tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349585717948405712024-02-07T23:40:58.847-08:00VICTOR O'REILLY - Letters From An AuthorThis blog covers the thoughts, experiences, interests, adventures (and misadventures) of a working author.
E-mail me at: victororeilly@gmail.comVictor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.comBlogger1315125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-62632647791985410322017-01-20T07:34:00.001-08:002017-01-20T07:34:57.989-08:00TEST<p><font size="3">TEST</font></p>Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-34068259102950980372015-12-10T02:46:00.001-08:002015-12-10T02:54:18.699-08:00December 11 2015. Why great writers work best alone.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I HAVE FOUND IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WRITING TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T WRITE—SPECIALLY IF THEY DON’T READ MUCH</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHP4qIA708rM6i7rfGiAssBhJHF0dMerzc9yy7XAnVayJx1gXmn_VtkwdiEib4FZTTx40mA6FprlGL-Y3UCEK1NDeletOfq8bsZW3CDuNQtYBOaYhA5hNSo-7S_KOoNILe8nC6vzDWOau7/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij5uRp7Hm_dOeISZDPWnf8qGZPWNd9IpfP-YUrIwlWETWRsc1OqfsY3R4Xqb0mM2EfmbKEvdSq0UuSg8c6sdGTbXNzaPNUasHsmjIs4wO5LpnHqu1ON5qLSLePRHXFgGXancR9M-BVfHWB/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT IS EVEN HARDER TO EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR SOLITUDE WHEN WRITING</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">All too many regard choosing to work alone as anti-social at best—and probably kinky. As in—“What is he doing in there all day?”</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">“Writing,” is far too simple an explanation. Clearly, no normal person could write for a whole day—let alone week after week, month after month, year after year!</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Good grief—it’s unnatural!</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact"><em>NOT</em> IF YOU ARE A SERIOUSLY COMMITTED PROFESSIONAL AUTHOR. THEN, IT IS BLISS!</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Writing, of course, can be used for virtually any purpose consistent with the written word—from writing instructions to penning 720 pages of <em><strong>MEIN KAMPH</strong> (</em>I’m not overly fond of thinking of Hitler as a fellow author) but I like to harbor the notion that we book-writers are free, independent, and intellectually curious spirits dedicated to illuminating the human condition and telling truth to power (while also providing considerable entertainment).</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Yes, I know that is a somewhat romantic delusion when considering writers en masse—but it is certainly my personal aspiration (though, while I’m totally serious about what I do, I don’t take that image that seriously). But, it is my conceit, if you will—and I think it is, at least partially true. I’ll let others judge the degree to which I succeed.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The admirable Demian Farnworth (details below the piece) explains our need for solitude rather well (whether we are great or still working in it). </font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="5" face="Verdana"><strong>Here are three reasons why great writers work best alone.</strong></font> </p></blockquote> <blockquote> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">1. Writing takes intense concentration</font></h5> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In an interesting productivity study, Julia Gifford and her crew studied the habits of the most effective people and spotted what they thought was the productivity sweet spot: 52 minutes on and 17 minutes off.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The headline of the article says it all: “</font><a href="https://www.themuse.com/advice/the-rule-of-52-and-17-its-random-but-it-ups-your-productivity"><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Rule of 52 and 17: It’s Random, But It Ups Your Productivity</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The article, however, focuses less on the 52 and more on the 17. Gifford emphasizes that <em>the breaks</em> make us more productive.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I’m down with that.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But, when it comes to productivity tips like this and others (</font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/free-writing/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Pomodoro</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> or</font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/schwartz-copywriting-system/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Schwartz</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">), the 52-minutes approach sounds more like my style — basically, don’t interrupt me.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Let me keep pushing and pushing, whether I’m working on my </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/the-first-draft/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">first draft</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> or </font><a href="http://thecopybot.com/rewriting-metaphor/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">13th revision</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Sometimes I work a straight two-and-a-half hours on and an hour off. Yes, without bathroom breaks.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Why the long stretch of work without a break? Resumption lag.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">According to Erik M. Altmann from the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University and J. Gregory Trafton from the Naval Research Laboratory,</font><a href="https://www.msu.edu/~ema/cues-and-lag.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">resumption lag</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> is “the time needed to ‘collect one’s thoughts’ and restart a task once an interruption is over.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Intense concentration is important for both productivity and creating your best work.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">You need to find a rhythm that fits your disposition. You might need more breaks and shorter work times. It may depend on the task at hand. Just do what feels comfortable.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If you can, aim to concentrate for long periods of time without interruptions to avoid resumption lag. Push yourself to go longer and longer. See if you’re not a more efficient writer in the end.</font> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">2. Writing requires deep motivation</font></h5> <p><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>There is an element of writing that requires you to ignore the external rewards of writing (the attention, the money) and fall in love with the work itself.</strong></font> <p><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>Some like to call it the journey.</strong></font> <p><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>Because writing can be a lonely and thankless job before you </strong></font><a href="http://rainmaker.fm/series/publish/"><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>hit publish</strong></font></a><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>, there has to be a love of the craft that is native to your being. You depend upon your own enthusiasm and not that of anyone else around you.</strong></font> <p><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>See, when you </strong></font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/creativity/"><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>kick creativity’s door down</strong></font></a><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong> — it’s a solo pursuit.