Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer concerning his Newsletter:
Randy,
You are
partially on the right track in trying to
withhold funding for school districts who directly or indirectly promote
abortion. I say partially, because the federal government should not be funding
any local education systems. Local school boards can then decide whether they
promote abortions from local taxes.
I agree completely with your
objection to the closing of nine interior Border Patrol Stations. My information
has it that these interior Border Patrol Stations seem to be doing a better job
at apprehending and "prosecuting" illegal aliens compared to the stations at the
border.
I agree with your suspicion that the Dodd-Frank bill is likely
doing more harm to the economy than good. It should be repealed or radically
changed.
I also agree with your implication that the Federal Reserve
position should be changed. It is too secretive and too dictatorial to be
consistent with a transparent government.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
President Obama on Private Enterprise
Pres. Obama recently told business owners that they had not been successful based on their own efforts, but rather by building on the successes of others. He said this in the context of "government research", mentioning that government had invented the Internet. The President's comments caused a real hubbub, and this is steel being discussed by television news several days later. In fact, I just heard it again on Fox News.
When Pres. Obama made his remarks, I also happened to be reading the latest issue of Chemical Heritage. This is a magazine published four times per year by the Chemical Heritage Foundation and basically contains stories involving chemical history.
The latest issue contains two interesting stories. The first is "The Story of Neon". Henry Cavendish found in 1785 that when he removed nitrogen and oxygen from a sample of air, a small residue was left. Ramsay and Strutt repeated the work and named the residual gas Argon. By fractional distillation, Ramsay and Travers found that the residual gas was actually a mixture of neon, krypton, and xenon. They also found that when a glass tube of neon was energized with high voltage, they obtained a crimson light.
Simultaneously, William Hampson in England, Carl von Linde in Germany, and Georges Claude were working with liquid air. Claude ramped up the distillation process to produce 10,000 m³ of liquefied air per day. He established a company with Paul Delorme and named it L'Air Liquide. After separating the nitrogen and oxygen, which were sold, he conducted further research on the residual gas, but found nothing new. However, large quantities of neon, krypton, and xenon were then available as byproducts from the liquid air distillation process.
In the late 1890s, Daniel Moore, a former Edison employee, filled glass tubes with nitrogen or carbon dioxide, which gave a white light, when subjected to high voltage. The business was commercially profitable, until tungsten filaments were used in incandescent light bulbs.
Adapting Moore's concept to neon, Claude filed his first patent for neon lighting in 1910. with subsequent demonstrations at the Paris Motor Show. Claude formed a second company selling neon lighting franchises at $100,000 plus royalties. In the US, Earl Anthony founded the first California dealership for the Packard Motor Car Company and advertised with Claude neon signs. Corning Glass Works supplied class tubes and Egani Neon Glassblowing School in New York taught sign construction.
Neon also became useful as a switching mechanism for electronic devices, although there is no record in Chemical Heritage as to who first recognized the application. Airco neon was used in early computers, because the neon switches ran cooler than vacuum tubes. The ANITA calculator was a commercial success at $1000, but neon switches were replaced by transistors in the 1970s.
Harold Edgerton was a professor of electrical engineering at MIT and specialized in high-speed photography. His first flash lamps used mercury or argon but he later switched to xenon in the 1940s.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE INVENTORS OR DEVELOPERS WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR RECEIVED TAXPAYER FUNDS TO SUPPORT THEIR WORK.
The second story is entitled, "The Rocks at the Top of the World" and involves vanadium.
Vanadium was first discovered by Mexican Andrés del Rio in 1801, but he could not obtain confirmation from Paris that it was a new element. Vanadium was rediscovered by Nils Gabriel Sefstrôm, a Swedish chemist, in 1830. It was isolated by Sir Henry Roscoe. John Arnold discovered that adding a small amount of vanadium to steel made the steel alloy stronger.
