The Columbo Method

The 4th Horsemen : Political treatise on the Public treasury

2009-04-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

Political Treatise on the Public Treasury

A nation (no matter the form of government) consist of two principle parts; a constitution and a military. The constitution set out the laws governing the country. The military protects the country from foreign invaders.
The Government is the representative set of a country’s citizens. The Legislature is responsible for making laws and regulations. The President or Dictator is responsible for executing the policies of the country. The Police/Prosecutors are responsible for enforcing the laws. The Courts are responsible for interpreting the laws.

This is more or less the basic structure of a nation or so we have been taught. I said so because the current events have shone a light to a darker side of government. This government is not the maker of law and regulations to safe guard us from each other but a vicious devourer of every good and service the citizen produces.

Thus, the laws are passed not for the good of the citizen but so as to take from the citizen. A law is pass to levy 10% tax of Jon’s earnings. Another is pass to levy 5% on the jacket Jon wears. Another is pass to levy 7% on the sandwich he buys for lunch. Another is pass to levy 15% on the house he lives. Another is pass to levy 3% on the gas he buys to drive his car to work. Another 20% tax is levy on the place of his work. After all his taxes are paid, his house paid for, his life spent, he dies, yet a tax is pass to levy 13% on the things he left behind for this children. In such way, the government has become a devourer.

And what is the purpose of this endless hunger? Money for the Public Treasury. And who controls the Public Treasury? The very politicians who took our money in the first place.

The new system is needed:

The government should consist of 4 parts: the Court, the Legislature, the President and the Treasurer.

The Treasurer has only one responsibility, safeguarding the public’s money (the money collected from tax).

- The Treasurer has only two duties: to pay or not pay for the Congressional Budget and spending bills.

-He has final say in whether money gets spend or not. No money leaves the Public Treasury without his signature.

-He may choose to spend less than appropriated by Congress. He may choose to spend for some and not others but he cannot spend more.

-He is elected directly into office.

-Serves a 6 year terms, upon which he must be re-elected.

The Disturbution of Income via the rate of Exchange

2009-01-12T11:03:00.002-08:00

Basically the idea is this: when we spend money we are basically engaging in redisturbing income. We assess the health of an economy in terms of how fast money exchange hands. There should be an ideal rate so that money gets to where it is needed.

Wealth As Illusion part 2

2008-12-27T14:51:00.000-08:00

1. Bernard Madoff, 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme.

2. 700 billion dollars bail out money from Congress, also a ponzi scheme.

3. Oil went from $145 dollars this summer to $35 this winter.
____________________________________________________________
{(http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/?postversion=2008071516)
"Biggest oil price drop in 17 years"

By Kenneth Musante and David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writers
Last Updated: July 15, 2008: 4:56 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted by the second-largest margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Light, sweet crude fell $6.44 to settle at $138.74 a barrel in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.}

__________________________________________________
By Kenneth Musante, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: December 26, 2008: 2:54 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices rose back above $37 a barrel Friday after OPEC member United Arab Emirates detailed how it would cut production as part of the trade group's pledge to reduce output by 2.2 million barrels a day in January

Thought and Action

2008-10-15T15:04:00.001-07:00

Variations on a thought:

1. The mistake is to think that we can solve it by manipulating words and images in our heads.

2. The mistake is to think that we can solve it by thinking.

3. It is a mistake to try to solve our problem by force of will.

4. The will can not cause change, either in the material world nor the spiritual world.

5. We can not solve our problems through thinking, because thinking causes no change in the physical world. Unless it was a pseudo-problem, a problem of words, of sementics.

Geometric Tautology

2008-08-18T21:49:00.000-07:00

Two words: Geometric Tautology

Breathing Causes Global Warming

2008-06-10T06:24:00.000-07:00

Some months ago I read an article in Slate magazine on line about global warming being the cause for various wars. So, in that same idotic logic I just discover that breathing causes global warming or as they like to call it now "climate change."

That term reminds me of the GRE test I took, on the reading/language skills test there are two words that have the same relation and you are suppose to pick out two other words that have similar relationship. Climate, already imply change. It is like "fat lard" or "The Audacity of Hope". It tickles me everytime I hear that.

An online dictionary gives this definition of audacity:
1. Fearless daring; intrepidity.
2. Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.

The same dictionary has this for hope:
1. To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
2. Archaic To have confidence; trust.
v.tr.
1. To look forward to with confidence or expectation:
n.
1. A wish or desire accompanied by confident expectation of its fulfillment.

An oxymoron, audacity-hope, not climate-change as two words that imply each other.

Anyways, as I was saying, what is the one machine that from the day it comes out of the production line until the day it dies, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every second, everyday it gives off CO2? People! That's what, people breathing is causing global warming. We need to stop breathing, Please, write your congress man and women, and tell people to STOP BREATHING!

An example of acedamic intellengence from the Cato Institute

2008-05-30T18:31:00.000-07:00

'You very likely own stolen goods. The gas in your car, the circuits in your cell phone, the diamond in your ring, the chemicals in your lipstick or shaving cream — even the plastic in your computer may be the product of theft. Americans buy huge quantities of goods every day that are literally stolen from some of the world’s poorest people. These thefts are permitted — indeed encouraged — by an archaic rule of international trade that violates the most fundamental rule of capitalism: to protect property rights." [http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/05/12/leif-wenar/we-all-own-stolen-goods/]

I find it troubling that the author and commentators got the whole subject wrong. They all seem intelligent yet no one sees error.

1. Mr. Wenar's idea of property is so loose we can make the case that the builders of Hoover Dam are engaging in thieve, when they charge us
for use of electricity. Or the mining companies of N. Dakota are stealing from the citizens of the 50 states and sharing profits with ony the residents of that state.

2. Why should the profits of resource go to the people of that country only? Mr. Wenar assumes that the resources of a country belongs to all the people of that country. Why?
It came from the Earth, I'm a creature of the Earth, therefore, I own a part of the resource. Therefore, I do not own any stolen goods. I own the good that I pay for.

There is no reason than to go any farther. Now, I'm not a professor or a scholar, just an ordinary guy but common sense tells me that Mr. Wenar is not concern about property rights or the exploitation of resources. He is concern about the suffering of people under the rule of dictators. This suffering he has trace to the fact that we buy goods from those countries which puts more money into the hands of the dictators, which in turn causes more suffering for their people. Mr. Wenar's solution is to soften the defintion of "property rights" and accuse the consumers of engaging in the trade of "stolen goods".

Is this meant to scare us? We are now an accessaries to theft! It is also meant to shame us!

With the idea of property loosen Mr. Wenar reach the conclusion that the resources are stolen goods. And so, now countries and companies are now engaging in theft. And thus, the bright idea is to put a tariff on them and set the money aside for the people of the country the resources came from.