</strong></font> <p><font color="#920000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>It’s one that takes a self-generated drive to go to work. A desire to see the work done. A desire to enjoy the journey. And to do it all without worrying about the results.</strong></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Consider the man who turned Hoffmann-La Roche into a pharmaceutical giant. Who held 241 patents. Who’s credited with discovering benzodiazepines while working on the development of tranquilizers.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If you’re still lost, think chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, flurazepam, nitrazepam, flunitrazepam, and clonazepam.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Still lost? Of course you are. Then think Valium, Librium, and Klonopin.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">He’s credited with discovering all of those drugs. That’s an impressive track record.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Who is this guy?</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The man is Leo Sternbach, a Croatian-born, Polish-American chemist. And you’d be wrong if you thought he wanted wealth, fame, or power from his discoveries.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In </font><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Anxiety-Turbulent-Tranquilizers/dp/046502520X"><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Age of Anxiety</font></em></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, Andrea Tone says that Sternbach deferred all external rewards for something else:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I wasn’t interested in helping the whole world … I was interested in working in the laboratory.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">And legend has it he worked at the office every day until he was 95.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I love that work ethic. That singular focus. Although he never stated it, I’m sure Sternbach’s idea of retirement was <em>not</em> a lazy day on a beach.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">His idea of retirement was a coffin.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">We’re talking about a planned, purposeful neglect of everything but the work at hand. A singular focus that requires a low level of interruption. One that you could do day in and day out.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">One that you <em>must</em> do or you’ll be miserable.</font> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">3. Writing alone allows you to improve</font></h5> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Finally, the third reason why great writers work alone is because they can engage in what’s called Deliberate Practice.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In </font><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/dp/0307352153"><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking</font></em></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, Susan Cain writes about the efforts of psychologist Anders Ericsson and his colleagues who sought to find out how extraordinary achievers get to be so great.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Ericsson’s first study focused on three groups of violinists:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Best violinists (international soloists) </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Good violinists </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Average violinists (who were training to be teachers)</font></p> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">All three groups practiced more than 50 hours a week. But Ericsson discovered that the two best groups invested three times as many hours in <em>practicing alone.</em></font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In fact, the best violinists said practicing alone was the most important activity for improving their music skills.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Elite chess players claimed the same thing. The researchers discovered that “serious study alone” time was the strongest indicator of success for these elite players.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Grandmasters (the highest rank in chess), in fact, spent the first ten years of their careers investing five times as many hours studying the game alone than intermediate-level players.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">So what exactly is Deliberate Practice, and what’s so magical about it? Deliberate Practice allows you to:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Identify the skills or knowledge just out of your reach. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Strive to upgrade your performance. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Monitor progress. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/refined-digital-content/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Refine</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">As a writer, you could:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Practice your </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/magnetic-headlines/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">headline writing skills</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> by spending time researching and writing new headlines. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Strengthen your vocabulary by keeping a list of words you’re unfamiliar with and writing 10 </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/damn-good-sentences/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">sentences</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> using each word. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Smooth out your transitions from paragraph to paragraph by studying a list of </font><a href="http://rainmaker.fm/audio/draft/transitional-words/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">226 transitional words and phrases</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Focus on learning new ways to critically examine your work and </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/edit-your-own-writing/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">edit your own writing</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Improve your </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/writing-closing-paragraphs/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">calls to action</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> by rewriting the endings of the last 50 articles you wrote.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">And if you don’t know where to begin, why not start mastering the </font><a href="http://www.copyblogger.com/ingredients/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">11 essential ingredients of a blog post</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> by practicing alone?</font> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">Embrace solitude</font></h5> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I’m not totally kicking collaboration to the curb.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">What I am saying is that it’s not The Superstar that some would like you to think it is.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Great Creative Man or Woman is not dying (unless you put her in the middle of an office on a bean bag chair surrounded by 25 other people jawing away about their projects).</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The great lone writer is alive and kicking. And <em>we</em> need to be alive and kicking — alone.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Knocking out killer content.