According to an article in the Live Science web publication, the questions of how and why earth has magnetic fields may be answered. We need the magnetic fields to protect us from solar winds and all that bad stuff that comes from the sun. I'm not going to try to explain it because, after reading it carefully, I don't understand it. Suffice it to say, these scientists do understand it.
But the report talks about heat and electrons and neutrons swirling around from the core to the mantle and back again. It's that swirling that interested me. See, it's a lot like the minds of such politician as Sen. Ted Cruz, and Reps Todd Akins and Michelle Bachmann, Govs. Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of others.
These folks seem to be swirling in their minds to come up with some of the ideas, or lack thereof, that they vocalize. Now that's not to say the Conservatives have a corner on the dumb market. Barbara Boxer and George W Bush, oh no, wait, Pres. Bush was a Republican. Well, anyway you get the idea. The point is, we could do with a little more honesty from all our representatives and media and a lot less playing to the lowest common denominator of the public.
After all, the general public isn't nearly as dumb as politicians and commentators take us to be. I and I believe, most, folks can spell 'lie' and 'stupid' and even 'bull crap' every bit as well as the folks who are using those words and terms against us. I think we need a new Amendment to the Constitution that reads; If you do not believe in science, you are no longer eligible to hold office or vote. Now an amendment like that would clear up some of the stupidity and clean out about three dozen Congressmen and at least seven or eight Senators. It would also eliminate the possibility of any of them running for President.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Just What is A Student Athlete?
Ever wonder how college athletes are able to keep up with practice schedules and classroom schedules at the same time? The old story of taking easy, no work subjects isn't just a myth. In fact two former athletes from the University of North Carolina are suing their alma mater for failing to give them meaningful educations for their services. The thing is, they didn't get paid either directly or by providing them with an education that would have any meaning for their futures, according to a New York Times article today.
So when you go to college and take classes that don't require any work or even that you show up for classes, mainly because no classes are scheduled, they're a fraud foisted on an unsuspecting student. Of course these courses are a good deal for the college since there's almost no cost associated with the offerings. The only costs are the printing costs, the paper used and the mention of the courses in their list of required subjects needed for graduation.
It's like some online schools that will mail you a diploma for a price. Or organizations that will appoint you to be as licensed minister of the faith, again for a cost. Now. it's becoming public knowledge that prestigious colleges are basically doing the same, but instead of charging a fee, they're getting free athletic skills to earn the school a high income.
But don't fault the universities, not even the NCAA or the conferences, because it's simply the American way. Just screw anybody you have to in order to succeed. After all, in the end, the end justifies the means. And what is the end, you may ask? The end is money, lots of money, in your pocket. Well that and a degree of power. So ya see, college is just a business after all. Profits and losses, quarterly reports and CEO compensation.
And what about the employee, the athlete? What about them indeed. They're no different than the lowly corporate employee. Keep them under foot and brook no nonsense from them. But colleges have an even tighter grip on these athletes, They can't easily transfer to another school. And if they do, what difference will it make to the student? None.
So when you go to college and take classes that don't require any work or even that you show up for classes, mainly because no classes are scheduled, they're a fraud foisted on an unsuspecting student. Of course these courses are a good deal for the college since there's almost no cost associated with the offerings. The only costs are the printing costs, the paper used and the mention of the courses in their list of required subjects needed for graduation.
It's like some online schools that will mail you a diploma for a price. Or organizations that will appoint you to be as licensed minister of the faith, again for a cost. Now. it's becoming public knowledge that prestigious colleges are basically doing the same, but instead of charging a fee, they're getting free athletic skills to earn the school a high income.
But don't fault the universities, not even the NCAA or the conferences, because it's simply the American way. Just screw anybody you have to in order to succeed. After all, in the end, the end justifies the means. And what is the end, you may ask? The end is money, lots of money, in your pocket. Well that and a degree of power. So ya see, college is just a business after all. Profits and losses, quarterly reports and CEO compensation.
And what about the employee, the athlete? What about them indeed. They're no different than the lowly corporate employee. Keep them under foot and brook no nonsense from them. But colleges have an even tighter grip on these athletes, They can't easily transfer to another school. And if they do, what difference will it make to the student? None.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
When Does Congress Know Better Than Science?