The idea is so naive it is not worth commenting on any farther.

The case of incest and imprisonment in Austria

2008-05-06T17:53:00.000-07:00

"Austrian house of horrors"
"DNA tests show an Austrian man fathered seven children with his daughter, who he allegedly imprisoned for 25 years."

"Authorities were providing little information about Fritzl, 73, who they say has confessed to locking up daughter Elisabeth since she was 18 and repeatedly raping her. He said he incinerated the body of one of her children, who died in infancy."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24385094/

This case has been in the news for some time now. I don't even know what to say. I was intially numbed and still am. No questions of why? or how could someone do this? comes to my mind because the mind is still trying to comprehend the facts.

On youtube there are alot of anger and hatred toward the man, but surprisinlgy I didn't feel any. I felt sadness and sympathy for the daugther and children and sadness in general but there is no feeling of any kind toward the man. He might as well be a trig or a rock or a piece of dirt.

There is the idea of "ex-communication" from God, which I believe means to be completely cut off from God. I feel that in a similar way I have cut off any human feeling for that man, even the feelings of hatred and anger. We might as deal with him as we would a piece of dirt; flick it off with our finger.

On some general questions

2008-05-01T15:57:00.000-07:00

What do you think about this picture?

This question is too board, usually this question is ask only with a well define context, such that both of you already have a general idea of what the public opinion of the "picture" is. In this case, the question is meant to ask whether the person agrees with the general opinion or not. When there are no context than any answer is possible.

a) The picture is too large.
b) The frame is too large.
These are answers concerning the physical property of the picture or subject matter.

What do you think the picture is trying to say?

Evolutionary Logic is bad logic

2008-04-26T15:49:00.000-07:00

A study have recently found that mothers eating a calorie rich diet are more likely to have boys than those of a low calorie diet. In short, high energy diet = boys; low energy diet = girls.

("Mother's Diet Influences Infant Sex: High Energy Intake Linked To Conception Of Sons" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080422194553.htm)

The summary from this, according to Dr. Fiona Mathews:

"Potentially, males of most species can father more offspring than females, but this can be strongly influenced by the size or social status of the male, with poor quality males failing to breed at all. Females, on the other hand, reproduce more consistently. If a mother has plentiful resources then it can make sense to invest in producing a son because he is likely to produce more grandchildren than would a daughter. However, in leaner times having a daughter is a safer bet."

But shouldn't it be the other way around. Since one male can father many children, the specie really only need one male and alot of females. In short, the number of offspring is limited to the number of avialable females. Thus in times of plenty the specie needs alot of females (to give birth) and a few males. In time of scaricity the specie should have few females (which limits the number of births) and many males.

E. Lorenz, RIP

2008-04-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

Below is an article from the Pioneer Press regarding the death of Edward Lorenz.

[E. Lorenz, father of chaos theory
Pioneer Press

Article Last Updated: 04/17/2008 11:15:31 PM CDT

Edward Lorenz, the father of chaos theory, died Wednesday at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was 90.

He was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he came up with the scientific concept that small effects lead to big changes, something that was explained in a simple example known as the "butterfly effect."

He explained how something as minuscule as a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil changes the constantly moving atmosphere in ways that could later trigger tornadoes in Texas.

Meteorologists today base their forecasts on his techniques.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the MIT news (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/obit-lorenz-0416.html)

[Edward Lorenz, father of chaos theory and butterfly effect, dies at 90
April 16, 2008

Edward Lorenz, an MIT meteorologist who tried to explain why it is so hard to make good weather forecasts and wound up unleashing a scientific revolution called chaos theory, died April 16 of cancer at his home in Cambridge. He was 90.

A professor at MIT, Lorenz was the first to recognize what is now called chaotic behavior in the mathematical modeling of weather systems. In the early 1960s, Lorenz realized that small differences in a dynamic system such as the atmosphere--or a model of the atmosphere--could trigger vast and often unsuspected results.

These observations ultimately led him to formulate what became known as the butterfly effect--a term that grew out of an academic paper he presented in 1972 entitled: "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?"

Lorenz's early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science--biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions--relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.

"By showing that certain deterministic systems have formal predictability limits, Ed put the last nail in the coffin of the Cartesian universe and fomented what some have called the third scientific revolution of the 20th century, following on the heels of relativity and quantum physics," said Kerry Emanuel professor of atmospheric science at MIT. "He was also a perfect gentleman, and through his intelligence, integrity and humility set a very high standard for his and succeeding generations."

Born in 1917 in West Hartford, Conn., Lorenz received an AB in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1938, an AM in mathematics from Harvard University in 1940, an SM in meteorology from MIT in 1943 and an ScD in meteorology from MIT in 1948. It was while serving as a weather forecaster for the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II that he decided to do graduate work in meteorology at MIT.

"As a boy I was always interested in doing things with numbers, and was also fascinated by changes in the weather," Lorenz wrote in an autobiographical sketch.

Lorenz was a member of the staff of what was then MIT's Department of Meteorology from 1948 to 1955, when he was appointed to the faculty as an assistant professor. He was promoted to professor in 1962 and was head of the department from 1977 to 1981. He became an emeritus professor in 1987.

Lorenz, who was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, won numerous awards, honors and honorary degrees. In 1983, he and former MIT Professor Henry M. Stommel were jointly awarded the $50,000 Crafoord Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, a prize established to recognize fields not eligible for Nobel Prizes.

In 1991, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences in the field of earth and planetary sciences. Lorenz was cited by the Kyoto Prize committee for establishing "the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, as well as the basis for computer-aided atmospheric physics and meteorology." The committee added that Lorenz "made his boldest scientific achievement in discovering 'deterministic chaos,' a principle which has profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton."

During leaves of absence from MIT, he held research or teaching positions at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.; the Department of Meteorology at the University of California at Los Angeles; the Det Norske Meteorologiske Insitutt in Oslo, Norway; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

An avid hiker and cross-country skier, Lorenz was active up until about two weeks before his death, his family said.

Lorenz is survived by three children, Nancy, Edward and Cheryl, and four grandchildren.

A memorial service will be held at 3 p.m. Sunday, April 20, at the Swedenborg Chapel, 50 Quincy St., Cambridge. The MIT News Office will update this announcement as more details become available.
Memorial service for Edward Lorenz
Sunday, April 20, 2008
3 p.m.
Swedenborg Chapel, 50 Quincy St., Cambridge]

Epictetus and stoics

2008-04-06T23:15:00.000-07:00

Some note from Ethics class:

Epictetus believes the Good is having the right frame of mind towards life. To him there is nothing inheritly good or bad, only our attitude about it, thus we should:
-only concern ourselves with things up to us (things up to us vs things not up to us)
-know that our Fate is planned out by God and thus accept what comes our way
-endure; have the capacity to deal with hardship

Basically, Epictetus believes we should change our attitude about things instead of trying to change the thing we don't like. Thus if you don’t like your hair color, you should not change your hair color but instead your attitude about your hair color. All this is fine and well, so long as we are talking about superficial things but let what if we are borned into slavery. Should we try to be freed or learn to endure and live well as a slave?