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"><img alt="" src="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/81c83444aed195de41d9e227bf13c2dc?s=100&d=mm&r=g" width="100" height="100">ABOUT THE AUTHOR</font></p> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">Demian Farnworth</font></h5> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Demian Farnworth is Chief Content Writer for Rainmaker Digital and host of the podcast </font><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id974801366"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Rough Draft</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. </font></p></blockquote> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-70380150996355285672015-12-10T02:19:00.000-08:002015-12-10T02:20:00.193-08:00December 10 2015. Portrait of a predatory economy—where a tiny few are ending up owning all the marbles<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">DO AMERICANS HAVE ANY IDEA HOW UNBALANCED THE U.S. ECONOMY IS—AND THAT IT IS NOW A PLUTOCRACY?</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOVt2tJSIgfcsfxgXtCv2L4aICQLBowzTkIU2NPtLhrxZB0CKSxxpxTkowxgreyQbzb7h-m4zN1gSGYv01bpzizwc6v9YPl51LzHKcUoTOS5dhs0pdC_vs4vga92cspr-q5pvgRloAZVvW/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVtEYu2-Js_0p3rhTWIxrqZCgsN-X8MsvewZ_xFRXRvZYDHi3avmwoxogeQNl_Qwi6GFjGWrWKgjJuBZZSIlqeQe34vgo6HnHB_nCefDbC3u_g6MYUztyrRU1rb6zcUmZyPayGLpM7pcHX/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT IS REACHING THE STAGE OF CONSITUTING A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE IN ITSELF—BECAUSE SUCH EGREGIOUS INEQUITY CREATES SERIOUS WEAKNESSES—AND IS TAILOR MADE FOR HOME-GROWN TERRORISM—or straightforward I-can’t-take-it-anymore violence. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">That, after all, is how the country started. Where is the new George Washington?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">The U.S. is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy. It remains a genuinely Great Nation (with flaws to match) which has been rigged over the decades to favor the ultra-rich (and their supporters)—and now it needs fixing</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE AMERICAN DREAM</font> <blockquote> <p><font face="Verdana"><font size="4">In 1931, the writer James Truslow Adams coined the term </font><font size="4">“The American Dream.” His definition holds up well today. </font></font> <p><font face="Verdana"><font size="4">The dream, he said, is of a land in which: </font><font size="4">life should be better and richer and fuller for every</font><font size="4">one, with opportunity for each according to ability or a</font><font size="4">chievement. It is a difficult dream for the European </font><font size="4">upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many </font><font size="4">of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful </font><font size="4">of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high </font><font size="4">wages </font><font size="4">merely, but a dream of social order in which each </font><font size="4">man and each woman shall be able to attain to the </font><font size="4">fullest stature of which they are ... capable, and be </font><font size="4">recognized by others for what they are, regardless of </font><font size="4">the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.</font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE AMERICAN REALITY</font> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The following facts are from a report by the Institute for Policy Studies </font><a title="http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/" href="http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/"><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/</font></strong></a></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">For convenience, I am quoting from Alternet’s Steve Rosenfeld’s piece on the report—but it makes exactly the same case as the original.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The figures speak for themselves. They show an America which has become downright un-American. Or is that being somewhat naïve? I would like to think otherwise. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I would like to believe that most Americans are pretty decent people who fundamentally support the aspirations of the American Dream (and are not wedded solely to the totally self-serving ethos of the current American Business Model).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">James Truslow Adams—back in 1931—commented that European upper classes would find difficulty in interpreting the American Dream adequately. Ironically, if he was around today, he would find the American Dream significantly more common in Europe than in the U.S. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It took the trauma of World War II to force through the transition.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have to wonder what it will take to achieve a similar transition in the U.S.</font></p> <blockquote> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">December 2, 2015 </font></em></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">According to a just-released </font><a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">report</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> [4], “Billionaire Bonanza: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us,” by the Institute for Policy Studies, the Facebook founder is merely one of the 400 wealthiest Americans, whose net worth is growing while they evade taxation and drive economic inequality.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“The Forbes 400 provides a useful snapshot of the nation’s wealthiest individuals, an insight into a world most people will never witness firsthand,” the report said, as it lists some incredible comparisons that contrast the vast wealth held by a select few compared to average Americans. “The Forbes 400 also provides an insight into just how lopsided our economy has become: Just 400 people hold as much wealth as over 190 million.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Consider the following six bullet points from the report. The authors state they “believe that these statistics actually underestimate our current national levels of wealth concentration,” because, “the growing use of offshore tax havens and legal trusts has made the concealing of assets much more widespread than ever before.”</font> <ol> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>A luxury jet versus half a continent</strong>. America’s 20 wealthiest people — a group that could fit comfortably in a single Gulfstream G650 luxury jet –­ now own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 152 million people in 57 million households. </font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>The unbelievable racial wealth gap</strong>. The Forbes 400 now own about as much wealth as the nation’s entire African-American population, plus more than a third of the Latino population, combined. </font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Blacks still have the least wealth</strong>. The wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the United States. Among the Forbes 400, just two individuals are African American: Oprah Winfrey and Robert Smith. </font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Latinos are barely doing better</strong>. The wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population. Just five members of the Forbes 400 are Latino: Jorge Perez, Arturo Moreno and three members of the Santo Domingo family. </font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Four hundred versus 194 million</strong>. With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. </font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Astounding wealth gap</strong>. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families. That’s the number of households in the United States that own cats.