In Peru, Eulogio Fernandini owned a lead, silver, and copper mine and a smelter high in the Andes. He and Rizo Patron, manager of the smelter laboratory, were searching for fuel to operate the smelter. They collected various samples on their horseback trip, and on a cold night decided to burn one of the samples that looked like coal. It produced a large amount of obnoxious gas. Patron analyzed the sample on his return to the lab and decided that he discovered a new mineral, which contained vanadium.
In the US, Joseph Flannery manufactured stay bolts used primarily for steam locomotive boilers. He needed a high-strength steel alloy and knew about the vanadium findings in Peru and the strength of the steel alloy from vanadium addition. He sent two geologists to Peru. Their report to Flannery convinced him to purchase the Minas Ragra mine from Fernandini. Flannery established the American Canadian Company. By 1910 the company was producing 700 tons of vanadium pentoxide, which changed the face of stainless steel production. In 1907, vanadium steel-alloy production was less than 1000 tons per year. In 1919, the annual production rate was 1,100,000 tons. Henry Ford used it for the crankshaft, axles, gears, and springs in the Model-T. Ford. It was used in parts of the Panama Canal lock gates and in the first plane-mounted cannon in World War I.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE DISCOVERERS OR DEVELOPERS WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR RECEIVED TAXPAYER FUNDS TO SUPPORT THEIR WORK.
Pres. Obama's claim that business owners owe their success to others who have not had a direct part in the present operations, is correct. This is obvious, from the above recounts. However, it is incorrect to imply that significant developments must come from government research in various departments, such as the National Science Foundation, with its grants to universities. There is no doubt that some occasional advantages will be made through this mechanism, but it is a generally inefficient process, because the researchers involved lack motivation equivalent to those persons described in the above stories.
Pres. Obama later tried to explain his position by switching to a discussion of infrastructure. This was a weak attempt, since it is obvious that his original intent was to promote big government and expensive taxpayer research projects by castigating private enterprise.
When Pres. Obama made his remarks, I also happened to be reading the latest issue of Chemical Heritage. This is a magazine published four times per year by the Chemical Heritage Foundation and basically contains stories involving chemical history.
The latest issue contains two interesting stories. The first is "The Story of Neon". Henry Cavendish found in 1785 that when he removed nitrogen and oxygen from a sample of air, a small residue was left. Ramsay and Strutt repeated the work and named the residual gas Argon. By fractional distillation, Ramsay and Travers found that the residual gas was actually a mixture of neon, krypton, and xenon. They also found that when a glass tube of neon was energized with high voltage, they obtained a crimson light.
Simultaneously, William Hampson in England, Carl von Linde in Germany, and Georges Claude were working with liquid air. Claude ramped up the distillation process to produce 10,000 m³ of liquefied air per day. He established a company with Paul Delorme and named it L'Air Liquide. After separating the nitrogen and oxygen, which were sold, he conducted further research on the residual gas, but found nothing new. However, large quantities of neon, krypton, and xenon were then available as byproducts from the liquid air distillation process.
In the late 1890s, Daniel Moore, a former Edison employee, filled glass tubes with nitrogen or carbon dioxide, which gave a white light, when subjected to high voltage. The business was commercially profitable, until tungsten filaments were used in incandescent light bulbs.
Adapting Moore's concept to neon, Claude filed his first patent for neon lighting in 1910. with subsequent demonstrations at the Paris Motor Show. Claude formed a second company selling neon lighting franchises at $100,000 plus royalties. In the US, Earl Anthony founded the first California dealership for the Packard Motor Car Company and advertised with Claude neon signs. Corning Glass Works supplied class tubes and Egani Neon Glassblowing School in New York taught sign construction.
Neon also became useful as a switching mechanism for electronic devices, although there is no record in Chemical Heritage as to who first recognized the application. Airco neon was used in early computers, because the neon switches ran cooler than vacuum tubes. The ANITA calculator was a commercial success at $1000, but neon switches were replaced by transistors in the 1970s.
