"The Pawn Stars" from the left, Big Hoss, Rick, and the
Old Man
THE END OF NOVEMBER
Entry Date: November 30, 2010
We'll be into December starting tomorrow. There's nothing
that can be done about it. The days will keep getting shorter until
about December 22nd. After that, we will start gaining again, about a
minute every day. It really won't take long, those of you who groan
when this cycle starts. I recently remembered one of the few memories
I have from before I started First Grade. I was the first to wake up
in our first house in Parker. We had learned a song in Methodist
Sunday school about the tax collector Zacheaus who climbed a sycamore
tree to see Jesus walk by as Zacheaus was a short man. That song was
running through my mind as I sat alone in the living room listening
to a train running through the early morning darkness. That happened
over a half century ago and it seems like a few seconds to me now.
Winter won't take too long to get through.
THE PERFECT EYE MAKEUP FOR THE WOMAN HIDING OUT FROM
ZOMBIES
November 15,2010
I don't usually give out make-up tips to the feminine
members of the readership, but I finally watched the first episode of
AMC's Walking Dead out of curiosity tonight. An actress named
Sarah Callies plays the wife of the protagonist, a Sheriff named Rick
Lincoln, who is hiding out on the outskirts of Atlanta, Georgia from
the zombies. This little band lives in campers and tents in the woods
with zombies dominating the city and a few wandering around the
countryside. The thing is, she was wearing mascara and eyeshadow.
I suppose a woman should always look her best, even when she is
in danger of being the main course of a zombie picnic, but it struck
me as strange. Of course something came to me as I noticed the
blue-gray color of her eyelids. Covergirl could change their
ad slogan. Drew Barrymore could show off her eyes with her voice over
saying, "Easy, breezy, undead Covergirl."
ANOTHER CASUALTY OF THE TWO (PLUS) YEARS IN TWO
RESIDENCES
November 12, 2010
It is hard to maintain even the most casual of friendships
or acquaintances when you have to keep the kind of schedule I did
from October 2007 until December 2009. It got so bad that the
management at my apartment building started chafing at the fact that
I was rarely there as a good part of every weekend and day off had to
be spent at my mother's former residence and visiting at her new one.
Well, I lost contact with a friend of mine during that period. I ran
into her today while at work, locally for a change. In fact, it was
at the "client" that provided the parking space for my all the
fishing outings I posted about this summer. I had to look twice to
realize who she was. It was one of those, "I KNOW that person"
moments. I think she had to do the same, and then we didn't really
say anything to each other. There's been no time since everything was
over to try to look her up and explain what was going on that
prevented my usual comings and goings. It'll just have to simmer
until an opportunity presents itself. Right now, I think she's going
through one of those, "I must have done something wrong" things, and
that just wasn't the case. Things happened too fast and time went by.
Almost three years flew by and everyone changes. Hopefully, this will
get cleared up just as all the work at my actual residence has been
slowly getting caught up.
THE PONZI SCHEME EMPIRE
Entry Date: November 11, 2010
"Luke, I am your mortgage
banker!"
The G-20 nations are meeting as I type this, but before
that meeting there was a celebration on Jekyll Island, Georgia. It
was an anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve System, and
former Chairman Alan Greenspan was there along with his successor,
Benjamin Bernanke. Greenspan said something very interesting, which
reflected something I wrote on the FYI page in the other section of
this Web site back in May of this year. A lot of our banking and
finance problems today are the results of fraud. Yes, Alan
Greenspan said the "F" word and was videotaped saying it. Bernanke
looked like he was going to freak out when Greenspan let it all hang
out. After all, no one has gone to jail for any of this. How did the
scheme work?