</font></font></li></ol> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">There are many reasons why it’s important to track the nation’s richest individuals and the wealth gap between them and average Americans. The authors point out that many of today’s economic insecurities could be lessened if the wealthiest Americans—exemplified by the Forbes 400—paid a fairer share of taxes and were no longer able to use an encyclopedia's worth of federal loopholes that enable them to park their money offshore and exercise disproportionate influence in the political process, from elections to lobbying.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But before delving into their recommendations and policy solutions, the authors explain that simply using the term top 1 percent doesn’t really reveal the true picture of wealth concentration in America. Nor does focusing on the top one-tenth of the 1 percent.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“The bulge at the top of our wealth ‘space needle’ reflects America’s wealthiest 0.1 percent, the top one-thousandth of our population, an estimated 115,000 households with a net worth starting at $20 million,” they write. “This group owns more than 20 percent of U.S. household wealth, up from 7 percent in the 1970s. This elite subgroup, University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez points out, now owns about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of America combined.”</font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Peeling Back Layers of Super Wealth</font></strong> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">A look at the wealthiest 400 people in the U.S. provides a better reflection. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We need to examine our wealthiest 400, a cohort small enough to dine in the rotating luxury restaurant atop the Space Needle in Seattle,” they write. “These 400 all possess fortunes worth at least $1.7 billion. Our wealthiest 400 now have more wealth combined than the bottom 61 percent of the U.S. population, an estimated 70 million households, or 194 million people. That’s more people than the population of Canada and Mexico combined.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">And then there’s the top of the top: the 20 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. “The 20 wealthiest Americans include eight founders of corporations: Bill Gates (Microsoft), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Bloomberg (Bloomberg), and Phil Knight (Nike). The list also features nine heirs from families of dynastic wealth: two Koch brothers, four Waltons (Walmart), and three fortunate souls from the Mars candy empire. Rounding out this top 20: investors Warren Buffett and George Soros and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Of course, there’s a vast racial dimension to wealth gap, which they document.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Just 400 extremely wealthy individuals — the number of people who could fit into the swanky 21 Club Restaurant in midtown Manhattan — have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households,” they write. “An even more striking stat: The wealthiest 100 members of the Forbes list alone own about as much wealth as the entire African American population of 42 million people.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">You might ask, aren’t there any billionaire blacks and Latinos? “Only two African-Americans, Oprah Winfrey (#211 with $3 billion) and tech investor Robert Smith (#268 with $2.5 billion), currently reside within the Forbes 400,” they note. “The only other African-American billionaire in the United States, Michael Jordan, did not make the $1.7 billion Forbes 400 cut. Jordan’s net worth: $1.3 billion.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Five members of the Forbes 400 come from Latino backgrounds,” they continue. “Jorge Perez, the condo king of Miami (#171 with $3.5 billion) and Arturo Moreno, a billboard billionaire and owner of the Los Angeles Angels baseball team (#375 with $1.8 billion). The three remaining Latinos all hail from one family, the U.S. children of the late Colombian beer magnate Julio Mario Santo Domingo, a major shareholder of SABMiller. Alejandro and Andres Santo Domingo sit at #149 on the list with $3.8 billion each, with Julio III at #358 with $1.9 billion.”</font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Negative Impact on American LIves</font></strong> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Such disproportionate private wealth matters for many reasons, the authors say. First, it corrupts the political system. “Wealthy donors dominate our campaign finance and lawmaking systems, even after efforts at reform,” they write.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It causes bad public health outcomes. “Unequal communities have greater rates of heart disease, asthma, mental illness, cancer, and other morbid illnesses,” they write. “It is well known that poverty contributes to bad health outcomes. But research is showing that you are better off living in a community with a lower standard of living, but greater equality—than living in a community with a higher income, but more extreme inequalities.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It leads to less cohesion as communities and nations: “We’re becoming more polarized by class and race in terms of where we live,” they note, and that leads to economic instability. “More equal societies have stronger rates of growth, longer economic expansions, and are quicker to recover from economic downturns.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The solutions must come from government intervention, they emphasize. First, there must be efforts to lift people who are the bottom of the economic ladder out of poverty, such as passing higher minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, early childhood education, universal health insurance, and guaranteed minimum incomes, such as the fast-food worker campaign for a $15 minimum hourly wage.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Then government tax reforms must not only make the wealthy pay a much larger and fairer share, they should repeal the fine-print laws that treat domestic and international business differently, usually conferring advantages to global enterprises. Government must also adopt stronger anti-monopoly policies, enforce anti-trust laws and close off the escape routes and tax dodges that enable individuals and corporations to park multi-billions in assets overseas.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Closing loopholes and adopting progressive tax rates by seriously taxing the wealthiest households would yield significant revenues that could be invested in improving the economic security of all Americans, such as offering debt-free college and universities, restructured student loans with no interest, affordable housing, and improving access and benefits to safety net programs.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">As the 2016 presidential campaign continues and the candidates, especially the Democrats, cite many of the issues raised by this report, it is worth taking note of what solutions are being proposed and how they would be financed. The Billionaire Bonanza report underscores that the money is there to improve the livelihoods and economic security of average Americans—without leaving the super-super-rich anywhere near the poorhouse.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">After all, if the Zuckerbergs can pledge to give away 99 percent of their fortune in their lifetimes and still be left with at least $440 million to get by, other slightly less rich billionaires would likely find their lifestyles hardly dented. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).</font></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-64264927731814261982015-12-09T02:01:00.000-08:002015-12-10T02:02:22.667-08:00December 9 2015. In essence (and there are exceptions) the 1% care only for #1 (and the Republican Congress—financed by them—cares only about them also). They, who finance Congress, set the agenda. It is consistently self-serving. It is destroying America. Unless a serious effort is made to make the Constitution work, it won’t. And it isn’t.