There are a couple of Congressmen and Senators who are pushing to limit grants for scientific research only to those which are specifically in the national interest. They specifically don't want any of those grants to pet projects with funny names. So they want to reign in the National Science Foundation and stop them from giving out taxpayer money to silly non-national interest research.
The NSF has given a couple of examples of silly named, pet project, research. One was called BackRub. Can you imagine all the fun Congress could have had with that grant application? You'd think that example would be one that Congress would have turned down flat. But as it turns out, that one led to the beginning of Google.
Another example was an end of year add on to an existing grant that wound up developing Internet Explorer and Netscape Explorer. The point is that unless you have a very accurate crystal ball, you can't possibly know which research will wind up being the "Best" research that Congress is trying to make sure the NSF funds and no other silly stuff. Well, except that these two, in particular, were silly stuff, until they stopped being silly and became giant breakthroughs of national interest.
Now I know that Senator Rand Paul is able to tell the future of any and every research project, and by their names alone, whether or not they will turn out to be a silly waste of time and money. And Rep Lamar Smith, of Texas, has always known what's a waste of time and money, namely anything that suggests the world isn't flat and Adam and Eve didn't have a herd of dairy dinosaurs.
But speaking for the rest of mankind, I'd have to say, 'ya never know.' Here's the thing though, if these two mental midgets had had their way, we might never have advanced nearly as far as we have. And given the opportunity, they just might severely limit our future.
The NSF has given a couple of examples of silly named, pet project, research. One was called BackRub. Can you imagine all the fun Congress could have had with that grant application? You'd think that example would be one that Congress would have turned down flat. But as it turns out, that one led to the beginning of Google.
Another example was an end of year add on to an existing grant that wound up developing Internet Explorer and Netscape Explorer. The point is that unless you have a very accurate crystal ball, you can't possibly know which research will wind up being the "Best" research that Congress is trying to make sure the NSF funds and no other silly stuff. Well, except that these two, in particular, were silly stuff, until they stopped being silly and became giant breakthroughs of national interest.
Now I know that Senator Rand Paul is able to tell the future of any and every research project, and by their names alone, whether or not they will turn out to be a silly waste of time and money. And Rep Lamar Smith, of Texas, has always known what's a waste of time and money, namely anything that suggests the world isn't flat and Adam and Eve didn't have a herd of dairy dinosaurs.
But speaking for the rest of mankind, I'd have to say, 'ya never know.' Here's the thing though, if these two mental midgets had had their way, we might never have advanced nearly as far as we have. And given the opportunity, they just might severely limit our future.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
What If Nobody Can afford Your Product?
Did ya ever hear of the term Inclusive Prosperity? How about Inclusive Growth? What they mean, basically, is that an economy can only go so far before it begins to deteriorate. If all the profits flow to the top, and little if any goes to the bottom, then the economy will lose it's ability to support itself. In other words, if the people at the bottom don't participate in the wealth, then eventually they won't have the money to buy the products. And that means the people at the top will not have any wealth added to what they already have.
The solution is for management to pay their employees more. Not the constant drive to find lower and lower labor and materials costs. Industry has used up all of the cheapest labor locations, pretty much. And as they enter cheap labor market, they boost the costs of labor in those markets. At the same time, they reduce the ability of the proven purchasing markets to continue to buy the products.
In other words, if you continue to take money out of my pocket, eventually I won't be able to buy any new products at all. And the thing is, the wealthy are too few to buy enough product to make up the difference. That's where we find ourselves now, or pretty close to that point.
So okay, how do we reverse this trend? At some point the government will be forced to recognize that the 'Trickle Down policy', the 'Treat The Job Creators Better Policy' just don't work . The reason they don't work is because it's all based on the premise that those who benefit the most will allow some of that wealth to filter down to the middle and lower classes. The problem is that human nature won't allow that to happen in great enough numbers to make the policies work. It's all about greed. The 'I've got mine, you need to work harder if you want a share' thinking. It might work if there was a point at which everyone agreed they had enough so they'll move over and make room for somebody else. Again, human nature won't allow that to happen.
If or when government admits the problem and the failure of the old trickle down, then and only then will they put caps on executive pay unless increasing labor's share and other like minded actions.
