wire conveys the message, the message is promulgated. Independent broadcasters do the independent thing; determine whether or not the message is important to the local area, or not. If important, live people with real cameras and microphones get on air and talk. If not? It may make an item on the evening or morning news. There are filters. Important? On air. Unimportant? Mebbe mentioned.

That, my friends, is the marketplace of ideas. What is important is forwarded. Can you guess what is not forwarded? (The unimportant. You should have said it. I wouldn't have.)

Broadcasters, whether television or radio, know that they have a responsibility. That it is part of the original Communications Act isn't important. Broadcasters have a contract, unspoken, with their viewers, listeners. We will provide you with information that you need, when the information becomes available.

Inside the game, we all have upgraded our equipment in the last ten months (recently extended into next year) in order to provide viewers/listeners with emergency information. Inside the game, there aren't any audio engineers available to the United States national government, or the Federal Communication Commission who understand audio propagation. This was a cluster**** of the first order. It would have been cheaper, quicker and easier to have alerted "the media" of an important announcement. Your broadcasters would have been involved, given personal and local treatment of the announcement, and more importantly, done it without the intrusion of selected believes of what would be important to my viewers/listeners. Not everything important at the "national" level is important locally. Remember, the Communications Act of 1934 had a dual purpose: an understanding that there was limited spectrum for radio use; and that the use of that spectrum, as limited by the limits of the available spectra, should be the service of the communities provided service by the use of that spectra.

Few broadcasters argue the point.

But what we've seen today.

And, then comes the feedback.

Los Angeles
What we received was very noisy, hardly intelligible and cut in and out,
basically useless!  Then at the end, the long tail of dead air....

Colorado
Sage units (all four) decided not to send the audio out. The test was
triggered just no audio.  No Audio Limit. ABORT was on the message display.

Alabama
We were listening to the PEP  and never heard it there.

Buffalo
Aired the alert tones, but NO audio! Was that way from the LP-1 station.

Rochester
Both stations received the test, along with the audio, it went flawless
there.  No report on audio quality.

South LA
On air from the transmitter plant was a lot more than noise and low audio
issues. The recording itself cut out a couple times played half way though
then restarted, playing half way through again till it cut out and went to
dead air. All during the message we received control tones over the message,
seems their audio and control was stuck in a loop or something.

Indiana
very noisy, hardly intelligible and cut in and out.

Illinois
Got the whole EAS message, with tones, IN SPANISH!!!!

St. Louis
repeating audio and tones which made it quite a mess.

The rules require broadcasters to report today, the impact of the national test. But for hours, the FCC website was broken. And these are the guys who are attempting to take over control of the internet.

Some things don't need to be controlled. Spectrum usage? Sure. Content? Nope. Although, the FCC is creating rules to control content. What is the role of government? Is it to control content? or, to manage those things that governments are uniquely qualified to control? What should a television station, or radio station, carry over it's signal? Should that content be controlled by the federal government, or its agency, the FCC? Increasingly, the FCC is working to control content. I would suggest, it is signally unable to do so. It's mission, to regulate the use of spectra.

Where, and when, was it authorize by Congress to control content?

2011-11-03T20:15:00.000-07:00

Dear TMI,

Thank you for your contribution of $200.00 to Friends of Herman Cain, Mr. Cain appreciates your support!

We will need more loyal supporters like yourself to help elect a common sense problem solver to the White House- Please let your friends know about our campaign, the "9-9-9 Plan," and how important it is to keep our momentum going.

Remember, time is short! The critical Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 3, 2012
Contributions to Friends of Herman Cain are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Friends of Herman Cain is required to report the name, address, occupation, and employer of each individual who contributes.

Contributions to Friends of Herman Cain are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Friends of Herman Cain is required to report the name, address, occupation, and employer of each individual who contributes.

Herman Cain and Larry Kudlow

2011-11-03T19:36:00.000-07:00

At the moment I made my contribution tonight, Herman Cain's Iowa Fund was at $243-thousand dollars.

Lend yourself to Mr. Cain. And report what level you find.

I'm not looking for Teh Won. I'm looking for a guy, who came from the American Stew, who took advantage of his education, who proved himself, and fixed a company. These are special tasks.

Some of you have heard of Joseph Campbell. The tasks of the Hero are pretty well defined.

"So let us review these basic things that we get from the Hero figure as presented by Joseph Campbell. First, the relevance of the Hero now; not the Hero myth, but myth itself is the Hero. In its liberating capacity, "the work of the Hero," says Campbell, "is to slay the tenacious aspect of the Father/Dragon/Ogre/King, and release the vital energies that will feed the Universe." To slay the Ogre, the reactionary aspect of the senex who promotes fear, sterility, poverty of children, the paranoid, suspicious, deceitful, illegitimate King and the nobles of the Court living in their gated communities (already having locked themselves up or committed themselves to the separated asylum of insanity, and with megalomaniac intentions) use the language of the legitimate Hero to free the world from Evil when they are themselves carriers of lies, cruelty and death."

I'm free here, to admit, that I never saw the election of Barrack Obama as playing any type of role within the Hero Myth. I'm a lot more two-dimensional. Where did Barrack Obama come from? Compare and contrast, where Herman Cain came from. Sure, Barrack Obama's mom was a pet of the upper-class, jetting around for college, meeting a swarthy Othello, creating a mythic son. All true, except for the mythic hero's feet of clay. "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces." (Daniel 2:34.)

Name me a recent, conservative, nationally known politician who was attacked by the Press. Name me a recent, Leftist, nationally known politician who was attacked by the Press.

Shit. Leftists don't get attacked by the Press. Did you hear the recent crazy by former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Boeing? Then, did you hear about the new plant GE is building? No? Crazy former Speaker of the House Pelosi offers, that Boeing should not be able to build a plant in a Right to Work state. At the same time Obama crony Jeff Immelt is building a plant in Auburn, Alabama. Did you ever ask the question, why is okay for GE to build in a right-to-work state, and wrong for Boeing?

I don't get it. I was accused of some "sexual" thing back in the '90's. A chump who worked for me wasn't happy that I gave increased hours on-air to a recent hire. A young woman of pipes. I can't remember any of their names. But the young lady, who was just 19 years old, had the stuff. God gave her chords. She could tell you the time, and you were glad you were there to hear it was just after eleven o'clock. Chump was a space filler. No talent, no desire to improve. Place-sitter. (This was in 1990, sometime after April, when I'd been hired to take over the operations of a company that had reverted ownership. The previous ownership had hired anyone breathing. My job was to re-create a successful broadcast company.)

When I let Chump go, Lia (?) took over his hours on board. His hours were cut. Effectively, let go. And that's when I found that he had filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labour and Industries, alleging that I had cut his hours, due to sexual favours I received from the new hire. Imagine opening that letter.

The first call; counsel. But, I don't pay attorneys to go to school. Second call? BOLI. And the question I asked was, "Is it true, if ever asked, 'have you ever been accused of sexual mis-conduct?' I must now answer, yes?"

The answer is yes. I've been accused of sexual misconduct at the workplace. What happens if there is ever a repeat? Well, hell, I'm a serial offender! I'm sure there's another Level of Hell for serial sex offenders. Any jury would convict. We're trained that way. First time, shame on me. Second time, shame on you.

Charges only need be repeated to gain a level of general acceptance. Sarah Palin is a bimbo, because she is beautiful, articulate, has a Northern accent, went to U of I, was successful as a politician, a Governor of a state, and smart enough to get out, when the getting was good. Herman Cain is a Black Man, possibly a Mandingo, hitting on employees, unwilling to present himself--as does Romney--a polished trimmer, simple, honest and direct.

This is why I gave the $200.00.

It isn't a lot of money. It is an encouragement.

How do you lynch a Black Man? Today, it is with innuendo and rumour. None of the facts about our current President are ever reported. Black Panthers? Not reported. Chicago radicals? Not reported. His pastor? Not reported. His complete disregard for working men and women who aren't government employees or union members? Not reported. His disdain for hard work? Are you kidding me? But, Herman Cain, who had an employee(s) who went south? Well hell, boy! We don't even need a new rope!

I heard Kudlow tonight repeat erroneous information on his show. I wasn't really surprised. Following this story requires time. And busy folks, like Kudlow, deal with the information in front of them. I don't blame Kudlow for following the meme. And I'm sure, his producers don't have the same conviction of chasing the truth, as does Kudlow. But I would suggest, maybe it's time for Kudlow to look for more hard-working producers.

Anytime a producer deliberately keeps talent in the dark, that's a firing offense.

Kudlow was underserved tonight. But, for a company owned by Jeffrey Immelt, entirely understandable.

2011-11-02T20:38:00.000-07:00

I happen to believe that we are meant to work together.

I happen to believe, that if we were to find ourselves without government, due to some unseen cataclysmic event, that most of us would behave exactly as we had behaved, before this cataclysmic event. We wouldn't steal, we wouldn't lie. We would look our for each other. We would talk about how to handle the aftermath of such a cataclysmic event. We would bind up the wounds of the injured, and attempt to heal the sick.

The divisions that currently divide us would disappear. Our racism, class awareness, our bias against the stupid, our envy of the smart, looking stylish, nerdiness, inability, ability, would all be subsumed by the moment. Every one of us offers a resource that we cannot dismiss out of hand. As a race of beings our urge is to survive, to create, to find ways to be beneficial to our contemporaries.

A great deal of the negativity of political opinion seems to rely upon some of the seminal works of progressivism; works like The Prince, and The Leviathan, or An Essay on the Principle of Population. That is, to simply state the proposition, progressives have declared a space on the human experience that has never been proved to be true, and yet the proponents of these beliefs have always ended up being among the greatest mass, serial murderers of generations. But, when left, simply, alone, people get along just fine.

Edmund Burke wrote some stuff. At the time, what he wrote was seen as threatening to the status quo. What he said was, that given our own head, we would treat each other well, and the problem was, how to keep government from meddling in the affairs of men? You and I experience this every day. Walking along a sidewalk, most of us give way to little old men and little old women. When we come to a door, look behind us and see another coming, we're willing to hold the door for a stranger. If you walk your dog, you know to keep a baggy in your pocket, since relying upon your neighbor to clean up your dog's poop is really silly, lazy, or rude, isn't it? And these little things are the things upon which people rely upon each other to do the simple, right thing.

The empirical proof exists. It's provable every day. In Connecticut, more than a million homes lack electricity. Is there a crime-wave rolling through CT? No. Cataclysms don't change human nature. Instead, it re-enforces human nature. Neighbors are pulling out chainsaws, cutting trees, clearing electrical lines. The costs of rebuilding the electrical system of Connecticut isn't the sole expense of the power company. A lot of the costs are being absorbed by normal, average guys. Hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars are being expended, in time and labour. A lot of that time and labour is voluntary, and won't be counted in the cost. No insurance company will get a bill. No governmental agency will be called upon for re-embursement. The costs are internal costs. The external costs will be played up, the internal costs will be ignored. The point is, we do what we feel we must do to help our friends and neighbors, not because we must, but because we choose.

From what I see, most of what government spends money on is stuff we don't need.

What do we need?

I don't hear any discussion of what we need. Not health care, not our sexual tastes, not respect for stupid ideas. We have health care. We have sexual tastes. We have stupid ideas.

What are the things that we, ourselves, can't provide for ourselves? These are the things that governments should be worried about. Thankfully, the progressives have entered the conversation and now we're engaged in conversations about things we don't need, and the relative costs of those things, and how we can't stop funding those things because...it would be unfair to those who benefit from those things. Things we can provide for ourselves.

And we're currently in a national debate over which unnecessary things we can't give up. If you disagree with me about the things you lack, and therefore look to me to make up the slack, and if I look at you and the things you lack, and hold you accountable for your own inability to provide for yourself, you hate me for not giving you the things you want to have. Sometimes I wonder how, or whether, some people learn how to wipe themselves.

And, I guess, some people never learn how to do this.

The crustiness would be a clue for most.

Taking care of yourself isn't that hard. If you wish to learn, ask. You would be amazed at how easy it is to learn how to take care of yourself. Give me a call. I'll figure out a way to help you, give you some basics, give you a chance. It isn't a sure thing that you'll learn how to take care of yourself. You'll need to give up some ideas, perhaps, and adopt some ideas, perhaps. Learning how to take care of yourself isn't really all that hard. Trust someone to teach you, adopt the lessons, and then, exceed the expectations of the teacher. You'll find you're successful.

Take up victim-hood? Whatta path.

The funny thing is? You've got to be taught to be a victim. You have to be taught to depend upon others. You have to be taught to fear responsibility. And finally,
you have to be taught to hate.

By the way, Patinkin is the shit, isn't he?

Shenanigans

2011-11-01T20:11:00.000-07:00

Democrats operate under different rules from the rest of us.

President Clinton, serial rapist, gets a pass for doing Monica because he's so dreamy.

Okay. I get the neo-feminist logic. As long as you promise you will love them forever, you get their vote.

Herm, talks to a woman, doesn't even step on her toes, and it's a national nightmare, again. Yet, when I talk about the law-breaking of Oregon's congressional candidates, it doesn't even earn a mention in the local newspaper.

Rob Cornilles has fully disclosed all of his contributions. See it here. His democrat opponents? Not a stitch.

Suzanne Bonamici.

"The query you have chosen matched 0 individual contributions."

She's raised more than $430-thousand dollars, but can't find her asshole with both hands? Yeah, this is a chick I want to vote for. The query you have chosen matched 0 individual contributions.

Any mention in any newspaper? Are you serial?

We've Global Warming and Green Technology to write about.

Serially, Oregon sucks.

Whipping the Senate

2011-11-01T19:48:00.000-07:00

What is the most egregious error of our President?

His failure to whip the Senate.

As the Chief Executive, no company would ever allow for the lack of responsibility our current Chief Executive has demonstrated. Imagine any company, that failed to provide a budget for TWO FREAKING YEARS!!!

Budgets have been passed in the House. The Senate continues to refuse bringing these budgets up for a vote.

Our Chief Executive is a joke. Fortunately, for him, he has no idea how poorly he is performing. He is the World's Most Uninformed Executive.

Time for another Beer Summit.

Bi-Partisanship Is Possible

2011-11-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

And right and wrong.

Federal intrusion into state taxing authority is wrong. It isn't Constitutional. And, I can't come up with a single case where the Federal government has the authority, under the 16th Amendment, to roll back taxes imposed by a state. The Federal government, simply, doesn't have the authority to do what it is attempting to do. (Didn't bills have to come to the floor with a reference to the constitutionality of the measure?)

But, the sentiment is good. The sentiment is, if we tax a thing, the accessibility of the thing decreases.

Oregon is the worst state in the union in terms of understanding this reasonable statement. Okay, mebbe California is worse. The thing is, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act, is another example of federal over-reach. I applaud the Congress for having the ability to understand that taxes on communication are a form of restraint of speech. So...hmm. Maybe it is Constitutional. Maybe, this may be a pure power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Maybe, just maybe, congressional actions to protect an interstate commodity from local taxation is actually a power granted by the Constitution!

Imagine, legal acts of Congress, with bi-partisan support. End of days?

Determining Value...Again

2011-11-01T15:55:00.000-07:00

Personal preferences are important. It is your, or my, personal preference to either work, or not work, to manufacture or not, to farm or not, to fish or not.

These preferences are often put into terms like wages, since wages are normally related to in terms of the exchange of currency for labour. And dollars are really good yard-sticks. Some preferences defy logic. Some are logically consistent. What is important is to remember that whatever a person's preferences are, they are his. You cannot mandate acceptance of preferences that you feel another should have. A man can not repudiate that which he knows is true.

Watch Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

h/t Mungowitz and Mungowitz.

No, Max.

2011-10-31T21:44:00.001-07:00

And that's why a real discussion about the minimum wage laws needs grounding in definitions.

These aren't managers. These are better than the dead-enders who end up getting wages worth more than they.

"If you have attributes that employers value, whether you're a surgeon or basketball player, the rules of micro-economic, or macro-economic analysis probably don't affect you. If you are Kobe Bryant, you're lucky. There is only one of you."

My point here is, the demand for low-skill labour is restricted by minimum wage jobs. Because of the way economics is taught--and, today, barely taught--we look at the supply and demand curves for labour, and decide that miniscule rents for labour barely rise above the level of insult Where surgeons and Kobe are making millions, yet rarely, if ever, do we dis-aggregate the market for labour to take into account that there are people with few skills, people with many skills, and people with rare skills. Which are worth more?

People with few skills are, in my opinion, worth less than either people with more skills, or people with rare skills. Garth Brooks is a better entertainer than I. That is a rare skill. I believe that I may be a better businessman than Mr. Brooks. I think I may have more skills. But his rare skill is worth more to the market than my mundane skills.

I believe that the average OWS protester may have fewer skills than I. Maybe, only a single skill, that isn't in demand. Is it right that I earn more than this OWS occupier and less than Garth Brooks?

I have no problem with that.

Remember, the argument about minimum wages isn't about the range of abilities and skills provided by the labour market. The question posited is one of, given the lowest wages offered in the market, do efforts to provide for minimum levels of income meet the criterion set out by policy makers? That is, to provide workers with a minimum level of income that allows the worker to have sufficient income to provide for himself a "living wage." A wage that provides enough sufficiency, that a housing payment, a car payment, a clothing payment, medical care and child care, are all within his reach.

I suggest that efforts to mandate a “living wage” deposits a larger, increasing number of people into a caste that is unemployable, given the constraints of the “minimum wage” model, itself.

These are all, true, concerns of those living within poverty.

If you are truly living in poverty, you know that your chances of catching a break are very limited. You don’t have the personal hygiene. You are missing teeth. You don’t have the wardrobe. Your diet is poor, your complexion is sallow, and your affect is weak. You may only be able to barely read and write. You lack basic math skills. You have problems learning. You have emotional problems that limit your ability to listen to criticism without getting angry. People laugh at you. You aren’t attractive.

So, the catch is: these efforts to provide for a certain level of “human dignity” does little to lift the truly poor in our communities, and does more for the second to the bottom tiers, and third to the bottom tiers of our lower-income citizens. Minimum wages tend to lock-out, perpetually, the lowest of income earners.

"The thing that's lost in most discussions of the Labour Curve is the meaning of the curve, from point-to-point. The aggregate Supply Curve describes the number of persons willing to work at a buck, as well as those willing to work for two-bucks, then three-bucks, etc. The amount of aggregate wages paid is the sum of those wages."

