I'm beginning to understand why growing older is so difficult, especially when one is growing older alone. And I hate being alone. Two things: not being able to express oneself in the same manner as one use to be able and the irrational deductive reasoning ability of the youth. I use to wonder why someone might become isolationist as they grow older, these I believe are two of the main reasons.
It boggles the mind how anyone could come to the conclusion that Obama is any in manner a good president. I'm guessing the basis of their augment has no foundation within the constitution. In fact, my guess is that anyone who endears himself to Obama has never read the constitution.
I got into an argument with someone who I'd thought would be a conservative but he should sounded like a die-hard liberal by liberal theology he was espousing . When you have to reach back to the old "there were no WMDs in Iraq" to justify any statements you are making 10 years later then your mind and your ideology is stuck in a quagmire so deep you'll never be able to think straight again. Every government intelligence service in the world thought Iraq had WMDs. Hind is always 20-20. He tells me his father or someone related to him new Iraq didn't have WMDs. Dang! I knew we had the wrong people in the intelligence services. There is always a Nostradamus around some where knowing more than anyone else knows and there is always others around to believe in this lone person more than all of the intelligence services in the known world. And whether they were right or not is not the question, it is where does that person receive his knowledge to base his decision - from one person who happen to get it right "this time" or from multiple sources that more than not get it right.
And anyone with any intelligence knows given a years warning that "we are going to attack you" you can move packages from one place to another. The only evidence I need of whether Iraq had WMDs or not is proven by what SH did to his own citizens - the Kurds. I'm sure the chemical weapons that they were overwhelmed and killed with must have been in Iraq at one time or another. So this guys arguments against this fact is to bring up the American colonists spreading small pox among the American Indians? Hmmm, I'm thinking; "I never knew the Colonists had the technology to develop a Small Pox strain and disseminate it among the American Indians so many years ago." Of course irrational deductive reasoning (an oxymoron if there ever was one) would never lead one to understand that a "naturally occurring disease" is completely different from one developed through man-made means.
Talking to the asinine youth who have no ability to reason rationally will drive me to isolationism. If not for my own sanity, then so I don't keep abusing my children's friends.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Tea Party Republican Debate
I just don't think any of the current candidates for the Republican presidential ticket have any understanding of what 1) the REAL truth means and 2) what the American people, much less the Tea Party people want to hear from them. What really got me upset was when the moderator, Wolf, ask the very direct question; "Is Social Security Unconstitutional?"
The answer is simple: YES! But certainly needs to be followed up with an explanation to the way forward for the program.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING in the US Constitution that allows for the federal government to redistribute money from one tax payer to other taxpayers. The authority just isn't there. To quote one of our founding fathers: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison said this in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia while standing on the floor of the House.
The Tenth Amendment – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", again, expressly denies that right to the federal government.
And even Ron Paul capitulated. Politics and Politicians!!!
I was simply looking for one of them to stand for the truth. I believe it would have gone a long way to solidifying the Tea Party vote. And yes, even those currently on or soon to be on Social Security.
Because after stating that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they would have succinctly stated that the program has been in place for over 70 years and to think I could walk into the White House on day one and eliminate the program would be ludicrous. But we do need to fix it. How?
Simple. This already paying into or receiving benefits have a simple choice of staying in the program or opting out. The "Opt-Out", while not completely defined here, would be a graduated system where those closer to retirement keep paying the full SS taxes while those just starting in the workforce has all of their funds diverted to an Privately-held Social Security program (IRA). The assumption is that those closer to retirement age would not opt-out.
The first thought that might come to many of your minds is: "Great, with funds starting to be diverted, how to we continue funding for those they choose not to Opt-Out?" In my estimation if we take the ideas of Ron Paul (bringing most of our troops home from around the world), Newt Gingrich (modernizing the federal government) and all of the candidates (repeal ObamaCare) then the federal government has more than enough funds to fund Social Security until no-one is on or needs a federally funded Social Security system.