The solution is for management to pay their employees more. Not the constant drive to find lower and lower labor and materials costs. Industry has used up all of the cheapest labor locations, pretty much. And as they enter cheap labor market, they boost the costs of labor in those markets. At the same time, they reduce the ability of the proven purchasing markets to continue to buy the products.
In other words, if you continue to take money out of my pocket, eventually I won't be able to buy any new products at all. And the thing is, the wealthy are too few to buy enough product to make up the difference. That's where we find ourselves now, or pretty close to that point.
So okay, how do we reverse this trend? At some point the government will be forced to recognize that the 'Trickle Down policy', the 'Treat The Job Creators Better Policy' just don't work . The reason they don't work is because it's all based on the premise that those who benefit the most will allow some of that wealth to filter down to the middle and lower classes. The problem is that human nature won't allow that to happen in great enough numbers to make the policies work. It's all about greed. The 'I've got mine, you need to work harder if you want a share' thinking. It might work if there was a point at which everyone agreed they had enough so they'll move over and make room for somebody else. Again, human nature won't allow that to happen.
If or when government admits the problem and the failure of the old trickle down, then and only then will they put caps on executive pay unless increasing labor's share and other like minded actions.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Science,What Science?
Aargh Matie, there's skullduggery afoot in Congress this week. Well. I suppose that can be said of any week. In fact you could almost say that of every week, except that Congress is only in session about half the time. Anyway the skullduggery going on this week, in the House of Representatives, is a backdoor attempt to sidestep science in order to make life much easier for business and industry and much more difficult for government agencies. And you and I.
You could say that it's an attempt to make government much smaller. You could say that, except it's actually going to make government larger. Well, unless the government agencies have their budgets shrunk, which is also in future plans. No, the problem here is that the House is trying to take legislation out of the hands of science and turn it over to industry and business. At least as it pertains to legislation concerning health and safety associated with workers, food and consumers.
The bill the House is working on is a revival of the 'Regulatory Accountability Act'. It sounds like a fair and equitable idea to have accountability on legislation. Except that there's already more than ample accountability. That's why government is so big now. But the RAA bill will ad as much as 74 new procedural requirements to agencies before they can bring it to a vote. And none have anything to do with science. We're talking about things like food safety laws and health safety and worker safety.
To put this into perspective, let's say you have a job of putting twelve screws into a part to assemble the product. Then suddenly the boss says he'd like to change it from twelve to 74 screws. But do it in the same amount of time.
Here's the thing. A group of Congressmen have been trying to get this bill passed, in one form or another for about thirty years according to the 'Live Science' website. But now with a larger group of anti-science representatives in office and a majority of both houses, they feel there's a better chance to push the bill through. Well, we elected them, we're stuck with them, and what they do that might harm us is also our fault as much as it is theirs. Feel better now?
You could say that it's an attempt to make government much smaller. You could say that, except it's actually going to make government larger. Well, unless the government agencies have their budgets shrunk, which is also in future plans. No, the problem here is that the House is trying to take legislation out of the hands of science and turn it over to industry and business. At least as it pertains to legislation concerning health and safety associated with workers, food and consumers.
The bill the House is working on is a revival of the 'Regulatory Accountability Act'. It sounds like a fair and equitable idea to have accountability on legislation. Except that there's already more than ample accountability. That's why government is so big now. But the RAA bill will ad as much as 74 new procedural requirements to agencies before they can bring it to a vote. And none have anything to do with science. We're talking about things like food safety laws and health safety and worker safety.
To put this into perspective, let's say you have a job of putting twelve screws into a part to assemble the product. Then suddenly the boss says he'd like to change it from twelve to 74 screws. But do it in the same amount of time.
Here's the thing. A group of Congressmen have been trying to get this bill passed, in one form or another for about thirty years according to the 'Live Science' website. But now with a larger group of anti-science representatives in office and a majority of both houses, they feel there's a better chance to push the bill through. Well, we elected them, we're stuck with them, and what they do that might harm us is also our fault as much as it is theirs. Feel better now?
Sunday, January 11, 2015
What's A Quarter Got To Do With It?