In micro-economics, the curve describes something most of us tend to ignore. At a certain point in wages, no one is interested in providing himself as an employee. Labour is not induced to provision. The demand for labour can price itself so low, that there are no takers.

At the earliest point of entry to the market for labour, the first entrant may offer his labour for a modest rate. Let's take a buck an hour. It is at that point that the micro-economist begins looking at the entry into the market, those who are willing to provide labour. The Supply Curve for Labour isn't just a rhetorical, or an hypothetical. There are really people out there, willing to work for a buck, two bucks. This is an empirical.

Even though the number of people willing to enter the Labour Market at low rates is small, the curve (which does, typically in the texts, seems to be a straight line) views the additional increases in the number of willing workers as increasing as the wages increase. (The reason why the line is straight is that we're typically looking at static analysis. Once we employ dynamic analysis, the curves to actually curve. And as wage rates increase, the number of workers available for employ increase--at some point, very quickly.)

For an economist, the area of interest, when it comes to wages, is the area “under the curve.” Two things are happening. First, we find the first person who is willing to accept the lowest paid position. This is our Alpha. His wage rate, multiplied by the number of people willing to accept this wage rate determines the total value of income, at that level of wage.

Then, we go to Beta, the next level of income that induces another—or more—workers to enter the workforce. This expands the area under the curve, and the value of A(n) + B(n) equals the value of wages under the curve. As we move upward, this process is continually repeated. It is the aggregate of Workers(n) at the point of equilibrium that determines the total income for employees at or below the equilibrium level. It is my assertion, that the equilibrium level of employment, without a minimum wage, is both larger than that required by a minimum wage, but would make an employer more likely to hire someone with certain deficiencies, having been able to avoid paying second tier employees higher wages than they deserve. The amount of income produced by second tier workers (who don’t deserve higher wages) is smaller than the amount of benefit that would accrue to the lowest level of wage earners, and would increase the overall net income of whatever political boundaries one would impose; whether city, county, state or nation.

These are all, true, concerns of those living within poverty. But the catch is, these efforts do little to lift the truly poor in our communities, and do more for the second to the bottom tiers, and third to the bottom tiers of our lower-income citizens. Minimum wages tend to lock-out, perpetually, the lowest of income earners.

"The thing that's lost in most discussions of the Labour Curve, is the meaning of the curve, from point-to-point. The aggregate Supply Curve describes the number of persons willing to work at a buck, as well as those willing to work for two-bucks, then three-bucks, etc. The amount of aggregate wages paid is the sum of those wages."

In micro-economics, the curve describes something most of us tend to ignore. At a certain point in wages, no one is interested in providing himself as an employee. Labour is not induced to provision. The demand for labour can price itself so low, that there are no takers.

"What determines the shape of the Supply Curve for Labour? Is it simply the level of wages? Or, are there other determinants that affect the shape of the curve? Do you need to work for someone else? Do you have a choice?"

At the earliest point of entry to the market for labour, the first entrant may offer his labour for a modest rate. Let's take, a buck an hour. It is at that point that the micro-economist begins looking at the entry into the market, those who are willing to provide labour. The Supply Curve for Labour isn't just a rhetorical, or an hypothetical. There are really people out there, willing to work for a buck, two bucks. This is empirical.

Even though the number of people willing to enter the Labour Market at low rates is small, the curve (which does, typically in the texts, seem to be a straight line) views the additional increases in the number of willing workers as increasing as the wage increase. (The reason why the line is straight, is that we're typically looking at static analysis. Once we employ dynamic analysis, the curves to actually curve. And as wage rates increase, the number of workers available for employ increase--at some point, very quickly.)

What determines the shape of the curve? It depends upon choice. It is true that the higher the wage, the greater the willingness to enter the labour pool. My personal rule has always been, “if you’re willing to pay me more, and require me to do less, then, I’ll work for you” isn’t made up. That’s my rule. The pool of training and experience I carry—Human Capital—is larger than a lot of people. Clearly not as rare as Kobe. His Human Capital is something that only God can provide. I will never be as good a golfer as Tiger. (Ahem.)

But, in the market of all available skills, and all available experiences, devotion to work, and traits of character, I am not in the lowest percentiles.
May I suggest that I am, at least, average?

The discussion over the minimum-wage laws tend to be totally misguided, since they tend to impose values over the preferences of those at the lowest level of economic ability that they are, and will continue to be, mismatched to the abilities, of those on the lowest economic tiers.

The Supply of Labour Curve is an aggregation of values, determined by the individual, of the willingness of individuals to choose to offer their labour for a wage. At each level of increase, the Marginal Increase in Wage, the number of persons entering the market at that wage is added to the number of persons who were willing to enter the market at lower wages, which allows you to determine the total wages of workers. As the increment of Wage increases, so to do the number of persons willing to work at this, new, higher wage. Added together, this sum of increased marginal wages (multiplied by the number of workers at each point) creates a total income level for those who are willing to work at, or below, the Market Equilibrium wage level. What we see is, that without the minimum wage, total wages of those at the equilibrium level will be greater than the total of wages with an imposed Minimum Wage. Total income will increase. More people will be better off.

National Income will rise. Fewer people will live in poverty.

And more importantly, those with few job skills will be given the opportunity to gain Human Capital. Without a Federal Jobs Program, or Guaranteed Student Loans.

Who is better off without the Minimum Wage? We all are. But the minimum wage isn’t about making life better for anyone.

Is it?

Determining Value

2011-10-30T22:11:00.000-07:00

I have a soft spot in my heart for people who serve themselves. There is a woman in my employ, is attending courses at the local community college. Or, rather, remote learning at the local community college. It seems that lectures are over-rated, and so students take their lessons over the innertubes. Of course, this perversion of the Socratic Method tends to lead to testing for results, rather than teaching. In an effort to maximize the revenue of schools, look for a big increase in this form of "teaching" as schools begin to realize that they don't really need classrooms, just a series of recorded lectures and intertube delivered tests. You will be taught how to repeat the necessary responses at the appropriate time.

But parroting the words, rather than understanding the words, seems a waste of time.

For example, take a rather innocuous chart, referred to as Supply and Demand chart.

Found here.

As a snapshot, graphs like these are useful tools to help us understand things, like value of employment we should be able to attain for a market, all other things being equal. If we have employment at the intersection between the Demand for Labor, and the Supply of Labor, we have reached the moment when there is equilibrium in the market for Labor. Unfortunately, the statement that the equilibrium point is at the locus of w* for Wages and L* for labor doesn't mean anything. Nothing useful, or usable.

This doesn't stop people from talking about the Supply and Demand for labor. Or, using charts like this to defend or to attack someone's viewpoint on what normal or optimal wages should be. Or, the correct level of wages. Or, the morality of wages.

The graph suggests a couple of things, but really explains nothing. Why?

The function f(x) = Wages is too simple. If only wages were higher, more people would be willing to work. Therefore, the solution to low employment is...arrgh! The approach of the above graph presents only one possible determinant, Wages. But let's take a moment, and look at the values, or choices, that each point along the above curves represent.

Let's start with the Supply of Labor. Let's slide down to the left on the red line above.

What does that point on the curve tell us? The impulse is to say, "Well, at that wage rate, not many people would be employed." Again, the above supply curve equates the quantity of labor provided as simply the determinant of wages. There is a simple, singular, independent variable that determines employment. Wages. We're done here. Economic analysis is over.

Worse, the teaching is over.

The industrialization of education requires this type of thinking. Colleges put the facts before the students. Students are taught to testing, gaining the capacity to parrot the appropriate responses to test questions. Those with the greatest ability to respond appropriately are the educated. Taking the learning out of education reduces the risks that some students may fail. Burrowing into the subject requires us to learn more about the determinants of the labor supply. And it's best that we move along as quickly as possible, since a better understanding of what the supply curve for labor teaches and informs us can be disregarded. And, no longer regarded, discarded.

What determines the shape of the Supply Curve for Labour? Is it simply the level of wages? Or, are there other determinants that affect the shape of the curve? Do you need to work for someone else? Do you have a choice?

That is, work or starve. Either find suitable employment or fail to subsist. So, there is no choice. You must work for a wage, or die. But that isn't true, is it? There are alternatives to hiring out your labor to another. Gardening, fishing and hunting. Methods of avoiding hiring yourself out. Or better,thievery. Simply taking from others in order to provide for yourself. Do I need to work if I can steal? So, among the determinants of the supply of labour, should we not also suggest an ability to garden, hunt, fish and steal? What about the stay-at-home mom? At what wage rate might she consider giving up her time with her children, to pursue a wage? Clearly, wage rates alone are not the single determinant of persons willing to work for wages. If I am a thief, and feel badly about stealing for a living, and I'm willing to forgo thieving and instead agree to work for two dollars an hour, am I better off?

See, that's the whole thing about the Supply of Labor curve. From the lowest wages, on the lower left-hand side, to the highest wages, on the upper right-hand side, each individual is faced with making choices about his preferences; to garden, to hunt, or to steal. Is it worth two bucks an hour to give up stealing? Four bucks? And what do I gain by taking up wages and giving up theft?

I can subsist and I can take pride in my individual choice to be something more than a thief. By no longer relying upon harming others, I can develop self-esteem. I am a better man when I'm not stealing. Obviously, people like me better. I have more friends. I'm able to be trusted. Maybe, even valued. And as I work, I learn about my work, increasing the value of my Human Capital. And the guy down the street comes up one day and offers to double my wages, if I go to work for him.

The thing that's lost in most discussions of the Labour Curve, is the meaning of the curve, from point-to-point. The aggregate Supply Curve describes the number of persons willing to work at a buck, as well as those willing to work for two-bucks, then three-bucks, etc. The amount of aggregate wages paid is the sum of those wages. So, the total of wages paid is equal to the area under the curve, from the lowest wage, to the highest wage paid. Not everyone is being paid at the equilibrium or clearing wage rate. As employers move marginally offer higher wages, where the value of wage rates as a determinant of whether or not to supply labor exceeds all the combined values of the other determinants of whether or not to accept employment, at those values, the last incremental increase in employment will occur.

Of course, none of us really know where that moment is. Or when it occurs. In fact, markets have a funny habit of moving up and down, both in terms of supply and of demand, attempting to maximize the returns offered to both buyers and sellers of labour. And we have yet to offer another glaring hole in this static analysis of labour markets; the wages of the specialist.

If you go to the website where I grabbed the graph, (SWCollege) you'll find that there are a set of assumptions given, in order to, I suppose, avoid the terrible hash of determinants that are expressed as preferences by persons choosing to either enter or leave the labour market. They are:

" the labor market is perfectly competitive,
" the minimum wage covers all workers, and
"worker productivity is unaffected by the wage rate."

Wow.

It's no wonder discussions about the effects of the minimum wage get so confused.

We began with this chart:

Found here.

This chart was constructed with the above "assumptions." Here's my cut and paste chart that show what will actually happen:

The area below and to the left of L(new) will be those workers who will no longer be able to compete for employment. Additionally,

those above the red line, and to the left of L(s), the area cross-hatched, are those that are being overpaid. The funny thing is, the area described to those who are being overpaid is smaller than the area of those who would be willing to accept lower wages.

All of the models presume that the lowest paid employees will be beneficiaries of minimum wage standards, imposed by the state. Why would anyone, with a minimum wage imposed upon them, hire the least talented workers for jobs that would be filled with the best talented available for the same price? The number of employees being hired is the same for the first diagram, as for the last. The wages, or nominal income of workers, is the same. Those who would only choose to offer their labour at the highest rate (Wmin) are being hired. Those between L(new) and L* are being hired. The only change is that of those below the preference curve for seeking work, from Lnew to Ls are being overpaid. All of those workers to the left of Lnew are unable to find work.

Let's briefly examine the assumptions of the Minimum Wage Model.

"The labor market is perfectly competitive."

What that means, is that buyers have the ability to choose which employee they hire, without impediment. If this is true, then what separates those willing to work for a dollar or two an hour, from those who desire at least minimum wage? We looked at a few of those determinants. A willingness to give up hunting and fishing and thievery. A willingness to let a child float into daycare, in order to pick up a few bucks, or, get a life. Whatever it is, an employer is going to be looking at the best candidates for the lowest possible bucks. No high school diploma? Ehhhh. No appreciable skills? Ehhhh. No math skills? Ehhhh. Earrings and tattoos? Ehhhh. Nice, normal people, with a modicum of skills, behaviours and abilities will be preferable to those without said qualities. That doesn't mean that those who fail to meet this bar don't deserve to find employment. It just means that the State has imposed barriers on employers that benefit those with greater Human Capital, than those without the benefits of Human Capital. Education, training, manners, sensibility.

"The minimum wage covers all workers."

That is, no one is free to decide for themselves what the minimums are. Choice, as in the determinants of how the preference curve for those willing to find employment, will be ignored. Whether or not you are willing to work for a lower wage is unimportant. The determinants of whether or not you "should" provide yourself for employment at wages lower than the minimum wage have been taken from you. You are no longer free to choose for yourself whether or not you should take a low-paying job. This has been done so that you have dignity, and protection from a job that offers less than a living-wage. The fact that you'll never get a job under this system is unimportant. The System will make sure that, under the banner of Social Justice, you receive just as much money as the rest of us.

And finally, "Worker productivity is unaffected by the wage rate."

Not only do they deprive both sellers and buyers of labour from the values of choice, they establish that the parameters of choice are unimportant. "Worker productivity is unaffected by the wage rate?" What planet do you live on? Worker productivity has never been affected by wage rate. Wage rate has always been determined by worker productivity.

Worker wages = f(x) = Worker Productivity.

How else to state this? A worker's wages don't depend on the productivity of the individual worker? Alice Through the Looking Glass? Of course worker productivity is unaffected by wage rate. Everyone to the left of the red Supply line in the above graph is getting paid more than they would demand. Every one at the last, marginal moment, is getting paid exactly what they would need to be paid. (If anyone is getting screwed, it's the last employee hired!)

It's funny, but there was a study conducted of the effects on unemployment and the minimum wage, here in Oregon, a few years ago. It found that minimum wages didn't affect unemployment. I can totally see how that can happen, given the current state of accepted science. All I'm asking you to ask yourself is, given that only a limited number of people will be hired, due to a minimum wage law, do you think that it is fair to create a permanent class of unemployable, under the banner of legislating the determinants that would allow the individual to go to work at a lower rate? Is the Legislature actually creating a prophylactic against self-denigration, in the name of protecting the worker's dignity? And how can a Legislature make choices for the individual better than the individual? If our job was to increase the total income of the citizens of the state, wouldn't that be easier to do without the minimum wage? The area under the Supply curve of permanently unemployed is certainly larger than the area of the over-paid.

And all this talk about the minimum wage really has nothing to do with employment. There are always key people whose wages have, and will exceed the minimums authorized by the state. So, looking at the graphs on the effects of legislation on employment really have nothing to do with who is, or isn't employed. If you have attributes that employers value, whether you're a surgeon or basketball player, the rules of micro-economic, or macro-economic analysis probably don't affect you. If you are Kobe Bryant, you're lucky. There is only one of you. But if you're 18 or 19 years old, with nothing more to show than a high school or college diploma, or worse, chances are you are entering the job market without the skills or attitude that entitle you to anything but a, to your opinion, drastically low wage. You may be able to subsist off your parents and friends for a while, but at a certain point your parents will either kick you out, or die. You do not have to accept the fact that you have no usable skills, and that given the alternative, even with minimum wage guarantees, you will probably never find suitable employment. I'm just not sure you understand what the alternatives are. Unless, and until, you recognize that your choices are being conditioned by a set of determinants that are currently holding you harmless as a result of government guarantees, will you be willing to come to your senses, and demand real change.

If you are young and unemployed, your choice to remain unemployed may be the result of mandates from the State. It may seem to be your choice, because you "won't" take any job that is beneath your personal dignity. Well, Precious, chances are you don't know what subsistence is, yet. You will. But it may be after the money runs out; either Federal, State or Daddy's.

Let's increase the bottom-line income of our state's residents. Isn't it time we quit worrying about mandating the conditions for personal dignity, and allow all our citizens to determine for themselves, what work they're willing to do, and what price?

Love

2011-10-29T21:48:00.000-07:00

I'm glad I'm a musician.

I'm glad I learned music. The language of music. The theory of music. I'm glad that I can go to a keyboard and play the notes written by Debussy, J.S. Bach and Rhapsody in Blue.

Tonight's Music Appreciation Moment, is brought to you by Toots Thielemans.

I dig the kiss.

Compare the Belgian's love for Stevie with this:

I'm supposed to forgive this, since this racism appeared on a Leftist network (MSNBC.) I guess if the only news you get is from big city newspapers and network news, you haven't heard of the racism of the Left. Occupy Wall Street, originating in British Columbia, has been filled with lurid slurs against Jews. The violence, the theft, the rapes, none of this has been reported.

Remember when the big news about the Tea Party was someone spat upon a black Congressman? (No? Well, it was a big deal. Teapartiers are racists, yannow?)

Why does the Obama Administration continue to harp on race, racism and the opposition he faces in the national dialogue as racist? What do you call it when arguments aren't made, but coloured? If I agree with you at the correct time, I'm not a racist. When I contradict you at the inopportune time, I am a racist.

Here's another Thielemans riff, with Billy Joel:

Black, white, yellow, brown, I am indifferent.

If you think, if you rely upon yourself, if you take care of you family and your friends, your clients, you're going to find me willing to be your friend. So, I'll wrap up.

The last cut, is, again, Billy Joel. But here's the tie-in. Toots Thielemans wasn't just a great harp player. Mr. Toots was also known as a great whistler. If you ever heard an "Old Spice" commercial, that was Mr. Toots whistle. He was one of the world's greatest whistlers, among whom I also number Bing Crosby, myself, and Billy Joe.

If you haven't read Camus, I recommend it. L' Étranger was published in 1942. Camus was a contemporary of Sartre. I guess the reason why I preferred Sartre to Camus was the idea of reflection, rather than abnegation. The revolution in thought created by the inquiries of Sigmund Freud were taking hold, at a time when the criticisms of C.G. Jung were being planted. Freud introduced us to an idea that we weren't who we thought we were. Jung introduced us to an idea that at best, who we were, or attempted to be, was a representation of the metaphor of who, or what, we were, as we attempted to represent that existence. And, consequently, who we were, and who we thought we were, were totally different beings. Camus saw this as the "stranger," or "the other," creating a duality of thought, either denying who we are and accepting who we thought of as ourselves, or as reversed, living who we thought we were, but denying who we truly were.

