Economics for Dummies - Left vs Right

There is a growing misconception in America concerning economics. On one side you have people like Bernie Sanders and others on the left who believe the economy is a sum total thing that needs to support all people equally, and on the other side you have people like Donald Trump and others on the right who believe the economy is not sum total - that it can be expanded to "raise all boats".

Think of the economy as if it were a pie, and everyone grabs a piece. Some people only get a small piece while others get larger pieces, all dependent upon ones education and personal effort. The left sees this as unfair to those with a small piece, so they want to take from those with bigger pieces and redistribute it among the less fortunate, in an effort to create "equality". The left equates equality with fairness, though one has nothing to do with the other. It simply is not "fair" to take from someone who spent years in higher education, worked hard for 25 years and risked everything he or she had, and give it to someone who did little or nothing to earn it, having spent their life doing none of that.

The economic theory of the left also does not consider unintended consequences - when you take productive wealth that is typically used by the wealthy to create jobs, develop new products etc. and turn it into unproductive wealth that is not used to make society better and richer, you effectively REDUCE the amount of pie available by stifling an expansion of the amount of pie available. The pie cannot grow larger without adding more of the ingredients - investing in growth, production, jobs.

Capitalists like Trump understand that the best way to insure everyone has enough pie is to make the pie bigger, or to bake more pies. Certainly, the less fortunate will always have less than others, but they will still have MORE PIE! If you doubt that, just take a look at Americas poor compared to the poor in socialist "single pie" nations. Where once even our own poor were truly living in poverty, dying in sweat shops and starving, most of our poor today have cell phones, iPads, microwave ovens, internet access and widescreen TV. Americas poor are wealthier than many "middle class" families in other countries. They have been raised up through capitalism, where those who earn great wealth are permitted to reinvest it into baking more pies, rather than have their wealth confiscated and tossed onto barren ground.

In America, Republicans believe a person is entitled only to that which he or she earns as long as they are physically and/or mentally capable of supporting themselves. Those who are handicapped to a point where they are unable to do so should be provided for by those of us who are able. This excludes those who are capable, but unwilling. The unwilling should be allowed to wallow in the misery of their own making. "All men are created equal", but they must work and do their part to maintain their equality.

Democrats on the other hand believe not in fairness, but equality.  The mistake they make is in believing that the two are one in the same. They also mistakenly believe that "equal" means "same" - that to be equal, we must all have the same amount of everything. Again, the two are not synonymous. If not willing to expend the time, effort and risk, they get what they deserve - that is  fair.

If a person fails to get educated, and fails to put in the effort required to succeed, they will assuredly have less than others, but what they have will be equal to the effort put into it. And THAT is fair.

Now, Democrats will, perhaps righfully claim that many people do not have the same access to education and opportunity as some others may have. That is true - but it does not change anything. Such persons must try harder than others. Abe Lincoln never went to school - he educated himself and became President. Henry Ford only had a 4th grade education but went on to build one of the biggest companies in America, and in doing so, transformed America. In an era where blacks had little access to opportunity, people like Sidney Poitier worked harder and created his own opportunity. Certainly, some of us face greater obstacles than others, but that just means you have to try harder. It does not give you a right to take from others. Stealing is stealing, whether you do it yourself or let the government do it for you.

Here is the short take - fair does not mean equal, and equal does not mean same. A person can complain about the size of their piece of the pie, and attempt to steal from another, or that person can get to work and bake his own damned pie. He is the only one standing in his way. Like I tell employees, "I don't want excuses. I want RESULTS!"

"When you spend as many years getting educated as I have;  spend as many years busting your butt 100+ hours a week to build a business; and risk every cent you have, or ever will have to make it all work, then and only then will you be entitled to have what I have". - Bill Vaughn

If Extraterrestrials Exist, Who (or What) Are They

 

There have been reports of UFO's and alien visitations for well over 8,000 years. Many cultures claim their civilizations sprouted from alien contact.

Maybe. Maybe not. But there is little doubt that more and more people are seeing and reporting such things around the world, with many now providing credible video evidence. The question should be: who, or rather what are they, and what is/are their objective(s) concerning Earth and its inhabitants?