I just read a surprising statistic that I'm not completely sure of. But it's still worth repeating, and that is, that of the 250+ Republicans elected to Congress in the last 5 months, exactly every one of them were white Christians. Now as a white Christian this should give me comfort I suppose, but it doesn't. You may ask what the odds are of that happening, and it is odd indeed.
27 % of Americans are black or other than white and 24% claim not to be Christian, yet not one is represented in the latest crop of Republican legislators in Washington. Well, back to the odds. There is a 0.28% chance of that happening, according to the Daily Kos. A quarter of one percent. Now why would you suppose that all those non white and non Christians all vote overwhelmingly for the White guy, the Christian guy?
Of course many are other than Republican, and quite a few probably didn't bother to vote, but not one single non white, non Christian Republican got elected. Ya know, I don't think it just happens that way. I think it takes a herculean effort to make it happen. Then again, the way the party acts towards most minorities and most minority social position, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, if you think about where the party stands on issues that affect people, you'll find they're against those issues, but on issues that affect corporations, they're overwhelmingly for those issues. At the expense of the people who actually cast votes for them.
Now all this is not to give a pass to Democrats. These good folks seem more than willing to vote for the corporate cause at the expense of their own voters as well. So let me conclude by saying that, as a white Christian, I'd prefer that all those elected officials in Washington, actually start considering the folks who voted for them. And stop giving so much fealty to the folks who paid for their election bids. I realize it's asking a lot, but then you got a lot.
Another gripe I have is the near constant claim that you're only doing what our founding fathers wanted. Our founding fathers wanted slavery to continue. They may have been smart for their times. They were certainly smart enough to realize they didn't have all the answers. Otherwise we'd still have slaves or we'd be about fifty little, insignificant countries squabbling with each other and constantly going to war against each other. Our founding fathers clearly expected us to accept change, like it or not. So you Republicans and Democrats, act like your founding fathers. Do what's best for the people, not the corporations.
27 % of Americans are black or other than white and 24% claim not to be Christian, yet not one is represented in the latest crop of Republican legislators in Washington. Well, back to the odds. There is a 0.28% chance of that happening, according to the Daily Kos. A quarter of one percent. Now why would you suppose that all those non white and non Christians all vote overwhelmingly for the White guy, the Christian guy?
Of course many are other than Republican, and quite a few probably didn't bother to vote, but not one single non white, non Christian Republican got elected. Ya know, I don't think it just happens that way. I think it takes a herculean effort to make it happen. Then again, the way the party acts towards most minorities and most minority social position, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, if you think about where the party stands on issues that affect people, you'll find they're against those issues, but on issues that affect corporations, they're overwhelmingly for those issues. At the expense of the people who actually cast votes for them.
Now all this is not to give a pass to Democrats. These good folks seem more than willing to vote for the corporate cause at the expense of their own voters as well. So let me conclude by saying that, as a white Christian, I'd prefer that all those elected officials in Washington, actually start considering the folks who voted for them. And stop giving so much fealty to the folks who paid for their election bids. I realize it's asking a lot, but then you got a lot.
Another gripe I have is the near constant claim that you're only doing what our founding fathers wanted. Our founding fathers wanted slavery to continue. They may have been smart for their times. They were certainly smart enough to realize they didn't have all the answers. Otherwise we'd still have slaves or we'd be about fifty little, insignificant countries squabbling with each other and constantly going to war against each other. Our founding fathers clearly expected us to accept change, like it or not. So you Republicans and Democrats, act like your founding fathers. Do what's best for the people, not the corporations.
Friday, January 9, 2015
A Cunning Fox Indeed.
There's another new study out that states, no it doesn't say "some people are saying", this is another study that points out that those who gain their news from Fox News are "significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources." It's by World Public Opinion at the University of Maryland. Heck, even the Wall Street Journal (same owner as Fox News) admits that to be true. Ya can't make this stuff up. Fox can, but you can't.
So this is at least the third university study that agrees to the dumbing down of Fox viewers. It's pretty slick how FOX gets away with it too. They use phrases like "Some people say" or "it's been reported" or a number of other catchy lead-ins that could make their next statement true. Some people believe Santa will deliver toys to---. Ya see? Some people do say that about Santa, therefore their statement is true. Not a factual report of what will actually happen, but a true statement nevertheless.
