Wednesday mornings and payday Friday afternoons were always the best, along with any day the receptionist woke up to discover she didn't have any clean work appropriate attire (the year was 1989, her appropriate attire was suitable for Hooters. In her inappropriate attire she could have sold condoms to the Pope). At the time, I was working as a Tech Writer for a company that specialized in Department of Defense contracting. Our office consisted of a Vice President, a Department Manager, five Tech Writers, three Word Processors, a Computer Support Tech and the aforementioned Receptionist.
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Slavery: Now New and Improved!
For those of you who have been out of the loop, slavery has been illegal in the United States for the past century and a half. Many people are still wondering why? After all it seemed to be working out so well. The common assumption is the decision involved the dignity of human life, the inherent wrongness of slavery and the realization that all people deserve equal and fair treatment, regardless of their skin color. If you think for just a moment you'll realize how ridiculous that assumption is, since fair and equal treatment is still a long way off.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything
42
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Welcome to my Nightmare
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which is a fairly accurate depiction of this blog and my life. At least my insanity is completely non-violent, and usually keeps me smiling. Just make sure my crayon box is always kept full and we won't have any problems.
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
By its Fruits a Tree is Known
A few years ago I responded to something I saw written. I don't recall all of the details, but I remember there was great deal of hatred expressed towards some group, including a call to violence, followed by a request that people be good Christians. My response was to quote Luke, Chapter 6, verse 27 - verse 38. All of which is irrelevant to my subject, but it does connect my title with my content.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Sounds of Silence
Sometimes, the best possible thing to hear is nothing at all, at other times, silence is terrible. Ask any parent if you don't believe me. Communication takes many forms and is the backbone of civilization. Without our ability to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas, nothing can be built, nothing can be learned. Without our written history, we would not have learned the futility of war. Oops. Forgot what century I was in, always a problem when you own a time machine. For those of you who plan to be around next century, I can just say, there is good news ahead.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
A Few I Wish To Be Remembered
This was intended to be a Memorial Day Post, but, I didn't make it home until late. Since the person I wish to write about is long deceased, she probably won't complain.
There are many different images that Americans associate with Memorial Day: The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, Arlington National Cemetery and raising the flag at Iwo Jima are but a few. Mostly, we think of those men and women, fighting and dying in some war overseas. All of our military heroes didn't serve in that manner, and all that served in that manner were not heroes. I'd like to introduce you to a hero, that you may never have heard of, yet her legacy is amongst the most impressive of any who have served our country.
She was born in New York City in 1906. As a child she was intensely curious, dismantling alarm clocks to figure out how they worked. At the age of 17 she was admitted to Vassar, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Physics, in 1928. She followed with a Masters Degree in 1930 and a PhD. in Mathematics in 1934, both from Yale. She taught at Vassar from 1931 until 1943 when she took a leave of absence to join the US Naval Reserve.
This woman's name was Grace Hopper. More about her accomplishments in a moment. In 1966 she retired from the US Navy at age 60, but was recalled to active duty the following year. In 1971, she again retired, and was recalled again in 1972. In 1986 she was involuntarily retired from the US Navy, at the rank of Rear Admiral, just 4 months short of her 80th birthday. After retirement she worked as a consultant for Digital Equipment Corporation until her death in 1992.
During her long and distinguished Naval service, Admiral Hopper worked on some of the earliest computers. She helped design the UNIVAC 1, developed the first compiler and helped to develop the COBOL computer language. She also introduced the concept of machine independent programming. At the time, every computer understood just it's own machine language and nothing else. Without machine independent programming computer software would not exist and computers would still be something only the large corporations could afford.
Her ideas were an important factor when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) decided to develop DARPANet, which was the original name for the internet. Rather than the building sized computers she worked with, she envisioned smaller computers connected to a large scale network. She is also credited with coining the word "debugging" after a problem with the Mark II computer at Harvard University was found to be caused by a moth caught in a relay.