First, the bank makes terrible mortgages to anyone who
asks for one, using the excuse of the Community Reinvestment Act
which was aimed at eliminating the "red lining" of selected
neighborhoods. In fact, they make so many bad mortgages, and make
them so fast, the banks have to farm out the paper work to servicing
companies that have a hard time hiring people with any knowledge of
putting the paperwork together. What the heck? What do the bankers
care if the paperwork is right? They took all of those mortgages,
packaged them up into "mortgage-backed securities" (As if a DEBT
instrument is collateral--Think about that one awhile.) and sold them
all over the world to gullible investors. This means the banks got
the money right away and didn't have to worry about the debtor ever
paying off the mortgage after selling the mortgages to make the
securities. On top of this, the banks packaged up some derivatives,
which are something like casino betting slips. The "investor"
(bettor) holding the derivative gets paid off in the event that a
specific event takes place. In this case, they bet that the debtors
responsible for paying the mortgages would default. Many of them did.
When that happened, it was another pay day. On top of that, some of
them held Congress hostage to get $750 billion dollars in bail-outs.
When Congress told the bankers they would have to discuss it, the
market got crashed. Congress coughed up the dough.
Being "too big to fail" means never having to say
you're sorry.
WHAT COMPRISES A PERSON'S "RIGHTS?"
Entry Date: November 9, 2010
With Veterans' Day this week, it seemed fitting to
discuss, for just a bit, one thing veterans are always praised for
defending, our "rights." In the earlier days of the Internet, I
encountered some individuals in discussion forums about the subject
of rights. The forums being political in nature, a high number of the
posters were thinking more about how their party would do in the next
election than principles of law and government. Some would actually
speak with disdain toward those more concerned with individual rights
when those concerns might just put their party, or favorite office
holder, in a bad light. If their guy was President, bringing up bad
weather wasn't a good idea as some of them would think you were
campaigning against is reelection. The discussions about "rights"
challenged me to come up with a basic idea about why they were
important, and exactly what the word "rights" means. Here is the
conclusion that came to me. Rights and justice are related. When we
respect the rights of others, we behave in a just manner. Doing
justice means upholding the rights of others. Where no one's rights
are respected, there is no justice. One is the product of the other.
To deprive another of their rights is to commit an injustice against
them. So, when someone fights for their rights, or the rights of
others, they are fighting for justice at one and the same time. The
two are intertwined. That's about as far as I've gotten so far,
except all you need to have a just society is to respect the rights
of others as you want yours respected. It really is that simple.
WHY WE ARE IN THIS MESS
Entry Date: November 7, 2010
Here is where we are financially: this country is in an
interest rate trap as far as financing the massive debt
and financing our current period deficit. Should the Chinese
government choose to not by US Treasury debt instruments, it's either
raise interest rates to attract other countries, individuals, and
entities to buy the debt instruments, or the Federal Reserve starts
buying the debt instruments, or we go bankrupt. As far as raising
interest rates is concerned, that will add to the current account
deficit, which will increase pressure to "get a handle on spending"
and/or raise taxes. Interest on the debt is the largest portion of
the federal budget. Increased interest rates causes a rise in the
deficit unless spending is cut and/or taxes raised without hurting
job creation. So, the dilemma is that the federal government has to
attract money to pay the interest on the debt., but they can't raise
interest rates to do it without compounding their problem, which is
OUR problem. When you can neither raise nor lower interest rates to
have a positive effect on the economy, you are in an interest rate
trap. The Federal Reserve is opting for "Quantitative Easing," or QE,
which means the Fed is going to buy the paper. Commodity prices are
already rising to compensate for this as the increased money supply
will cause prices to rise. Been to the gas pump lately? Have you
noted how the prices of gold and silver are rising? How are prices at
the local supermarket? They will get higher.
How did we get here? There are a number of reasons, but
the chief one is ignorance. We think we know things and we don't. We
make our political choices on faulty ideas. One party is for the
"little guy'" and the other is for "the rich." A politician makes
lavish promises about how "government money" will be spent to the
voters' advantage when there is no such thing as "government
money." That money belongs to the people of the United States
of America, not to the government. So, the politician is promising to
take money from the voters, run it through Washington, and dribble it
back. Nothing else happens. It is just a variation of "trickle down."