It leads to a confirmation bias, when examining Sartre. Sartre wasn't, in my opinion, attempting to state that there was either a denial in our existence, but rather, a lack of comprehending the scope of our existence. That there existed a duality? Sure. Perhaps. "Being and Nothingness" (1943) posited that our apprehension of who we are and what we do may be appositional to who we "really are, and what we're really doing." But the product of Sartre wasn't the nihilism of Camus, but an ontological inquiry into what we can perceive about ourselves, compared to the beliefs we've been taught to hold. Combine Jung with Camus, and you have L' Étrange. With Sartre, you have No Exit.

C.G. Jung (Siggy) is later adapted by Campbell. Duality continues, and is explained into rational and non-rational. Sign posts versus symbol. Or, as I like to divide it, funny or non-funny.

The heuristics of Campbell are often misunderstood. While Sartre attempted an heuristic of study, through a certain acceptance of the ontological method, Campbell associated more closely with Camus, and the metaphysics of Kant and Heidegger. Drawing upon the principles of the Platonic School, it was easy to talk about the beginning and ending points, without describing the process that occurs at either end of the spectrum. This isn't entirely fatuous, since discussing pure reason and the perfect rely upon much of the insigh and reason of Plato, and his teacher, Socrates.

Induction a priori, is legitimate. What is not legitimate, is extending those templates onto what we naturally observe in the world. We simply don't compare the results of induction to deduction, when deduction is possible. At a certain point, we need to examine what is truly a priori. What exists, in advance of experience. If that a priori condition has no foundation, it is not a condition. Numbers have values, as we define them. One is one. Two is two. One plus three is four. And it is, every time. An equilateral triangle as three sides of the same length. These are a priori statements, and true in every re-statement.

The problem comes, when we attempt to construct the perfect, equilateral triangle. It isn't possible. We can come close, very, very close, but perfect triangles are impossible to build. So, there is a thing we can know, in our perception of things that are knowable, that aren't possible in existence. Duality continues.

The existence of the rational and the non-rational is the fifty, or one-hundred, year old monkey on our backs. We like sports because, in most cases, there are definite outcomes. We ignore politics because we never seem to gain a clear outcome. The "Tea Party" won the elections last year, but it isn't clear whether or not those individual victories will actually have the impact on the national political process we were hoping they would have. Mitt Romney, we are being told, is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. A "moderate." Someone, we are told, who represents the middle of the Party.

We know, a priori, that we cannot continue to spend more than we take in. That the promises made from prior politicians are simply used tissue paper, not worth the time flushing down the toilet. We're also being told, that unless we ignore the fact that we cannot spend more than we take in, that we will not win in the upcoming elections, and that we need someone like Romney to gain control of the White House. This is a new type of duality.

We know one thing (about our debt, and increasing indebtedness) and we are told that we need to ignore this need to end, limit, or reduce our debt, in order for our desire to end, limit, reduce this debt, to succeed. This is like looking into a mirror and seeing a monkey. Which is great, if you're a monkey.

I'm not a monkey. There is not a non-rational position on debt. You cannot wish it away. You cannot tell yourself that is someone else's debt. It is your debt. You may wish to shove it off onto someone else. But this is not an act of love. It is an act of theft. Just because you may not have to pay the bill, doesn't mean you aren't charging the item to the national account. This is not a form of duality.

It is a form of theft.

It's time to stop lying to ourselves and to others. Not having to pay for a thing today is not a form of duality.

Billy Joel teaches:

October, 1917

2011-10-27T21:09:00.000-07:00

Too few are being taught. Idolisation is not teaching. Statements are important, but simple assertion isn't fact. If I were young today, chances are I would be caught up in the web of what passes for education. When I was young, one of the features of my bedroom was the built-in bookshelves of the family's books. Everything, from Asimov to Wagner was in those shelves. Including an edition of Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.

I had a grandmother who would send me books for Christmas. Not exciting, but because of her, I had books like Bruce Catton's "The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (1960)." I was a child of both, North and South. On one side of my grandmother's family, is an uncle who was buried on Island Number Ten. On the other, was a family who grew up in Missouri and Oklahoma, raised on Southern values of courtesy, grace and charm. Reading Catton was, for a young boy, a look at the fury of the years from 1861 to 1865. In 1965 I was lucky enough to visit the battlefield of Gettysburg. On that trip, I walked the Freedom Walk in Boston. I listened to a concert at Lincoln Center. I watched the dancers at Radio City Music Hall.

Gettysburg was different. My father had been involved with Columbia Records. And the visit to the New York office of Columbia Records is a memory. But my dad and I had different beginning and ending points. (Someday, maybe, my son will post this part of the family 8mm film to utube. If he does, I'll provide you a link.) I really don't know why he took this trip. What drove him to New York. (I have my thoughts.) Thankfully, as a ten year-old, my consciousness didn't allow for a lot of externalities. On this trip, through North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Ontario and Quebec, Maine, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma (where I had my first tornado) the lasting memories were divided by my time at the New York World's Fair, and my time at Gettysburg.

Gettysburg. The final battle in the War Between the States.

Compared to Gettysburg, every subsequent confrontation between the North and South were conditioned by Gettysburg. Sherman's "March to the Sea" would not have been possible without Gettysburg. History has a way of teaching, if you choose to read books. My books, when ten, were encyclopedias and Bruce Catton. As I grew older, again I turned to Bruce Catton and his trilogy on the Civil War. I read others, of course, and studied American History in college, with some magnificent professors. Constitutional Law. Philosophy. Several law courses on the First Amendment. Oh, Russian History, too.

After my Freshman year, I decided that K-12 Education wouldn't be too much of a fit. Did you ever take Psych 201? I mean, fergawdsakes, what kind of duncity must one bridle before one asks, "are you sure?" Instead I took after more amenable pursuits. I didn't mind the incoherence of certain subjects. I read Sartre, Rousseau, Kant, Freud, Mann, Jung, Campbell (of course), Madison, Smith, Hume, Yeats, Hemingway and lots of other dopes. For a while I was an Honor's student. I couldn't stand being a part of the "elite."

(h/t Ace.)

The "elite" are populated by persons who hold intensely personal beliefs. Not generally accepted beliefs. Things like treat your neighbor decently. Keep you nose out of other people's business. No. The social restraints of minding your own business are not the hallmarks of a member of the Elite. Now, it may be posited, that I view myself as a member of a certain elite. I'm well educated, I read difficult books, I have my own business. I can do a lot of the math. I know what is a standard deviation.

I also believe that you have as much political right to express your views as I have. No more, and no less. And, I believe that your right to express your views are as important as is my liberty to express mine. But what I'm seeing now, what we're experiencing now in our government, exceed pure political expression. Our government is now moving against us, in ways that are seemingly without limit.

Let me borrow a few words from an alert I received through one of the trade associations I belong to;

"New Workplace Posting Requirements"

"The new rule, which takes effect on November 14, 2011, requires employers to post an 11-by-17-inch notice in all places where other personnel notices are typically posted. In addition, employers who customarily communicate with employees about personnel rules or policies on intranet or internet sites must also post the required notice on those sites. The rule sets forth the content of the required notice, including information about employees' rights to form, join, or assist a union; to bargain collectively; to join in other concerted activities; and to refrain from such activities. The notice must be posted in a foreign language where 20 percent or more of an employer's workforce is not proficient in English."

In a footnote to the memorandum is this:

"Generally, the NLRA covers most private sector employers that engage in interstate commerce above certain de minimis levels. The NLRB has set revenue-based jurisdictional limits that vary among categories of employers' industries. These limits include, for example, $100,000 for office buildings and shopping centers, $250,000 for law firms, and $1 million forcolleges, universities, and other private schools (the highest revenue limit listed in the jurisdictional standards). If no specific revenue-based jurisdictional standard is listed in the regulation, the NLRB generally applies a $50,000 threshold before asserting jurisdiction over an entity engaged in interstate commerce. In addition, there are several employer categories over which the NLRB asserts jurisdiction regardless of revenue levels, including, notably, enterprises in the District of Columbia, financial information organizations, accounting firms, professional sports, and stock brokerage firms."

This over the posting of an 11-by-17-inch poster. And the size of the poster is important. One can't simple download the poster and post it on an 8 by 11-1/2 inch sheet of paper. That would be too easy.

I spent too much time today, reviewing the Youtube postings of the Occupy Portland crowd. Are there anarchists? Yes. Are there Socialists? Yes. Are there Communists? Yes.

There was a time when teaching our children meant giving them the tools to think critically for themselves. In our public schools, that time has long passed. Teachers teach to give themselves authority and paychecks. They envision themselves as part of the "elite" described above.

Gettysburg. The last great battle of the South. When you walk the battlefield, you see the field where Pickett's Charge occurred. You see the Devil's Den. You stand in the Devil's Den. You see the impossibility of the moment.

So, the impossibility of the moment.

October, 1917.

Forces from around the world flocked to partake in the moment that was the Russian Revolution. Earlier that year, Oregon had defeated Pennsylvania in the 3rd Rose Bowl. (14-0) Woodrow Wilson begins his second term. Within months, the United States decided it was in the national interest to send troops to occupy Arkangelsk. Inside Moscow, agitators of all sorts had descended. Emma Goldman. John Reed (from Portland.) The first Progressives had all the thematic and intellectual strength of that we currently perceive of the OWS movement. Everyone has an idea, and no one has any basis in any type of definable system of thought, whether ontological, metaphysical or epistemological, to make any coherent statement.

You cannot debunk the Brownian motion of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Which was the place Moscow found itself, following the Revolution of 1917.

We can kill the Tsar. And then, we can declare victory and begin to kill the useful idiots.

What we cannot do, is ever return to the moment when the South declared independence from the nation. If we give up our Constitutional form of government, which seems to be the process that our President is taking us through, if the Courts decide that outcomes are more important than the words on a document, then the nation is theirs for the taking. Our nation is one of law, not of men.

Today, the Administration is taking great strides in establishing a form of government that exceeds the boundaries of our Constitution. There are men and women, in the House, and in the Senate, who are attempting to retain for us our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties. There are propagandists in the media who view themselves as members of an elite caste of citizen, for whom the rules of individual rights and responsibilities no longer applies. The Fourth Estate has become co-opted by the forces of entitlement and avarice. Oh, and a certain, dull stupidity. Why worry about a Fifth Column, when the Fourth Estate is willing to do the job, itself?

The whole thing is too reminiscent of the writings of contemporary authors of the Russian Revolution. Yeah, I know that turn-of-the-century history isn't important. Because it was so long ago, and no longer relevant. But imagine, if you had a library, where you could find books of critics of the Russian Revolution, free to you, to peruse. But we're burning books. We're looking to close libraries. We're going to become a Kindle-World, where only the books offered on our Kindles will be the books we read.

It's like burning the Library of Alexandria. (Which you've never heard of.)

Do you know why the Communist Party of the United Socialist Soviet States of Russia was originally called the Bolshevik Party?

Maybe There Is Hope, After All

2011-10-26T11:09:00.000-07:00

From President Obama's speech, October 25, 2011:

“'The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’' Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel."

I hope he's right.

H/T Jonah Goldberg

We Need A President Who Can Run This Country Like A Businessman

2011-10-25T19:00:00.000-07:00

Not.

We need a President who will run government like a government.

I'm tired of having government supplant the creativity of the individual. Solyndra? Yeah, that was a good policy move.

Oregon is all about policy. We've lost touch with the creativity of the entrepreneur, and now we rely upon centrally planned innovation. I keep waiting for the drum circles in Salem.

I know that Ms. Bachman isn't in vogue right now, but I prefer her to Romney. I know that Huntsman is getting smothered by bad poll numbers, but I prefer Huntsman to Romney. In the top tier, I favour Cain and Perry, because they aren't talking about coming into government to create a new, corporate CEO of America. We don't need an American CEO. We need a President. Someone who manages the Executive Branch of our three branched government. I don't need the Senate to act as a supervisor of the "direction our country is headed." I don't need a House of Representatives directing the "course of our country."

Why?

Because we have no idea what the course of our country is, where our country is headed, or what important decisions we, as individuals, will find ourselves needing to make. Setting up a committee isn't a better answer, but it is a convenient, comfortable response. Bottom line, you and I both know that what happens in the future is a mystery, but how we're trained to deal with the unexpected may earn us an additional day on this sweet planet.

Can I vote for Romney?

No.

Because, at the root level, he is no different from Obama.

A Thought Before the Conference

2011-10-20T18:46:00.000-07:00

When did the split occur? When did it become ideologically indefensible for a man to take his own life, and the lives of his family, into his own hands? When did some external arbiter obtain a greater sway over his life, and said adjuncts? What again, is the purpose of our government?

I have, and have had, relatives from Connecticut to Missouri, a great-uncle who died on Island Number Ten. Family in Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota and Oregon. None of those relatives came to this country for guaranteed access to health care, the food bank, or this new form of social justice.

I don't think that this was the outcome that Herbert Spencer would have predicted.

The Battle For Survival is twin-faced; one side offers reliance upon self, the other relies upon the other. This is the tranch offered by Sartre. In a neo-realist world, there is either the intended société ordinaire, or something else. What occurred, from franchists to atheists, was a stone upon which the language of a new metaphysics could be mounted. The lever is being applied now; what is held as "normal" is currently not working. The utility of our political process is being devalued, from Tea Party Patriots, to Wall Street Idiots. When you listen to the Wall Street guys, one of the inflections one should perceive, is a total denial, if not repudiation, of the status quo.

There is a real difference between the English School and the European School. (Who advised us to avoid "foreign entanglements" exactly?)

The confusion is our fault.

America, and Americanism, is the result of a successful revolution against a tyrant, and, the successful advocacy of values. There hadn't been, before the United States, a single country in the world that put the liberty of the individual as the highest goal of a society's incorporation. Even post-World War Two countries, set up after our domination and control of their political structures, have slipped away from our native dynamic.

Gaining acceptance of others has become a by-word of modern life.

One hundred and sixty years later, modern American intellectuals have come to embrace the spoiled intellectualism of Europe. This explains most of what passes for thought in the current intellectual mileu. The French Revolution wasn't about upholding the values of the American Revolution. It was significantly different. The harbinger of liberté, égalité, fraternité was not the writing of folks like Hume, Descartes and Smith. One of the "names" Leftists call conservatives is "reactionary." The French Revolution was a reaction of the, what was then, a modern bourgeoisie. What today, perhaps, we would call Wall Street.

I bring this up as an antidote to the question of, "who is complaining about what?"

Aka, the OWS. Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the values of Hume, Descartes and Smith? I'd offer, no.

The Left offers us a menu of lost causes. Why would we attempt to adopt that menu for America?

As I said, short. The intertube conference is going on now.

Town Hall Meeting on the Intertubes Tonight

2011-10-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

Economy and Job Creation Town Hall

Join Rep. Kevin Cameron
Ray Burstedt, President SEDCOR
Jason Brandt, CEO Salem Chamber
Diane McLaran, Executive Director, Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry

Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 6:30pm
Pringle Creek Community, Painters Hall
3911 Village Center Dr. SE Salem

You can also watch and participate from your computer. This town hall will be live streamed via http://www.ustream.tv/channel/cameron-town-hall. There may be a brief advertisment when you first go on the ustream channel, but then you should be fully able to engage. This is our first time trying this technology. Our hope is that it will alllow people to listen and participate in the Town Hall that may not be able to actually attend in person.

Be there.

Speaker Gingrich's Mistake

2011-10-18T19:39:00.000-07:00

Drawing down troops in Europe is not a Peace Dividend.

Those of us old enough to remember, having two armored divisions forward based in Europe does have an impact on the world's balance of power.

Removing the remaining brigades will not enhance our national security, nor reduce the costs of maintaining the peace. Maintaining the peace means having a reliable force or enough substance, with the logistics and transportation necessary to provide a quick response.

Speaker Gingrich either does not understand the role our forces around the world play, or is again victim of his own intellectualism. By the way, I don't believe in Man Made Global Warming, either.

Herman Cain's Mistake

2011-10-18T18:53:00.000-07:00

Should we ever negotiate with terrorists?

My answer is, no.

Never.

Whether I am a member of our military services, or simply an American abroad, if I am kidnapped, held hostage, or threatened, I do not believe that our government should ever negotiate with the attempted kidnapper, hostage-taker or thug.

Signalling that hostage negotiations are possible is an abnegation of our historical stance and policy of never negotiating with our enemies. I was reminded of Fabrizio Quattrocchi, in his final moments. "Vi faccio vedere come muore un italiano."

Me too, bub.

But...

What is our current foreign policy on kidnapping, hostage-taking and/or thuggery? As an American, can you rely upon you country to track down these rhetorical miscreants? I don't think so.

We've lost more than common sense in three years. We've lost common decency.

Americans will never back down to threats; whatever and any type of threat. That's not what Americans do.

How Corporations Work

2011-10-13T15:46:00.001-07:00

What Do You Want?

2011-10-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

When I teach, I attempt to teach simple things.

Give a look at the word, "want."

I like Saul Bellow. I like "Henderson, the Rain King."

It isn't hard to figure out why. Saul Bellow is a great writer, and "Henderson, Rain King" is a great book. At the time when I was studying the book, I had the great fortune of being in a writer's group that included a Nigerian prince. Or, Prince. A real Prince. (You know, they do exist.)

Henderson had a sense. And this sense was not among the listed senses, of taste, touch, smell, hearing and sight. Henderson had a sense that something was missing. He kept repeating, "I want."

What are the synonyms of want?

This word game is important, I think, because we tend to define our feelings in terms of what we either have, or lack. Words have greater meaning than we first suppose; words are chosen in order to define and to choose perfect or imperfect; present, future or past tenses. Speech is one of those curatives; when we speak, we commit to a thought. There are innumerable times when I've found myself speaking words that made no sense. Speaking, or writing, is a good thing.

To find oneself with an ineffable sense, what to do?

Taste, touch, smell, hearing, sight and ineffable. WTF?

Fortunately, Rene was there already. Thinking. "I think, therefore, I am." Is existence a sense? The little grey cells, do they observe, or impute? Let us think for a moment; what is the difference, gift, selectivity, perversity, blasphemy, heterodoxy of independent thought, or worse, outcomes that differ from other, accepted thoughts? Do we, as a race (Man) accept and defend diversity of opinion, or do we closer (more closely) adopt herd instincts? Is thought a herd instinct? Am I better off accepting the opinions of the herd, or better off discarding the views of popular opinion and instead, chart my own course?