Harold Edgerton was a professor of electrical engineering at MIT and specialized in high-speed photography. His first flash lamps used mercury or argon but he later switched to xenon in the 1940s.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE INVENTORS OR DEVELOPERS WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR RECEIVED TAXPAYER FUNDS TO SUPPORT THEIR WORK.
The second story is entitled, "The Rocks at the Top of the World" and involves vanadium.
Vanadium was first discovered by Mexican Andrés del Rio in 1801, but he could not obtain confirmation from Paris that it was a new element. Vanadium was rediscovered by Nils Gabriel Sefstrôm, a Swedish chemist, in 1830. It was isolated by Sir Henry Roscoe. John Arnold discovered that adding a small amount of vanadium to steel made the steel alloy stronger.
In Peru, Eulogio Fernandini owned a lead, silver, and copper mine and a smelter high in the Andes. He and Rizo Patron, manager of the smelter laboratory, were searching for fuel to operate the smelter. They collected various samples on their horseback trip, and on a cold night decided to burn one of the samples that looked like coal. It produced a large amount of obnoxious gas. Patron analyzed the sample on his return to the lab and decided that he discovered a new mineral, which contained vanadium.
In the US, Joseph Flannery manufactured stay bolts used primarily for steam locomotive boilers. He needed a high-strength steel alloy and knew about the vanadium findings in Peru and the strength of the steel alloy from vanadium addition. He sent two geologists to Peru. Their report to Flannery convinced him to purchase the Minas Ragra mine from Fernandini. Flannery established the American Canadian Company. By 1910 the company was producing 700 tons of vanadium pentoxide, which changed the face of stainless steel production. In 1907, vanadium steel-alloy production was less than 1000 tons per year. In 1919, the annual production rate was 1,100,000 tons. Henry Ford used it for the crankshaft, axles, gears, and springs in the Model-T. Ford. It was used in parts of the Panama Canal lock gates and in the first plane-mounted cannon in World War I.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE DISCOVERERS OR DEVELOPERS WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR RECEIVED TAXPAYER FUNDS TO SUPPORT THEIR WORK.
Pres. Obama's claim that business owners owe their success to others who have not had a direct part in the present operations, is correct. This is obvious, from the above recounts. However, it is incorrect to imply that significant developments must come from government research in various departments, such as the National Science Foundation, with its grants to universities. There is no doubt that some occasional advantages will be made through this mechanism, but it is a generally inefficient process, because the researchers involved lack motivation equivalent to those persons described in the above stories.
Pres. Obama later tried to explain his position by switching to a discussion of infrastructure. This was a weak attempt, since it is obvious that his original intent was to promote big government and expensive taxpayer research projects by castigating private enterprise.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Reforming Congress
Warren Buffett recently said, "I could end the
deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that
anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of
Congress are ineligible for re-election."
The problem with
"passing such a law" is that there is no chance it would ever be approved by
both houses of Congress, and therefore could not become law.
I'm not sure where the proposal for the Congressional Reform Act of 2012 originated, but it
says:
Congressional Reform Act of
2012
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to
the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.
4. Congress will no
longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses
their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people. 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.
participates in the same health care system as the American people. 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.
Again there us no chance that Congress would submit such
a bill to the President for his signature to make it law. To do so would
require that the majority of Representatives and Senators be masochists, which
they are not (a masochist (plural masochists) is someone who enjoys pain, or who
derives pleasure from harming oneself or being harmed by others ...
).
However, the situation is not impossible to
correct.
The first Amendment to the Constitution allows the people to
to petition the Government for a redress (to set right; remedy or rectify) of
grievances.
It would be an almost impossible task to establish a sufficiently
large petition with signatures to Institute the Congressional Reform Act of
2012 in one fell swoop. However, it is not impossible, if broken down to
separate petitions for local and state individual Representatives and Senators.