What does all of that mean? Without her work in the development of computer hardware and software, the personal computer might not exist. At the time, the majority of the people developing computers felt they were only good for simple calculations, but she envisioned them doing so much more. Her list of accomplishments is impressive, but even more impressive is that she achieved such success as a woman in an almost exclusively male world.
I intended to also do a detailed history of Admiral Hyman Rickover in this post, but that would require too much space. It's hard to cover a Naval career that lasted for 63 years under 13 different Presidents (Woodrow Wilson to Ronald Reagan), in just a few paragraphs. I'll just briefly touch upon his career.
Admiral Rickover was placed in charge of the program to develop nuclear energy for naval and commercial use in 1949. In only 5 years he was instrumental in the development, building and launching of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered ship/submarine. He also helped develop the first pressurized water, commercial, nuclear power plant. Admiral Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear navy was in charge of the naval reactors program until forced to retire in January of 1982.
To date, there have been approximately 300 nuclear power plants used by the Navy over a 60 year span without a single nuclear incident (nuclear incident is relatively minor. Three Mile Island was a very minor nuclear accident, Chernobyl was a major one). This is all thanks to Admiral Rickover's belief that the very best was the least he would accept. During his tenure as head of the nuclear propulsion program, he personally interviewed every officer involved in the program, oversaw the design and construction of every nuclear powered vessel, and personally oversaw the development of the training program, NPS (Nuclear Propulsion School). He refused to budge on admissions standards or on criteria, to complete the program and become a nuclear propulsion plant operator.
During my Navy service, I just missed a close encounter with Admiral Rickover, due to a family emergency. Before being retired, Admiral Rickover made one last tour of the training facilities. At the time, I was a student at NPTU-IF (A1W) (the military loves acronyms: Naval Propulsion Training Unit Idaho Falls, A1W training plant. "A" for aircraft carrier, "W" for Westinghouse and "1" because it was the first A#W training plant). During the two weeks prior to the visit, training was mostly halted while students and instructors painted, polished and cleaned. The Admiral walked in, toured the plant, told them they should have spent their time fixing problems instead of painting and ordered the plant shut down until a major overhaul could be completed. This put my training, along with 100 of my classmates, in limbo. After a detailed plan was developed, and the worst of the problems were fixed, we were allowed to start the plant up and finish our training before the overhaul.
Unfortunately, Admiral Rickover stood in the way of a campaign promise. President Reagan had set a goal of a 600 ship navy, but the nuclear propulsion program could not provide enough operators at the standards required by Admiral Rickover. He also made the mistake of complaining (this was a man who literally screamed at more than one President. His complaints were not to be ignored.) about cost overruns in shipbuilding contracts. Technically he was responsible for the overruns, because when he found shoddy work had been done, he made the shipbuilder do it over, until it was done right. The government sided with the contractors, paying out over $600 million in cost overruns to Electric Boat. A short time later, the Electric Boat general manager was indicted on racketeering charges for demanding bribes from subcontracting companies. He is still a fugitive in his native country of Greece.
Take a few moments when you have the time and learn a little bit about these two people. There are many more like them who, even though they didn't stand directly in the line of fire, had a huge impact on our military and our country.
There are many different images that Americans associate with Memorial Day: The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, Arlington National Cemetery and raising the flag at Iwo Jima are but a few. Mostly, we think of those men and women, fighting and dying in some war overseas. All of our military heroes didn't serve in that manner, and all that served in that manner were not heroes. I'd like to introduce you to a hero, that you may never have heard of, yet her legacy is amongst the most impressive of any who have served our country.
She was born in New York City in 1906. As a child she was intensely curious, dismantling alarm clocks to figure out how they worked. At the age of 17 she was admitted to Vassar, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Physics, in 1928. She followed with a Masters Degree in 1930 and a PhD. in Mathematics in 1934, both from Yale. She taught at Vassar from 1931 until 1943 when she took a leave of absence to join the US Naval Reserve.
This woman's name was Grace Hopper. More about her accomplishments in a moment. In 1966 she retired from the US Navy at age 60, but was recalled to active duty the following year. In 1971, she again retired, and was recalled again in 1972. In 1986 she was involuntarily retired from the US Navy, at the rank of Rear Admiral, just 4 months short of her 80th birthday. After retirement she worked as a consultant for Digital Equipment Corporation until her death in 1992.