You and I know, that for years the idea of a Sixth Sense has purported to be something akin to an Extra Sensory Perception. That always struck me as funny, since nothing about us is able to sense anything above and beyond our primary senses. Freud thought it this, and Jung thought it that. Sartre had a name for it, Kant called it Intellect. The point is, there is something there, there, that we choose to label as something else. Conscience, guilt, self-awareness, reason, internalization, doubt, no doubt there are other words that would work as synonyms. As we push forward, we are all trying to find ourselves within a formula, or focus, of whatever word we choose, to help us find a lens for viewing the people, friends, family, lovers, those we hate, who we know and don't know. We attempt to find a way of our dealing with certainty and uncertainty. We attempt to create bias and prejudices that can protect us, just as medicine men of years past assured us of their wisdom and protection, if only we adopted them as our medicine men. The Sixth Sense is, basically, outsourced to those who claim, and to those to whom we defer, as having a certain elegance in dealing with the holes in our perception and our understanding of what is going on around us. These holes, these wants, what we lack, what we want.

Sartre, for me, did express best the hidden sense. I don't share the nihilist impulse of a Sartre. But Sartre was fundamentally right in his expression of the Other. Just as Freud and Jung were stumbling around trying to find rational solutions to human psychology, Sartre, on the other hand, simply dismissed the errant metaphysics of a Kant, and simply created his own. To understand Sartre isn't an abdication of Western Thought. Sartre was, after all, a product of the West, just like you and me. Freud and Jung attempted to work within a framework of the senses and the intellect. How the brain functions. Sartre attempted, as I'm attempting here, to find where the Other was indicated, and how the Other works on our fundamental approaches to self-actualization. And, I will repeat again, metaphysics isn't a form of intellectual inquiry that will, or would have, gained us much of a needed perspective on human thought and action. Metaphysics apologizes for error. Epistemology explains error. Empiricism explores that which is knowable. The problem for Sartre lies in empiricism. We can, a priori, describe hypotheticals that question relationships between people, clouds, tire traction and hummingbirds to wheat. A priori knowledge is that which we can know before experiencing. A lot of what we know a priori has been discussed in the works and criticisms of Plato. This is epistemology. Empiricism is a posteriori. Sartre was involved in a discussion of that which we could observe. An empiricism that was forced by priors. Sartre's defect was, he attempted to discover relationships in advance of observations, and ended up becoming a metaphysicist. And of how understanding that simple explanation of the five senses didn't take us to an understanding of what we observe and how we act. The easy answers of Freud and Jung were generally accepted as explanations of an epistemology that didn't take into account the role intellect plays in determining what we derive as understanding. And Sartre, more importantly, attempted to define intellect as devoid of the religious. To Sartre, God was as much the Other as was Oneself. It was as alien to Sartre was his reason. (My contempt for Sartre.)

Who are you? ("Alice in Wonderland.")

Who are you?

Are you the product of your parents, your teachers, your community? Are you the product of any semblance of inquiry? Are you well-read, or do you watch someone called Snookie on television? When you ask others for those things that you want, are you asking for X-Boxes, or clean sheets, or food? Are you asking for books?

What do you want?

Do you want to know about yourself? Do you want to know what your expectations for yourself are? Let me ask, what do you expect of yourself? Are you able to take care of yourself? And, if you don't know how to take care of yourself, what are you doing to ingratiate yourself with someone who does know how to take care of himself? Are you getting closer to someone with merit, success, competence, or are you distancing yourself from these fellows?

Want, lack, need. What do you want? What do you lack? What do you need? You cannot simply rely upon your senses for the answer. And this is doubly true if you have a family. It's good enough to attempt to survive on your own sense of survivability. But added the weight of family, children, the Road Warrior intellect is unfavourable.

Miss. Without. Too rare. Absent. Determined insufficient.

What do you lack?

Do you lack a framework for decision? Then, pick one. Will you be an empiricist, a metaphysician, or an ontologist? Knowing you can be wrong on any and all questions, what system of thought will give you the chance of greatest benefit?

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

2011-10-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

A year from now, the battle to re-capture America will be in its waning days. We have 13 months before the future of our country is either moved toward a new Socialist Dawn, or we attempt to pull-back, and halt the progress toward a political system that rewards those without merit, while punishing those of merit. Or, I should say, promise a political system that rewards those without merit. Because no system that rewards the undeserving has ever succeeded.

What we're facing, though, is a group of people with mass. The group is so disparate, that I don't think they know the mass they have, but folks smarter than I, believe. The counter-point to this mass is you and me. There are a lot of you, but just one of me. The mass has weight, that unless and until you attempt to confront this weight, you not have an appreciation of the sheer weight and velocity of the forces set against us. In our naivete, we've believed that rules of fair play, intellectual deduction, calm and reasoned debate, that we, Americans, could avoid the devolution of other countries, who have allowed themselves the downward spirals of populist parties who assure their followers that simple obedience will gain them wealth and happiness that they've never before experienced. And, "salting the mine," they've taken money from the affluent under the guise of helping those who cannot help themselves.

I don't believe that welfare wasn't established to help the lazy, or the under-motivated.

Welfare was established in the Great Depression, with pictures of waifs nursing children with empty teats.

Welfare was created to help the least of us, in times when the best of us weren't able to do enough. Incremental contributions would be enough to help the bottom five percent. The truly needy. The infirm, halt, lame and mentally incapable.

Hollywood made pictures displaying the disparity of the poor and the wealthy. The rich would depend upon magic poor-people. Sure, the rich had the cash, but until, and unless, they gained the humanity of accepting the advice of smarter than they, but poor, folks, these affluent families would face the horror of profligate sons and daughters, air-headed wives, and hired help that despised them behind their backs. The moral? Unless,and until, you gave up riches, your were destined to a certain, unerring, unhappiness. The merely affluent, the middle- and lower-classes were but a step away from poverty.

Which was and is true.

The weight of wealth is not that it isn't better to jet around the world in a G-5, the weight of wealth is, given the choice to sit on ones wealth, or risk ones wealth, what is the best path to follow? Sit on it, or risk it? Risk it, and you can end up with nothing. Giving up riches is nothing. You, as I, were born with nothing. We hadn't learned a thing, nor earned a thing. There are advantages to finding yourself coddled in the lap of wealth, but that coddling doesn't reduce the risks of eventually becoming responsible for your situation. Knowing the rich, they aren't different than you or I, they simply have more money.

Like Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be the King."

No argument. I wasn't born rich. I grew up among the rich. I've worked for the rich. From the outside, being rich has certain advantages. Having rich friends has certain advantages. Gaining the trust of the rich has certain advantages. Working for the rich is better than working for the poor. But having nothing is a lot more liberating than having a lot. (Janice.) Intelligence, education, intuition, an ability to ken, trust in your own senses, these aren't hard-wired. If your pop was successful, it's easy to suggest that your likelihood of success is greater than if your dad was a failure. But it isn't necessarily true. If it isn't necessarily true, it at least, isn't sufficiently true. I have several families that I know of who have found themselves, in the past ten years, in the previously unknown condition of having to scrape a live together for themselves.

Rags to riches. The inverse is also true. The weight of poverty is a motivator, too, if allowed.

Which brings one to the issue of moral hazard.

Whether one has great wealth, or no wealth, the issue of moral hazard is raised whenever one makes a decision that affects the risks faced, versus potential rewards, due to ones judgements. The choices made that affect the ability one has to find the most meager of existences. Imagine you inherit, or win, a million dollars.

My thought is, take that million immediately to Vegas, and bet Red. If you hit, you can pay the taxes. If you lose, you don't have a tax liability.

You either double or you don't. Are you worse off?

If you didn't have anything, you are no worse off. But, let's suggest that there are enough bad gamblers out there, that they have a constituency in Congress. And actually, let me refine this risk a little more; imagine that there's a constituency out there that services the gamblers. The casinos of capital are held in our major banks. private and investment banks, and on the stock exchanges.

Moral hazard. What to do when shorts don't cover you? Or, you take the wrong position on an investment, and find yourself stuck, with either shorts or longs, when both disintegrate? In 1929, for some, the answer was the nearest window transom. And, I'm sure, that during the latest malady in the markets, others have found quiet in the nearest equivalent to the window transom. Perhaps, it's drugs. Maybe it's a OWS. We all have our own El Guapo.

Moral hazard. A life without moral hazard must seem like Heaven to a certain sector of the human populace. I can't help but recall some of Mr. Clemen's hazarded guesses about this type of Heaven: "It is easy to see that the inventor of the heaven did not originate the idea, but copied it from the show-ceremonies of some sorry little sovereign State up in the back settlements of the Orient somewhere;" "Singing hymns and waving palm branches through all eternity is pretty when you hear about it in the pulpit, but it's as poor a way to put in valuable time as a body could contrive;" "Let us swear while we may, for in Heaven it will not be allowed;" and, "There is no humor in heaven."

The religious have always offered us ways to avoid the moral hazard of life. Innocence has always been a form of affirmative defense against crimes of sloth, carelessness, indifference and ignorance. Here, in America, we have as close to as is possible, a society where we can simply pick the fruit off the three.

What occurs when you legislate an outcome that favours both the diminished, and the advantaged? When you remove moral hazard from the middle-class? What society is it, that creates a solution where nobody is responsible for their individual actions? It isn't my fault that we've created a political system that rewards everyone, no matter their failings. It is as if we're awarding "participation ribbons" to banks, to Wall Street funds, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for simply being there. Good ideas. Didn't work out.

Solyndra. Wind mills for electrical generation. Green technology. Green buildings. Electric vehicles.None of which works, or works efficiently. It's not our fault. If we don't keep sending billions of bucks to stupid technologies, how are we going to create new technologies?

There will be no "revolution." We can allow our government to take billions of dollars from us to give to our connected friends and neighbors, but no new technologies will be developed. The new technologies will come from places we never knew existed. That is the nature of innovation. It cannot be planned. It will be discovered, in ways we never anticipated. The revolution will not be televised. It can be smothered, though, like a child under a heavy pillow.

And then, we will, begin again.

And it will not be televised.

Columbus Day

2011-10-08T18:02:00.000-07:00

Click a biggun.

Imagine Christopher Columbus. Who would you compare him to? Steve Jobs? Galileo? Rousseau, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Plato, Smith, Burke, Fermat, Aristotle, da Vinci, Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell, Salk, Curie, De Soto, William Penn, Archimedes, Leibnitz, Marcus Aurelius?

Who decides what constitutes legitimate authority?

The question comes up, since guys like Natan Scharansky asked it of the former Soviet Union. What is true?

For you and I, the answer is simple; I decide what is true. I have beliefs, based upon a rational belief system, and I have knowledge, based upon my God given senses. My senses don't lie, my mind is the forge where my beliefs are forged. And, in myself, I remain skeptical of that which I observe, unwilling to become a victim of my own prejudices. One of the first questions asked, in my Theory of Knowledge course, was, is it raining outside? I look to my window, I see droplets. Is it true, that it is raining outside? Not necessarily. What if, a man was standing on the roof with a water hose, spraying water over the side of the building? Was that rain?

No.

My experience tells me it is raining outside. The truth is, there's a man on the roof spraying water. How do we know what is true? It isn't necessarily a "cappuccino moment."

Claims are one thing. Settled science is another. There exist a number of unproven postulates that are being taught. I have no beef with this. There is a certain utility with theorems that allow us to understand, even though, we do so with a certain codicil. Things can change.

We can choose to believe anything we wish to believe.The point is, what we choose to believe doesn't grant our belief the status of knowledge. Just as we looked out the window and "saw rain," we granted our perceptions a role that our minds wouldn't allow, when looked at critically. Here's another example of our seeing things that aren't true.

I've attempted to share, with friends, family and my employees, the value of expectations. Different people have different expectations. Why not? We are all different, aren't we? That is the plausible reason for people to adopt something we know of as, today, diversity, isn't it?

Let's go back to Columbus.

Click a biggun.

Chris Columbo decided that he had some kinda brilliant idea. Every person of reasonable intellect had decided that the World was Flat. It was, the Scientific Consensus of the day. It was the view of the intelligentsia, of scholars, or the body politic. It was the accepted truth.

One could make hay with this example, if one were willing to draw attention to the current discourse involving something called CO².

But I have no stake in the game of whether or not a naturally occurring gas is killing us, or the planet. My interest is in Chris Columbo, and his mad dash to the West.

It was mad. It ran counter to every consensus belief of "science" at the time. But, he had an understanding of how things worked, even if no one had ever tested that understanding before. (Remember Richard Feynman's advice.) But Columbus had one great idea, greater than the idea of his navigation; finding a venture capitalist.

The success of Columbus' adventure rang not from the bells tolled of community service, it rang from the risk a woman was willing to take, in order to find new sources of riches. The riches of the East were proven. Finding a path to the East that would require less time? Priceless. (We're going to, someday, give up credit card commercial analogies.)

The proven routes to the East required years of passage. The costs of trade were immense. And yet, given the time and cost of the investments of trade, that trade still occurred. Why? Because the benefits of trade were captured in the costs of the items being traded. Load up sixteen tons of silk, and your investment in cheap Chinese goods will be multiplied as the result of the demand for those products. Who benefits from these trades? The guys who are able to sell, in bulk, a product they can manufacture cheaply, to a market is willing to pay dear for the benefit of receiving those products. Columbus was not a man given to wild ideas about social justice. He was a guy who came to Isabella with a prospectus that offered a way to decrease the costs of trade to the benefit of the investor. He is, in a way, our first Entrepreneur. And Queen Isabella was the First Capitalist.

Imagine the trade routes that were discovered after his sailings.

Click a biggun.

What would have occurred, if, rather than an entrepreneur and a capitalist getting together to finance Chris' first voyage, it had been a team of government innovators?

It's obvious, that we would need to have this voyage as a part of an innovation plan. Legislation would be necessary to allow for the voyage. For the thousands of sailors and ships' owners that were crossing from Seville to the East, Chris' plan would destroy them. An entire price/cost structure would have to be re-defined. We would need to protect the wages earned by seafaring men in the face of increased productivity, and decreased demand for seamen. The unions, which had been propping up increasingly unpopular administrations, would be advocating for limits on Columbus, in order to protect the workers on Columbus's ships, as well as to protect all workers from exploitation. Health effects of exploration would become a consideration, since we have no metric with which to judge the harm the voyage would impact the undiscovered oceans Columbus was declaring he would exploit, or on the workers who would find themselves in strange new oceans, with untold hazards that couldn't be demonstrated as having no negative impact on the workers themselves, or upon the environment that they were imposing upon. The potential impact on the sardine fishery would have to be investigated. What if the circumnavigation of the World resulted in a decreased sardine fishery? We need to know these things, in advance of our approving the activity. Or, any activity.

Furthermore, in order to protect the planet from the effects of human beings living on the planet, we are going to institute rules of voyage, in order to direct the investments put up by the entrepreneur Columbus, and his capital partner, Isabella.

In order to have the innovation necessary to approve this venture, we are going to direct all activities in finding this Green Technology Route to India, in the following ways.

First, since we all know that using traditional trade routes, that the direction of India is to the East, all movements by Columbus must be to the West. Secondly, since asking someone to do something he doesn't feel he wants to do is a form of imposition upon the diversity rights of that person, we need to make sure that any participant of the fleet described by Columbus is unionised, and has the right to call a work stoppage whenever a majority of labour feels necessary. Thirdly, since Columbus is an entrepreneur, it is unjust that he conduct his business as he feels is right and necessary. At any time that Columbus tries or attempts to exert his views upon others, he shall be found to have violated the rights of those persons, and shall be fined, and or prosecuted, for attempt to intimidate, or intimidation,

After great deliberation, it is determined, that after leaving Seville, the wheels of the Pinta, Nina and Santa Maria will be roped, in order to effect the innovative plans of the Progressives that have anointed this Green Investment. Likewise, since Progressives have staked out guarantees of human rights, living wages and diversity, sails will also be set in such as fashion as to forbid changes in their set. Now, these three vessels, set upon their paths by the rigours of Progressivism, will proceed to their destinations. And they will be successful, since, by Legislative Authority, we have determined the best course for our investments to take. The workers will determine the outcome of the venture, since, under the Labour Theory of Value, nothing has value without the contribution of the Worker.

The Eventual and Inevitable Rape of the West, as described by modern Progressives, imputes these values. "If only Columbus hadn't invaded the pre-Columbian World!" (Followed by feinting.)

If Progressives had ruled the World in the 15th Century, we'd still all be living in Europe. I have no idea what would have progressed in the Western Hemisphere, it would be all conjecture. If only we had held onto Settled Science five hundred years ago. Under the Progressive rules promulgated above, Columbus would have never found the New World. After a few years, a few decades, exploration of the West would have discontinued. Except for those renegades in the North. (You decadent Finns and Norwegians!) Anyway, let it be said, that Progressives did rule the European continent in the 15th century. Progressive is just another way of saying, "let me tell you what to do."

The miracle of Western Civilization isn't in the constraints imposed by modern, secular governments. The miracle of Western Civilization lies in those who weren't content to follow the established science, and were, instead, motivated by personal observations that disproved the theories and beliefs that had been established previously. The entire Enlightenment and the following period of empiricism was due to a break in what had been considered accepted science.

Had Columbus been constrained as we are, in energy exploration, science and technology, we would have never discovered the New World.

Click a biggun.

Look at the map.

Before Columbus' trip, we had no idea about the forces he would face, as he attempted his oceanic voyage. Left to himself, he was able to make changes in the trajectory of his voyage, just as modern entrepreneurs should be allowed to make changes and shifts in their voyage in discovering new sources of energy. Had union rules existed on the three ships, they would have turned about. No man who sailed aboard these ships had any question as to who who make decisions affecting their lives; whether they would live or die. Minimum wages didn't exist. Yet, not only did Columbus exploit his men, he exploited himself. Few know of how Columbus died.

And the World benefited from Columbus.

Just as they benefited from men and women like Rousseau, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Plato, Smith, Burke, Fermat, Aristotle, da Vinci, Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell, Salk, Curie, De Soto, William Penn, Archimedes, Leibnitz, Marcus Aurelius.

Why is Columbus Day such an important day for Americans? It's not the Italian thing. It's about a man, facing uncertainty, doing what in his heart was important. And it leads to riches.