And lastly, I would establish a wealth cap for those receiving Social Security. Social Security was started as a help-meet for those in need during there retirement years and has morphed into and expectation of retirement income. And although it is not justifiable I would not continue to pay SS benefits to those who have no need for them (i.e. the wealthy). On a side note: I'd also eliminate the Congressional Retirement plan. Why do we have a retirement plan for millionaires?!?!?
Okay, I've ranted. Time to do other things. Till next time.
The answer is simple: YES! But certainly needs to be followed up with an explanation to the way forward for the program.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING in the US Constitution that allows for the federal government to redistribute money from one tax payer to other taxpayers. The authority just isn't there. To quote one of our founding fathers: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison said this in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia while standing on the floor of the House.
The Tenth Amendment – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", again, expressly denies that right to the federal government.
And even Ron Paul capitulated. Politics and Politicians!!!
I was simply looking for one of them to stand for the truth. I believe it would have gone a long way to solidifying the Tea Party vote. And yes, even those currently on or soon to be on Social Security.
Because after stating that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they would have succinctly stated that the program has been in place for over 70 years and to think I could walk into the White House on day one and eliminate the program would be ludicrous. But we do need to fix it. How?
Simple. This already paying into or receiving benefits have a simple choice of staying in the program or opting out. The "Opt-Out", while not completely defined here, would be a graduated system where those closer to retirement keep paying the full SS taxes while those just starting in the workforce has all of their funds diverted to an Privately-held Social Security program (IRA). The assumption is that those closer to retirement age would not opt-out.
The first thought that might come to many of your minds is: "Great, with funds starting to be diverted, how to we continue funding for those they choose not to Opt-Out?" In my estimation if we take the ideas of Ron Paul (bringing most of our troops home from around the world), Newt Gingrich (modernizing the federal government) and all of the candidates (repeal ObamaCare) then the federal government has more than enough funds to fund Social Security until no-one is on or needs a federally funded Social Security system.
And lastly, I would establish a wealth cap for those receiving Social Security. Social Security was started as a help-meet for those in need during there retirement years and has morphed into and expectation of retirement income. And although it is not justifiable I would not continue to pay SS benefits to those who have no need for them (i.e. the wealthy). On a side note: I'd also eliminate the Congressional Retirement plan. Why do we have a retirement plan for millionaires?!?!?
Okay, I've ranted. Time to do other things. Till next time.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Federalism Destroyed
I am going to ramble for a bit but I think that once I get through writing I will have somewhere in all of these words a coherent thought. Well, let's hope so.
Think about any business or family problem that needs to be resolved. If you only have one person throwing out solutions, that solution could very well be the worst idea anyone can have. But unless you are able to compare it to other possible solutions you won't know until it is too late and you have invested time, talent and resources it the "wrong solution." On the other hand, if you have more than one person, preferably several people, suggesting solutions it is more likely you are going to come up with a better solution. Maybe not, but at least your odds are have been improved.
The Federalist system our Founding Fathers put forth was just the very system. Yet better. In Federalism you more than not, with 50 states, have 50 different solutions to the same problem be experimented on at the same time. Eventually, over time, the best solutions gets adopted by all of the other states. Some states adopt quickly while others are slow learners. But the key is you have real-time experimental solutions to real world problems going on all the time.
Over time, as especially accelerating beginning in the early 20th century, our central government has destroyed the beautifully planned system of federalism. Now we have one solution, whether right or wrong, disseminated to all 50 states at once.
So what's the solution for this very real and very dangerous problem. Well, at the risk of going against my own philosophy spouted above, here is one solution from one man. Of course this is only theoretical with little to no chance to ever be enacted.
Merger and acquisitions, and divestitures in the corporate world go on all the time. Nothing new here and there are real expects at each. I would propose we bring in several of these "divestiture" expert and divest the "central" government back to the "state" government. Simple enough and I honestly don't think if the "shareholders" backed this plan that it would take more than one year to accomplish.