The message to each Representative and Senator would be the same: "Vote for the
Congressional Reform Act of 2012, or we, the undersigned, will vote you out of
office in the next election.
With the breakdown to individual petitions, this would still
be a massive undertaking. It will require leadership, organization and money.
The last three contenders for the Republican nomination (Ron Paul, Gingrich, and
Santorum) could qualify. Ron Paul is a bit old, but his son, Rand could replace
him. Ron Paul has also shown an extraordinary ability to develop an effective
political organization.These people are now lame ducks, and with success on this
project, they could have a good chance at the Presidency. Washington won the
Revolutionary War and became President. Eisenhower did the same with World
War II.
While financing the working team will be a major
consideration, I believe funds are available through cooperation with the
Tea Party and many individuals, starting with Warren
Buffett.
Pushing the Congressional Reform Act of 2012 on the Internet is
great, but it also needs practical application for accomplishment. Perhaps some
will be able to pick up on the few suggestions I have made
here.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
SyriaSen. Cornyn, I have been recently impressed in your willingness to speak out and try to have some influence on various subjects, but your latest on Syria leaves me cold. I have not read your plan nor do I need to read it. We should not be involved in Syria in any form of recommendation or even consideration. We have already spent too much money trying to reform the world into our socialist/communist image, and we are now broke. Consider also the fact that when the Syrian rebels decided to take on the Syrian government militarily, they chose that option, with the associated risks. Let's also take a look at our own history. In the war of Independence, many colonial lives were lost, but it was their option. They chose to fight the British. Consider also the advent of France into the conflict and the subsequent French Revolution. I repeat stay out of Syria and don't even talk about it.
Sen. Cornyn,
I have been recently impressed in your willingness to speak out and try to have some influence on various subjects, but your latest on Syria leaves me cold.
I have not read your plan nor do I need to read it. We should not be involved in Syria in any form of recommendation or even consideration. We have already spent too much money trying to reform the world into our socialist/communist image, and we are now broke.
Consider also the fact that when the Syrian rebels decided to take on the Syrian government militarily, they chose that option, with the associated risks.
Let's also take a look at our own history. In the war of Independence, many colonial lives were lost, but it was their option. They chose to fight the British. Consider also the advent of France into the conflict and the subsequent French Revolution.
I repeat. Stay out of Syria and don't even talk about it.
I have been recently impressed in your willingness to speak out and try to have some influence on various subjects, but your latest on Syria leaves me cold.
I have not read your plan nor do I need to read it. We should not be involved in Syria in any form of recommendation or even consideration. We have already spent too much money trying to reform the world into our socialist/communist image, and we are now broke.
Consider also the fact that when the Syrian rebels decided to take on the Syrian government militarily, they chose that option, with the associated risks.
Let's also take a look at our own history. In the war of Independence, many colonial lives were lost, but it was their option. They chose to fight the British. Consider also the advent of France into the conflict and the subsequent French Revolution.
I repeat. Stay out of Syria and don't even talk about it.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Rio De Janeiro Meeting on World Pollution
Cheryl Hogue reported in Chemical Engineering News (6/25/12) that 45,000 people and 200 companies met at Rio de Janeiro to consider making the world a safer place through reduction of pollution. They like to call it "greening", but I think that's too non-specific a term. I prefer "reduction of pollution".
While I don't have the complete agenda, Cheryl lists a number of subjects, on which I would like to comment.