If we can kill the importance of Columbus Day for Americans, we can kill the American dream.

One man, facing an ocean of obstacles, succeeding.

No room for collectivism.

Happy Columbus Day!

Talking About Music

2011-10-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

Stolen from Lumberjack. (Who hat-tips to the Cube.)

Herman Cain On Affirmative Action

2011-10-06T21:38:00.000-07:00

"Some of my opponents in the race for the U.S. Senate seem to like to ask me if I am in favor of affirmative action. I'm sick and tired of people trying to divide us on race. So let me make my answer as plain as day, so that even a congressman can understand it. If by affirmative action you mean quotas - then no. But if you mean, do I favor giving all people equal opportunity? You bet. I don't understand how my opponents could not agree with the idea of removing all barriers for people to have equal opportunity.

"When my father left a dirt farm at age 18 to pursue his American dream, he knew it would not be easy. He worked three jobs as a barber, chauffeur and janitor. My father struggled but never wavered in his three basic beliefs: his belief in God, his belief in himself and his belief that if he wanted to achieve something in this country, he could. He taught me that you get what you earn. I took that lesson to heart. After 20 years of hard work, I became a vice-president of the same company where dad worked as a janitor."

The rest here.

Remembering A Simpler Time

2011-10-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

Age has its advantages. You can call us grumpy, but the truth is, there was greater civility twenty, thirty, forty years ago.

If you need statistical proof, you can look at this article, by Wm. Briggs.

Or you can simply watch this, with a hat-tip to Sippican.

Is It Time To Send Herman Cain A Check?

2011-10-06T10:59:00.001-07:00

Your opinion?

Minimum Wage

2011-10-04T23:18:00.000-07:00

As I've written before, I recently hired two young men to work for me.

I was asked today, why I didn't give them more hours.

The reason is, they work for my convenience.

n.

The quality of being suitable to one's comfort, purposes, or needs: the convenience of living near shops, schools, and libraries.
Personal comfort or advantage: services that promote the customer's convenience.
Something that increases comfort or saves work: household conveniences such as a washing machine, an electric can opener, and disposable diapers. See synonyms at amenity.
A suitable or agreeable time: Fill out the form at your earliest convenience.
Chiefly British. A lavatory

I need them for a brainless task, for a few hours a day. Simply "being" is an adequate job skill. During those hours, they are being taught usable work skills, and the question was asked, "Since I'm learning how to be more effective, why can't I work more hours?"

Good question. The answer is, because, you're not worth enough to me now, for me to give you more hours. I know that I'm "destroying" your entire day with my request for three hours. I know that I could spend more time with you, teaching you more, making you more valuable, more quickly.

The problem is, the state has decided that my improving your work skills is less important than that I treat you with respect; pay you an inflated, state mandated minimum wage, that neither conveniences me, nor you. If you missed it, I'm posting this because at least one member of your state's legislature wrote about it earlier:

"A cursory look a the state's excessive minimum wage, top tax rate and regulatory creep all reveal these factors to be significant forces affecting Oregon's economic future. (Ted Feriolli, The Oregonian, "Countering economic pessimism: Oregon has the resources to rebuild prosperity" September 27, 2011.)

I don't run a nursery here. I've dedicated some time, each day, in the attempt to teach two men enough to make them employable. I would offer them more time, and increase their value more quickly, but the state has decided to put a limit on the time I can afford to have them in my employ. And remember, they are willing to work for free. But changes in federal law regarding interns means that they can't intern here, without constant supervision. Which is again, not convenient for me.

I don't know if you've looked at the "demands" of the "occupiers" of Wall Street. I have two young men who want to spend more time with me learning. Changes in the law, both federally and in this state, makes my time with them, if I don't pay them for that time, illegal.

This was the change we'd been hoping for, isn't it?

Too Good Not To Share

2011-10-03T17:11:00.000-07:00

Meghan Fleming, 26 years of age, was walking out of the Petsmart store at 2925 Lancaster Dr NE about 4:00 yesterday afternoon when she was approached by a male asking for money. She and (sic) him a five dollar bill and proceeded to her vehicle where her nephew 19 year old Timothy Fleming and her twin two year olds were waiting. Fleming apparently changed her mind about the donation, drove up to him in her car, pulled back the slide on what appeared to be a semi-automatic pistol and demanded her money back. Timothy Fleming demanded the money as well and threatened to take the man's bicycle. The victim, 23 year old Nicholas Gutierrez-Didlot, handed the five dollar bill back.

The victim walked into the store saying he had just been robbed and provided a description. The store was familiar with Meghan and provided police dispatch with her name. Police records showed that Meghan lived in the 4000 block of Beck Av SE. Officers responded to Petsmart, as well as to the Beck Av. address.

Approximately 20 minutes later, Meghan drove up to her residence where she was taken into custody without incident. The pistol turned out to be a BB gun. Her two twins were turned over to her relatives for care. Timothy Fleming was not in the vehicle when it arrived on Beck. He surrendered at the Turner Police Department at about 6:00 this morning.

Both have been lodged in the Marion County Correctional Facility charged with robbery. "Meghan certainly could have asked for her money back, but that was not the case. She crossed the line when she pointed what looked like a firearm at him and demanded he hand over the money," said Lt. Steve Birr.

Organizing A Protest Here, Boss

2011-10-02T21:21:00.000-07:00

I’m going to organize an anti-hippie protest tomorrow. We will all go to work and contribute to society. Who’s with me?!

SondraK.

Academically Adrift

2011-10-02T12:12:00.000-07:00

"Missing from the conversation is the quality of what’s being taught." (Kathleen Parker.)

●Gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills are either “exceedingly small or nonexistent for a larger proportion of students.”

●Thirty-six percent of students experience no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) over four years of higher education.

'That group adds that "Academically Adrift" confirms their own findings, and that when combined with our 47 million high school dropouts and the fact that 40% of entering college students cannot read, write, or compute at a college-ready level makes our overall education outputs even dimmer - despite world-leading per-pupil expenditure levels." (From comments.)

"Students in education, communications, and business had the lowest measurable gains." (Richard Arum Letter, .pdf.)

Hey, it's not just me.

CNN Makes Scheduling Mistake

2011-10-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

Erin Burnett begins her new show on CNN tomorrow. They had a chance to put together a show that would make definite in-roads on the viewership numbers of FOX's "The O-Reilly Factor." Instead, they put her into a slot that competes against her old network's show, "The Kudlow Report."

I am a fan of Ms. Burnett. I was disappointed when I heard she had left CNBC, a network that where I find myself spending a lot of time.

I'm tired of Mr. O'Reilly's bloviating. His absolute disregard for markets, especially the markets for energy, has been addressed by many, including FOX's own, Neal Cavuto. Under a banner of populism, or "looking out for the people," O'Reilly expresses fears of Big Oil that are mimicked in nature only by rabid dogs when faced with a bowl of water. Attempts to introduce elasticity in the determination of price falls on deaf ears.

I'm very happy to see that Ms. Burnett will be returning to cable news. But, Kudlow will be number one in the time slot. For a lot of us.

Sorry.

Understanding Sarah

2011-09-30T22:12:00.000-07:00

If I were running Governor Palin's campaign, the first thing I would do would be to exclude her from debates.

The "debates" are occasions placed upon candidates that offer themselves as either being neutral, or unpredictable. When Governor Palin announces, she will be drawing in millions of two-hundred dollar contributions on the day the announcement is made. Can she hit ten million contributors in a day?

Two-hundred at a million would be two-hundred million dollars. In a day. Two-hundred, at a five times that would be a billion dollars.

Are there a million Americans willing to give two hundred dollars for a renewed course for America?

I will grant you, that the amount of money we need to spend to elect a President seems to be a huge amount. In a nation, which has a GDP of some 11-trillion dollars, And a national debt of some 15-trillion dollars.

But, I would exclude her from the current debates. Governor Palin will gain exposure from the MSM, as well as from the intertubes and cable networks, on her own time. When you control a billion dollars, there's a lot of exposure that one can create for oneself.

First of all, Governor Palin will, or, would be, the first candidate to gain a billion dollars in contributions. That in itself is newsworthy.

Second, Governor Palin then can create for herself, her own dais. A conversation with Newt Gingrich on Speed Channel. A conversation with Herman Cain on BET. A conversation with Romney on MSNBC. All, produced by her people. Even if she has to produce her "conversations" on QVC, she's going to own the space, and own the media.

Why would you want to undergo the kind of minimization that the current candidates are exposing themselves to, simply to gain exposure? Sarah Palin is one of the most exposed politicians in the United States!

She has already told you that she is not going to campaign in the ways most of us expect her to campaign. A billion dollars lets her choose her own playing field, and any candidate that chooses to ignore the playing field she creates risks becoming second tier, by definition.

Are there a million Americans willing to give her $200.00?

Yes.

Don't be surprised when Governor Palin outlines the way the debate to the White House is defined.

The Left's Miserable Application For Re-Entry Into the European Union

2011-09-28T21:49:00.000-07:00

A gentleman of about my age, or more, recently commented on a recent post on education.

I have either the advantage, or the dis-advantage, of having my sons later in life. The question was asked, "Could it be that most teachers are good, but are expending much of their energy shielding themselves from counterproductive directives (not to mention counterproductive course content they have to teach)?"

There was a condition in this comment, that the possible lack of time spent on positive teaching was being wasted through the time available, due to administrative constraints. And the answer is yes, increased administration means additional time spent validating that additional constraint; either through the increased administration's efforts to improve the task of education through increased administration, or, through the externally imposed rules and regulations concomitant with such an increased administration, whether necessary or not. One of the rules of bureaucracy is defined as, first defend you job.

It is not, in my experience, the role of the new administrator to immediately turn toward those who gave him his position, in order to criticise those who had created his new position.

Which is one of the reasons why I've been, and continue to be, a terrible employee.

I've lived through departments that have increased the number of administrators. The necessary goal of any department has been to deliver the requirements of the enterprise, as efficiently and with the lowest cost possible. Whenever you add an additional level of administration, two things occur; one, simple answers become no longer simple, and two, questioning the value of the additional layer of administration is tantamount to questioning the whole enterprise. In answer to the commentated questions, both of those objections are true, they create inefficiencies, but completely miss the point. Which is, again, contained in the referenced comment, to wit:

"The teachers I know personally are upstanding people who are constantly being pestered by administration goals that frustrate rather than facilitate students learning how to think and to become good at the basic educational tools.

"They are constantly having to shield their educational and moral values from the prying eye and stomping foot of administrators."

The efforts of administration are rarely about increased efficiencies. In my experience, there are other reasons for increasing the number of administrators available for any enterprise, but the most important is, to provide a layer between the head of an enterprise from the success or failure of that enterprise.

Education is one of the greatest failures of America in modern times; and the levels of administration are epic. Let's begin with the simple K-5 or -6 grade school. How difficult should it be to teach a child how to read, to write and to perform basic tasks of arithmetic? Unless the child has severe difficulties, being able to count to an hundred should be a simple task. Recognizing ones native alphabet should also fall into the realm of simple task. Framing a simple sentence in speech, or through writing, should again, be a simple task. If we, as a nation, could simply realize this simple goal with every child, education would leap forward. But we do not, either as a local school district, or as a nation, require that every child who passes through five or six years of education, meet these simple goals. Give a man or woman these skills, and all else follows.

But that system that has created hundreds upon thousands of administrators is still searching for the solution the problem of simple math, reading, writing and speech. Every possible excuse has been given, but no possible solutions have been offered. And with every unspoken solution, comes another cadre of administrators and experts who will expound upon the problems facing our nation's teachers, in the face of inadequate resources and low levels of pay. Never is the problem of education relegated to those who are responsible for their children's education, the parents. And, systemically, it can't address the basic problem, for billions of dollars are dedicated to a problem that is simply addressable by asking the question of a child's performance, or lack of performance, to the person or persons directly responsible for a child's performance; the parent(s). Instead, in the practice of the countries that have never recognized the rights of the individual, the Europeans, we have adopted the visions and policies of the Europeans as being more open to diversity, shielding the individual from the failures of the individual, and never asking for the individual, or the parents of the individual, to be responsible for the success or failure of the child.

Increased administration is the curse of the European mind. Never, in any land in Europe, has the individual ever had the type or quality of individual liberty that we've had in this country. Looking toward Europe for answers is looking backward. Examples abound. Take wind power. Holland has had this for years. Hardly a new, innovative process. Rail works for countries whose living standards are so low, that independent travel isn't possible. Backward engineering to construct a Europe within the states of the United States in counter-intuitive on many levels, but we find ourselves arguing with an elitist class that has determined that being more like Europeans is better than being Americans. But nothing in the data would support such an hypothesis. Europeans have never, and probably never will, ever respect the liberty of the individual. Europeans will never allow that the individual is responsible for his own, or for his family's, success. Europeans will never have the strength to stand up to tyranny, since the history of Europe has always been one of negotiating with tyranny.

What is the value of Liberty? It is the highest of all human values. There is no replacement for your individual liberty. There has been no other nation on the face of this earth that has ever experienced human liberty. Rejoice in Liberty.

And reject the Leftist notions that adopting European styles of politics is a move forward. Would you rather have the conditions for your life imposed upon you, or discovered by you?

Innovation, true innovation, cannot be imposed. Even with government subsidies. But, liberty and freedom will allow you to go places we've never traveled before. I don't want to be a member of a Greater European Union.

The curriculum being taught in our schools today never mention the values of liberty and independence. Go to a local school and ask to see their U.S. History text. If they give you a copy, you won't see these values mentioned, or, if mentioned, championed. The values of Liberty and Independence are not promoted, not explained, not mentioned. But the Left, and the motor of Leftist politics, the Teachers' Union wouldn't teach it, even if included. You see, individual liberty is selfish, somehow, in their Morlock logic, taking care of yourself is less efficient that having someone take care of you. There is no need for an additional administrator. And without sufficient oversight, you might end up doing something that doesn't match their values.

And the imposition of correct values is, and has been, the sole force behind European politics since we started writing about European politics. So, I'd suggest we wonder who it was that suggest we avoid foreign entanglements.

Could have been a bright fellow.

Natural Curiousity

2011-09-27T20:36:00.000-07:00

Either here, or at comments sections on others' blogs, I've mentioned that I've hired two young men, recently.

Twenty-three and twenty-one years of age, these two young men come to me with certain challenges; taking what is worthwhile of what they've been taught, and discarding that which they have been taught that has no value. It is not totally surprising that these young men have limited skills. It is not surprising to me at all, that they lack the ability to respond quickly to intellectual puzzles presented. They weren't taught this, they weren't asked to do this. After six weeks, I'm beginning to make in-roads into their tiny, little minds.

The title of this post is "Natural Curiosity." There is a reason why I preamble with those words. Who teaches, and what they teach, are important. We've been told for decades that teachers are underpaid. Schools are under-appreciated. Our children are being denied excellence due to a certain penury. Unless we open our wallets and checkbooks, our children will suffer under a pogrom of anti-intellectualism and selfishness. That is, our unwillingness to pay teachers the salaries that our "Leaders of Industry" receive, we will continue to employ teachers whose sense of value is so low, that they are not capable of teaching well. They will babysit. They will not teach, and even if they attempt to teach, their skills are so low, that what they attempt to teach is not worthy of the little peaches of our eyes.

Hooey is not a new word.

Having had to pitch, and have been pitched upon, hooey, one begins to learn about the nature and substance of hooey.

Discernment is a particular word.

1: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure : skill in discerning

2: an act of perceiving or discerning something (Here.)

How does a bird fly? What can improve the flight of an arrow?

How do you discern, or perhaps, discriminate between certain ideas that attempt to express how birds fly, or how one could improve the flight of an arrow?

This is not an unintended digression; it is the point of this post.

When I rely upon the writings of my dead old guys, I do so knowing that I don't have to go over ground already covered. The problem is, that dead old guys aren't being taught anymore. Teachers aren't required to know anything about my dead old guys. There is no test that teacher must needs undergo to pronounce them able, or capable, of teaching, other than have passed the necessary curriculum needed to gain ones teaching degree. And, after the reception of such degree, is there ever again a day or reckoning. Teaching, as a dead-ended job, is the prefect place to put people with delusions of intelligence, without them having to ever produce a single form, or example, of intelligence.

How did we end up in this condition?

Teachers' unions.

Teachers' unions have nothing at all "in their best interests" that ally themselves with the best interests of your children. They are, antithetical. Your teachers. Your young, innocent, blithely ignorant, young children are being put into the hands of selfish, disinterested thugs. Has child abuse increased against children from teachers? A few priests, and the outraged attempt to sue the Vatican into poverty. Yet, how many child-abuse suits have been aimed against Teachers' Unions?

But this indictment against teachers is, again, not the purpose of this post. Are teachers bullies? Yes. Are teachers selfish and lazy? Yes. Are teachers abusive? Definitely. Are all teacher bullies,selfish and lazy, and/or abusive? No.

But the standard of some, or at least one, teacher being neither a bully, selfish, lazy, or abusive would hardly be a standard adopted by any parent/teacher association for any local school that exists. That is to say, rhetorically, that if only one out of twenty-five teachers is neither a bully, selfish, lazy or abusive, that that is the type of statistical significance that a school district would need to achieve in order to justify its hiring practises, that, the suggestion that those hiring practises might be set too low should, in my world, suggest that that district's hiring practises be reviewed, and thence abandoned.

What is the impact of teachers who are bullies, selfish, lazy and abusive?

Briefly, how do you predicate bullying, selfishness, laziness and abusiveness?

My teacher bullies me. My teacher is selfish. My teacher is lazy. My teacher is abusive.

How many of these predicates must be experienced by students, over years, before their apprehension of teaching is reduced to these simple predicates? And, I would submit, the effect of these predicates is more difficult for males, than for females. Sure, to my own benefit, over the years. The "guy" bullshit meter is differently tuned than the "gal" bullshit meter. Men and women are different. The goals of a woman are different from the goals of a man. Anyone who disagrees is probably homosexual. (Is this a form of Godwin?)

I believe that conformance is a more feminine trait, than is individualism. Individualism is a male characteristic. Not that conformance or individualism is a necessary trait of either being a female or male. But let us ask the natural question; if conformance is a female characteristic, and individualism is a male characteristic, how does the curriculum of our schools search for maximizing the performance of either females or males?