First, all state governments are already in place. Second, many of the central government programs already have equivalent state offices at most or a physical presents at least within each state's boundaries.
Within a period of one fiscal year the central government can plan for the turnover of all assets and revenues to any and all programs deemed unconstitutional by a well-qualified board of scholars. Picking this group would have its problems all on its own. We'll assume for this purpose that we are able to put together an acceptable board.
This board, along with the "divestiture" board would outline what is to be retained by the central government. Each item retained would have to fall into one of following categories:
Think about any business or family problem that needs to be resolved. If you only have one person throwing out solutions, that solution could very well be the worst idea anyone can have. But unless you are able to compare it to other possible solutions you won't know until it is too late and you have invested time, talent and resources it the "wrong solution." On the other hand, if you have more than one person, preferably several people, suggesting solutions it is more likely you are going to come up with a better solution. Maybe not, but at least your odds are have been improved.
The Federalist system our Founding Fathers put forth was just the very system. Yet better. In Federalism you more than not, with 50 states, have 50 different solutions to the same problem be experimented on at the same time. Eventually, over time, the best solutions gets adopted by all of the other states. Some states adopt quickly while others are slow learners. But the key is you have real-time experimental solutions to real world problems going on all the time.
Over time, as especially accelerating beginning in the early 20th century, our central government has destroyed the beautifully planned system of federalism. Now we have one solution, whether right or wrong, disseminated to all 50 states at once.
So what's the solution for this very real and very dangerous problem. Well, at the risk of going against my own philosophy spouted above, here is one solution from one man. Of course this is only theoretical with little to no chance to ever be enacted.
Merger and acquisitions, and divestitures in the corporate world go on all the time. Nothing new here and there are real expects at each. I would propose we bring in several of these "divestiture" expert and divest the "central" government back to the "state" government. Simple enough and I honestly don't think if the "shareholders" backed this plan that it would take more than one year to accomplish.
First, all state governments are already in place. Second, many of the central government programs already have equivalent state offices at most or a physical presents at least within each state's boundaries.
Within a period of one fiscal year the central government can plan for the turnover of all assets and revenues to any and all programs deemed unconstitutional by a well-qualified board of scholars. Picking this group would have its problems all on its own. We'll assume for this purpose that we are able to put together an acceptable board.
This board, along with the "divestiture" board would outline what is to be retained by the central government. Each item retained would have to fall into one of following categories:
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Christmas 2010
To say the least this will be a different Christmas for me. I'll miss seeing my kids even if I would have only seen some of them. Most years I don't get to see them anyway. Some how over the years my first ex co-oped both Thanksgiving and Christmas. I suppose in many ways it was easier for me to deal with the loneliness than it would have been for her.
Went to our School Christmas Party last night at the Sheraton here in Wuxi. I was told it would be Western cuisine but trust me when I say nothing in China is exactly "western." I suppose that would be no different for a Chinese being in the USA and eating Chinese food - there would be a difference. I don't care how many years I were to spend in China I think I would always prefer the taste of American Chinese food. And besides, since when is "chicken feet" Western cuisine. Ha! Yep, they had a plate piled high with chicken feet. Yum yum!! NOT!
Christmas is somewhat surreal here in China. In case you aren't aware, China is a secular state, meaning there is not a religious underpinning in its creation. In fact quite the opposite in that they outlawed religion for many years. That has been very relaxed in recent years having also turned to a "free market economy" in order to play catch-up with the rest of the world. Hey, in some ways it might even be "freer" than the USA. Boy have we falling far?
But back to Christmas; you can't go anywhere with someone calling out "Marry Christmas" to you. Nope, didn't misspell it, that's the way it is spelled much around here. lol And even though they greet you so, you definitely get the feeling they have no idea what Christmas is all about. It is very much the "commercialized" version as opposed to the religious belief in Christ that is motivator. Hand it to the Free Market Economists, even in a completely secular state they don't miss a beat.