I we are born a minority in the south in 50’s America; should we try to
change the society or should we just endure racism?

In a way Epictetus seem to be the opposite of Epicurus, whereas Epicurus rely heavily on the good being something that is pleasing to the sense, Epictetus seems to be merely rational. He seem to want to deny anything dealing with the sense and live in the mind.

The Problem with Epictetus is that if we follow his philosophy we would probably stuck in the middle ages. Why look for a cure for the Black Death? Such is the plan of God for population control. Why sail around the globe? If God wanted us to live in the ocean he would give us gills.

This is a very secure way of thinking. I use to think like this when I was younger. God, has a plan and in the end everything well work itself out. In a way ramnants of this thinking still exist. It is one of the most sinister form of thought to ever cross the human mind. It is an apathetic attitude. It frees the human mind from responsibility. It make us merely an actor in a play. I consider the forerunner of the Communist, utopia ideaology. This idea of a perfect world where we merely have to “play our role.”

What is our role? What is God’s plan? If you lose a leg in an accident or become paralyize is that God plan? Or, is that a really, really bad accident?

Variations outside the norm and how we want to change that to fit the norm; when do we change, when we not change?

Cuba giving land to farmers

2008-04-06T06:53:00.000-07:00

"The government is preparing for a "massive distribution of land," Orlando Lugo, president of Cuba's national farming association, said last week. Private farmers have begun receiving land for the cash crops of coffee and tobacco, and will soon be able to lease state land for other crops."

"The idea is to revolutionize farming, one tiny plot at a time."

-Cuba Giving Land To Private Farmers, AP, 4.5.08
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23972774/

In an attempt to battle chronic food shortages the Communist government in Cuba (with Raul in power now) have hit upon a revolutionary idea: give lands to farmers and let them farm it themselves; allow people to grow and sell their products.

I don't know if this is going to work, comrades.

New Powers for the Government

2008-03-31T12:01:00.001-07:00

"The Treasury secretary on Monday formally unveiled his Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure. The plan, which had been in the works for almost a year, envisions an expanded role for the Federal Reserve in preserving market stability and overseeing the financial services industry. Defining those responsibilities has taken on new urgency in the wake of a credit crunch that has led to some $200 billion in writedowns by big firms and now threatens to exact a toll on the economy."

"Skeptics contend that under former chief Alan Greenspan, the Fed played two roles in inflating the housing bubble that has since burst with such serious consequences for the financial sector. It's well accepted that Greenspan helped to fuel the housing bubble by cutting interest rates as low as 1% back in 2003, and keeping them there even as the economy began to recover." Fed up with the Fed by Colin Barr 3.31.08 [http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/fed-backlash.fortune/?postversion=2008033113]

The Treasury Department is backing a plan to give the Federal Reserve more regulatory power but it is the Fed who put gave us this mortgage crisis in the first place.

The three things that created the mortgage crisis according to investor Bill Fleckstein:

1. Easy money; low interest rates; easy credit
2. Changes in capital gains tax
3. Decrease regulation which made the originator of the loans able to hide the risk of their loans.

The Paulson plan would:
-designate the Fed as the primary regulator for market stability, greatly expanding its ability to examine any financial institution deemed to pose a risk to the stability of the system.
—shift the functions of the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, although ultimately the plan envisions just one banking regulator.
—merge the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
—create a national regulator for insurance companies, which now are largely regulated by the states.
—establish a commission to address the abuses exposed in the current tidal wave of mortgage defaults.

My opinion on this; I worry about the expanding power. What consequence will it bring about? I don't think we need more regulation we just need a solid gold standard. Let people loose money so they will be more careful about these risky loans.

Charm and Substance

2008-03-28T17:58:00.000-07:00

The question is; Why is Ron Paul's montary message not getting across?

1.
Sometime it is not enough to give a intellectual talk on a subject because the listeners simply don't even understand the matter at hand.

2.
One have to paint them an end result. I mean you have to tell them your goal. It should always be a positive message.

3.
Instead of: "I want to bring back the golden standard." Say; "Let's create a better tommorrow for our children."

The second is a purely artistic expression, devoided any logical thought. Again, it is the goal that we want to get across, not the economic details.

4.
"I want to get rid of the IRS, the Federal Reserve."

Say; I want to make everyone in this country rich. And, I want them to stay rich.

These are just totally wack out statements but I think they are the ones the average person will understand.

Ron Paul vs The Fed Chairman-Bernanke 2

2008-03-28T17:38:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul lectured Bernanke on inflation of the dollar.

Ron Paul vs The Fed Chairman-Bernanke

2008-03-28T17:30:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul lectures the Fed Chairman Bernanke on basic economic principles 2.27.08.

Why I can not afford a house?

2008-03-26T07:12:00.000-07:00

Why I can not afford a house?

Because they are too expensive.

Why are they so expensive?

Because the amount of manpower and material needed to build a house is expensive.

Why don't they build cheaper houses?

They do, its call manufacture homes; trailers.

But my income compare to the national average is right there with everyone elses. Therefore, we would expect everyone to live in trailers, but they don't. Most people live in houses.

-----------------------
Most people don't "own" their homes. They bought it on credit; a 30 year mortage is normal. That mortage is purchasing power over 30 years compress into today. It is a "magical" purchasing power.

People buys houses on credit, therefore, the housing industry keeps building houses at those high prices b/c people are buying them. If we stop buying them, the industry would have to build houses that we can actually afford.

Note: the problem of credit.

How Liberals Think

2008-03-26T06:52:00.000-07:00

Great video on the mind of a Liberal.

Socrates and Questions

2008-03-21T14:33:00.001-07:00

If you ask enough questions it will eventually end up in a tautology. I don't have a proof but still working on it. Because you are dealing with words it must eventually come back to loop around itself. Because when you ask questions you are simply breaking down the concept into simpler concepts. I'm sure someone work this out already.

Probably too difficult for me to understand. It is easier for me to come up with the proof myself than it is for me to read someone else's proof and try to make sense of it. Such is the nature of philosophy. I find it difficult because the author is speaking about things too abstract. But once in awhile, if the sun light hits the surface of the lake just right I could catch a glimpse of what the philosopher was trying to say.

The classification of questions

2008-03-21T07:21:00.000-07:00

Below I attempted to answer the question of what is wealth? The question is hard to answer. I could give you a dry defintion but that seems to be just more verbage.

What does it mean to ask for what something is? Take for example this question: What is a cat?