I have these two, young men I'm training. And what I'm finding is a certain reluctance to act independently of direction. I've had some great direction given me, from time to time. But I haven't had to re-make myself to be worthy of direction. I have a sense of curiosity that has led me to attempt to do that which I hadn't been trained, in order to achieve results that exceeded the results that were sufficient for my success. When you're young and hungry, simply being as good as anyone else had never been my goal. Which is why I hated working those union jobs during my college days. I always did more than sufficient. I attempted to achieve that which was asked.

Natural curiosity is a human characteristic. Just like the sins of avarice, lust, gluttony, envy, et.al., are human characteristics. Being a female with the characteristics of a female isn't a "sin" of being female. Being curious as a male isn't a "sin" of being male. But the characteristics of being either female or male end up being confronted by an organized workforce, with aims that tend to protect that workforce, from issues ranging from bullying, selfishness, laziness and abusiveness.

Never, do you hear of a child's natural curiosity. You do hear of how a child's natural curiosity creates an up-roar; questioning homosexuality, questioning the orthodoxy of global warming, questioning the value of socialism. Advocating for gun ownership. Simply owning a gun.

How are any of these ideas simply, wrong?

When the prism of decision is given to a group whose aims are more about self-preservation, than the good of our children. Check your children's curriculum. How often is "liberty" given the weight that it deserves? How more often is the word "equality" used? Liberty and equality are different concepts. (Being equal before the law is not the same idea as one being equal to another. And a law that enforces one of these, is not the same as a law the enforces the other of these.)

Natural curiosity is a wonderful thing. Are you "worth" more than me for an hour's worth of work? Am I worth an hour's worth of your work, at the same wage? Do we do different types of work? Are you due the same wage I'm able to command, when I'm doing my work, or, are you due the same wage I command, doing your work? And, if you're doing my work, at my value, does it mean a thing if you're a male or female?

Can a woman do my work? Yes. I think about Dixie a lot.

Dixie was one of those women that you never thought of as either a man or woman; she was a power unto herself. You dug listening to her. You wanted to please her. Today, I honor her by teaching my young proteges in a manner that I think she would want. But she never wanted to improve me; she relied upon my wanting to improve myself. The more I demonstrated that I understood her, the more questions she would take the time to answer. And here's the thing; I never met Dixie.

She worked for a rep agency that represented the company I worked for. But I learned more from her about the company I repped, than I learned from the company I repped. (That I ended up running that company is a different subject.)

You never lie. You never make up. If you don't know, you don't know. And you tell the people who you work with the truth. Family comes first, friends come second. Work comes third. Never any doubts, you work to achieve something, and hopefully, you find a place through work that allows you to combine all these things. Men and women can work together, successfully. The differences between men and women should be honored, not excoriated. Attempting to ignore, or ridicule, our differences is the path to denying the truths of our lives.

When young men, boys, really, find themselves confronted by the machine that is the Teachers' Labor Union, they are on their way to escape. First, most of the values of the teachers' union aren't the values that any sane person would want to adopt. And yet, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, we subject our young to the insane expectations of a union that wants more for its members than for its client class.

Secondly, by the time boys reach the age of maturity, let's say the age of thirteen, the natural state of human nature is being developed; these are the survival skills embedded by years of natural selection. You don't take a tiger, raised from birth, into a gaggle of school children without restraint, simply because that tiger has been culturally modified by years of human contact.

From Wm. Blake:

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Nature lends itself to a natural curiosity. Not a natural conformity. Things have to make sense to the underlying framework of human nature. We see tears, when others see absolutely nothing. But that's different, isn't it, from failing to see tears when no tears exist? You can have your sight of tears imposed upon you, but really, if there are not tears, at what point do you leave the discussion?

Stories are important. Stories that convey meaning are more important. Being curious is one way of telling a story, in fact, most good stories are based upon being curious, than the other way around. Stories that expunge the value of doubt or question are simply didactic. Most of the stories that I am presented with, are didacticisms. Rhetorically, one of those arguments that one would find reading Hylas and Philonious.

As much as argumentation attempts to advance itself, we're always thrown back onto previous argumentation, a certain ontology recapitulates phylogeny. Boys are boys, and girls are girls. Boys play with mechanics. Girls play with dolls. Not that either is unimportant, but when you attempt to reduce the natural role that curiousity plays with boys, in deference to the doll-playing conducted by girls, at a certain point you need to see that boys don't really play dolls, they do things. They make things that work. They do things that do things. Without regard for how the thing being done, feels. Our improvement is not in how we feel about how we do things, but in how we do things better.

I am making inroads with these two young men.

I'm overcoming decades of teaching that asks us not to ask direct questions, nor to ask what it is that motivates one. These questions could lead us to find out horrible things; such as success, cunning, caring, learning, insight, success, differentiation, experimentation, risk, gambling, intuitiveness, and the simplest of these, learning how to successfully serve others at a cost.

The best of a generation, Generation X, has been lost. We've produced a generation of slackers and losers. I've hired two. I will make them learn. I will impose myself, and my view of the world, upon them.

And I will make them successful.

Because I honor their sense of curiosity.

Perry and Illegals' Education

2011-09-23T20:02:00.000-07:00

The sinner in illegal immigrant is the employer who hires the illegal immigrant.

My family has been in American agriculture for more than three hundred years. From Connecticut, to Louisiana, to Kansas and Oklahoma, to Idaho.My father's family has been involved in agriculture in America, for an hundred, forty years. From Schleswig-Holstein, to Minnesota, to Cape Horn, Astoria and then, during the Nez Pierce Uprising, to Moscow, Idaho. My DAR/Wasp lineage met my Northern European lineage at music school, in the 1940's. Me? Zygote in 1953.

One of my grandmas was a fundamentalist. Old-tyme Baptist fundamentalist. She adopted the Bible, from beginning to end. My other grandma was a bit more difficult to discern. There is an idea that that Gramma was Jewish. Thankfully, neither my Baptist Gramma, or my "Lutheran" Gramma, or, my post-Gramma experience in more churches than you; from Christian to Presbyterian to Catholic, ever gave me cause to give less fealty to the idea that all men are created equally, or, that one whom one employs should ever be treated as less than one would treat a family member.

Slavery was a real issue for the Jews. Slavery is not cool. The cruelest moments of slavery were the moments when a man had to suborn his own reason in order to remain in good stead with his Master. The Jewish heroes were recognitions of a single man's facing tyranny, and standing up to it. The early Christian models of hero were built around the hero, the martyr who stood up to the tyrant. This standing up to tyranny has been consistent, from Moses, to Ruth, to Ezekiel, to Christ, to Peter. And all the Saints. You should not be a slave. I will not be a slave. And after the Enlightenment, it was, I think, thought that slavery would never again be possible.

Illegal immigration is an attempt at finding a chink in how we treat each other.

Since I was brought up believing that those who put their labour into your stead, and that meant we must understand that that commitment to us required a con-commitment to them, that we could not treat the men and women who worked for us any differently than those who were our family, who contributed to our family's success. Being an employer is not different to me, than adoption. I was moved forward on this path from early employers, some who accepted by resignation, and the rare cases where I was dismissed. I think it's more important to talk about the cases where I was dismissed, rather than the cases of resignation. My resignations came as opportunities occurred. And happily, the understanding that I wished to improve myself through my resignations, were echoed by those two occurrences where I found myself dismissed.

One quits a job to take on a new opportunity.

One is fired, because of failure. I've been fired twice.

The first time was the result of my attempting to organize a labour contract with my employer. The second was when I burned up a diesel motor on the new tractor. To be fair, both employers re-hired me. Their hearts weren't stone. And I've learned more from my mistakes than I've probably learned from my successes.

In the last years of the Seventies, my mom had a job under the Manpower Training Act. She had been working for Howard Vollum at Tek, and made the move over to the "JOBS" program when Vollum took over as CEO for the local Jobs Program. David Judd was the administrator. It was a great opportunity for both of us, and I took advantage of it.

I was a Sophomore in High School in 1970. But when mom got involved in JOBS, I was put into a place that allowed me to test my sense of ethics and morality with the exigencies of poor folks trying to find a way to pay for their existence. And never did I feel that the Chicano population I found my self around were trying to game the system. Illegal Mexicans working in Oregon didn't ask, and wouldn't have asked, for a hand-out. Within poverty comes a certain honesty; hard work draws wages. And wages were better in Oregon than they were in Mexico. It would take me another twenty years to find out that within poverty, comes communication; if there's a way to game the system, that information will be shared at lightening speed.

During the Fall of 1970 to the Spring of 1971, I spent time working with the Poor People's Council. The one concrete example I have of my work with this group is the change in the law, in Oregon, governing hitchhiking. It used to be the law, prior to my involvement, that hitch-hiking on a freeway in Oregon was against the law. When you're poor, hitch-hiking is the only dependable method of getting from place-to-place. Yes. I'm responsible for the panhandlers on Oregon's on-ramps. Previously, a tramp couldn't claim legitimacy. But after the law was changed, standing on an on-ramp to a freeway was legal. And for those of us who used our thumbs to travel, we gained new, economic freedom. Hitching wasn't a shake-down. It was a way to reduce the cost of travel for economic gain.

During that period, my mom and I, under the auspices of the JOBS program, got involved in the Poor People's Movement and the Chicano Movement. And the things I saw were more than informative; they required me to ask certain questions about the system that made things happen. When I was involved in the Poor People's Council, or the Chicano Movement, the issues weren't about a radicalization of politics; it was a recognition of the way people were treated. My starting point wasn't about whether or not illegal immigrants should be allowed to work. I had an uncle who offered me a job working as an coyote. Out of Salinas, my uncle was not only involved in moving illegals, he was also involved in cock-fighting. Big family, great divergence.

Illegals were an important part of agriculture.

As incomes improved, teens, the traditional workforce for agriculture, didn't find the need to work. And rather than let market forces retire farmers from no longer profitable sources of income, law enforcement turned their eyes away from the illegal activities, such as my uncle's, and actually enabled the importation of illegal workers. Under law, unprofitable farmers and orchardists should have found themselves transforming their land from farms and orchards to some other endeavour. But cheap labour was found. And the conditions that that cheap labour found themselves was simply, deplorable. When you are illegal, you find yourself without civil rights. Complain and you're deported.

Combined with what I saw of the living conditions these migrant workers found, it was a form of voluntary slavery. And that was okay with me. Until you saw the children. Why would a migrant worker give up his children?

Dirt floors. No doors. No septic system. Standing filth. This was in 1970. Children, picking alongside their mothers and fathers. Again, no problem. But, where is the treatment of these employees meeting the standard of how you would treat your own family? Would you want to keep education from your own children?

No. You wouldn't.

God wouldn't want us to act this way.

I don't believe I was a "Progressive." I believe I was religious. I believe I was acting morally and ethically. One doesn't make the child the object of the failings of the parent. And the Mexicans, the Chicanos, the poor I met weren't that much different than I. They wanted an opportunity to work, and to improve themselves. I disagreed with the terms farmers and ranchers felt they could offer their illegals. Again, not the men and women. But these men and women brought along their children. The conditions their children met weren't voluntary, and they had no voice. And we treated them like shit. No child should be treated like shit.

No child is shit.

That Governor Rick Perry perceives this, and acts, is a credit to the Governor. I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, but I understand in ways that the media will never examine, the humanity of his decisions.

Georgia Execution

2011-09-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

I don't believe in the Death Penalty. I know that the Death Penalty is ethically correct, and that the State has the right to demand the life of a person, after due process. I don't believe in the Death Penalty as an advocate of efficient government. It is far cheaper to house a convict for forty, fifty or sixty years, rather than to pay for the appeal process following a conviction for murder.

Troy Davis was executed tonight.

He killed a cop.

Again, I have no problem with the ethics that find that an enemy of the state, who has behaved against the state, in this case, killing a police officer, being killed by that state. States should always be aware of those who would commit crimes against it, and be prepared to defend the state against those who would attack it, or attack its members.

Why don't we have these executions on television?

This is not an inquiry from some kind of Caligula freak. My motive here is not to simply display the horrid, freakish nature of an execution. My point is more politically incorrect than that; it is to suggest that we televise abortions.

Death is horrible, and it stalks each of us. It is the essence of fear. Death.

I'm watching MSNBC writhe under the effects of the execution of Troy Davis, cop killer. The first step in Troy Davis' execution was putting him to sleep. Lack of consciousness. Then, when lack of consciousness was established, the lethal drugs were administered. I don't want to watch it. But, I think that if we, us, you and I were able to watch the execution of a convicted enemy of the state, we would be less likely to ask for that punishment.

But, in order to show executions, I think we must show abortions. According to Answers.com, there are thirty-seven hundred each day. In the U.S. alone. 115,000 in the World.

What crime did those 115,000 children commit?

No cops were killed. No synagogues were blown up. No drunks crashed into a car-full of innocent travelers.

Still, it's easier to kill the unborn, without regard to their future.

There is one fair player in all of this, the Catholic Church. While the Church may not always have the logical consistency one would hope and pray for, the sanctity of life is one of the essential beliefs in an ordered society that would be embodied within a constitution, or lex supra legis, that would protect those who hadn't adequate resources to defend themselves. Ordering the defense of those who lack the ability to defend themselves is one of the cornerstones of a functioning society. Putting the defense of those who are enemies of the state against the unborn seems to me, to be at least objectionable. (One of the reasons why we adopted a Constitutional Republic was the recognition, some 200 years ago, that defense of ones liberty wasn't always consistent with the changing winds of public opinion. We seem to have lost that interpretation, haven't we?)

Is the Death Penalty "un-Constitutional?"

No. Just as wars against our enemies aren't "un-Constitutional." What faddle. Our enemies are our enemies. Must we need kill everyone who is our enemy? No. There are Prisoner of War camps for our enemies. Hopefully, better equipped than Andersonville. Must we have "humane" camps for our enemies? No. Our enemies, from the simple act of being our enemies, requite themselves to that eventuality that we may execute them at our leisure. It seems absurd to me that anyone could argue against this exposition, and at the same time, advocate for the death of a fetus. Godwin's Law forbids me to draw equivalency.

You and I, we have no idea about God's plan for us. I will assert that Andersonville was an example of a certain lack of compassion. American compassion for Americans. I'm not totally sold that we took better care, at the time, as the Northern Invaders. What I will tell you is, my friend, Heinz Pfaeffle, who was saved by his mentor, Erwin Rommel in Nazi Germany, that when he was interned by American forces, he was pleased, and graced, by the Americans. Simply take a look at the care we give those interned at Guantanamo. If you were an international terrorist, what would you want?

I am not outraged by the execution of Troy Davis. I am consoled. I believe that our young need to be alarmed by the reality of our world. You cannot kill, without remonstrance. I just wish we had a strongly held belief in the innocence of life, that would gain as much air-time, as will the execution of Troy Davis.

Imagine, the public television of each abortion. 154 per hour. More than two per minute.

Busy T.V. schedule, no?

Understanding Obama

2011-09-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

One of the places I visit on a daily basis is The Money Illusion. Follow this link, and make sure you click on his links.

An eye-opener.

Learning From Failure

2011-09-19T21:16:00.000-07:00

Those of you who have followed this blog, there’s an awareness that I’ve recently left my comfort zone, in order to expand my business. This, under the tawdry gaze of our Leftist masters.

See, I think that the next downturn, which will happen before the end of the 2^nd quarter of next year, will provide me with an opportunity to purchase assets held by one of the companies that I compete against, now. I have competed against him for some few years now, and while he has more employees, I have a bigger client base and provide a better service. What he has is assets that I don’t need. (But, if I’m going to bring some people into my business, either to retire or to hand on my business to someone who would like to take over the business, being a solo act won’t afford my heirs or successors enough wiggle room to allow me to travel the “scene” in Eastern Europe.) So, if I’m going to grow, it’s cheaper to purchase what he has, than to purchase the opportunities that he represents. Some of his assets have real value. It isn’t just the assets, it’s the clients. If I can pick up his client base and replace the values that he has advocated for with the values I advocate for, I can pick up a significant sector of market share, without having to dilute what I do for my current clients. This is why I’ve decided to expand my business. If I can grow my current revenue to the point where the acquisition is not going to create stress on my cash-flow, it makes sense to plan for the acquisition, donnit?

Unnerstan, I’ve lost it all before.

Business, unlike poker, has more variables. When you’ve been dealt a hand, you have several options. Unlike poker, when you’re building a business, there are no rules. You can draw up to 15 cards and still be in play. Failure is not an impediment to success. It is the road to success.

The Road to Success is littered with the Road of Failure.

I’m not a real old guy, but my sons have reminded me that in fifteen years, I’m going to be in my seventies. “Shock.” Coming from a live fast, die young and have pretty looking corpse, I’m comfortable with the inevitable effects of living past ones idea of what ones life would be. I’ve become more cautious. I don’t drink and drive. I think about dating, but I am genuinely concerned that dating, at my age, will lead to a ruin. Better to run off to Eastern Europe, than engage in anything that requires dealing with establishing a relationship that involves flirting around the edges with emotion. Emotions are tough enough when you’re young. Attempting to disregard everything about emotions that you’ve found you’ve failed at, is too risky for me. If I lose at business, that’s me. If I lose at love, that’s me and someone else. My sons are grown. My losses won’t affect anything more than their opinion of me. The words “idiot” and “moron” come to mind. I don’t mind being either of those things, if I can keep from hurting someone. My cash? My risk.
Examining my bona fides is understood. I’d do it, too.

My biggest account has over five-hundred employees. I’m not a major player in terms of large-scale companies, but those of you who know me, know that I live in a basically rural market, yet, the largest companies in this market rely upon me for their market consultancy. Braggadocio? Well, yeah. If I wasn’t good, I’d be working harder and blogging less. But the key with this post isn’t that I’m a madman doing well, it’s that I’m not a madman, yet, thinking again about putting “it all” at risk, again. We’ll check in again at the end of 2^nd Quarter, 2012. I’m sure I’m all about the alibi. But, at my age, being a failure isn’t an unknown. It’s a known, and making sure that I’m able to outlast a competitor, and survive my own failure is more likely for me, an old guy, than was likely for me, when a young guy.

I watch CNBC prolly 25 to 30 hours a week. I bring this up to explain my take on the “market” and the Market. The “market” is, in my thinking, what takes place on Wall Street. The Market is what takes place in the macro-economic world of markets, each seeking to find their own places of equilibrium. The Market, in terms of U.S. production, is represented by the expression “C + I + G + X – M = GDP. And the comedy of U.S. domestic fiscal and monetary policy is sublime. We’re not defending the dollar, we’re not defending certainty, and we’re not defending investments. While Greece and Europe tick-tock in the background, and we’re saying “it can’t happen here” while debt to GDP ratios are spinning out of control. But I spend 25 to 30 hours a week with CNBC, while the vast majority of Americans are watching nothing close to information that would allow them to understand the path that we’re currently following.