If direct checks had been given to the unemployed, rather than a
stimulus program, one calculation was that each unemployed could have
received $200,000. That is what I mean by "trickle down." We embrace
parties because our parents, friends, or colleagues embrace that
party, or we just like a certain "political celebrity" and vote for
that politician. We confuse slogans, as I've posted about earlier,
with meaningful thought, whether it is "Freedom isn't free" or "Do It
for the Children" we think in Madison Avenue slogans and confuse them
with wisdom. Bankruptcy and war have been the only results. Comedians
make light about political corruption and thievery, and we laugh
while some of the corrupt politicans manage to avoid justice, even
becoming celebrities. We are distracted by nonsense stories in the
media, obsessions with sports and other trivia which, combined with
family responsibilities, leaves no time to educate ourselves about
what constitutes good government.
Good Government--understanding what that
means is the only way back for us. Good government is what we should
seek out of every elected official and every bureaucrat, and we
should insist on that standard. It shouldn't matter what party the
candidate represents. The thing is, good government is a
concept that is totally independent of political parties. Good
government is good government, no matter who delivers it. It
is up to the people to demand that. First, the people have to learn
what good government is, and it is not what Sarah Palin or Barack
Obama say it is. The concept of good government is something that is
embedded into reality and existence, as written by the Creator of
reality and existence,something like the way our individual physical
selves are embedded within us in a code or language known as DNA.
Good government is the same in any time or place. The problem is, it
might just be too late for the people to get this.
Here's a start. In fiduciary, or agency law, the agent has
to perform the agent's duties to the principal according to the
standard of "the reasonably prudent person." When you
have a real trust account, in a bank or independent trust company,
you are the principal and the people managing the trust are your
agents. The agent cannot act in a reckless or imprudent manner with
your assets. If the agent behaves recklessly, the agent is liable for
the losses of the principal. Start thinking about what "reasonably
prudent" means and that is probably the best place to start.
We better hurry.
DAVID BRODER OF THE WASHINGTON POST: WHAT THE HELL?
Entry Date: November 5, 2010
I think partisanship in this country has just gone
completely insane. I thought it was bad when some registered
Republican partisans were elated at Bush invading Iraq as that would
be an "easy war" that would lead to GOP victories in the next several
election cycles, thus relieving these "home team rooters" of the fear
and dread of all those elections that enthralls them every two damn
years. Well, it looks like some of the partisan Democrats in the
media have decided to walk on over to the same Dark Side. Why waste
time? Let the Washington Post's own David Broder dispense
advice to President Obama how to get reelected by bombing another
patsy country:
"Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong
Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to
become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012
orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him
politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And
as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy
will improve.
"I am not suggesting, of course, that the president
incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama
because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young
century."
Broder is "not suggesting" that President Obama bomb the
stuffing out of Iran just to get reelected, but this is right after
he suggests that, "Here is where Obama is likely to prevail."
Yes, Broder was suggesting that going to war with Iran is a way to
improve the economy and get Obama reelected. Not only is this a
depraved idea, and I thought that when some "conservative
Republicans" were hoping for their easy Iraq war in 2003 for the same
insane political reason, but it won't work anyway. We
don't have enough domestic industry to get any economic benefit, and
we've been fighting for ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that
did was put this country poised on the edge of the maw of bankruptcy.
I warned the Republicans of bankruptcy in 2003 over the Iraq War and
subsequent nation building expenses, and now I'm issuing the same
warning to the Democrats who might be thinking the same way. Do
yourselves a favor and forget about it. War of any kind right now
will not achieve any desirable economic or political ends, and going
to war for those reasons is just immoral as any sane person should
know. Hasn't ten years of this kind of "war for the next election"
crap been enough?