You can answer by saying, it is a four legged animal and then proceed to give more and more description and than if the person still does not know you simply show him a picture. This assumes that the person have never seen a cat but merely heard the word cat.

These type of questions occur alot with little children. I'll give it a name. Call it 1st order questions or "Questions of the 1st order". This consist of an object and a word; a one to one correlation. These are questions of objective identity via appearance or physical traits.

The second type of question arise after you show the person a picture of the cat and yet the person ask; what is a cat? Or let's say you are able to go back and time and bring back a caveman. If you show him a bicycle and utter the word "bicycle." He would know that that object is called a bicycle. Everytime he hears the word bicycle all he would know is the image in his head. He does not understand it's function.

We often see movies of aliens; upon landing on earth some people would meet the alien or see their spaceship and say: What is that?

These are questions of function. For, as in the case of the caveman they see the physical features but they do not know the function. I call these questions of function or 2rd Order.

To know a thing we have to know these two things; its physcial traits and its function, or what something looks like and what they do.

There is a third order, that of context. You may know what something looks like and what it does but you may still not know it in the sense that you have no sense of perspective about it. A sense of comparison.

Using the cases above one would have a better understanding of a cat if you see many different cats and dogs and lions, tigers, bears etc. One would understand that it is a kind of animal, belonging to the class of tigers and lions but slightly different from dogs and wolves. The same would apply to a bicycle.

Orders of Questions of “What”: [appearance, function, context]

A question now is creeping up for you are beginning to see that the above orders of questions refer to objects/things. So the question is; Does it apply to concepts? Let us take the concept of Freedom.

Will since Freedom is not a thing it does not have a physical trait and thus there is no 1st Order.

What is wealth - Bear Stern bail out

2008-03-17T17:50:00.000-07:00

"One of the more stunning developments of the Bear Stearns (BSC: 4.81, -25.19, -83.96%) fire sale is that many of the firm's 14,000 employees, as well as the firms many thousands of shareholders, have just watched their stakes in the company go up in smoke."

Bear Bailout: Employee's Fortunes Vanish, March 17, 20008

[http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/finance/article/bear-bailout-employees-fortunes-vanish_520815_9.html]

Bear's worth as of last friday 3.45 Billion dollars, as of today 236 million. Last year its stock was at $170, now it's $2 a share.

So I ask you what is wealth? It is but an illusion. It is done with smoke and mirrors. I have long suspected that the whole of American's wealth is build on a mirage. There is nothing substantial there. To understand this you have to understand the "credit" system of this country. Way to difficult for to me make sense of but my "spidy sense" tells me there is something not quiet right.

In the old country, my grandparents own their house. It is a house they built on their land. I mean they really own it. They built the little hut, they put a fence around it. They have a farm as few 100 yards away. They have no mortage, no real estate tax. Though they were pooor. They own all their properties.

Whereas today, I "own" a motorcycle. I bought it for $8000. I still owe $4000 on it. That $4000 is on credit from the bank. So of that $4000 I might owe you a dollar, I might owe the next person 50 cents, who knows. The point is that it gets so complicated that I'm not even sure if the bank actually has $4000. It could have borrow it from another bank, which borrows it from another bank, and so forth until we come to a bank that own Harley Davidson, the company that made the bike that I bought, that I borrow money to pay for.

So it eventually ends up that I borrowed money from them to pay for their product. Now, multiple this a thousand fold and you get an idea of how complicted the system is.

Does Rap Music Make One "Dumb"?

2008-02-25T15:38:00.000-08:00

I went through a phase in which I was listening to alot of rap music. One day it occur to me that it consist mostly of two line ryhme schemes. It is a mind numbing beat and preschool ryhme.

It is both the music and the ryhme that creates a dumbing effect. It first it was cool after awhile it's just...goofy!!

The Darkside of the Free Market

2008-02-20T12:07:00.000-08:00

"A Week's Exclusion from Google Raises UN-answered Questions"

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

[UNITED NATIONS, February 19 -- One week after excluding Inner City Press from its Google News service, and after protests and media coverage, Google quietly resumed including the publication's articles in the database, without apology or explanation. The company's responses to journalists' inquiries, that the removal was based on receipt of a single complaint, from a complainant Google would not identify, raise more questions than they answer.]

What the Free Market purist fail to tell you is that a purely free market will lead to a monolopy. All the power will be concentrated in one huge Corporation. You will then have the case above. The dark side of the free market is the 21 million pounds of beef recall from the Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., child labor, slave labor, sweat shops etc.

It is the nature of the company to produce a product with the cheapest material via the cheapest means and to sell it to you at the highest price. The only thing that prevents them from doing that is competition. The bigger the company the less competition.

What is Wealth?

2008-02-13T12:35:00.000-08:00

The question is; what is wealth?

It has to do with money and one person having it more than another.

Let's say there is only one person can it be said that he is wealthy?

No, wealth implies an inequality. There has to be someone who is poor for there to be a wealthy person. Wealth is a relative term.

So, let's say, there are two people; Paul and Peter. Paul has more gold than Peter. We say than that Paul is wealthier than Peter. So, than the question again is, base on this model, what is wealth?

Wealth, refers to the amount of gold and/or raw material in a system. Wealthy, refers to the person with the more gold/raw material in that system (place, country).

But, in our society actors and football player don't have a lot of raw materials so how are they wealthier than us?

We can say that they are wealthy because of natural talent; their ability to do things that we want or that we are willing to pay for. In this way they obtain our wealth. They are no different than a carpenter or any other worker except that their product are more "artistic."

Is wealth a zero-sum game? In other words, going back to Peter and Paul, if Paul is wealthy is it because he took it from Peter?

Without answering the zero-sum question, let's first come up with all the possiblities:

1.
Paul is wealthy. Peter is poor. The more wealthy Paul gets the more Peter becomes poor. It become an inverse scale. As Paul's wealth goes up Peter's wealth go down. The zero-sum game implies this extreme, because the amount of material/gold is limited.

2.
Paul is wealthier than Peter. As Paul's wealth go up so does Peter's. Paul by being rich causes Peter to be rich. Though Peter is not as rich as Paul, he is not poor either.

Something tells me that both of these could be true. But for #2 to be true does there have to be a third party?

No, #2 implies a piggyback system in which Paul puts his money back into the system which helps Peter to become rich. It also implies that raw materials are not limited. Raw material in this case being capital.

So, than back to the original question: What is wealth? And, how can it exhibit both properties (1,2)?

Wealth is a more general term for money. Wealth is or are the means to obtaining our needs and desire.

What is money, or wealth?

How can we be more wealthy?

How does a poor country become wealthy?

How do we help the third world country become wealthy?

And if we do this does it mean that we will become poor, in order that they be wealthy?

If I know what wealth is, I should be able to solve these questions. I can't, so it can not said that I know what wealth or money is?