I bring this up, only to allow myself to gain the sainted absolution of Laocoön.
The Tea Party guys are taking a shellacking from the Left because the Tea Party guys don’t care about the poor, kids, education, science, the Elderly, the Environment, product safety, second-hand smoke, auto safety, bullying, gender-equity, support for the Arts, diversity, reform, fur, safety in the workplace, a Woman’s Right to Choose, exploitation, cell-phone use, music, poetry, literature, language, discrimination, well-being, creativity, technology, equality, pasteurized milk, chemicals, the Patriarch, the Matriarch, Gaia, clinical psychology, social work, caring, empathy, role-playing, despondency, alienation, inequality, negativity, homosexuals, bi- or tri-sexuals, Corporatism, anarchism, whole foods, soda drinks, plastic bags and more, to be decided and enunciated at some point in the future.

Being a Tea Party guy is somewhat less difficult; there is a role for government, but it isn’t all inclusive. We nibble around the edges, but basically, the role of government is to leave us alone. Protect us. Make sure we’re not polluting. That garbage is picked-up and that we have adequate highways. Tea Party guys don’t ask too much.

And, the chance to fail.

Liberty is really cool.
The freedom to win or lose is one of the characteristics of “what it means to be an American.” There is no race card.

There is no under-privileged. There is only, opportunity.

Hang out around teachers. The adults to whom you put your children into their care.

Did you know that teachers are being taught and told, not to tell their students whether or not they are failing?

Had a nice evening tonight. With one of my accounts.

Talked about some people we know.

It’s like Lake Woebegone. Everyone you know, everyone you deal with, is above average. The statistical observation that should be apparent is, half the people you deal with are below average. (Given random distribution.) But we treat everyone as if they were all above average. How likely is it that you’ll meet someone in the 90 to 100 I.Q. range, as compared to meeting someone in the 100 to 110 I.Q. range? Given the first sd, I’d say it’s just as likely, innit? Yet, everyone wants to be treated as if they’re fukin Albert Einstein. Is that reasonably likely? Is it predictable?

The problem that this account and I talked about is, how do you hire anyone? Hiring a young person is now, timelessly, an unfruitful pursuit. It takes a set of skills to hire a young person that we, old guys, typically, didn’t learn. I believe that any employer that hires young people must just have a greater acceptance that the youts have little or no concern for independence and confidence in themselves.

So, I’ll share a bit.

I hired a typical slacker. Gave him a copy of Freud’s “Civilization and Its Discontents.” Then, I gave him Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.” Then I gave him Gerber’s “The E-Myth.”

We then went through certain micro-economic fundaments; like the organization of a business, what affects supply, what affects demand, what the role of price is, and the differences between the stuff you hear on T.V., and the reality of what a business owner faces when he wakes up in the morning. That is, what is his nut?
I don’t mind dumb people. But smart people do have a certain cache of responsibility, don’t they? If you’re going to tell people what they should have an awareness of, like wolves in the woods, or thin ice, wouldn’t you expect those same people to tell you the truth about over-extension of credit?

I think it’s time we get over worrying about the Tea Party folks. The Tea Party is just about thin ice and wolves in the woods. They’re not saying, don’t go out on the ice, or, don’t go out to the woods. There are Ice People and Woods People who do well in the ice or the woods. Why should we stop them?

If I choose to go out over thin ice, after I’ve been warned, who is responsible?
I do enjoy teaching. I do enjoy spending time pointing out the obvious to the young who have been taught to ignore the obvious. There are those to whom the recommendation to avoid the woods or ice is a heartfelt plea. That is a mark of a certain human characteristic; compassion.

Learning from failure. When you enter the woods, or find yourself on the ice, it’s understandable that you didn’t mean to find yourself there. When you’re misled, you have a tort. When you go out on the ice, knowing the potential consequences, you have an entrepreneur. But, if you’ve been in the woods, or out on the ice, before, it’s a choice. We take risks. Sometimes we fail. But the rewards of success are greater than the costs of failure. We learn about who we are. We gain. Gain is not bad. It is a social good.

Would somebody explain this to our President?

Worth Reading

2011-09-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

By Walt Harrington.

In Response to a Comment

2011-09-16T08:54:00.000-07:00

Should corporations pay any tax?

No.

But I don't believe in the "rents" theory. Fans of rents will disagree, since they find ownership itself an externality. Ownership is not, but we must let those who hold a view chance to give exposition. That it is, a priori not an externality is an indifference to those who hold the view. But adherents to revisionist theories often, I've found, able to disregard the status quo without the slightest blush.

Mebbe you haven't spent enough time here, but the whole "rents" argument is about penalizing people with wealth. If you're poor, you don't pay rents taxes. If you're rich, it is incumbent upon you to pay more. Something about Progressivism; "rents" makes no more sense than taxing an inheritance. Just as in the case of ownership of any asset, those that rise in value have no greater burden upon the task of enabling social justice, as do those holding which experience in a reduction of value. Taxes that are endured as a result of our income has been established as a prerogative of our nation. But, taxes have already been paid against the value of a man's estate. Taxing on the basis of either rents or inheritance is just a simple taking by a tax authority.

My take is, once you've paid your tax on your earnings, the remainder is yours.

Progressivism isn't about fairness. It's about what is your property, and a social justification to take that property. The whole and parcel of Progressiveness is to find ways to take from people who earn and save, in order to give to a certain class of people who have done neither.

In a democracy, especially in a gerrymandered democracy, it is easy to find pockets of discontent, in order to take anti-social ideas and convert them into political talking points. The Democrats have for years used divisive talking points in order to advance their pro-disadvantaged politics into play. Why else do we spend time or money teaching "diversity"? None of us has ever been anti-diversity, but the label that can be attached to one who disagrees with the outcomes proposed by the diversity crowd; and while those proposed outcomes are pointless, and at base, utterly meaningless, the label of anti-diversity puts the defender for such a position in a state of argumentative peril; being called a name either requires disputation or the non chalance of the sophisticate.

Few of us are sophisticated. Sophistication isn't a trait that we wish to adopt.

Far different for the Ivy Leaguer. The Ivy League imbrues one with knowledge and the inside track of what is hip, and that which is not. While talking about Monckton pears, one can let slip how uber important diversity is.

The Left knows there no argument there. It's a silly club, with rituals peppered with words of significance.

So, no. Corporations shouldn't pay taxes. It's kinda like any new, proposed tax.

Have you heard proposals for a "soda tax"? The idea being that we can attach a particular tax to a particular item, soda being a "cause of obesity," and thereby reduce the demand for soda pop, and while fat boys will still drink it, those who are sensitive to incremental price increases for products that create some type of social harm, will discontinue their consumption of these "harmful" products, in order to escape the taxation of these items.

In the real world, such "well intentioned beliefs" are simply that; well intentioned beliefs. Or, are sold as such.

The Left actually has some smart people amongst them...they know, as well as I do, that the language of these takings is as phony as you or I see them as.

Simply type "taxes that attempt to dissuade consumers." The first thing that popped up on my browser was "The Case for the Obesity Tax."

Democrats want more money to spend. They know that incremental taxes are hard to discern among the clutter of fees and costs we pay to purchase, maintain, live, and enjoy our lives. They've relied upon the magic of incremental taxation and fees for decades.

Where we, in Oregon, have held firm has been our opposition to a sales tax. Why?

It is, in my belief, a product of our referendum process.

Oregon law requires that our referenda address only a single topic or law. To change Oregon tax law, from our current form of taxation, to a more modern and fair form of taxation, would require that those reforms take place in several different referendums. That means, we must pass at least three referendums. Without searching, I think that this was attempted some thirty years ago. But, if a single referendum fails to pass, they all fail. Oregon's referendum law needs to be changed in order for us to effect the types of changes that would be necessary for us to truly reform our tax laws.

Why a sales tax?

Because, currently, low- or no-income folks have no problem with increasing tax rates. The get the bennies, and we pay the freight. Everyone should feel the burden of government taxation.

After all, freedom isn't free. That Oregon is broken is evidenced every day. But an undeveloped piece of land and build a commercial site, say for office space, let alone for manufacturing. What are the building regulations in Houston? There are none. You buy a piece of land, you build. You open the business you want. Where would you rather build?

You've Gotta Watch This!

2011-09-15T10:53:00.000-07:00

If you're a fan of inane babble, go here.

Six hours left.

More Bad News for Unemployment

2011-09-15T09:46:00.000-07:00

State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has announced that he is increasing the minimum wage to $8.80 beginning January 1, 2012.

Democrats talk about "social justice." They do not take responsibility when their policies result in fewer people being hired. So, expect employment to take another hit in January.

“Oregonians recognize the rising cost of living facing every one of us, and our strong minimum wage law is essential insurance that Oregon workers and their families can maintain their purchasing power and continue to contribute to our local economies,” said Avakian. “At the same time, although five out of six Oregon employers don’t offer minimum wage jobs, I know that it’s important to continue my dialogue with the businesses, many of them small operations, that do. Understanding their challenges will benefit our entire economy.” (Brad Avakian.)

That is, if they are able to keep their jobs.

Kinda hard to earn minimum wage without one.

Ending Crony Capitalism

2011-09-14T20:13:00.000-07:00

Someone brighter than I, perhaps it was Governor Palin (you do the search), suggested that we move the corporate tax rate to zero.

Think about it.

Ending the corporate tax rate would kill thousands of lobbyist jobs. If you don't need a tax exclusion, why pay for a lobbyist?

I think Governor Palin is brilliant.

You?

Forgive Me

2011-09-14T19:53:00.000-07:00

Work, who needs it?

I owe you a couple of responses, and am working toward providing those. But this came across my desk, and I felt compelled to share.

Rational people, who were warned that a one degree rise in temperature could occur in one hundred years, would find themselves able to spend, let's say, a decade, in figuring out whether or not such a claim had merit. The Global Warming Alarmists decided to stuff this down our throats, under the guise of "settled science."

Oh, and we need another Stimulus Bill, otherwise, we can't create more jobs.

It's settled science.

"All That For A Flag?"

2011-09-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

Learning About Herman

2011-09-12T20:56:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain.

The more I listen, the more I like.

He took some flak some months ago over his comments on Islam, and terror. I stepped back, since I've always been attracted to men or women who have actually created wealth. But Mr. Cain never resorted to the Cleavon Little line. That is to say, Mr. Cain never relied upon a stereotype to define himself. After the recent memorials to the victims of the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Cain's stated distaste for those who define themselves as Muslims first has greater resonance. When I first heard his comments, I distanced myself.

"Cain’s apparent rationale for refusing to even consider a Muslim nominee for any position in his administration is as simple as it is abhorrent: he believes all Muslims would try to “force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.” This type of bigotry has been promoted by conservative figures like Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel for years. Now, it appears to be seeping into the presidential race via Herman Cain."

Let's examine the article cited, further.

"Earlier this week, Cain gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he declared that, 'based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.'”

Upon reflection, after the events of 9/11, how is it that Mr. Cain can be called the name "as the Islamophobia candidate: Herman Cain?"

Easy, if you don't have a sense of what is occurring around you. Is the Islamic world around you seeking to find accommodation? Rilly? No, it is not. In fact, the Islamic world, given the current situation in Turkey, is more dangerous today than it was a year ago. The stalwart tenants of American foreign policy are no longer in place; a strong military and a clear foreign policy. This, after just three years of an Obama Presidency.

It's almost as if we've returned to the Jamie Gorelick years.

We tend to ignore. We tend to hide our heads in the sand.

This is not the enlightenment that the Obamists offered. The antithesis of enlightenment is ignoring the events that are occurring around you. Sure, we do it a lot. It doesn't make it the stuff of which policies are determined. Policies are determined by plenty of bright young men and women who have the time and inclination to examine the efforts of those who operate on the international scene. From colleges and universities, to the military and the folks who work at State. The sad thing is, I don't know if there are any bright young men and women working in these agencies who have the intellectual curiosity to ask the releveant questions.

So, the Pizza Guy.

If you're building a company, what is your first impulse? Chances are, you've never built a company. Chances are, you're not the key person in your company. Chances are, you're a nebbish. Nebbish isn't bad. It just isn't you're being a mensch. Herman Cain is not a nebbish. He is a mensch.

There are times when we want a certain luster to be worn by our Presidents. Thankfully, our recent Presidential elections have made this consideration moot. The lackluster performance of our current Commander in Chief have been illustrative of a certain reality of American politics; even the weakest of us can survive the weakest of presidents.

So, let's think about a Presidency occupied by one Herman Cain.

Former chairman and DEO of Godfather's Pizza. Former deputy chairman and chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. A mathematician in ballistics for the U.S. Navy. A minister at Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, Georgia.

This is a distinguished career. He is a true hero of the working man, rising to his level of authority based upon his own work, his own effort. He is a true, American icon.

He received his B.A. in math from Morehouse. Do you know what that means? Do you know the difference between a B.S. and a B.A.?

He did more than was required.

He received his M.S. in CS from Perdue.

He served on the boards of Nabisco, Whirlpool and Reader's Digest.

On his 9-9-9 Plan.

I'll admit that I was skeptical when I first heard his enunciation of the 9-9-9- Plan. But imagine, not having to spend thousands of dollars each year filling out your tax return. Or, hours upon hours. How much did you spend?

The income tax rate will be nine percent.

Businesses will pay nine percent.

A national sales tax of nine percent. No deductions. If you make one-hundred thousand dollars, you will pay nine-thousand dollars in income tax. You buy one-hundred thousand dollars in purchases each year, you will pay an additional nine-thousand dollars in a national sales tax. If you own a business, nine percent of your net income will be paid in taxes.

If you make thirty-thousand dollars a year, your tax load will be $2,700.00 a year. Right now, you're paying $2250.00 a year on Social Security taxes. Plus, whatever other taxes you need to pay. Chances are, your actual rate will go down. A true tax break for the middle-class.

And, on reflection, I think that revenues to government will actually increase. And one of the biggest threats to America, crony capitalism, will be decreased. Imagine crony capitalists like GE and Jeffry Immelt finding out that their lobbying won't have any effect on their competitiveness? Ending crony capitalism is one of the fundamentals of a "level playing field" that we begin to form governments upon. Any government that can bestow favours upon its friends is not a government of the people, for the people or by the people. That's not what we signed up for. It's not what we need to expect.

Make of this, what you will. I don't need a perfect candidate. I do wish, hope and pine for, an honest, ethical, sincere candidate. Given his range and depth of experience, I do believe that Mr. Cain's bona fides are as great, and greater, than any of his current or future competitors. Is being a lawyer a greater or lesser credential than being a mathematician? Is being former Chairman of the Kansas City Fed a greater or lesser credential than being a Congressman? Is building, training and maintaining a private corporation a greater of lesser credential than being a full-time, professional politician?

If you're a Democrat, or a Leftist, the answers are clear; a lawyer defeats a mathematician; a Congressman, no matter how mundane should defeat a chairman of one of our federal reserve banks; and building, training and maintaining a private corporation is no match for winning successive terms in the national legislature.

That is, someone who can sound good should never be defeated by someone who can do good.

Herman Cain.

The more I listen, the more I like.

In Commemoration of the Attacks on the United States of America

2011-09-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

I offer you this:

911Song Gaines

This gift to you was produced by Scott Gaines, of Lewisville, Texas.

We will never forget. And He will always be there for us.

I Can't Wait To Join A Union

2011-09-09T15:41:00.000-07:00

I understand the President wants us to all become union members.

I want to be this guy's Brother.

Update: Eric at Classical Values points out how badly I've misinterpreted the entire event. It's a naming catastrophe, such as this.

Hiring People

2011-09-08T20:41:00.000-07:00

Last month, I hired two young men.

I've known these two young men for at least twenty-one years.

I took this flyer because I believe there are some acquisition opportunities ahead, and I'll need staff in order to take advantage of these upcoming opportunities.

The nice thing is, I have a hedge. I'm not going to make a move on these acquisitions until late second quarter, or early third quarter of next year. The hedge is, if I'm wrong, I won't attempt the acquisition. If I'm right, then hiring these two young men will provide the trunk of a tree for a growth in my business that will allow me to increase my market share and, give my revenue stream a big boost.

I quit hiring years ago.

I hired bright, attractive new hires. The problem was, when I let them loose in my client community, my client community made them offers of employment that I couldn't match. Bad for me, good for them.

I got tired of training up my clients' next manager/assistant manager.

Again, I've known both these young men for at least 21 years. We sat down, with my eldest--who inherits the whole biz on my demise--and I outlined my five-year plan. Asked if they wanted to take the ride. And I hired both of them part-time.

You'll hear "conservatives" talk about how "regulation" is killing them. It's true. The rules and regulations for any business are arcane, confusing, vague and frankly opposed to the simple proposition that "you work for me." Imagine a world where the employees you hire can shut you down for something as simple as asking them to come to a meeting, where you explain how leftist policies are ruining your business. Did you know that's against the law?

Imagine a company, where you ask the aspirants to success to come to a training session, if they want to improve their earnings or productivity. And that their attendance is voluntary. Then find out that the Bureau of Labor and Industry will come in and shut you down if you hadn't paid them for their attendance. Free training to the employees. Voluntary attendance by the employees.

Yet, if one employee bites you back, you could lose your business.

What kind of mind-set turns free education into a grievance?

I like Standard Batteries. They're a Christian company, and maybe you've seen some of their ads. I tried to find an ad to embed, but it was too difficult. Sorry.

But how is Christianity a negative value? How is it that we've become so afraid to exert influence on either our customers or employees, that advocacy of belief has become criminalized?

Leftists want to dominate the public space. Conservatives come from a different direction; they want the freedom to come to their own conclusions. Just look at the debate that occurs on a different level, the debate over "Climate Change." How many of us are afraid to ask simple questions? How many of us have taken a beating over simply asking questions? Vilification is brutal. Being vilified is painful. How many of us have the strength to ignore attempts at vilification, to adhere to a path of honesty and truth?