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">RECENT RESEARCH DEMONSTRATES VERY CLEARLY THAT THE U.S. IS A SOCIALLY UNJUST AS (very sadly) IT IS</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRboVJAs5ZG_nO8hR3f3mgeIX_mFcDsZhS2T1yHK1-LIlGqPLYL3CgNXTp3VOazLwWrpWkU587PydLfJmjyMrhgK-_m9AhbNHObDloYjOvW3uN8bbjVagpXJcw1dPnXfi9tXLsBKe6u2yU/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcBdhRduSZjNerXZc6bAJggnNiJ1wkTtCltald10h432Jq6ss3eSMpU1ZqpJSPLC-8Q3-Vt2i50OPHdi1SntG5MlFQ-J01qsxjFg2i45N9EQ-5xGWKEcp1BwE1jNHSb431R7RqVBoAri7m/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE ULTRA-RICH (who currently control Congress) WANT IT THAT WAY.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">Why should we be remotely surprised?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Simply put, again and again, the data—both what they say and, more importantly, what they do—demonstrate most don’t give a damn about their fellow Americans. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The world is such a fascinating and invigorating place (intellectually, physically, and emotionally) that I find it a sad thing that so many of us have allowed money—and materialism generally—to become so pre-eminent. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Let me stress ‘pre-eminent.’ </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Yes, money and things are useful—and some of both are essential—but they seem to have been culturally elevated out of all proportion.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">When I grew up, we lived in a big house, filled full (to excess) of expensive antiques, had servants, drove a Bentley and were wealthy by most standards of the time—but I have to say it didn’t make for a happy home. In fact, life at home was wretched in many ways—though not without its compensations. </font></p> <p align="left"><em><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It was. at least, creatively stimulating—my charismatic writer/painter mother had a knack for attracting interesting people, and there was rarely a day without some drama or other.</font></em></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">That background didn’t stop me being comparatively materialistic for a while—not something I am proud of. My mother lived in hopes that I would re-build the fast declining family fortune, and pretty much conditioned me to go into business initially. Business meant money—that, after all, is supposedly what it is all about. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>It really isn’t. Business has to make a profit—because it is a necessary requirement for survival, let alone growth (and it is a key metric)—but the the best business people don’t regard profit, in itself, as being the objective. They normally want to accomplish something. They have a higher purpose—and want to change the world in some way, big or small. In truth, they seek creative satisfaction—because few other activities are more fulfilling. </em></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Creativity isn’t a monopoly of the arts. And they also want to have some fun—and business can be (a significant qualification) a lot of fun.</em></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I remained a businessman for some years (with considerable success eventually) but, though I liked the people I worked with and for, I wasn’t fulfilled by it. I had the strongest sense that it wasn’t my mission in life—and that I needed a higher purpose.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I needed to create in some some way—and do some social good. Running a profitable business was fine—as far as it went—but it wasn’t enough. I wasn’t fully utilizing my talents, such as they were. I felt a desperate need to stretch myself intellectually—yet I didn’t think I was destined to be an academic.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">So, after a decade or so, I left my financially secure, materially rewarding life for the precarious existence of a writer. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I didn’t so much make a decision to give up my CEO job as follow an imperative. An inner voice virtually ordered me to make the move—despite share options which would would, I was told, have made me a millionaire within five years being dangled in my way (though in the end the company never did go public—a betrayal that subsequently caused my immediate boss at the time, my mentor and friend, Art Damschen to leave the corporation. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It wasn’t the president and chief shareholder of the company, Jack Clary’s finest hour. I liked the man a great deal—and he was, by and large, a decent man—but he broke his word.</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4"><font face="Verdana">“<em>Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. </em></font></font></p> <h3><font face="Verdana">Psalm 146:3-5King James Version (KJV)</font></h3></blockquote> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Perhaps my instincts told me that Jack was incapable of giving up control—and that his promises were hollow. Integrity is in woefully short supply in business, particularly at the top. Far too many American CEOs behave miserably. The current American Business Model doesn’t seem to have a place for ethics.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Either way, I wasn’t tempted. </em></font><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>I took the view that I couldn’t buy time—and have never regretted my decision.</em></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">At various stages of my writing career, I have practically starved—in fact, I have gone without food entirely entirely on occasions, though never for longer than a few days at a time. </font></p> <p align="left"><em><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is, as we writers say, all material.</font></em></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Nonetheless, overall I have been lucky enough to have done better than most of my writing peers—and have been downright affluent at times—but have never personally found much relationship between income and contentment. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is certainly pleasant not to to have financial concerns, but there are plenty of other pressures in life—learning how to write being one of them (a long and desperately difficult business), and having one’s books rejected being another—and then there are such things as personal relationships, health issues, and the doubts and fears that grip most of us. If you are a glass half-empty person—as I was for a considerable period (I have learned otherwise)—you will not be short of matters of concern.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Fortunately, the cerebral compensations of writing are so enormous that practically everything else pales in comparison. In fact, writing <em>every day</em>—seven days a week—has now has become so important to me that I feel somewhat disoriented if I don’t write (even if I am doing something else I enjoy). </font></p> <p align="left"><em><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I just have to write. </font> <font size="4">It’s so damn hard. But, <font face="Bookman Old Style">It’s a joy.</font></font></em></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">From my perspective, writing is wealth beyond avarice. And by writing, I mean the process itself rather than any financial rewards, or even the pleasure one gets from knowing one is being read and appreciated. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I just love thinking—the challenge—and then the rush you get when you begin to understand. Then there is the fresh challenge of converting one’s thoughts into the written word. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Such a simple transition theoretically—after all we speak our thoughts relatively effortlessly—yet so hard in practice when writing is involved. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Why should this be so? The physical aspect aside, what differentiates the spoken from the written word—except, perhaps, the level of commitment. The spoken word, unless recorded—and normally it is not, is lost in the ether. It’s a transient, ephemeral, thing—easy to forget or deny. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Writing is, or can be, permanent. It takes a stand. It—you—can be judged, sometime harshly. It requires a certain courage. You have to battle with your fears—and you have to trust your inner voice. It is your only guide.</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Verdana"><em>Put not your trust in editors either—for they have their own agendas—and truly hate the fact that if you are a successful author, you are earning more than they do (and write better).</em></font></p> <p align="left"><em><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>Confessions of a Book-Writing Man. Victor O’Reilly</strong>.</font></em></p></blockquote> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The one downside of the extraordinary satisfaction I get from writing may be that it makes it harder for me to empathize where some other mindsets are concerned—greed being a foremost example. I can understand greed intellectually, of course, but after that I am just plain puzzled particularly because greed is, so often, self-defeating. It tends towards the short-sighted, evokes resentment, and—above all—undermines clarity of thought. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">One of the more unpleasant aspects of greed is that it seems to be insatiable—even to the point of wanting the socially disadvantaged to have even less. It’s a viciously mean-spirited quality—and not one you want those in power to possess. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">For that reason, I found the following article particularly disturbing. Clearly some of the ultra-rich like Bill and Melinda Gates, Nick Hanauer, and Warren Buffet, are socially concerned—and do wonderful things with their money. But, the prevailing ethos of the ultra-rich seems to be otherwise.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I don’t grudge financial success for a second—but the issue is not being rich, or ultra-rich—<em>more power to your elbow (as we say in Ireland</em>)—but what you do with your money, and the power and influence it gives you. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">If you lack social concern, buy politicians, and focus solely on advancing your own interests—regardless of the costs to others (which is pretty much the pattern) then you are part of the problem.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Such egregious greed and corruption of the U.S. political system is now so entrenched it seems unlikely to be remedied by the 2016 elections. It has become the norm. It has become part of the culture—even though many Americans hate it. Just not enough.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Sooner or later, there is going to have to be a reckoning—and it may not be pretty. It is long overdue. Meanwhile, the American Tragedy continues.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <blockquote> <p align="left"><font size="5" face="Verdana"><strong>8 Ways the Super Wealthy Show Their Cruel Values and Desire to Destroy the Public’s Safety Net</strong></font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><em>By</em> <em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/steven-rosenfeld">Steven Rosenfeld</a> [1]</em> / </font></font><a href="http://alternet.org"><font size="4" face="Verdana">AlterNet</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> [2]</font> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">November 30, 2015 </font></em> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The richest Americans increasingly are taking over the levers of power and shaping the political debate, despite opposing views held by a majority of Americans, a new and unprecedented academic study of the top 1 percent has confirmed.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The super-rich are more politically active than average Americans, financing and contacting elected officials and knowing many on a first-name basis. Their agenda, which is often cited by public officials across the country, emphasizes private profit-making and is skeptical of almost every public program to address economic inequality, the </font><a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/%7Ejnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">study</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> [3] by Chicago-based university researchers found. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The top 1 percent’s social agenda, while “more liberal than others on religious and moral issues, including abortion, gay rights, and prayer in school,” is still “much more conservative than the non-affluent on issues of taxes, economic regulation, and social welfare,” the researchers found.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Put another way, today’s top 1 percent generally do not believe the longtime conservative line that a rising economic tide will lift all Americans, but have a darker view in which one’s fate is tied to the survival of the fittest. They consider climate change a non-issue and most would cut federal and state safety nets and anti-poverty programs, shift taxpayer dollars into privatized education and do little to ensure access to higher education.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We speculate that the striking contrast concerning core social welfare programs between our wealthy respondents and the general public may reveal something important about the current state of American politics,” the </font><a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/%7Ejnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">report</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> [3] says. “If wealthy Americans wield an extra measure of influence over policy making, and if they strongly favor deficit reductions through spending cuts—including cuts in Social Security and Medicare—this may help explain why a number of public officials have advocated deep cuts in the very social welfare programs that are most popular among ordinary Americans.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The report’s authors take a neutral tone and protect the confidentiality of those interviewed. As they note in their opening, “there have been no scientific, representative surveys of the broader social and political attitudes and behavior of top U.S. income earners or wealth holders.” However, their data comparing the views of more than 100 super-wealthy Chicagoans and the general public leads to unmistakable conclusions about the presence of an American soft fascism placating today’s wealthy.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This is not to say that the super-rich get everything they want. There are many federal programs and activities they dislike that have been around for decades and cannot easily be dismantled. But if those interviewed by Northwestern University and University of Chicago typify the wealthiest Americans—and the researchers say they do—it is clear that today’s elite are somewhat aware of the plight of ordinary Americans, yet reluctant to personally sacrifice to improve society’s fortunes. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Most of our respondents fell into or near the top 1 percent of US wealth-holders,” the survey says. “Their average (mean) wealth was $14,006,338; the median was $7,500,000… To give a further idea of their economic standing: respondents’ average income was $1,040,140. About one third of them (32.4 percent) reported incomes of $1,000,000 or more.