Another way of misstating while not telling an untruth is to say "It's been reported." It's a true statement if in the previous segment someone reports that untruth. "I'm reporting that John McCain fought alongside George Washington in the Revolutionary War. Next up, the news." "Good evening. Here's the news. It's been reported that John McCain fought---. Ya see how that works? Senator McCain isn't quite old enough to have fought in the Revolutionary War.
Well if that's the case, why do they have so many viewers and why don't they tell the truth, straight up? Well the article goes on the explain that many viewers watch Fox News to validate their personal beliefs. It appears there are quite a few of these folks. Fox doesn't change it's format because it's viewers wouldn't watch and that would mean fewer advertisers and lower ad prices.
Well do other networks do likewise? Of course, but not nearly to the extent of Fox. And they mostly stick close to the truth. Fox, on the other hand, has become a propaganda tool of the Far Right of the Republican party. It's a mutually effective pattern. The Republican agenda gets an excellent rollout and the Fox network gets lots of viewer strength which increases the bottom line. The closest the Democrats come to that kind of exposure is in paid political ads.
So this is at least the third university study that agrees to the dumbing down of Fox viewers. It's pretty slick how FOX gets away with it too. They use phrases like "Some people say" or "it's been reported" or a number of other catchy lead-ins that could make their next statement true. Some people believe Santa will deliver toys to---. Ya see? Some people do say that about Santa, therefore their statement is true. Not a factual report of what will actually happen, but a true statement nevertheless.
Another way of misstating while not telling an untruth is to say "It's been reported." It's a true statement if in the previous segment someone reports that untruth. "I'm reporting that John McCain fought alongside George Washington in the Revolutionary War. Next up, the news." "Good evening. Here's the news. It's been reported that John McCain fought---. Ya see how that works? Senator McCain isn't quite old enough to have fought in the Revolutionary War.
Well if that's the case, why do they have so many viewers and why don't they tell the truth, straight up? Well the article goes on the explain that many viewers watch Fox News to validate their personal beliefs. It appears there are quite a few of these folks. Fox doesn't change it's format because it's viewers wouldn't watch and that would mean fewer advertisers and lower ad prices.
Well do other networks do likewise? Of course, but not nearly to the extent of Fox. And they mostly stick close to the truth. Fox, on the other hand, has become a propaganda tool of the Far Right of the Republican party. It's a mutually effective pattern. The Republican agenda gets an excellent rollout and the Fox network gets lots of viewer strength which increases the bottom line. The closest the Democrats come to that kind of exposure is in paid political ads.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Ethiopia And America
In the BBC email this morning there's an article that tells about a region in Ethiopia called the Low Lands where a group of tribes raise cattle, the 'ancient' way. That's fine and if that were all there were, the article would not have been written. But that's not the whole story. See, the government of Ethiopia decided they wanted to convert this pastoral scene into a region for agribusiness to grow sugar and palm oil. The government has decided that the Mursi people are a backward people living a backward lifestyle. Of course the 'agribusiness' group is not a homegrown industry, it's foreign owned and run.
This is not the usual kind of story I write about, but the reason I mentioned it is because it has some similarities to America. No, I'm not suggesting we raise cattle the ancient way, nor am I suggesting that our government is forcing us out of our ancestral homelands. What I am suggesting, in fact accusing many of our state governments of doing is stealing our rights with state laws that make it almost impossible for some folks to vote, simply because they're likely to vote for the 'wrong' party.
Of course it's not exactly the same as taking lands from the Mursi people. No, instead it's taking away our rights. Which make those affected, less than citizens of the country they were born in and have lived their entire lives in. All in the name of protecting our electoral system from fraudulent voting. Now I suppose it would be fair to do that, if in fact there was any evidence of any fraudulent voting. The problem is, there is virtually no instances in which these laws would protect the system from any fraud. How do I know that? Because in trials defending the laws, the various states have not been able to produce any such evidence. That isn't stopping some states.
I suspect that these states' legislatures who voted those laws in, consider the folks they're depriving of the voting privilege, of being somehow backwards and unworthy of citizenship. So the real question in America's case is; do the various states' governments have the right to deprive it's citizens of the voting privilege simply because they're likely to vote for the wrong guy? As for Ethiopia, I suspect they've been bought by agribusiness.