"THINKING IN BOXES," OR ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THE
LATE NEIL POSTMAN'S AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH
Entry Date: November 2, 2010
The book by the late social commentator, Neil
Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age
of Show Business, described some of the causes of a phenomenon I
have encountered over the decades that I have described as "Thinking
in Boxes." Postman took a critical look at how mass media,
particularly television, presents information. Basically, each item
of information is presented as an isolated or random event with no
connection to any other event. As one reviewer on Amazon put it, one
television presentation is not connected to the one following it.
When looking at television news broadcasts, the different stories
covered in less than 30 minutes are all presented as unconnected
events, which I describe as "boxes." There is a box for Iraq, and a
box for the economy, and a box for other stories. They are all
treated as random, or unconnected events that have to be looked at
separately. Interconnecting links that could tie some of the news
stories into a coherent whole, is not done. Some people I have
encountered in other fields would call this "focusing narrowly on a
matter" in order to dispose of it more efficiently. Maybe in the
future the matter can be revisited, and maybe any links with other
events can be explored. Typically, they weren't, and any attempt to
do so was discouraged. Some reviews refer to this ability to search
for, and find, connections between events as "context."
To not try to integrate an event into the totality of a person's
experience is to lack context for what is happening in the world. It
also inhibits the development of a flexible mind that can more
readily apprehend an understanding of all the events
that are now treated as random, or chance, happenings.
In education, the "information" provided to students is
narrowed into speciality presentations fed to them in separate rooms
by different instructors. It was during school years that I first
perceived the "thinking in boxes" phenomenon. Each academic course is
a box which is presented to the students in its own box, a classroom,
and there are lines of demarcation between the different subjects
that are never "permitted" to be crossed. English literature cannot
inform biology. History cannot inform English literature. Computer
programming cannot inform philosophy or law. We are supposed to think
about each subject only when applying our minds to that one subject.
Each subject is stuffed into a mental box and we go from box to box
and never find any connections between them, including applying the
tools we learn in one subject to help us to learn an "unrelated"
subject. An example of this is the use of flowcharts to design
computer programs. I once used flowcharts, which illustrate the
movement of conditional statements, or
conditional logic to the understanding of business and
criminal law which consists of nothing more than the
"If--Then--Else" reasoning of conditional logic. Many
people looked at the legal flowcharts I drew and wondered why I
didn't understand that it isn't "permitted" to use computer
programming tools when trying to understand law. In other words,
computer programming is in one box, and the law is in the other. No
one is allowed to reach into one box, take something out of it, and
put it in the other box. I scored 98% on the final law test and wrote
some of my answers in Cobol programming's pseudocode, which I
explained to the instructor prior to using it.
Neil Postman put a lot of the blame on television.
Actually, all news media have presented news events in the form of
boxes. Just look at a newspaper. Stories are separated into boxes,
and you read the stories one box at a time. The medium of the
newspaper is not conducive to trying to grasp the cause and effect
that an event in one box has on an event in the other box. The news
events are just random happenings. More investigative reporting might
help people grasp the interconnections of events, but that isn't done
too much anymore. When it takes 47 years for someone to find links
between Lee Harvey Oswald and an owner the Texas School Book
Depository in Dallas that extended back to 1955, it is difficult to
refer to American news investigative reporting as being "thorough" or
"exhaustive." It isn't a good idea for private citizens to try to
inform other private citizens of such facts as everyone assumes that
newspapers and television are already informing them, and if they
have not heard or read them in the media, the facts presented by
another private citizen just can't be true or just "don't mean
anything."
1967: WHEN I FELT LIKE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT NATIONAL
ANTHEM
Entry Date: October 27, 2010
Back in 1967, when some of us had recently celebrated a
very early birthday in our lives, but I was waiting for Number 15, I
was struggling with some Algebra II homework on a Thursday evening
when I heard this stirring music wafting up the stairs. It turned out
to be a theme for a television show written by Maurice Jarre, who did
the soundtrack for Doctor Zhivago the previous year. It was
the theme from the television Western Cimarron Strip. After
hearing that piece, there was more than enough motivation to get
through that assignment. The composition sounded like it would make a
better National Anthem than The Star Spangled Banner. Well,
maybe not, but it really does make the blood roar. Check it out for
yourself.