During her long and distinguished Naval service, Admiral Hopper worked on some of the earliest computers. She helped design the UNIVAC 1, developed the first compiler and helped to develop the COBOL computer language. She also introduced the concept of machine independent programming. At the time, every computer understood just it's own machine language and nothing else. Without machine independent programming computer software would not exist and computers would still be something only the large corporations could afford.
Her ideas were an important factor when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) decided to develop DARPANet, which was the original name for the internet. Rather than the building sized computers she worked with, she envisioned smaller computers connected to a large scale network. She is also credited with coining the word "debugging" after a problem with the Mark II computer at Harvard University was found to be caused by a moth caught in a relay.
What does all of that mean? Without her work in the development of computer hardware and software, the personal computer might not exist. At the time, the majority of the people developing computers felt they were only good for simple calculations, but she envisioned them doing so much more. Her list of accomplishments is impressive, but even more impressive is that she achieved such success as a woman in an almost exclusively male world.
I intended to also do a detailed history of Admiral Hyman Rickover in this post, but that would require too much space. It's hard to cover a Naval career that lasted for 63 years under 13 different Presidents (Woodrow Wilson to Ronald Reagan), in just a few paragraphs. I'll just briefly touch upon his career.
Admiral Rickover was placed in charge of the program to develop nuclear energy for naval and commercial use in 1949. In only 5 years he was instrumental in the development, building and launching of the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear powered ship/submarine. He also helped develop the first pressurized water, commercial, nuclear power plant. Admiral Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear navy was in charge of the naval reactors program until forced to retire in January of 1982.
To date, there have been approximately 300 nuclear power plants used by the Navy over a 60 year span without a single nuclear incident (nuclear incident is relatively minor. Three Mile Island was a very minor nuclear accident, Chernobyl was a major one). This is all thanks to Admiral Rickover's belief that the very best was the least he would accept. During his tenure as head of the nuclear propulsion program, he personally interviewed every officer involved in the program, oversaw the design and construction of every nuclear powered vessel, and personally oversaw the development of the training program, NPS (Nuclear Propulsion School). He refused to budge on admissions standards or on criteria, to complete the program and become a nuclear propulsion plant operator.
During my Navy service, I just missed a close encounter with Admiral Rickover, due to a family emergency. Before being retired, Admiral Rickover made one last tour of the training facilities. At the time, I was a student at NPTU-IF (A1W) (the military loves acronyms: Naval Propulsion Training Unit Idaho Falls, A1W training plant. "A" for aircraft carrier, "W" for Westinghouse and "1" because it was the first A#W training plant). During the two weeks prior to the visit, training was mostly halted while students and instructors painted, polished and cleaned. The Admiral walked in, toured the plant, told them they should have spent their time fixing problems instead of painting and ordered the plant shut down until a major overhaul could be completed. This put my training, along with 100 of my classmates, in limbo. After a detailed plan was developed, and the worst of the problems were fixed, we were allowed to start the plant up and finish our training before the overhaul.
Unfortunately, Admiral Rickover stood in the way of a campaign promise. President Reagan had set a goal of a 600 ship navy, but the nuclear propulsion program could not provide enough operators at the standards required by Admiral Rickover. He also made the mistake of complaining (this was a man who literally screamed at more than one President. His complaints were not to be ignored.) about cost overruns in shipbuilding contracts. Technically he was responsible for the overruns, because when he found shoddy work had been done, he made the shipbuilder do it over, until it was done right. The government sided with the contractors, paying out over $600 million in cost overruns to Electric Boat. A short time later, the Electric Boat general manager was indicted on racketeering charges for demanding bribes from subcontracting companies. He is still a fugitive in his native country of Greece.
Take a few moments when you have the time and learn a little bit about these two people. There are many more like them who, even though they didn't stand directly in the line of fire, had a huge impact on our military and our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)