The subject of sound management of commercial chemicals in use and waste throughout their lifecycle particularly met my eye. I generally agree with the importance of the subject, but disagree with any of the implications involved. The agreement in Rio de Janeiro presumably confirmed the idea that underdeveloped countries should be able to use regulatory systems developed by other more advanced countries. Cheryl did not specifically say so, but we have seen the subject surface before and always under the proposal that chemical companies should be giving away their know-how. I repeat what I've said before. Know-how is private property and anyone wishing to use it should be required to purchase it, since it has been achieved by the owner at some considerable expense. More specifically, an underdeveloped country should not be able to obtain toxicological and similar information previously submitted to other government regulatory agencies as confidential know-how. In other words there should be no free-ride on the data of the originator. In the US, we have Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets, which contain substantial toxicological information available to chemical product users for avoidance of health problems. There were also suggestions on waste disposal with the same purpose. If a potential manufacture in an undeveloped country has intention of producing, he can either use the limited available information from the MSDS, which may be satisfactory to his government, or if not, he should be required to license the necessary know-how including basic toxicological data from the original generator.
A second subject was so-called "challenges posed by electronic waste and plastic waste". As I see it, there is no environmental challenge. Electronic waste and plastic waste should simply be buried in landfills, which would be available in the future for mining.
Next was persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Included in this group were hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's), which are widely used as refrigerants and replace previous refrigerants that were claimed to deplete the ozone layer in the upper stratosphere. The complaint now is that the HFC's are potent greenhouse gases, which is another ridiculous assertion, because their concentrations in the atmosphere would be so low as to be insignificant.
The only good news is that I didn't see anything about carbon dioxide emission control, which would really be disastrous on a worldwide economic basis.
Next, there was reference to greener government procurement and joint initiatives related to sustainability. Those general terms are only used to incite the general public to agreeing to the setting of controls which would be not only detrimental to local economies but to the world at large.
While I don't have the complete agenda, Cheryl lists a number of subjects, on which I would like to comment.
The subject of sound management of commercial chemicals in use and waste throughout their lifecycle particularly met my eye. I generally agree with the importance of the subject, but disagree with any of the implications involved. The agreement in Rio de Janeiro presumably confirmed the idea that underdeveloped countries should be able to use regulatory systems developed by other more advanced countries. Cheryl did not specifically say so, but we have seen the subject surface before and always under the proposal that chemical companies should be giving away their know-how. I repeat what I've said before. Know-how is private property and anyone wishing to use it should be required to purchase it, since it has been achieved by the owner at some considerable expense. More specifically, an underdeveloped country should not be able to obtain toxicological and similar information previously submitted to other government regulatory agencies as confidential know-how. In other words there should be no free-ride on the data of the originator. In the US, we have Manufacturer Safety Data Sheets, which contain substantial toxicological information available to chemical product users for avoidance of health problems. There were also suggestions on waste disposal with the same purpose. If a potential manufacture in an undeveloped country has intention of producing, he can either use the limited available information from the MSDS, which may be satisfactory to his government, or if not, he should be required to license the necessary know-how including basic toxicological data from the original generator.
A second subject was so-called "challenges posed by electronic waste and plastic waste". As I see it, there is no environmental challenge. Electronic waste and plastic waste should simply be buried in landfills, which would be available in the future for mining.
Next was persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Included in this group were hydrofluorocarbons (HFC's), which are widely used as refrigerants and replace previous refrigerants that were claimed to deplete the ozone layer in the upper stratosphere. The complaint now is that the HFC's are potent greenhouse gases, which is another ridiculous assertion, because their concentrations in the atmosphere would be so low as to be insignificant.
The only good news is that I didn't see anything about carbon dioxide emission control, which would really be disastrous on a worldwide economic basis.
Next, there was reference to greener government procurement and joint initiatives related to sustainability. Those general terms are only used to incite the general public to agreeing to the setting of controls which would be not only detrimental to local economies but to the world at large.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Pros and Cons of Socialism/Communism
I believe we need a little basic review on
Government 101, with respect to socialism and communism. They are essentially
the same with some minor differences.
Socialism generally involves socialized projects, such as school systems or roads, wherein it is impractical for individuals to generally have their own personal facilities. A socialized project involves a group of individuals and there is generally no profit incentive. This is different than a corporation, which also involves a group of individuals, but the group has a profit incentive. Socialized projects generally have advantages, which is why they exist. However, the danger involved in a slow change in public thinking which could lead to an attitude that everything should be socialized.