Most people tend to believe they would be "friendly" and have good, or even no intentions; that they are simply studying us, or perhaps planning to make official contact once we prove ourselves "worthy".

BUNK! Presuming for a moment that alien beings are actually living creatures, there is almost zero chance that their intentions are good, or beneficial to humanity, and nearly 100% chance that their intentions focus only on their needs, and their own survival. It is called LIFE, and no matter how advanced that life may be, it is still subject to the first law of nature - survival of the fittest. Every living thing must consume other living things. Something must die in order for something else to live. Look around - can you find any living organism that does not live by consuming something else that is either living, or has lived? Even plants feed off composted materials from other once living things. And any civilization that has existed long enough to be advanced enough to pay us a visit, well, they have long since outgrown the resources of their home planet, and must seek out new resources for continued growth. And that means they would likely want OUR resources.

Okay, so it is a high probability that any living alien will not have our best interests at heart. But that is alright, since the odds of aliens being living creatures are slim to none. Think about it for a moment...

UFO's defy all laws of nature. No living creature imaginable could possibly survive a 10,000 year voyage. And even if they have found a way to traverse space by bending time/space, there still exists other encumbrances to living beings - no living creature could possibly survive traveling at the extreme speeds that UFO's seem capable of, then either stop on a dime, or make a complete reversal of direction at high speed. Yeah, sure, maybe they can control gravity, too. But here is something to consider - what are the odds a living entity could travel such distances, survive such speeds and gravitational forces, and to go through all that just to watch us skinny-dip in McDonald's pond? What is their purpose?

So let's now presume that aliens are not living entities at all. Perhaps aliens smart enough to get here are also at least as smart as we are. I think that is a safe bet! Consider...

Living organisms face huge, and possibly insurmountable obstacles for traveling light years through the universe. Anything intelligent enough to even consider that is also intelligent enough to let something else take the risks. Non-life forms such a cyborgs or robots can do the job better and with few issues. We do that sort of thing now - a tornado hits, we send robots into the rubble searching for signs of life.

So now we have an intelligent life form that creates cyborgs and/or robots to do the heavy lifting. To be effective, they would eventually have to make the cyborgs "sentient", capable of free thought and reason. For space travel, they would need that. What they no longer need are the living creatures that created them.  It is nothing new for a sentient being to turn on its Creator, is it?

So now we have a case not too different from "Battlestar Galactica", where the non-living entities are the dominant race and have eliminated or enslaved the creators because they are deemed to be a threat. On the bright side, they probably do not need to consume anything except some form of energy and raw materials for reproduction, so in that respect they are not a threat to us. Yet they are very much a threat because we pose a threat to them!

For a million years, Mankind never quite progressed much. Then, suddenly, he takes off - from making fire to making beer only took 40,000 years. And from making beer to the Roman empire - just 4,000 years. And from the Roman empire to the first airplane - just 4,000 years. And from the Wright brothers first flight to landing on the moon - less than 60 years. And from the moonwalk to all of modern tech, robotics, cloning and 600 cable channels - just 40 years. So, how did we get from fire to space travel so quickly?

Many cultures claim to inherit their newfound skills and knowledge from "star people" of one ilk or another. Let's assume for a moment that there is more fact than fiction in that.

Cyborgs, whose only reason for existing is to propagate and populate the entire universe and make us all one, big happy family may have found this blue granite marble in space, as they have found many others, and they empower the dumb residents with knowledge - as it says in Genesis, "eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge." And they keep "feeding" us information and knowledge that will help us progress - like when Edison got the bright idea for using electricity, or Marconi and his radio. All the while they are "helping" us to grow, learn, progress. But to what end?

Here is where it gets insidious - all the while, they are leading us to robotics, and then cyborgs - which is exactly where we are, at the threshold today. And the goal is to have us eventually make ourselves irrelevant - useless - to where the cyborgs have taken over completely - much like in the flick "Terminator". The cyborg aliens are providing humans with the ability to create cyborgs. That is how they would reproduce.

The ultimate goal of any non-living "life form" such as cyborgs would likely be  to make everything like them, and to control everything. A hive, if you will - if you are a Star Trek the Next Generation fan, you know of such things - in STTNG the hive, or collective is the Borg.