I have this feeling that wealth is something more elusive. It is not a things, but more of a condition.

How is wealth created

2008-02-12T08:40:00.000-08:00

In the post below I question how an economy can grow if we go back to the gold standard. I than made the statement that wealth is never created or destory, only transform from one thing to another. I want to visit that statement and "peel" it.

(This is a blog more so to sort out my ideas as well as for anyone who may come by. I am trying to find a method to thinking, philosophizing.)

The question is "how is wealth created?" Or, is it ever created or do we merely transform it from one to another?

Which brings us to the question; what is wealth?

The simple answer is, wealth is having money. The ultimate money is gold and silver, so having wealth is having gold and silver.

But if we are stuck on an island and you have a chest of gold and I have a fishing pole and a surf board which one of us is more wealthy? It no longer makes sense to say that you are more wealthy, even though technically you are.

So we modify the concept and say; wealthy implies the means to buy goods and services.

-
It is easier to think of money, wealth and the market as a game with rules that we agree to. And so in the example above of the island, we no longer agree to the rules and so gold and silver is no longer valuable.

This line of thought will lead to the idea that "wealth", riches, money etc. are not real. They are a collective illusion, a game that we agree to play.

For example: How wealthy will Bill Gates be if we all stop buying computers? If the whole world converted into the Amish life style Bill Gates' wealth would be zero.
(note: arguement to the extreme; to make a point by going in the extreme opposite).

So the point is that wealth is an illusion.

The Gold Standard and The Zero Sum Game

2008-02-08T12:10:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard. If we do so won't we put ourselves in the zero sum game?

Thought Model:

Consider a town, in it are Peter and Paul.
Paul wants to build a store, it will cost 1 ounce of gold.
Peter wants to build a football stadium, it will cost 3 ounces of gold.

There are only 3 ounces of gold in that town.

The dilema:
If Peter gets the bank to loan him the 3 ounces of gold
Then there would be none left for Paul.

The gold standard implies that the money in circulation must equal an amount of gold in the bank. That means that an economy would always be limited by the amount of gold it has; a zero sum. And this takes us back to the Merchantiles.

But isn't this true of all economic systems. No wealth is ever created or destory it is merely transform. You can only make money from existing money.

The Theory of the Best

2008-02-01T17:23:00.000-08:00

Theory of the Best

-In any circumstance in which a decision has to be made there is always one option that is the best.

That you should look at your choices as if one is the best overall. That the decision you make is the Best decision.

-In deciding between a emotional/pleasure and a rational; to eat cholate cake or the vegatables, the best option is "always" the rational choice.

I call this the "least emotion."

-The Best implies the least risk, the safest choice.

Though a risky move here and there may win you a big prize or caught the enemy off guard there is always the risk of loosing it all.

-The summation of a series of Best choices will be a good life.

I call this the "continuation"; that you have to look at your choice in series or as a summation for something greater. If you choose to eat vegatable you must also choose to exercise, choose to not drink soda etc.

Life as a struggle for something better

2008-01-30T13:31:00.000-08:00

Paradigm A: Life as a Struggle

I deliberately avoided the phrase: Life as a war, because war is such a fracture term. War, struggle, competition: these terms have different meanings.

War:
Implies a struggle between two (or more) separate different entities. You can have a war between two nations but you can not have a war trying to ty your shoe with one hand, that is a struggle.

Struggle:
Is the act of trying to complish a task.

Competition:
Always imply an even playing field, always implies rules and fairness.

Life is a series of struggles, both internal and external. A man struggles to get up in the morning. He struggles against sleepiness. He drives to work. He struggles against traffic. If he is a student, he struggles trying to understand his course work.

Life is a series of struggles.

1. Now, after listing a series of examples to support the idea, we have to come up with what is common to them all. Here are a few gneralizations:

-Man is trying to get from one place to the other.
-Man is trying to get from one state to another.
-Life is a series of changes.
-Life is the act of trying to get from one state to the next.
-Life is the struggle from one state to the next.

2. Before, this is even completed a question has pop in my mind. These acts are not really struggles. They are struggles only if I'm fighting it. It's a struggle to get to work in the morning, only if I'm late. If I give myself plenty of time and prepare myself mentally for the drive I could enjoy it. If I have something to get up to I might not struggle so much in the morning. Thus, life is not a series of struggles.

But that is also incorrect for there is struggle in life. So, when is Life a struggle and when is it not?

-Life is a struggle when we are doing things we do not want to do.

But, let's say the act of tying your shoe lace with one hand. I want to ty my shoe laces but it's a struggle if I have only one hand. Here, I certainly want to ty my shoe lace but it's a struggle, so it cannot be simply that life is a struggle when we try to do things we don't really want to.

-There is a confusion between "struggle" as a purely physical act and as a psychology event. It is because I think I am unclear about the exact meaning of the word "struggle".

Going back to the meaning above: struggle is the act of trying to accomplish a task.

-Drop the word "struggle" altogether and rephrasing the original concept:

-Life is a series of task that we have to accomplish.
-Life is the act of trying to accomplish as series of tasks.

But this doesn't really say anything. This is dull and dry philosophy. The kind that the Linguist and Rationalist gives us. We have to introduce a judgement; telelogical concept.

-Life is an act of trying to accomplish a series of tasks for the better.

This implies a struggle for the better. We don't struggle to be worst. We struggle to move from poverty to riches, from pain to pleasure, from sickness to health.

It was Alfred N. Whitehead, in a critizism on Evulotion, who said that organisms struggles not only to live but "to live well, to live better, to live best."

Ron Paul and the Gold Standard

2008-01-29T13:03:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul wants to bring back the gold standard. How does he propose we do this?

He has a very simple solution. Just allow gold and silver to circulate. We'll have two currency.

What would this do?

We'll have two competting currencies. According to the theory of competition one will eventually die out. It will force them to be more responsible. If one starts inflating the consumer will move to the other currency.

But it is almost impossible to inflat gold and silver because they are limited.

The Free Market Monopoly

2008-01-29T12:24:00.001-08:00

1. Consider Two Sellers A and B. They both sell apples.

2. A sells apples for 9.50. B sells apples for 10.00.

3. B will eventually be squeeze out of the market.

4. A will then cut inventory and sell apples for 11.00.

5. So now, the buyer will have less choice, less quality apples, and will have to pay a higher price.

In any free competitive enivorment the weaker ones will die out until eventually only the strong survive. This is true in the Free Market. An ideal Free Market will always produce a monopoly.

6. The seller will act in such a way so as to produce maximun profit. He'll cut inventory and quality while raising the price. Thus, the buyers will be left with less quality and higher prices.