A MURDER OF CROWS
A SPECIAL ON PBS NATURE OCTOBER 24TH 8:00 PM
EASTERN
Entry Date: October 20, 2010
Avian Genius: A typical crow taking flight. These are very
intelligent birds.
We reported back in summer about Blue Jays since I saw one
flying off with discarded french fries. Blue Jays and crows are both
members of the Corvid family of birds, with crows and ravens topping
the rest of the corvids for intelligence. Crows are human watchers,
like some humans are bird watchers, and crows can have their likes
and dislikes where humans are concerned. Some humans crows like, and
other humans they don't like. They have good memories and can
distinguish among individual people even after a long time has
passed. Once crows know the face of a particular human, they can pick
that human out of a crowd of humans. They are good listeners when it
comes to people, picking up human words and, perhaps, the context in
which those words are used. As I reported in the blue jay posting, I
once saw a pair of crows duking it out with a pair of songbirds. The
songbirds would dive bomb the crows in flight. One of the crows would
make a certain call every time one of the songbirds dove at it. The
call sounded just like a human exclaiming, "Uh-Oh!"
Crows can learn, and most ornithologists think crows are
fast learners. Kill one of a flock, called in the English of the
Twentieth Century and earlier as "a murder of crows," and the rest of
the flock will remember your property for years and avoid it. Feed
unshelled peanuts to a murder of crows and they will stick around.
When they see you, or even your car, they will get excited and expect
you to give them more peanuts. Some crows, once they learn to trust
an individual human, will eat from the human's hand. Crows can learn
to use tools and bait fish with bread crumbs. If a crow has a nut
that is especially hard to shell, the crow might leave the nut under
your car and wait for you to drive over it. Apparently, crows know
that humans make cars move.
Crows are curious about you. Crows are watching you and
listening to you. Crows can learn about you and make decisions about
you. Some crows just might think you are a nice human, while others
raise a squawk everytime they see you because you did something the
crows didn't like. If you ever encounter an injured crow, and decide
to nurse it back to health, be sure to release it as soon as it is
able to fly and walk around. Crows are social, but their social need
is really for other crows. An individual crow doesn't do well
separated from its "murder of crows."
Petula Clark, of the town of Epsom, County of Surrey,
England, backed by a chorus of Muppets
The tiny English singer with a voice as flexible as an
Olympic gymnast, is always in the car with me on a long distance
drive. Her hits of the 1960s are real "head bobbers," like a lot of
the music of the early British Invasion years, 1964-1966. In the
Petula Clark, the Ultimate Collection CD, all of the best of
Petula Clark is available to keep you alert and pumped. There are
some softer sounds on the CD, but for keeping a hopping beat going,
and the blood pumping, there is nothing like A Sign of the Times,
Color My World, You're the One, I Know a Place, Downtown, and my
personal favorite, I Couldn't Live Without Your Love. I only
needed one coffee for the entire 250 miles today. It's been a long
time since I first heard Downtown when I was in seventh grade
in 1964, but whenever a singer is this good, and causes fairly simple
songs to lighten your mood and boost your energy, they have this kind
of longevity. In this case, it is 46 years of longevity. Through all
of these decades, I have met several people from England, always
asking if they are from Surrey. Last Sunday, I actually found one
near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He is from Epsom, too. They all
still remember that Petula Clark was raised in their town.