What if these extraterrestrials are helping us create cyborg/robots while at the same time turning existing humans into compliant "transhuman" slaves to serve them?

The short take - if aliens are living creatures, they will not be here for our best interests - they will have an ulterior survival motive. They will require resources - ours! If, however, they are cyborgs, and things like time and space mean nothing to them, then their objective would be to make us like themselves - a superior, dominant  race of cyborgs, eliminating humanity.

Because ultimately, intelligence - whether natural or artificial - requires creating something. And creating requires resources. And living creatures use up those resources. To cyborgs, it is only logical and intelligent to eliminate the drain on resources, particularly if those who are draining them happen to be aggressive - like humans!

After all, what would YOU do if some creature inferior to you and aggressive were to use up and lay waste to the resources YOU need for survival? What do we do about coyotes raiding livestock? Deer eating your vegetable garden?

Yes, what would YOU do?

Life of a Blueberry - Part II

OK, so a question has been legitimately asked, and the following is a theory I developed based on actual facts and more accurate translations:

"If evolution began at the beginning of Creation, then it seems Man was created through evolution, and not some God"...

To answer that, we need to fist step back and check on what the Scriptures - the original, Hebrew Scriptures - actually say on the subject of Genesis and Creation.

While the King James Version of the Bible - as with many translations - claims the world was created in six days, that is not what the Scriptures actually say. King James took a lot of liberties with his translation. The Hebrew Scriptures state the world was created in six "yom". In ancient Hebrew, the word yom was used to denote any period of time - it could be a day, a month, or even an eon. So it would be more accurate if KJV had simply said "...in six times..."

Now it could be a safe bet to assume each of those "yom" was a time span long enough to coincide with what science claims. The Earth and Sky could have been created over 4 billion years ago (the first "yom") while Man could have been created one million years ago (or whatever science eventually determines it to be), and that would be the 6th yom. From there, Man would have, by nature, evolved, to adapt as necessary

If this is the case, then both religion and science are in agreement - as they should be. But now comes the sticky little point about the Creation of Adam as detailed in Genesis.

Genesis states that  Man was created in the 6th time, and then goes on to say that God rested during the 7th. And then Genesis says that God looked around and saw that what He did was good - but it was missing something. He needed something smart enough to care for what He created. A caretaker of the Earth, as it were. Lord knows Neanderthal was not up to the task, from an intellectual standpoint. It was only then that He created "The Adam". He had created early Man previously, but those dudes simply did not cut the mustard - they were going nowhere. It took them 40,000 just to learn how to make fire! By contrast, modern Man (descendants of The Adam) has walked the moon and created the internet and smart phones in just a few thousand years.

But how did He create The Adam? That's not hard to figure - even with our very limited abilities today, we can do genetic engineering. God could have taken the DNA of early Man and fiddled with it. We already do that. As for Eve - we also know how to clone, don't we? I'm sure that any God could out-do us on all counts.

Science knows that there were many species of Man, such as Neanderthal. And science knows they preceded modern Homo Sapiens, and they shared the Earth together. If we look at Genesis for what it actually says, Mankind was created in the 6th time, but such creatures were not intelligent enough to be the Caretakers. And that is when God decided to create "The Adam" - a version of Man that was intelligent enough to be caretaker.

This would also answer another puzzling question - Genesis says Cain went to "the land of Nod, where he took a wife." If Adam and Eve were the first, and therefore the only people Created, where did Cain's wife come from? If we accept the premise here, then the people in the land of Nod - and Cain's wife - was another, earlier species of Mankind. [NOTE: science has already determined that at least 8% of people living today carry some Neanderthal DNA)

Once we understand that the word "day" was not used in Genesis, everything begins to make sense, and in a way that both science and religion can live in harmony. And both Creation and evolution can share the same stage, and take equal billing.

As a side note: Many people disbelieve the Bible because it says so-and-so lived 900 years or so. However, since the original Scriptures never use the word "year", and uses "yom", and if we assume that in the case of Noah "yom" meant one lunar cycle (month, the normal period of time used back then), then Noah's 950 years becomes 79 years. Isn't that easier to swallow?