7. A monopoly is the ideal situation for the seller.. #6.

8. In a monopoly there will is no competitive pricing, less variation in the product and no innovation.

9. Every market have natural barriers, most are captial (money) and/or know-how.

10. Compare the Car market to the Hot Dog stand market, which of these is more free? The Hot Dog market of course, because more people can enter that business than the Car business.

11. Now compare two Car Market, one in Japan and one in the US. Let say, the US market have 3 sellers and the Japanese market have 5 sellers (make and sell cars), which market, the Japanese or the US, is more free and by how much?

12. The Japanese market by 2 degrees of freedom.

The problem of a tax free domesitc property

2008-01-23T13:25:00.000-08:00

1. If we no longer tax the domestic property where are we going to get the money from to make up for the loss?

-We can solve this by simply having: a firefighting service fee, police service fee, school fee etc. This fee will be access uniformerly and not base on property value.

But then what will happen if a person does not pay his fee? For example, we have to pay a fee on our cars. We get a little tag to put on our license plate. If we drive around without this tag we get a ticket. But how will we enforce the firefighting and police fee? Do we sent the police to their house to take them to jail or do we simply not respond when they call the firefighter/police department?

Will simply cut off their electric and water and condemn the property!

2. I recall that I got involve in the issue of tax and government only after I bought a house and started paying taxes on it. Thus, the tax serves as a reminder that I am a part of the city, it binds me to the city.

-The taxes bind me to the city like a chain binds a slave to his master. People that own property are more likely to vote and get involve in politics because of their personal stake as a land owner. They do so out of fear of bad government, not because of love.

When we eliminate the property tax, their bond to their property will be far stronger. They will no longer feel like they are merely leasing the property. Thus, they will take better care of it since it is something they’ll want to pass on to their children.

Note: The tax free property law will affect only one owner and one house. Thus an owner can have as many houses as he wants but the law will only affect one of the house. The other houses he’ll have to pay taxes on, since they are more of a leisure or business property.

A piece of America

2008-01-22T18:59:00.000-08:00

1. A tax free "domestic property".

The idea is that every citizen has a God given right to own a piece of this country. Ownership, means that once you paid for something you shouldn't have to keep on paying a yearly fee, in this case a property tax.

Reduce the size of this property to an average house with a yard. Call this the a "domestic property" (a place where you live and raise your family) as oppose to a business (place use to make money).

We set the size of this tax-free property to a standard size and require that it be your dwelling space because we do not want the whole of the United States to be own by a few wealthy persons. If this is not done what will happen is that a few rich individuals or cooperations will buy off all the land and so you will end up in a situation similar to what we had in the middle ages.

Does the free market exist?

2008-01-08T09:35:00.000-08:00

I'm asking myself "does the free market exist" in this age of mega cooperations? Can it be a free market when you only have 5 or so car makers? How free is this free market?

In other words, if we put a number to the idea of free market, when is the vanishing point of the free market? Let's say there is a market, and in this market there are only 5 sellers, now there is another market B, this market has 10 sellers; they all sell vegatables; which market is freeer?

As the number of seller increase can we say that the market is more free and vice versa? What is the maximmin number of sellers in the market and when is it over saturated?

Is the medical industry as free market? You have Bayer, Dow and others I don't know how many but it is a limited number less than a hundred I'm sure.

If we have a fish market and in this market because it's so expensive to catch and sell fish there is only one seller, can it be said that this is a free market even though there is no law forbidden any one from selling fish?

The free market always imply fair competition; fair competition as a way to determine price and create innovation.

If a free market is allow to evolve it will eventually reach a state in which the most economic (least cost) way to produce and sell a product is reach, this method will than become standard, the price/cost of production and thus the selling price will reach a norm, in this state the product will be the same price no better who makes it. In this state the makers of this product will one by one drop out of this market until there is only one left. This is how than the Free Market will cease to exist.

Democracy

2008-01-04T08:31:00.000-08:00

A little video I made for youtube.

The BIG Question

2007-12-31T07:56:00.000-08:00

What is the meaning of life?

There are two ways to answer this question. We can do so by asking another question: what do you mean by life? And, what do you mean by "meaning"? In other words, what are the meaning of those words in that particular sentence. Is the question the same as the statement: what is the meaning of a car? Or, what is the purpose of a car?

What is the meaning of a tree? Or, what is the meaning of a flower? What is the meaning of a fish?

What is the meaning of a car? We don't ask this question because the word "meaning" is slightly different from the word "purpose". Purpose, implies a mechnical use, whereas meaning, implies an intrinsic quality.

But then how is it that we often ask: what is the purpose of life? In this case we switch between purpose/meaning. But in the case of a car we don't ask what is the meaning of a car.

So can we say that Life have both an intrisnic quality and a mechnical use.

What exactly is an intrisnic quality? I know what the definition say but does a car have an instrisnic property.

The word simply means this: an instinct, an inborn, inhereted property. So than a car does have an intrisnic quality... to gobble up gas.

So the question is now: What is the intrisnic property of Life?

It is simply to live and procreate. In the words of Alfred N. Whitehead: "... to live, to live well, to live better." Here I think Professor Whitehead has the right idea. Life's tendency is not only to keep on living but to living better. A telelogical concept.

St. Paul tax hike

2007-12-28T13:53:00.000-08:00

"Far too often, governments respond to tight budgets by simply reducing service. This is the wrong approach."
- St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/02/stpaulbudget/)

That's the St. Paul Mayor, he's not going to cut your cities services. He'll just raise your taxes to pay for it.

The following is taken from: http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/mayor/04budget/04adptproptaxsumy.pdf.

Factors Affecting Your City Property Tax Bill

The four most important factors affecting how much a property
owner pays in city property taxes are:

- amount of city spending;
- availability of revenues other than property taxes;
- size of the tax base; and
- composition of the tax base

The first two factors, spending and other revenues, affect the total tax
dollars that must be levied. The remaining two factors determine the
tax levy’s distribution among all property owners.

City Spending:

The first factor affecting city property tax levels is city spending. It
is the only factor that the mayor and city council directly control.
Saint Paul must maintain a balanced budget, so all proposed
spending must be covered with a financing source. If city spending
were the only factor affecting taxes, tax rates would mirror spending
exactly.

Other Revenues:

City reliance on property taxes depends on other revenues available
to the city. The other dominant revenues are state aids, such as Local
Government Aid (LGA), utility fees collected for the use of the city
streets and by-ways, transfers from other city funds, collections of
motor vehicle-related fines, and interest earnings from cash balances.
For 2004, the State substantially reduced the City’s LGA: from $76.1
million to $56.5 million. LGA is the City’s largest general fund
revenue source and an important factor in Saint Paul’s ability to
control property taxes. LGA payments are scheduled to be reduced
further in future years, putting more pressure on the City’s General
Fund budget.