Communism is a developmental stage from socialism to dictatorship. In communism, all commercial aspects are socialized, but rather than maintaining control of each project by a separate leadership, all projects are controlled by government. That government may initially be a combination of a leader, which we can call the President and a controlling committee, which we can call a Congress. The development to a dictatorship occurs when the President has a strong controlling personality, and the Congress is willing to forfeit its responsibility for control.
Because of the similarity of socialism and communism, I am developing a new term, which I call "Socom".
Socom is attractive to individuals for a number of reasons, among which are: 1. Division of society assets among the population will give me a greater share than I already have. 2. My risks on various elements of life, such as my health and my economics will be eliminated by a guaranteed supply of products and services from government. 3. I will no longer have the responsibility of finding my own employment, since government will supply it. 4. Since my employment is guaranteed, I need only apply minimal effort to my job, and in cases of less than my minimal effort, I cannot be fired nor my salary reduced.
However, Socom also has downsides for individuals, among which are: 1. Because of human tendency, most persons in the Socom system will tend to apply less than minimal effort to any job or project, since it is to their benefit in allowing extra time for recreation and amusement. 2. The collective result of less than minimal effort leads to degradation of the product and service system, such that product/service shortages appear much more frequently. 3. With the collective "less than minimal effort" of most individuals, government then has fewer assets for continued distribution to individuals, which result in decreases in the so-called "guaranteed benefits". 4. The shortages and decreased benefits to individuals leads to general public dissatisfaction and greater acceptance of a move of Presidential powers to Dictatorship. 5. A Dictator has specific ideas of what he wants to accomplish and how to do it, and in the process he handles dissenters with imprisonment or death. So much for individual rights.
Business schools generally base their teaching program on studies of individual companies and corporations. Law schools generally base their teaching program on studies of case law. I will now use a similar system, with the difference that my examples will be fictitious rather than actual.
Situation 1: There are 16 adults in a lifeboat without communication in the middle of the ocean. They have 1 gallon of water. Someone says, "Let's divide the water equally; each having a cupful". They agree and do so. Sound reasonable? They are all going to die soon anyhow. It might as well be together.
Situation 2: Steve Jobs has a government assigned position as a janitorial supervisor. He has an idea for a new electronic device but it can hardly support his family on his government income, without the possibility of buying tools. He also can't find anybody to work with him in such a risky and abstract project. Therefore, he decides to play solitaire in the evening. No Apple. No Macintosh. No iPhone.
Situation 3: Louis Pasteur supervises a truck fleet in the Department of Transportation. He picked up a reasonably good education in microbiology at Socom expense, and he notices that many children are dying from tuberculosis. However, he has no laboratory and his government supervisors keep breathing down his neck, even though he knows that they can't fire him or reduce his salary. To keep busy in his off time, he takes up baseball. No pasteurization of milk and the children continue to die of TB.
Situation 4: Rodgers and Hammerstein like music and are thinking a joint effort in composition. They have limited time, because there government jobs keep them busy licensing chicken coops. They also know they can't get a copyright for personal advantage on anything they produce, but they decide to take a shot at it anyhow. There is a government grant for music and they apply for it, but are turned down, because the sample they showed was not classical music. No Oklahoma. No Sound of Music. No South Pacific.
Situation 5: The control panel at the New York City water treatment plant has a faulty switch. The operator becomes aware of this and his written instructions are to immediately call maintenance. However, it's five minutes to three, and he plans to go to a ballgame. He leaves and while he is at the ballgame, all the system water pumps automatically shut down and the city is without water for two hours while maintenance is contacted to make emergency repair. Three houses also burn in that period of water shutdown.