In fact there is a ritual in China that when ever you are at dinner, and it doesn't have to be a special dinner, they like to go around to other tables and offer up toasts. What for? Who cares as long as you offer up and drink. I think it really is an excuse to drink more than one should. They laugh at me because more than not I am always returning the toasts with an empty glass or water. But the toasts, not unlike Christmas, seem so very artificial to me. I don't think people realize it very much, and I certainly didn't, but religion in ones life teaches you compassion and empathy for those around you. That is what is sorely missing in this society, at least from my perspective. There is a reason for doing everything and it just seems the reasons here are all so very superficial and robotic with no real meaning behind the acts. Could be my mistaken perception but like the saying goes "Perception is Reality."
Merry Christmas!!!
Went to our School Christmas Party last night at the Sheraton here in Wuxi. I was told it would be Western cuisine but trust me when I say nothing in China is exactly "western." I suppose that would be no different for a Chinese being in the USA and eating Chinese food - there would be a difference. I don't care how many years I were to spend in China I think I would always prefer the taste of American Chinese food. And besides, since when is "chicken feet" Western cuisine. Ha! Yep, they had a plate piled high with chicken feet. Yum yum!! NOT!
Christmas is somewhat surreal here in China. In case you aren't aware, China is a secular state, meaning there is not a religious underpinning in its creation. In fact quite the opposite in that they outlawed religion for many years. That has been very relaxed in recent years having also turned to a "free market economy" in order to play catch-up with the rest of the world. Hey, in some ways it might even be "freer" than the USA. Boy have we falling far?
But back to Christmas; you can't go anywhere with someone calling out "Marry Christmas" to you. Nope, didn't misspell it, that's the way it is spelled much around here. lol And even though they greet you so, you definitely get the feeling they have no idea what Christmas is all about. It is very much the "commercialized" version as opposed to the religious belief in Christ that is motivator. Hand it to the Free Market Economists, even in a completely secular state they don't miss a beat.
In fact there is a ritual in China that when ever you are at dinner, and it doesn't have to be a special dinner, they like to go around to other tables and offer up toasts. What for? Who cares as long as you offer up and drink. I think it really is an excuse to drink more than one should. They laugh at me because more than not I am always returning the toasts with an empty glass or water. But the toasts, not unlike Christmas, seem so very artificial to me. I don't think people realize it very much, and I certainly didn't, but religion in ones life teaches you compassion and empathy for those around you. That is what is sorely missing in this society, at least from my perspective. There is a reason for doing everything and it just seems the reasons here are all so very superficial and robotic with no real meaning behind the acts. Could be my mistaken perception but like the saying goes "Perception is Reality."
Merry Christmas!!!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
America, the new Rome
I can't help but feel apathetic for my country at this moment as I sit here eating my breakfast. I read and listen to the various news sources and it simply amazes me how our politicians do one thing and tell us they did the exact opposite. And we let them get away with it over and over.
For those who haven't studied history and I may get some particulars wrong but Rome was once a Republic like the United States and became over time a Dictatorship but still kept the semblance of a Republic so that the people as a whole didn't revolt against the elite. What Rome the politic had going for them that the USA politic do not is that the majority to Roman citizens were ignorant in the sense that they could not read nor write. Here in the USA, although we haven't shown it for years, we have a 99% literacy rate. What that means it that 99% of citizens over the age of 15 can both read and write. I suppose the next thing they who take these surveys should test for is comprehension and reasoning skills for we surely lack in those areas.
At least the Tea Party movement gives me hope that we may be able to save this country from our own self-afflictions before we turn into another Greece. Who is to come to our rescue? The only country they would have the means would be China and I'm not even sure they have the means. And if they did would they want to??