AN APPLICATION OF ONTOLOGY
Entry Date: October 13, 2010
Metaphysics is the science dealing in first priniciples
and ultimate properties of being and reality. Today,
someone brought up the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs),
and asked me about them. Actually, he told me that someone else told
him to "ask him about UFOs." It was a "joke" of some kind, but I saw
it as an opportunity to explain how one branch of Metaphysics,
Ontology, can be applied to subjects such as UFOs. First of all, most
people ask if you "believe in" UFOs. Well, UFOs are not a question of
"belief," as faith has nothing to do with them. There
are an unknown number of government reports about these things, and
(at least) millions was spent by the government attempting to
investigate what these phenomena are on a case-by-case basis. So, we
know a few things about UFOs, we don't believe
a few things about them.
Ontology is the study of being, or how we
know what things are. Are they real? Do they
exist, in contrast to just being real? When something
is real, we all know about the thing. We know what the thing is. If
we didn't all know what the thing is, we couldn't have a conversation
about it without first defining what the subject of the conversation
is. If we all didn't know what UFOs are, no one could just ask what
someone else thinks about them, but, when someone mentions "UFOs," we
all know what the other person is talking about. No
matter what they are, UFOs are real. The definition of
"UFOs" is in their name, which I will paraphrase as, "Objects that
appear to fly, but we can't identify what the objects are," thus the
name "Unidentified Flying Objects," and the acronym, UFOs.
Okay, we all know what UFOs are in reality,
"things that appear to fly, and might be flying machines or
objects, but we don't know what kind of flying machines or objects
they are." UFOs are real things, or more accurately,
real phenomena. The name the United States Government
gave these things doesn't provide enough clarity. Something like
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena would provide a clearer
meaning. By using flying objects in the name it was
like a concession that these things are material objects in every
case, and that they are actually flying. It causes people to jump to
conclusions.
Do UFOs exist? Those that have not been
identified as even flying objects cannot be said to
exist. These are the unexplained cases that the Air
Force and federal agencies have not been able to explain
scientifically. Since we don't know what they are, we cannot say that
they are actually flying objects, or flying machines that
exist. We don't know what they exactly are, so we don't
know if they physically exist as flying machines. They
might be optical illusions,like some of them have been proven to be,
or some other kind of phenomena. If an even smaller percentage of
these unresolved cases are actually flying objects, or even flying
machines, we don't know what kind of flying object or machine they
might be, but they would certainly exist in the
physical sense.
Something can be real, but not exist. A dragon is real. We
all know what dragons are, and have known since we were children. You
ask someone what they think of dragons, and they will immediately
know what you are talking about. Dragons have a definition, or
essence, or substance. They are real, but
they do not exist.
I think someone thought that I think UFOs are "alien
spaceships." The term "alien spaceships" would presuppose knowledge
about what the "flying objects" are. We wouldn't call "alien
spaceships" UFOs, as the alien spaceships would no longer be
Unidentified Flying Objects, but would be
Identified Flying Objects, namely, Alien
Spaceships. The answer to this more probable question that
was posed third hand is, "No, I don't know that there are alien
spaceships flying around up there. I just know the United States
Government calls certain things, that may be flying objects or
machines that the United States Government cannot classify,
"Unidentified Flying Objects," or "UFOs" for short. After that, I
have no idea if there are any alien spaceships flying around up
there, somewhere."
I hope that helps the curious. It always helps if you ask
your questions first hand. As anyone can see, it wasn't difficult
answering the question. The problem was in the terminology. To get
the right answer, ask the right question, and be sure to use the
right terms. Using the wrong terms can yield unsatisfactory results.
Just ask people if they believe in alien spaceships, not "UFOs." Some
people have the belief that some UFOs are alien
spaceships, but that is a belief, not a
fact that we all know to be true.
THE MAD MEN, THE BOOMERS, AND ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION
COMMERCIALS
Entry Date: October 9, 2010
I can't help it. Former Dallas Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson
gives me the creeps with those "Extenze" Commercials. Take a pill and
get bigger? Frankly, I don't believe it works. The next thing you
know, there will be machines that are supposed to do the same thing.