Situation 6: US Socom has decided that there should be no carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants. Socom bases that decision on a statement from a university professor and supported by a number of quasi-scientists, who were not willing to offer clear scientific evidence why they believe this is so. Socom requires all electricity generating plants to install equipment, which will capture every pound of carbon dioxide from a burned fossil or sustainable organic fuel. The cost of renovation is subsequently so great that Socom cannot afford to operate all electricity production plants. Socom sets the allowable residential heating in winter at no higher than 60°F and no lower in summer than 85°F. Most of the population bears this discomfort, because "that's life". Frozen food sections at all supermarkets are reduced to half the normal choices. No more Bluebell Rocky Road ice cream. Only vanilla.
Situation 7: US Socom is decided that all US residents should have free healthcare. The hospital emergency rooms become flooded with "patients", all having serious problems, such as a headaches, hang nails, baldness, gray hair, and long toenails. There is a long waiting line, because there are many patients and very few doctors. Those persons waiting for treatment are unable to do their government appointed jobs on such things as proposing new regulations to limit the supply of automobiles. There are very few doctors, because many intellectually qualified persons have seen no personal advantage in expanding long hours in medical school, even at government expense and with the low mandated salaries of subsequent practice. Socom then decides to list treatable illnesses, in order to limit the number of patients. However, the supply of doctors continually diminishes. As an example, broken legs are classified as a non-treatable illness and those afflicted must resort to home treatment.
Socialism generally involves socialized projects, such as school systems or roads, wherein it is impractical for individuals to generally have their own personal facilities. A socialized project involves a group of individuals and there is generally no profit incentive. This is different than a corporation, which also involves a group of individuals, but the group has a profit incentive. Socialized projects generally have advantages, which is why they exist. However, the danger involved in a slow change in public thinking which could lead to an attitude that everything should be socialized.
Communism is a developmental stage from socialism to dictatorship. In communism, all commercial aspects are socialized, but rather than maintaining control of each project by a separate leadership, all projects are controlled by government. That government may initially be a combination of a leader, which we can call the President and a controlling committee, which we can call a Congress. The development to a dictatorship occurs when the President has a strong controlling personality, and the Congress is willing to forfeit its responsibility for control.
Because of the similarity of socialism and communism, I am developing a new term, which I call "Socom".
Socom is attractive to individuals for a number of reasons, among which are: 1. Division of society assets among the population will give me a greater share than I already have. 2. My risks on various elements of life, such as my health and my economics will be eliminated by a guaranteed supply of products and services from government. 3. I will no longer have the responsibility of finding my own employment, since government will supply it. 4. Since my employment is guaranteed, I need only apply minimal effort to my job, and in cases of less than my minimal effort, I cannot be fired nor my salary reduced.
However, Socom also has downsides for individuals, among which are: 1. Because of human tendency, most persons in the Socom system will tend to apply less than minimal effort to any job or project, since it is to their benefit in allowing extra time for recreation and amusement. 2. The collective result of less than minimal effort leads to degradation of the product and service system, such that product/service shortages appear much more frequently. 3. With the collective "less than minimal effort" of most individuals, government then has fewer assets for continued distribution to individuals, which result in decreases in the so-called "guaranteed benefits". 4. The shortages and decreased benefits to individuals leads to general public dissatisfaction and greater acceptance of a move of Presidential powers to Dictatorship. 5. A Dictator has specific ideas of what he wants to accomplish and how to do it, and in the process he handles dissenters with imprisonment or death. So much for individual rights.
Business schools generally base their teaching program on studies of individual companies and corporations. Law schools generally base their teaching program on studies of case law. I will now use a similar system, with the difference that my examples will be fictitious rather than actual.
Situation 1: There are 16 adults in a lifeboat without communication in the middle of the ocean. They have 1 gallon of water. Someone says, "Let's divide the water equally; each having a cupful". They agree and do so. Sound reasonable? They are all going to die soon anyhow. It might as well be together.