This is not the usual kind of story I write about, but the reason I mentioned it is because it has some similarities to America. No, I'm not suggesting we raise cattle the ancient way, nor am I suggesting that our government is forcing us out of our ancestral homelands. What I am suggesting, in fact accusing many of our state governments of doing is stealing our rights with state laws that make it almost impossible for some folks to vote, simply because they're likely to vote for the 'wrong' party.
Of course it's not exactly the same as taking lands from the Mursi people. No, instead it's taking away our rights. Which make those affected, less than citizens of the country they were born in and have lived their entire lives in. All in the name of protecting our electoral system from fraudulent voting. Now I suppose it would be fair to do that, if in fact there was any evidence of any fraudulent voting. The problem is, there is virtually no instances in which these laws would protect the system from any fraud. How do I know that? Because in trials defending the laws, the various states have not been able to produce any such evidence. That isn't stopping some states.
I suspect that these states' legislatures who voted those laws in, consider the folks they're depriving of the voting privilege, of being somehow backwards and unworthy of citizenship. So the real question in America's case is; do the various states' governments have the right to deprive it's citizens of the voting privilege simply because they're likely to vote for the wrong guy? As for Ethiopia, I suspect they've been bought by agribusiness.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
I'll Bet You'll Pay Their Losses.
In your opinion, what will be the ramifications of the relaxing of the Dodd Frank bill on the derivatives market and how will the FED's decision to allow two more years for Wall Street banks to divest themselves of their investments in private equity and hedge funds? Uh huh! Me too. I have to admit, I don't really know what the hell they're talking about.
Well, an article in the N.Y. Times this morning awakened my brain just a bit. The article pointed out two examples where these derivatives, actually wagers, were scary. In the one case the debt of a particular company was 1.4 billion, but the bets that the company would default amounted to 23.5 billion. In another example a company wanted to borrow several billion. They were told they could have the loan only if they were late in the next payment on existing debt because the lender held a bet they would default. The company was late on that next payment and got the loan, and the lender made a killing on it's bets.
All of this is worrisome, but not nearly as worrisome as it will now be if that lender makes a bet in the future and loses the bet. That's because you and I and every taxpayer is gonna have to pay off on the bet. And that's because they can make these bets without using any of the banks own money. The bank will get away with the slickest deal you could ask for. Heads they win, tails we lose. Why? Because the Dodd Frank law that said they couldn't lay such debts on the taxpayers, got rescinded by the new 1.1 trillion spending law that passed congress and was signed by the president.
Now I admit I still don't understand the derivatives markets enough, nor am I rich enough, to take advantage of these deals, but then the change in the law wasn't designed to enhance my portfolio. It was the Wall Street Banks for whom the changes were made. And it was for them that this fixed betting was arranged. That's right, the fix is in. The banks can't lose. But you surely will.
Well, an article in the N.Y. Times this morning awakened my brain just a bit. The article pointed out two examples where these derivatives, actually wagers, were scary. In the one case the debt of a particular company was 1.4 billion, but the bets that the company would default amounted to 23.5 billion. In another example a company wanted to borrow several billion. They were told they could have the loan only if they were late in the next payment on existing debt because the lender held a bet they would default. The company was late on that next payment and got the loan, and the lender made a killing on it's bets.
All of this is worrisome, but not nearly as worrisome as it will now be if that lender makes a bet in the future and loses the bet. That's because you and I and every taxpayer is gonna have to pay off on the bet. And that's because they can make these bets without using any of the banks own money. The bank will get away with the slickest deal you could ask for. Heads they win, tails we lose. Why? Because the Dodd Frank law that said they couldn't lay such debts on the taxpayers, got rescinded by the new 1.1 trillion spending law that passed congress and was signed by the president.
Now I admit I still don't understand the derivatives markets enough, nor am I rich enough, to take advantage of these deals, but then the change in the law wasn't designed to enhance my portfolio. It was the Wall Street Banks for whom the changes were made. And it was for them that this fixed betting was arranged. That's right, the fix is in. The banks can't lose. But you surely will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)