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">What follows are eight takeaways from the </font><a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/%7Ejnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">report</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> [3], ”Democracy and The Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” starting with the fact that the top 1 percent are very politically active, which accounts for their outsized influence on what the federal government’s role should be and the resulting rhetoric by many elected officials in Congress and Republican-controlled state governments. </font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>1. The wealthy are more politically active than typical citizens. </strong>Ninety-nine percent vote in presidential elections and “a large majority (84 percent) said they pay attention to politics ‘most of the time.’ Asked how many days of the week they talk politics, the median response was five days.” Moreover, they give money to political campaigns and organize fundraising events in ways that dwarf average Americans and yield access and influence. </font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">From the report:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Fully two-thirds contributed money to politics, giving an average of $4,633 to political campaigns or organizations over the previous twelve months. (By comparison, in the American National Election Study survey conducted shortly after the 2008 presidential election, just 14 percent of the general-population respondents reported having contributed money to a candidate, party, or Political Action Committee.) A remarkable 21 percent of our wealthy respondents solicited or ‘bundled’ other peoples’ political contributions—not an activity that is common among ordinary citizens.”</font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>2. The </strong><strong>wealthy</strong><strong> want government to act on their behalf</strong>. <font color="#920000"><strong>It would be wrong to suggest that the top 1 percent hate all government. Instead, as the report shows, they want it to do their bidding and adopt policies and laws that benefit their bottom line. </strong></font></font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“The wealthy were particularly likely to initiate contacts with members of Congress,” the report said, adding that many know their elected officials. “Most of our respondents supplied the title or position of the federal government official with whom they had their most important recent contact. Several offered the officials’ names. We see no particular reason why their high frequency of contacts with congressional representatives should be atypical of wealthy Americans elsewhere in the country.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Probing deeper, the report said that economic self-interest was the primary reason for being involved in the political process:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“They want to know how government policy will affect their businesses and investments. One key finding is that, for contacts that could be coded, just under half (44 percent) acknowledged a focus on fairly narrow economic self interest: ‘to try to get the Treasury to honor their commitment to extend TARP funds to a particular bank in Chicago;’ ‘to better understand the new regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act and how it will affect my business [banking/finance];’ ‘Fish and Wildlife…permitting on development land;’ ‘on behalf of clients, seeking regulatory approvals;’ ‘I own stock in several banks. I was concerned about legislation he was drafting that I think could be harmful for the banks.’”</font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>3. Their agenda reflects wealth creation</strong>. When asked to prioritize their concerns, the list of issues reflects the factors they perceive affecting wealth creation, not the general welfare of most Americans. When asked what issues were “very important,” 87 percent said the federal budget deficit; 84 percent said unemployment; 79 percent said education; 74 percent said international terrorism; 70 percent said energy supply; 57 percent said health care; 56 percent said child poverty; 52 percent said loss of traditional values; 36 percent said trade deficits; 26 percent said inflation; and 16 percent said climate change. </font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Mostly, the top 1 percent are obsessed with federal spending. “One-third (32 percent) of all open-ended responses mentioned budget deficits or excessive government spending, far more than mentioned any other issue. Furthermore, at various points in their interviews many respondents spontaneously mentioned ‘government over-spending.’”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">One finding that sums up this attitude is that 58 percent favored “cuts in spending on domestic programs like Medicare, education, and highways in order to cut federal budget deficits,” compared to 27 percent of the general public.</font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>4. Biggest schisms on economic issues.<font color="#920000">Some of the biggest differences between the top 1 percent and average Americans concern economic insecurity. Only 43 percent agreed that “government must see that no one is without food, clothing, or shelter,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Only 40 percent support a living minimum wage, “so that no family with a full-time worker falls below official poverty line,” compared to 78 percent of the general public. Only 23 percent agree “the government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed,” compared to 50 percent of the general public. Only 19 percent agree that “the government in Washington ought to see to it that everyone who wants to work can find a job,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Only 8 percent agree that “the federal government should provide jobs for everyone able and willing to work who cannot find a job in private employment,” compared to 53 percent of the public.</font></strong></font></font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>5. The </strong><strong>wealthy</strong><strong> support education, but not public schools</strong>. The very rich and the general public both support investing in education, but diverge on key specifics. The researchers found that a majority of the 1 percent and the general public would pay more taxes for pre-K and kindergarten; support merit pay for teachers; support charter public schools; support taxpayer-funded vouchers so parents can send their kids to private or religious schools; and support giving high school students the option of vocational training to start work immediately after graduating. </font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Where they differ, however, is notable.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The top 1 percent have a strong bias against public schools, with only 35 percent agreeing that “the federal government should spend whatever is necessary to ensure that all children have really good public schools they can go to,” compared to 87 percent of the general public. On affirmative action in education, a slight majority of the wealthy, 53 percent, agreed that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have schools equal in quality to whites, even if it means you will have to pay more in taxes,” compared to 71 percent of the general public. Only a small slice, 28 percent, agreed “the federal government should make sure that everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” compared to 78 percent of the general public.