Situation 2: Steve Jobs has a government assigned position as a janitorial supervisor. He has an idea for a new electronic device but it can hardly support his family on his government income, without the possibility of buying tools. He also can't find anybody to work with him in such a risky and abstract project. Therefore, he decides to play solitaire in the evening. No Apple. No Macintosh. No iPhone.
Situation 3: Louis Pasteur supervises a truck fleet in the Department of Transportation. He picked up a reasonably good education in microbiology at Socom expense, and he notices that many children are dying from tuberculosis. However, he has no laboratory and his government supervisors keep breathing down his neck, even though he knows that they can't fire him or reduce his salary. To keep busy in his off time, he takes up baseball. No pasteurization of milk and the children continue to die of TB.
Situation 4: Rodgers and Hammerstein like music and are thinking a joint effort in composition. They have limited time, because there government jobs keep them busy licensing chicken coops. They also know they can't get a copyright for personal advantage on anything they produce, but they decide to take a shot at it anyhow. There is a government grant for music and they apply for it, but are turned down, because the sample they showed was not classical music. No Oklahoma. No Sound of Music. No South Pacific.
Situation 5: The control panel at the New York City water treatment plant has a faulty switch. The operator becomes aware of this and his written instructions are to immediately call maintenance. However, it's five minutes to three, and he plans to go to a ballgame. He leaves and while he is at the ballgame, all the system water pumps automatically shut down and the city is without water for two hours while maintenance is contacted to make emergency repair. Three houses also burn in that period of water shutdown.
Situation 6: US Socom has decided that there should be no carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants. Socom bases that decision on a statement from a university professor and supported by a number of quasi-scientists, who were not willing to offer clear scientific evidence why they believe this is so. Socom requires all electricity generating plants to install equipment, which will capture every pound of carbon dioxide from a burned fossil or sustainable organic fuel. The cost of renovation is subsequently so great that Socom cannot afford to operate all electricity production plants. Socom sets the allowable residential heating in winter at no higher than 60°F and no lower in summer than 85°F. Most of the population bears this discomfort, because "that's life". Frozen food sections at all supermarkets are reduced to half the normal choices. No more Bluebell Rocky Road ice cream. Only vanilla.
Situation 7: US Socom is decided that all US residents should have free healthcare. The hospital emergency rooms become flooded with "patients", all having serious problems, such as a headaches, hang nails, baldness, gray hair, and long toenails. There is a long waiting line, because there are many patients and very few doctors. Those persons waiting for treatment are unable to do their government appointed jobs on such things as proposing new regulations to limit the supply of automobiles. There are very few doctors, because many intellectually qualified persons have seen no personal advantage in expanding long hours in medical school, even at government expense and with the low mandated salaries of subsequent practice. Socom then decides to list treatable illnesses, in order to limit the number of patients. However, the supply of doctors continually diminishes. As an example, broken legs are classified as a non-treatable illness and those afflicted must resort to home treatment.
Obama Health Care
Apparently, I was not alone in my disappointment with the Supreme Court's decision allowing the Obama Health Care Law to stand. The news is full of criticism for the US Supreme Court. This criticism is obviously based upon the hope of many that the Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional.
However on further thought, I think the heat the Supreme Court is taking is rather unjustifiable. It is not the Supreme Court's basic responsibility to correct all actions taken by other branches of government. The primary responsibility for this horrendous law lies with us.
Notwithstanding how we cast our individual votes, we the people are responsible for electing a socialist/communist House of Representatives, Senate, and President, which passed the Health Care Law according to legitimate rules.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
However on further thought, I think the heat the Supreme Court is taking is rather unjustifiable. It is not the Supreme Court's basic responsibility to correct all actions taken by other branches of government. The primary responsibility for this horrendous law lies with us.
Notwithstanding how we cast our individual votes, we the people are responsible for electing a socialist/communist House of Representatives, Senate, and President, which passed the Health Care Law according to legitimate rules.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