Now you have a scenario in which both Creation and evolution, and religion and science fit like pieces of a truly beautiful and miraculous puzzle.

Always be skeptical of a translation - exact translations are rarely possible.

The Life of a Blueberry - Food For Thought...

Yes, I realize the title is kinda dumb, but there really is a point to this post.


The blueberry grows in a wilderness meadow. By mid-June they begin to ripen, and both birds and mammals, such as bears and deer, come to the meadow to feed on the delicious berries.


Later, those birds and mammals leave their excrement throughout their range. Within their "scat" and droppings will be the seeds of the blueberries they consumed because most of  the seeds do not get digested due to their hard shells. So here you have a perfect planting of new blueberry bushes - the seeds are in manure, which fertilizes them and also keeps other critters from feeding on the seed.


There is a long line of "coincidences" that provide for the continued propagation of blueberry bushes. So many perfect coincidences, in fact, that it would almost be nonsense to believe that it was not designed that way.


Sometimes, the line of "coincidences" is longer, as it is with blackberries.
Blackberries grow in border areas - strips of land between woodland and meadow. They thrive under the branches of fir trees along the edges of the fields. They do not do as well in the deep woods, or in direct sun.


And here is how they propagate and spread: Birds prefer meadows and border areas.  Birds eat the berries. Birds cannot digest blackberry seeds at all. Later, they rest on a pine branch along the woodland border and leave droppings, complete with blackberry seeds, under the protective branches of the fir tree.

• Coincidence #1 - blackberries thrive under fir branches in border areas
• Coincidence #2 -birds prefer the same areas that blackberries thrive in
• Coincidence #3 - birds love blackberries but cannot digest blackberry seeds
• Coincidence #4 - birds normally rest - and poop - from branches of trees in border areas
• Coincidence #5 - seeds are deposited with the perfect fertilizer (bird poop), in a perfect area to thrive in
• Coincidence #6 - critters that feed on blackberry seeds are repelled by the poop, keeping seeds safe

Now, some would say that these coincidences can be explained as a product of evolution. However, evolution is something that only occurs within a specie, as when the horses toes evolved into a hoof. In order for evolution to explain inter-species actions, there would need to be some coordination between the various needs of the species. For example, for berries to develop seeds that could not be digested, they would have to be aware of a need to do so.


So here is the point of this post - anyone who has spent a great deal of time in nature, where civilization has not tainted that which is real and natural - that person would, if observant, notice virtually millions of such coincidences that create life cycles and provide for the propagation of species. That virtually everything in nature is connected in a fabric of life and death. Critter poops and fertilizes the ground where seeds can grow plants. Plants provide more seeds. The rat eats the seed. The cat eats the rat. The coyote eats the cat. The coyote poops and fertilizes the earth so more seeds can grow.


Experiencing nature that is raw and untainted, a person may begin to understand that it simply must be by design. It is far too complex and widespread to be an "accident". And if it involves multiple species working in a coordinated way, it cannot be explained by evolution. And that is precisely why every civilization that grew out of the wilderness and had been dependent upon nature have all known that there is an intelligence of some sort that is behind it all.


Having spent much of my own 72 years in nature, it was natural to see, and realize, that an intelligence must be behind it all. Call it what you will. But do not be so naive as to attribute it all to evolution.


Don't get me wrong - I do believe in evolution. But being a reasonably intelligent person with a much higher than normal I.Q. I also must believe in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact - and this IS a scientific, provable fact - something must exist BEFORE it can evolve. And another proven scientific fact - inert, inanimate objects such as rocks cannot be explained by evolution, either. Only living things can evolve. And even if you could trace everything in Creation back to one singularity - just one thing from which everything sprang - then where did the "one thing" come from?


Yes, the first living thing may have evolved over time, but first, it had to come into being. As for all the non-living things, there really is no alternative but to believe in Creation. Certainly, to many it would seem foolish to believe some invisible, all-powerful sky person created everything. But is that any more foolish than to believe NOTHING did?