I'm not sure I want to think about machines doing that because the
thought of malfunctions make my blood run cold, but then again
Jackass 3D is in theaters right now. I can see the Jackass
crew now. One is tied to the back of the car, if you get my
meaning, and the other is behind the wheel poised to put the car in
Drive and punch the gas. That should make it "bigger," or make him
the most peculiar soprano ever to sing a solo at the Met. Let's face
it. When you get to be as old as some "Baby Boomers" are now, who
cares about such things? When you're that old, you have no business
flirting around with the younger women Johnson does those commercials
with, unless you want to wake up in intensive care with some machine
breathing for you. Just one of those models would force Johnson to
get a full hip replacement, probably titanium. This is just another
manifestation of that hackneyed image of "the antelope passing
through the python" that the media uses to describe the "Baby
Boomers" passing through society. They are OLD now, so they are
looking for any way to try to act like they are still the inept,
self-absorbed, narcissistic, sex-crazed teenagers they once were.
Madison Avenue is catering to their needs because the "Boomers" make
up so much of the population. As they are soon to comprise all the
senior citizenry, the "erectile dysfunction" quacks and patent
medicine drummers pursue the "Boomer" market. What really freaks me
out is all the disclaimers about possible side effects from taking
the erectile dysfunction pills. Stuff about erections lasting for a
full lunar phase should be enough to scare off even the worst "sex
addict." There's no way I would take any of these things after
hearing about all the side effects, which sound something like:
"Side effects for Erectile Bliss include possible heart
attacks, cancer, strokes, blindness, bubonic plague, morbid obesity,
strange body odors, hair growing on the palms of the hands, sweating
like Secretariat, and chronic halitosis. If you feel yourself turning
into a squirrel, stop taking Erectile Bliss immediately and call a
veterinarian or your closest local zoologist."
The fake side effects above are not as bad as the real
ones. There are warnings of "sudden loss of vision and hearing," and,
of course, "erections lasting more than four hours." Try this for a
scenario. You're whipping down the Interstate at 70 MPH. It's bad
enough that you get a spontaneous erection that won't go away, but
"suddenly" you're blind and deaf. Now what are you going to do? Call
911 while racing down the Interstate, you can't see or hear, and your
bladder is about to explode because your long-term erection won't let
you do anything about it?
You've solved "erectile dysfunction," but you are
basically screwed.
THE ROBIN: THE SPRING BIRD
Entry Date: October 8, 2010
Your typical American Robin. In cherry season, they could
get busted for FUI (Flying Under the Influence)
Most people associate the robin with the coming of spring.
A member of the Thrush family, the robin's most familiar call is a
staccato series of deep chirps or short warbles. The familiar red
breast and black cap are even more familiar than its call. Robins
nest as individual families, but can cooperate in flocks,
particularly when feeding as they prefer ground food, with their
favorites being earthworms and grubs. My dad and I watched a few
robins in the backyard once when I was still in grade school. The
birds tend to tilt their heads with one side close to the ground. My
father explained that the robins listen for earthworms in the ground
that way. Robins will not hunt in your yard if there is a large cat
population around, apparently, as sightings were rare in my parents'
old backyard when I was housesitting there for at least half of every
weekend in 2008 and 2009. The red-breasted (it's actually more of an
orange) thrushes build very substantial nests that can hold their
shape for many breeding seasons. One robin couple built a nest on the
the "shelf" formed by the top of one of our porch pillars. For years,
robins raised another season's young in that nest. Robins can build
nests in places where humans can see them, so maybe we don't frighten
them in every situation of life. The birds are very good parents,
with both male and female on feeding duty. In the parking lot of a
hotel in Carlisle, I watched a single dad robin work his tail
feathers off to feed a nest of young in the low branch of a tree.