I'll tell you, even I have conceded to the path of least resistance. I used to blog under another pseudonym, but, when called out, left that space and spent time off the net, until I arrived here. I'm still not blogging at the level I was blogging, yet some of this can be explained by my time spent doing those productive things that pay the bills. Good blogging takes time. Just ask any of the guys who've laid over into the blogging ditch. If nobody reads, or if "enough" people don't read, why bother?

I have found a space for my writing. And my business allows me to reach a large portion of my local market. There are things that are real and palpable about what I do that has a real, serious effect on a large portion of my local market. It's why, when I was vilified, and threatened with posts that I had made, of a greater vilification, I succumbed. (Yet, here I am.)

The blogosphere is huge. I have regained a certain anonymity. A comfortable anonymity. Just as had been enjoyed by my favourite blogger, Poor Richard. Imagine Ben hiring two young men.

While I'm not attempting to place myself in a class with Franklin, I would assert that anyone with a printing press has the potential to be another Franklin. And, given my experience--successful experience--in the field that I choose to work, that giving a couple of young men a chance to work with me, for me to teach, and for us to work together to drive greater success both for ourselves and our clients, that this opportunity should be based upon the willingness I have to teach and train, rather on the rights of these new, young hires to be shielded from any depredations that I might impose as a condition of their hire. If the minimum wage was repealed, these two men would be employed full-time. As is, I can only afford to hire them part-time, at a weekly rate of fifteen hours.

Teh "System" has determined that employees have rights that supersede the rights of employers. I guess that's because employers are such ridiculous bastards. All we do is train, enable success, and pay wages. Jesus, what bastards we are.

Yet, that is the viewpoint of those who "regulate" business. We don't offer any value. We exploit.

Fuck yeah.

And the dumb fuck who doesn't cut it gets fired. And the viewpoint of those who regulate business is, "you can't do that." WTF?

I watched the President offer his "plan" for moving the unemployment problem tonight. I think he said "pass this plan" more than ten times. Why? Is there something that our President said, that offered me an olive branch? I can't afford to hire more employees. I can't have more than five employees (full-time) without entering a regulatory zone that I either can't afford, or choose not to accept. Why? Regulations. Chances are, you don't own a company or corporation. Chances are, you don't have the authority or responsibility for hiring or firing. If you don't, keep your job.

Owning, or managing, a company or corporation is a wonderful thing. Owning or managing a company or corporation twenty years ago, was even better. Owning or managing a company or corporation forty years ago was even better. Why?

There was a time when providing a good of service to our customers was the highest calling. I remember when IBM was just a fledgling concern. Did you know that Business Services used to have an office in Portland? These were the true mad men of business. They saw the potential of the digitization of services, as it applied to making certain business activities more profitable? Were these guys "computer salesmen?"

No. These were the guys who brought innovation to the market. They took the risks. Innovators understand risks.

Whenever you hear a politician talk about innovation, remember, they don't have any skin in the game. We, in the private sector do.

Obama is the first Trillionaire in the History of the World. Tonight? He offers another program that will cost us a cool, half a trillion dollars. The coolest thing about this big Daddy is, it isn't even his money.

Should you hire anyone today? Not based upon the latest plan coming out of the White House. Me? I'm counting on some investments that are in the pipe, and an outcome that depends upon a double-dip.

Last month, I hired two young men.

It's my money, my risk. But, I think I'm going to be able to take one of my competitors out. Not today. Sometime next year. After the acquisition, people will be found to be unemployed. If they had taken care of their business, I wouldn't be able to acquire them. It's their choice to do business as usual today.

There are sharks in the waters. There are wolves in the woods.

We cannot all be winners. But, remember, it's my money in play, not yours, and not tax dollars.If I fail, and I've failed before, I don't believe that you owe me a thing. I take a risk, I win or lose. If you're a Leftist, you don't take risks. You don't innovate. You simply do what you do, and expect the rest of us to pick up your check.

Fuck you.

Learn to earn, or learn to create. But don't try to hand me your failure. Man up.

This message provided to you by a cranky old guy, who doesn't owe a dime to anyone.

2011-09-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

There were two gentlemen who led me into disputation, early in life. Their names are Arthur M. Okun and Arthur F. Burns. Or, the Two Arts. (Disclosure: my oldest son's middle name is Arthur.)

The importance of Professor Okun is, that he was one of the earlier economists to take a greater, modern and statistical approach to the study of economics. There are several conditions that P. Okun introduced that still effect the difference between fiscal and monetary policy.

Professor Okun came up with a statement about employment. It was a fairly simple statement, since econometrics is a school of endeavour that relies upon simple statements about economic activity. How "scientists" can come up with statements like, "propensity of belief" being a proof of a theoretical remains, to this day, beyond my ken.

Let's look at Okun's theory of employment.

Okun simply conjectured that employment had an effect on output.

Okun suggested that, as employment increases, output increased. Let's do that again. Some variables are exogenous. Some variables are endogenous.

As exogenous variables either increase, or decrease, their effects, (that is, the effects of those exogenous changes) will either affect employment, or not. At the same time, if exogenous variables didn't affect output, then, some autonomous force--neither fiscal or monetary policy--were having an effect upon whether or not economic output increased or decreased.

When you learn about math, one of the things you learn about is subtraction. Normally, when you take a subtraction question, you're asked about two numbers, and the difference between those two numbers. Like, "4 - 2 = 2."

It is somewhat easy to follow the logic of such an expression. (A mathematical expression.)

You have four. You subtract two. The difference between that which you started with, and that which was taken from you leads you to what was left with you. In this case, two.

Okun's Law follows much the same approach. In economics, we refer (as short-hand) to the economic output of a nation--GDP--with the letter y. We do this because when you spend a lot of time in front of a chalk board in front of a lot of first- or second-year college students, it's simply easier to do a two-stroke than a multiple stroke on the chalk board. (And lots of first and second year students are just as lazy as the rest of us. Let's all try to get along, okay?)

So, y is GDP. Or, domestic annual output. Or, national product. Or, national income. Or, some other metric, that takes into account all of the variables or our, or some other, national economy.

Y is something else. Sure, it looks a lot like y, but I guarantee you Y is not y. Y is a theoretical of what actural y is. With Y, you are making a statement about what y may be. Let's look at Y. Y is the "perfect" level of GDP. (Imagine, having a pre-cogniscent ability to predict perfect GDP.) What Arthur Okun said was, that the relationship of y was a statement of Y, and its relationship to employment. That is, the change of y had a relationship to the change of those who weren't employed (u).

This is pretty good stuff.

Today, most statements of econometric theses attempt to control, and explain, statements that include up to 32 different variables, or more. Given small weighting, some of these models may, indeed, express some notional expression of variability that more elegant models may miss. But bet my money on the truly elegant models, please.

Okun's model is fairly blunt:

is constant national economic output, at full employment.
is the "natural rate of unemployment."
"u" is the actual rate of unemployment, and
"c" is the external constant, that relates to the lag in employment and unemployment. It is external, since, to simplify examination, no changes in the endogenous variables will result in changes of y.

A lot of critics of economics tend to view this as one of the rules of economic behaviours that follow from Keynesian economics. I believe that Okun's rule is simply an earlier statement of the Laffer Curve. Arthur Okun realised that the rate of employment was more worthy of concern than any policy that claimed to increase national levels of employment. We are better off, as a national economy, when more of us are employed than when few of us are employed. Incremental changes in employment have short-term effects.

It isn't hard, at this point, to direct our attention to the efforts of the "other" Arthur.

Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns also advocated policies that attempted to affect the employment rate. While questions existed around what would be the value of (the natural rate of unemployment) in an economy at full employment, Burns posited that that natural rate would be around four percent.

There are loads of articles and books written about Chairman Burns' proposition. The point I wish to make is, that those periods where we were at or around four to six percent rates of unemployment were periods where large, interventionist policies weren't necessary. Market adjustments in employment occur and equilibrium may have a lag. But normal lags are usually short in duration.

As we look forward with anticipation to tomorrow night's revelation from our current President, it's natural to assume that the reason why our current policies are failing to make a dent in our nation income crisis will be revealed. I don't think so.

I happen to believe that our current President is self-enamored. As would be any recent graduate of law from Harvard. I just happen to believe that our President has never had to come to grips with the fact that beyond his degree, comes a record. A record of performance.

Our President has a record.

What you choose to make of this statement is up to you.

Love Me Some Mooselimbs

2011-09-05T20:59:00.000-07:00

Sarah

2011-09-01T20:40:00.000-07:00

Just checking in.

I do not want Sarah to run.

I am looking forward to a Perry/Bachmann ticket.

I do want Sarah as our new Secretary for Energy.

Guiliani as AG. Or, Homeland Security. (Tie.)

Ron Paul at Treasury. (Mebbe.)(Think about it.)(Not the Fed.)(Treasury.)

Mitt Romney at Commerce.

Huntsman at Education.

Newt at Labor. (Or, Housing and Urban Development.)

Santorum at Housing and Urban Development.

Herman Cain at Agriculture.

McCotter at State.

Roemer at Justice.

Bolton at Defense.

Daniels at Interior.

Trump at Transportation.

Huckabee at Veterans' Affairs.

DeMint at Housing and Urban Development.

Any guy who drives a truck at Transportation. (You think Trump actually wants to serve?)

United Trade Representative? Kudlow.

United States Ambassador to the United Nations? Dick Cheney.

Council of Economic Advisors? Mankiw

OMB? Becker.

The Most Awkward Word in the English Language

2011-08-31T23:48:00.000-07:00

Awkward.

Number Two?

Progressive.

Our Criminal Music Industry

2011-08-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

Posting has been light. Busy. But this crossed my desk, and I cannot but share it.

"Gibson Guitar Corp. Responds to Federal Raid"

"...due to a Congressman from Oregon..."

Who was this iconic brain waver? Earl.

"He was the lead sponsor of the Lacey Act amendments in the House. Congressman Blumenauer’s academic training includes undergraduate and law degrees from Lewis and Clark College in Portland."

But you cannot forget Ron. Another brilliant legislator.

"He was the lead sponsor of the Lacey Act amendments in the Senate."

UPDATE: Max busts the Feds here.

A Comment From Kids Prefer Cheese

2011-08-19T20:53:00.000-07:00

If only the D-Bank had been Keynesian, and had inflated the money supply, and wasted a bunch of money on make-work projects, the Nazis would never have had a chance

There was no D-Bank until after the fall of the Nazis, so (the central bank of the Weimar republic was the Reichsbank) under many logics, this statement can have a true reading, due to the failure of the antecedent in a material implication.

If the Deutche Bundesbank had leaped into the body of the Reichsbank, it would not have printed money, due to the deep seated fear of hyperinflation (caused by the experiences that lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic). Oh Boy.

Of course, Keynes, not one to turn his nose up at the offer of a quick debauch, drew the line at currency abuse. [your punch-line here]*

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. (ECOTP, p. 127)

Come to think of it, ECOTP had such a strong effect on western public opinion that it may have directly helped grease the path for Hitler's rise.

You know who else helped grease the path for Hitler's rise? The Nazis - that's who.

---

* fail: "I like my sexual partners like I like my monetary supply. Quantative and Easy. "

The Next Bubble

2011-08-10T21:13:00.000-07:00

Liquidity is a problem.

It's not solvency, although, with market contractions, solvency may soon, again, be an important short-term concern. Increased reserve/liquidity rules on banks mean that the next shock is survivable in the near term. If, in fact, the markets decide that the bubble hasn't burst.

The bubble will burst. Treasury, under Geitner, has decided that liquidity is more important than growth of the money supply. The Bernanke has abdicated the Fed's authority to political considerations. Volcker, while admired by some, was known to indulge in politics. While I admired his cigar consumption, there have always been problems with Volcker. Greenspan, and his focus on the money supply has always been, in my humble opinion, one of the best friends of markets since the establishment of the Federal Banking System.

QE1 and QE2 have been busts. Just as has been the Democrats "Shovel Ready" approach to the current recession. Keynesians simply aren't equipped with enough statistical evidence to support their advocacy of government expenditures creating wealth. You cannot, over the long-run, steal from your neighbor and call it wealth creation. At a certain point, you run out of people to rob.

QE3, which is being proposed as the next fix is, ante doomed to failure. Q1 and Q2 were bad enough, a program designed to increase liquidity, in order to force investment in "big board" exchanges. With too much money, the desire to seek returns led to investments that offered higher rates of return than those of other markets. It is obvious that the private businesses of America are fearful of the future; taxation, regulation, and the big one, Obamacare.

So, QE1 and QE2 created an economic environment where there was excess liquidity and reduced demand. Basically, if you ever studied Macroeconomics, what has occurred has been a shift to the right of the GDP curve. Whether you are a fan of Expectations, Monetary, or even, Keynesian economics (and you could add other view, like the Wealth Effect or Rational Expectations) all of these schools of thought relate to its practitioners that it is possible that all of the precepts of their individual schools are reliant upon tastes and preferences remaining constant.

What happens when tastes and preferences shift? What happens when uncertainty rises to a level never seen within a generation? The macroeconomic GDP curve shifts. To the right.

Keynesians treat the GDP curve as a constant. Spend more on transfers, increase demand. Increased demand leads to increases in income, as sales from the various sellers of goods and services increases. Remember Nancy Pelosi telling us that unemployment payments are the best thing for our economic growth.

How could anyone believe such a thing? Marginal propensity to consume.

It is true, that when people get more money, they tend to consume more. This is especially true for people on the lowest levels of income. You get a buck, you spend a buck.

The disconnect comes from the mpc becoming subsumed by the income effect. At a certain level, you can buy all you want to buy, and the marginal propensity to consume drops to zero, and then negative. Rather than spending every dollar you receive, you start to save money, invest money. The more income you make, the more likely you are to save, to invest, and this capital formation, either through the banking system or investments in equities or the bond market, allow companies and individuals to borrow money in order to invest in land, buildings, capital and employees.

There is a half-baked conviction that the marginal propensity to consume results in a "multiplier effect." (This isn't necessarily the best example of how the multiplier effect works, but it's close enough.0

The key to the discussion of the multiplier effect is, that preferences of consumption remain constant. Our current recession evidences that preferences have changed. That is, the GDP curve has shifted to the left. As we continue to follow the policies of the Democrats--increase taxes, increased regulation and increased uncertainty--the preferences of those with wealth that exceeds their marginal propensity to consume, will continue to withhold funding for investment, job creation and innovation. We simply do not know what level of taxation will be in the next year, let alone ten years, what levels of regulation, from such things as energy, land-use, emissions, labour laws, etc., might be in the next year, let alone the next ten years. And finally, the law passed to "improve health care access" is having a truly chilling effect on business. Not only do I not want to increase my workforce, I'm not even sure if my current provider will be in business in the next five years. Not that the insurance company will be out of business. Just unwilling to do business in the United States.

So, QE1, QE2. Possibly QE3. States and the Federal government spending more than revenue. Excess liquidity.

Lets take a look at bonds.

Let's assume Federal bonds sell for one-hundred dollars.

A Federal bond pays a dividend twice yearly. It is guaranteed to return to you the face value of the bond on the expiration of the bond. Guaranteed.

Assume you buy a bond at 7 percent. The value of the bond after five years is $100.00. If the market interest rates at the time of redemption is still 7 percent. What happens if bond prices drop? Bond prices are an indicator of interest rates. If a 7 percent bond for one-hundred dollars drops to $90.00, what is the effective rate on the bond? In the short-run, a bond worth $100.00 sells for $90.00, upon redemption you receive $100.00 plus the payments of interest--semi-annually--during the term of the bond. If bond prices rebound, he gets a premium for the short-term, and the advantages of a bond that retains value against time.

What if a bond, of an hundred dollars, at eight percent is held when a long-term increase in interest rates happens? A five year note will have a Net Present Value of $95.94. That is, a nearly five percent loss occurs.

If a bond's price drops enough, to an effective yield of 8 percent, that five-year bond will have a redemption rate of ten percent, the Net Present Value of that bond lowers to $88.42. The bondholder has a nearly twelve percent loss in his holdings. You think equities have suffered (now that we're back to levels seen in 2006), imagine interest rates at 8 percent. If you have any memory of the 1980's, you know that bonds can increase well into the upper teens. At a fourteen percent interest rate, that one-hundred dollar bond will be worth $75.42. A loss of one-quarter of the value of your investment.

Your President was a lawyer, not a mathematician. Timmy and the Bernanke are aware of these possible changes. Which must make both of them as nervous as a cat on a tin roof. As equities crash, as QE1 and QE2 announce their failures, take a look at your portfolio and ask, "am I inoculated from a crash in the bond market?" Chances are, you're not.

Our President has no idea of what this post is referring to. He is a lawyer. And, possibly, not that good of an attorney. Math was not a requirement. Liberals and Leftists don't really care that much about mathematical certainties. Math is hard. Doing good, or social justice, is more important than patriarchal considerations that simply support the ruling, white, capitalist system.

Take a minute and ask yourself why borrowing for new projects--without government subsidy--is so low. I would offer risk, regulation and tax policy uncertainty. But that makes me a terrorist, no?

What We Are Buying With Our "Investment In Education"

2011-08-06T10:53:00.000-07:00

Haven't been posting recently. Work has become overwhelming. Not a bad thing.

I've recently decided to push for some opportunities that I see occurring in the next two quarters, as the economy enters its double-dip. When others are crashing, it's an opportunity to acquire, no?

So I've recently hired two young people, and am in the process of training them up to a level of competence. One of these people has a Bachelor's degree, the other, two years of college. Between them, thirty years of education. And yet, it seems that I'm working with tabuli rasa.

Their handwriting? Barely legible. And, at the first sign of challenge, they admit to not being sure whether or not they have chosen rightly when undertaking their positions here. They are nice, bright kids. I continually admonish them to think about their favourite sports heroes, asking them, "what is it about these men that allowed them to rise to the top of their sport?"

Failure.

For every made shot in the NBA, there were thousands of missed shots in practise. For every goal scored in a World Cup match, thousands were missed on the practise pitch. The only practical teacher of success is, has been, and will be, failure.

These kids grew up in an educational system that put them into groups. Gave them a task. And then, the group developed their "project," from anything as simple as writing a poem, making a poster, acting out a skit. No individual responsibility. And projects were awarded points for creativity. Never for anything approaching an epistemological understanding of the task they faced. No points for truth, logic or clear thinking.

Points for working well together.

The following video encapsulates what I'm working with. Here's a young man, in college, without the slightest clue as to what his own responsibilities are. And, he's living off of the largesse we are being told is necessary in order to "invest" in education.

Have a nice day.