Size of the Property Tax Base:

The tax base size can be measured as the sum of the market value of
all taxable properties. The absolute size of and changes in the tax
base are attributable to many factors, the most important of which
are: commercial/industrial lease values, commercial/industrial
occupancy rates, and the strength of the residential market. The
larger the base, the broader the distribution of the tax burden and the
lower the tax rate required.

Composition of the Tax Base:

The composition of the base affects the relative share of the tax levy.
The taxable property value, or tax capacity, is not the same on
different classes of property. Minnesota’s class rate system allocates
differing shares of tax burden based on the use of the property.
Apartments, residential homes, and commercial/industrial properties
have different taxable value (tax capacity). One dollar of
commercial/industrial property has a greater tax capacity than one
dollar of residential property, due to the class rate structure.

The Fallacy of the False Collective

2007-12-28T13:10:00.000-08:00

John K. Williams, wrote “the Seven Deadly Fallacies of Bad Economics” (article for Freeman, oct. 1986) and listed the False Collective as number five. According to Mr. Williams, the fallacy arises when the Collective is treated, in thought and speech, as a living, separate entity.

I have no idea what that means. I suppose his point is that if the government represents “the people” who do they represent? In other words; who is the people?

They don’t really represent me because that would exclude you. They represent you, me and others. But than can it still be said that the Government represent me. It is more correct to say that they represent me as a percentage.

Or, we can say that the Government represents the interest of the population. Though, I am one person, I have certain interests that are share by other people, our interests together adds up to a percentage. This is what is meant by representative Government. We can revise the old saying to: Government represent the interest of the people.

But, allow me to go into character and play Socrates for awhile. Who is the people? And, what is the interest of the people? Do you know the people? Do you know their interests?
Does the government know the interest of the people?

The question, ladies and gentlemen, is does the Government know the interest of those who they purport to represent? And if they don’t, then, who best know the interest of the people?

We can get some statistics and get a rough idea of the “interests of the people” but here is a clearer example. Under the interest of the people the city of St. Paul. Minnesota raised its property tax 18% for 2008. Yet, I haven’t met anyone who is happy with this tax hike.

Government as Landlord

2007-12-28T12:28:00.000-08:00

We can think of the government as a landlord.

1. rent = property taxes

2. If you own the land, why do you have to pay a property tax? You own a nike shoe, do you have to pay nike a yearly fee? I can understand paying nike a fee if you are making money with that shoe but you're not.

3. Where does the idea of taxes come from?

4. Why do we have to pay the government anything?

5. If it is true that we own the land than we wouldn't have to pay a property tax.

6. A property tax is a yearly fee you pay to "own" a piece of land. But this does not make sense because the idea of ownship implies the idea of free use.

7. If you do not pay this fee (tax) the government can come and take it from you. The property than is not really owned, but merely leased, with an annual fee. It is no different than owning a leased car.

8. The reason or need for a property tax is purely money.

9. The government need money and thus they impose a fee on your land. Thus it is why I said the government is like a landlord.

10. A fair government would not impose a tax on land used for living; in other words, land that does not generate money.

11. A fair government would impose taxes only on business.

12. The problem with government is that it is this amphorous entity, proporting to represent "the people." In practice it comes off (again to stress the idea) like a landlord.

13. Representing the people, falls under the Fallacy of the False collective.

the seed of doubt

2007-12-27T17:48:00.000-08:00

The seed of doubt

Method 1: Strength of Conviction
Subclass: the Method of the Comeback

The method of the Comeback or the Faint, the Resurrection:

1. When the prevailing crowd is against you, when reason has been exhausted, when all objections are raised and all roads taken, then it is best to yield the field.

2. Wait until the winning crowd is done celebrating, than launch your comeback.

3. People’s guard and strength of conviction are at its highest in the heat of battle. It is lowest once the battle is won.

4. By the Method of the Comeback; let them win and wait until their emotional high is over.

5. Once it is over, launch your attack again, do this over and over until you have exhausted them.

6. This is the same method in guerrilla warfare. It rests on the nature of the defense and offense.

7. A defense consist of two components; emotional and strategic. When you first attack something (a fort, a person, an organization, a country, etc) it responds instinctively. It’s emotion will be at it’s highest. Upon the second and third attack, it will have developed a systematic way to respond to your attack but its emotion will have dissipated.

8. The point of the Comeback method is to totally fool the enemy into believing they have won only to see you comeback from the “dead”, so to speak. And so I have to correct myself on #5, it is not to do over and over, it is a one or two time event, else the enemy will catch on to what you are doing.

9. Thus the strength of the Comeback depends on the how much you are able to fool the enemy into believing they have defeated you.

10. It works everytime. It is like seeing a ghost.

2007-12-27T16:21:00.000-08:00

Hmmm... let me think...

An observation from politics

2007-12-27T15:26:00.000-08:00

1. If you know a candidate, you will not be affected by the negative news on that person.

2. If you do not know a candidate well, you will be affected by the news opinions on that person.

3. In general, if you do not know someone you will believe whatever it is said of that person.

4. Abstracting this further, if you do not know a subject you will believe whatever is said of that subject (person, place, thing). i.e. If it is on TV, it is true!

5. In the absence of facts, people will believe whatever you tell them. ["If you eat from the tree of Knowledge, it will surely kill you." Said God.]

6. They will continue to believe until there is a reason for them not to. ["It will surely not kill you." Said, the Serpent.]

7. In general, people will believe what they are told unless there is a reason not to.

8. Thus, when we want to change the prevailing opinion, we merely have to plant the seed of doubt.

9. Planting the seed of doubt rests on two methods: strength of conviction and/or strength of reason.

10. Medthod 1: Strength of Conviction or Faith; if the arguement is weak or if we are unable to get our message across we have to show conviction via perservance in what we are doing or perservance in suffering.

11. Medthod 2: Strength of Reason or Logic; no explanation needed.

12. Medthods 1 and 2, are parallel methods.

shedding your skin

2007-12-25T10:51:00.000-08:00

How government can escape the zero-sum game

2007-12-24T09:20:00.000-08:00

How government can escape the Zero-Sum Game:
1. They have to produce something or offer a service.
2. They have to be able to sell it free of coercion.

a. Get rid of the fire department or sell the rights to it. No! In order for it to be coercion free, it must be a truly free market and thus get rid of it all together (not have the right to sell it).

Why do we need a public subsubdize fire department? Is it true that if we don’t have a city fire department no business would rise up to fill that void? Or, that if firefighting business do spring up they would not do as well?

There is the belief that fighting fire is such a crucial thing that we can not leave it for a business. Instead, it must be the sole responsibility of the city. I am starting to have doubt about this. Maybe we don’t need the city fire department. If it doesn’t exist what would be in its place?

I wonder… wonder…

Now, of course, this is does not solve all the city’s budget problem but … just wondering.

When is the zero-sum game true?