Robins are great small fruit eaters, and really like cherries. The
birds will even eat cherries that are a little overripe, which means
they will eat fermented cherries if there aren't any
fresh ones. The fermentation can make the birds a little tipsy, or
downright drunk, with males doing goofy things like fighting their
reflections in a polished automobile hubcap, or robins flying into
windows. Don't be surprised if you keep seeing some into November as
some of them must migrate late. I saw some hanging around in the town
of Brentwood near Pittsburgh last November, but, chances are, you
won't see any robins now until late next February or March.
THE DEFICIT: TIME TO GROW UP
Entry Date: September 26, 2010
The real silly season is back again. Yep, it's another
election time. Everyone is talking about what they would do, or not
do, to lower the deficit, which just seems to get bigger and bigger
like it has a life of its own. Some want to raise taxes, others want
to cut spending, and some want to do both, but once the politicians
are in office, the deficit just seems to ignore them, or the
politicians ignore the deficit. Sooner or later, the President just
might have to do something really drastic to lower the deficit.
Ideally, everyone should be committed to do this. Having been through
a credit crunch in my personal finances, I can tell you that there is
no way out that does not involve some pain and sacrifice. You have to
scale down your expectations and tighten your belt, but in this
society, it might be hard at first, but you will still have enough
diversions to ease some of that pain. I had the television, some
books, fishing, and other inexpensive pursuits. I stayed at home a
lot. A lot of life plans get put on hold or derailed with tight
finances. I had $50 leeway between paychecks until a tax refund
arrived to rebuild a reserve savings. I drove a 1975 car until 1993.
The problem is, you have to pay down your debt with one
hand, and raise income with the other. As your debts are
reduced, your income rises and you are out of it in a few years, and
hopefully wiser from the experience. One of the errors being made is
confusing government tax revenues with income. Government tax
revenues come from the incomes of the people. In order
to raise tax revenues, the incomes of the people have to rise.
There's a double squeeze in this situation because, as government
debt rose so did the indebtedness of the people.
Neither the politicians nor the people realized that this phenomenon
would effectively reduce the incomes of the people, due to personal
debt service. Every time payment that must be made comes out of each
person's income after taxes. With a lot of people, there isn't much
room for more taxes. Businesses also went into debt. When the
financial crisis hit, people lost all of their incomes by being laid
off from their jobs. These people went on unemployment compensation,
becoming tax recipients rather than payers. Many defaulted on debts,
causing more strains on the banking system, which is insured by the
government, and also prolonged the recession.
Hard choices have to be made by all of us. We have to do
without more from government so that the debt doesn't rise as fast,
while some might have to pay more in taxes, but there will have to be
a balance between these two. Those who don't want to give up anything
from the government, or in slightly increased taxes, are going to
make the problem worse. Where the taxes come from has to be prudently
decided. What is needed are jobs. Jobs mean people coming off
unemployment and other programs that increase the demand of the
government for credit. As they come off the programs, and become net
tax payers again, the deficit goes down. Raise taxes in the job
creating sector, and this doesn't happen. The problem gets worse
until it can't be sustained any longer. We can't afford to get in
that position.
Look, whether your priority is national security or
helping the poor, neither is sustainable in the long
run unless sacrifices for both military and social spending
are made as part of this solution. It's just that simple. We aren't
so rich anymore that we "can afford to do anything." I heard that old
saw about being "the richest country on Earth" all of my life. Hey,
that's over now. When you are this far in hock, you are poor,
not rich. Now choices are going to have to be made. It will
mean pain, and I know that from experience. I tried to make this
whole thing lighter, and play it for laughs, but this just isn't
funny anymore. We have to grow up as a people. This
isn't the time to paper this over with more entertainment, escapism,
and jokes. It stopped being funny a long time ago. That doesn't mean
we won't have anymore laughs in here. This might be one of those
inexpensive diversions we just talked about. We just all need to see
the truth for what it is, and someone needed to say it. We'll share
some laughs again about other things that really are amusing. This
isn't one of them.