It just seems surreal to me that the last two super powers are going in the opposite directions: America, from a capitalist society to a socialist one; China, from a pure communist dictatorship to a mix of communism to capitalism (I call it directed capitalism). The simple fact they one should look at is from where did these two super powers come - America from being the greatest super power, China from being a poverty poor country of millions. Not until China started to integrate capitalism did it begin to become an economic super power. Not until Obama, and Bush before him all the way back to Wilson, started to take over private industries did we go from the undisputed super power to a country that may not survive.
God save our great Republic.
For those who haven't studied history and I may get some particulars wrong but Rome was once a Republic like the United States and became over time a Dictatorship but still kept the semblance of a Republic so that the people as a whole didn't revolt against the elite. What Rome the politic had going for them that the USA politic do not is that the majority to Roman citizens were ignorant in the sense that they could not read nor write. Here in the USA, although we haven't shown it for years, we have a 99% literacy rate. What that means it that 99% of citizens over the age of 15 can both read and write. I suppose the next thing they who take these surveys should test for is comprehension and reasoning skills for we surely lack in those areas.
At least the Tea Party movement gives me hope that we may be able to save this country from our own self-afflictions before we turn into another Greece. Who is to come to our rescue? The only country they would have the means would be China and I'm not even sure they have the means. And if they did would they want to??
It just seems surreal to me that the last two super powers are going in the opposite directions: America, from a capitalist society to a socialist one; China, from a pure communist dictatorship to a mix of communism to capitalism (I call it directed capitalism). The simple fact they one should look at is from where did these two super powers come - America from being the greatest super power, China from being a poverty poor country of millions. Not until China started to integrate capitalism did it begin to become an economic super power. Not until Obama, and Bush before him all the way back to Wilson, started to take over private industries did we go from the undisputed super power to a country that may not survive.
God save our great Republic.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Blair House Debacle
What a complete waist of both the political process and the American people's time. I was under obviously the false impression (not that I really believed it) that Obama wanted to move the debate of fixing what's wrong with the American health care system forward. I all received from watching this congregation of ill-fitted egoistical narcissists was a bigger headache that I had before I turned on the television.
What we really got a true picture of is the way business of the past use to attempt to solve problems - get some "high-powered" employees in a room and work out a solution - usually the one put forth by the most powerful person in the room. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!! I wonder who that was????
In the mean time, the business world over the past 20 years has moved beyond this group-think type of profligation of no solution at all; or at the very worst the wrong solution and have developed many methodologies for solution resolution, among these are:
What is so obviously clear when a particular methodology is used to find a solution is that 1) group think is destroyed by analysis and prioritization and 2) biases are easily exposed.
What we really got a true picture of is the way business of the past use to attempt to solve problems - get some "high-powered" employees in a room and work out a solution - usually the one put forth by the most powerful person in the room. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!! I wonder who that was????
In the mean time, the business world over the past 20 years has moved beyond this group-think type of profligation of no solution at all; or at the very worst the wrong solution and have developed many methodologies for solution resolution, among these are:
- Six Sigma
- Lean Thinking
- Theory of Constraints (TOC)
- ISO 9000 Quality Standards
- Total Quality Management (TQM)
- Toyota Production System (TPS) (maybe we should rethink this one?? lol)
- Just-In-Time (JIT)
- Benchmarking
What is so obviously clear when a particular methodology is used to find a solution is that 1) group think is destroyed by analysis and prioritization and 2) biases are easily exposed.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Constitution - Article 1 - Section 3
Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each
State, chosen by the People of the several States, for six Years; and each Senator
shall have one Vote.
The People of the several States shall chose their respective Senators from
differing party affiliations and from a pool of formerly elected House Members
If no qualifying formally elected House Members exist then The People of the several
States shall chose their respective Senators from the body of the legal residents of
said State.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election,
they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the
Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second
Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the
third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be
chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise,
during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may
make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which
shall then fill such Vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
Years, and is a natural born Citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
No Person shall be a Senator for more than Two Six Year Terms.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
Without regard to party affiliation the Senate shall choose their other Officers,
and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when
he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than the removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or
Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to
Law.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)