2007-12-24T08:53:00.000-08:00

In economics, what is meant by the fallacy of the zero-sum game? When is this true? When it this false?

The zero-sum game is use to describe the belief that if one gets richer somebody get poorer. The fallacy came from the Mercantilism school of economics which believed that wealth is equaviliant to the amount of gold one has. Because the amount of gold is more or less constant, if I have more gold then you must have less. Basically, a zero-sum exist in any situation in which the thing of interest is a fixed amount; poker is a zero-sum game, there is a limited amount of chips.

The government budget is a zero-sum game. My economic life from year to year is a zero-sum game. I only make so much a year and thus the amount is fixed. In general, any system in which money is involved is a zero-sum game.

That answers the, when it is true question: any time money is involved. When than is it false? The zero-sum situation ceases to exist when a renewable source is found, in this case, economics, this situation is “production.” When you are able to create, produce and sell than you are no longer living a zero-sum game. That is why the conservatives and the Libertarians in general, (Rush Limbaugh, Rob Paul, M. Friedmen) believe so heartedly in the free market system.

Racist, hurtful things

2007-12-20T14:18:00.000-08:00

There was an uproar in the media this summer, a radio host (Imus) was fire for saying things I heard everyday. Could it be that society done a 180, the liberals has gone soft and sensitive and seek to censor anything perceived to be hurtful?

What? The conservatives are the upholders of free speech, now?

Anything that is racist is hurtful.
Not all hurtful things are racist.
Nothing should be hurtful.

What hurts you may not hurt me!
All things are hurtful and unhurtful.
There are no hurtful things.

Times Person of the Year

2007-12-20T13:09:00.000-08:00

Why is Putin the Person of the Year? And, just because Times named him person of the year, does it make him Person of the Year? What does it mean to be Person of the Year?

Why does an American paper; run, read, printed, issued in the United Stated and by people of the United States name a Russian leader, as person of the year? What if an Iranian or Japanese magzine name General Petreaus, Person of the Year.

If a magzine in Japan name Gen. Petreaus or Al Gore, Person of the Year, I would scratch my head and wonder what business they have in our affairs. Do they know anything about us or our country to name one of us, Person of the Year?

I suppose this is how a Russian or European looks at Time magzine. I feel rather embrass for Time.

Putin, Person of the Year! Oh, that's nice. I was Person of the Year, 2006!

The real question or point is not why Putin is the person of the year as oppose to Al Gore of Gen. Petraues but what is the worth of this title. It is a qualitative wortth, but I'll try to give you an quantitive value. Take the number of subscriptions for Time magzine and divide by the number of "persons" on Earth.

A quick search and rough estimate give me 0.15. That's a 15th of "ONE" percent. And that's assuming Time has 1 million subscribers.

[That's assuming 300 million (pop. of US) time 1/3 (the number of subscriptions to Time, which I was not able to find and so error on the large side and say it's one third of the US pop), divide that by 6.5 billion (nine zeroes) times 100.]

Hey, Mister!

2007-12-20T12:53:00.000-08:00

I read an article by a NYT columists and I notice something odd about his writing; his use of the word Mr. to refer to Gov. Romney and Guilaini and Senator McCain. So I emailed him and his reply was that it has been the pratice of the NYT to refer to people upon 2nd or 3rd reference as Mr.. But in an earlier article on the Dali Lama, in seven references, never once did he call the Dali Lama, Mr. Lama.

The question is, why is this so? Why do writers and TV host refer to the president as Mr. Bush, or Gov. as Mr. so and so? Now, of course I know why they called the President Mr., because it's a passive, "culture" way of showing disrepect. It's the educated man's way of saying "F-U!" But I'm going to be in character and so..."Oh, by the way... why..why.. do you call Mr. Bush? My wife, you know, she's always correcting me of my english."

(below is the essay I wrote)

Officer Morris stepped out of his squad car and walked toward the blue Chevy. Mr. Morris noticed that the license plate was missing.

What is wrong with these two sentences, in particular and than in a general case? In the first case, I have given “Morris” two different titles. I called him, Officer, and than in the next sentence, Mr. Now, he could be both an Officer and a Mr. but the two titles are not equivalent and they are not interchangeable. When he is off duty and puts on his Sunday clothes he would be, Mr. Morris, but in the above case he is, Officer Morris. It is an improper use of the English language and poor manners to called, Mr. Morris.

In the general case, official titles like; Doctor, Professor, General, Colonel, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, President, Senator etc. confers a meaning and status to a name, whereas Mr. is a generic title and adds neither. Because, Mr., is not equivalent to the others, one cannot interchange them. Thus it is that you do not see sentences like:

Professor Einstein developed the theory of Relativity…. Mr. Einstein moved to the United Stated after the rise of the Nazis.

Or,

Dr. Andrews, went to lunch…. Mr. Andrews, will be back in an hour.

Or,

King Abdullah, of Jordan, will visit the US…. Mr. Abdullah, is expected to bring up the issue of Iraq.

Etc.. etc.

But I often hear the term “Mr. Bush” so and so, spoken by news hosts. A quick google of the phrase “Mr. Bush” will give these:

“Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out.”[1]

“The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush.”[2] etc

I suspect the authors of these articles are fully aware of what they are doing, but I’m gonna ask the naïve question: Why do you call him, Mr. Bush? And than few days ago I came across a New York Times article by Clyde Haberman.[3] In it were these sentences:

“After a good deal of talk about how undesirable they are, Senator John McCain of Arizona chose to inject a more humanistic note into the debate. Sure, let’s secure the borders, Mr. McCain said, but don’t forget another dimension.”

“There spat was about who used to give those people greater succor: Mr. Giuliani as leader of a “sanctuary city,” or Mr. Romney as lord of a “sanctuary mansion.””

Mr. Haberman’s explanation was that it is has been the style of the New York Times (for 150 years, now) to use, Mr. Mrs. and/or Miss, upon second reference. If that is the case, than the NYT have been wrong for 150 years! In an earlier article on the Dali Lama’s visit to the White House never once did Mr. Haberman use term, “Mr. Lama”.

You use the generic titles only in cases in which the introduction of a person is a description. For example; “Chicago Sun-Times Columnist, Robert Novak, refuse to give up his source….Mr. Novak, first wrote about…so and so.” In this case “Chicago Sun-Times Columnist” is a description. It does not confer a status, or a special meaning, but merely describes who he is.

[1] “Mr. Bush Alone” Editorial, May 11, 2007, retrieve from, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/opinion/11fri1.html 12.05.07
[2] “The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush.” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Vanity Fair, retrieved from http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712, 12.05.07
[3] “Sanctuary was a lovely word. Then the GOP got hold of it” Clyde Haberman, The New York Times, pub. Nov. 30, 2007
[4] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/nyregion/columns/clydehaberman/?inline=nyt-per