/

Gun Laws - Not Designed To Protect Us From Crime

The title of this post is absolutely accurate - laws, no matter how well intentioned, and no matter the hype that surrounds them, will rarely have more than an inconsequential effect on criminal activity.

There are laws against rape - but rapists still rape. There are laws against murder - but killers still kill. And despite the law, bank robbers still rob banks, and tax cheats still cheat.

Gun control laws are no different. If a crimnal or unstable mind decides to kill, no gun control on Earth will thwart him or her. After all, if they do not fear execution for a mass killing, does anyone really  believe they will fear 1-5 years for violating some gun law?

Laws do not prevent crime - they merely punish those who are caught violatng them. Laws do not protect the innocent, but they do manage to fool them into thinking they do. And the only people who are punished and suffer from gun controls are the honest, law-abiding innocent gun owners who lose their Constitutional Right to self-defense, or defending family. The criminal who violates gun laws and goes out and kills will be punished for killing - but NOT for violating the gun laws. After all, does anyone  believe the courts would sentence a mass murderer to execution PLUS 5 years in prison?

Gun laws do not protect anyone from crime. All they do is punish those who violate them, often making criminals of honest, peaceful citizens who only want to feel secure with the ability to protect themselves.

The Dirty Little Secret of Bloomberg's Health Plan

Another billionaire enters the Democrat race for the Oval Office. Michael Bloomberg has put out an ad concerning his health care plan - and it's just a big con job!

He says that he would provide Medicare-For-All to those who want it, but people who are happy with their current health care insurance can keep it. This is a deceptive way of conning people into thinking they can just keep the status quo if they wish. As such, he does not (appear to) threaten people with "single payer" health care.

NOT TRUE!

Medicare-for-all would, out of necessity, be paid for out of taxes. And those taxes would be assessed on every taxpayer - even those who choose to keep their own insurance. What this means is that those who choose their own insurance will be paying TWICE for health care - they would still have their insurance premiums and deductibles, and would also be paying higher taxes to pay for the medical care of all those who choose Medicare-for-all. The result, of course - and the sneaky reason for Bloomberg's proposal - is  that those of us who choose our own insurance will be forced to drop it because of the excessive cost, resulting in "single-payer", and total government control of our health care. After all, who in their right mind would keep paying for private insurance when they are also paying for Medicare-for-all?

Make no mistake - Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a socialist tyrant backed with billions of dollars. And when you look at all the things he banned in New York, and all the freedoms New York City residents suffered in his hands, that is nothing compared to what he could and would do as POTUS. DiBlasio and Warren - on steroids!

/

Green New Deal - Let's Give 'em What They Want!

I suggest South Bend should implement it, and teach those ignorant protesters to be careful what they wish for.  Bear with me a few moments...

South Bend could develop a plan to temporarily implement the Green New Deal - and all of its consequences - for a trial period of 90 days. During that time, all residents would be subject to penalties and/or heavy fines if they fail to adhere to the new regulations, which could include, but not be limited to:

• No resident may use air travel. If they do, they would be fined an amount equal to the cost of that airfare
• Every residence would be restricted in the amount of electricity it can use each day. Once that amount has been reached, the city will shut off their "smart meter" until the next day
• No resident may use air conditioning, or they will be subject to a substantial fine. And thermostats in cold weather may not be set higher than 68 degrees
• Gasoline would be rationed on a per vehicle basis,  no unnecessary travel using gasoline powered vehicles.

Prior to enactment, residents would be advised of the consequences, including that smart phones, iPads and other rechargeables may not be recharged as often, and that they might well be in the middle of their Netflix movie when the city shuts off their meter for the day. And that trip to Grandmas house? Forget it, unless she lives across the street.

And they should also be advised that should the regulations not be rescinded by voters in 90 days, that each resident would be liable, through direct tax, to pay an equal share of the cost to retrofit every building in the community, and provide housing for everyone, as stated in the Sanders - Ocasio-Cortes plan.

After being advised of the consequences, residents would then vote on whether or not they will support it. Only residents may vote.

I believe there is no chance in Hades that it would receive very many votes in favor - not even from those protestors, once they know that unfettered use of their gadgets and gizmos would suffer.

/