</font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>6. Social Security and other safety nets</strong>. Some agree that the most popular government safety net, Social Security, is needed but there is a reluctance among the super rich to raise benefits for recipients or to pay higher taxes to expand benefits.</font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Fifty-five percent agreed that “the Social Security system should ensure a minimum standard of living to all contributors, even if some receive benefits exceeding the value of their contribution,” compared to 68 percent of the general public. Yet only 47 percent said that the income tax cap funding Social Security—where people only pay taxes on the first $118,000 of their incomes—should be raised, compared to 60 percent of the general public. When it comes to privatizing some Social Security savings, 55 percent said people under age 55 should be able to invest some of these government-held funds, compared to 47 percent of the public. Notably, 33 percent would cut back on Social Security benefits, while 46 percent of the public would expand them.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">There was a similar ambivalence on ensuring access to health care. Forty-one percent of the top 1 percent agreed that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” compared to 48 percent of all Americans. The same number of the super rich, 41 percent, were “willing to pay more taxes in order to provide health coverage for everyone,” compared to 59 percent of the general public. Yet only 32 percent favored a “national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money, paying for most forms of health care,” compared to 61 percent of the general public. And 19 percent would cut back federal health care spending, while 44 percent of the general public would expand it.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">On other anti-poverty safety nets, 28 percent would cut back spending on food stamps and 80 percent would cut farm subsidies. No number was given for general public support of these programs.</font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>7. Government should protect their wealth</strong>. On taxation and regulating capitalist excesses, the top 1 percent weren’t uniform anti-government libertarians, with 55 percent agreeing that, “the government has an essential role to play in regulating the market,” compared to 71 percent of the general public. But it seemed they favored regulation where it positively affected their investments.</font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Only 18 percent said that Wall Street needed “more federal government regulation,” compared to 45 percent of the public. Twenty percent of the super rich said “big corporations” needed “less federal regulation,” compared to 45 percent of the public. In contrast, 70 percent of the super rich that said “small business” needed less regulation, compared to 42 percent of the general public.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The responses also reflect their view that government should leave profitable industries alone. Only 5 percent said the oil industry needs more regulation, compared to 50 percent of the public. Only 4 percent said the health insurance industry needs more regulation, compared to 26 percent of the public. The remaining percentages—reflecting most respondents—replied, “don’t know.” </font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><strong>8. Military interventions overseas not wanted</strong>. In general, the wealthy want the federal government to pick up the slack where the private sector does not invest—with the exception of overseas military involvement. The respondents “leaned toward expanding rather than cutting back only three of the 12 federal government programs we asked about: improving public infrastructure such as highways, bridges and airports; scientific research; and aid to education. Implicitly, at least, our wealthy respondents appear to appreciate governmental production of certain public goods. At a time when the U.S. was engaged in two costly wars and faced a relatively quiescent terror threat, however, they were much less enthusiastic about military or anti-terror spending. And they tilted toward cutting all the income-redistributive or social insurance programs we asked about.”</font></font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Money, Power and Influence</font></strong> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The findings of the University of Chicago and Northwestern University researchers underscore that not only do the wealthiest Americans have a different and more self-interested agenda than the general public, but they have been able to push the national political discussion—especially from Republicans and pro-corporate Democrats—toward the political right.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The result is what can be called a soft fascism. For the most part, the wealthiest people and industries in America have been able to go about their business unimpeded by government, even as they complain about over-regulation and federal constraints. While there are some super-wealthy individuals who told the researchers that they support social safety nets, as a group they are unwilling to divert some of their personal wealth into social programs that benefit less fortunate Americans.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Instead, they are active participants in a political culture whose rhetoric and policy agenda largely reflects their wealth-generating and pro-corporate concerns. Most Americans, in contrast, seem to be treading water wherever they are on the economic ladder and have diminished political influence.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).</font></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-6965732938538804272015-12-08T02:52:00.000-08:002015-12-08T02:52:56.960-08:00December 8 2015. To hell with government! Let’s have anarchy! Mmm! Do I really want to depend on how fast I can draw a gun to get through the day? Maybe not.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">PEOPLE THINK—BUT DO WHOLE POPULATIONS?</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUH9xzit91FsA6Zvn-gSIvEiKZEchpqJ64lEwiguRDTCOnfIufvj1pa9ddFT2gS9i0tAIBLcQHsrEHkiI2mdC585bcY0y3Zw5T4K-aPs-ufkPAun-rZ_yfjKKF2BBZWH7BSk9LxK_NA4d2/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgezUjsnH1DCBlL1VVsytc3N0dGZbKvUzwmVBBCSpouNlBpmG0RB_5IeLPGp7jaO6Kfak5HaN787JUi3RuR-OKhyphenhyphenw3t8L3yn4jqeOlntKpARcvZaHxlIBvf1Y-2sHQopV4A5GXBuzEPPfIm/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">DO SOME POPULATIONS THINK MORE RATIONALLY THAN OTHERS? ARE AMERICANS REMOTELY RATIONAL ABOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">I have my doubts!</font></p></blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">There was a time post WW II when Americans thought rather highly of their government. That opinion took something of a hit during the Vietnam War.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Subsequently, in the early 1970s, business interests—the ultra-rich and the corporations they control—decided that labor and the Left Wing generally had gained too much ground, and mounted a concerted campaign to assert their traditional dominance. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This was a major effort involving vast resources (which is exactly what the ultra-rich have) and every tool of influence they could muster—from the media they owned, to the politicians they financed, from the lawyers they could use to manipulate the law, to an unceasing barrage of propaganda which masked their real agenda—and it continues to this day. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It helps to explain why the typical American employee has vastly fewer rights than his counterparts in the rest of the developed world—and why earnings for most have scarcely increased in 40 years—and are now in decline (a situation unmatched in the rest of the developed world). </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Simply put, the ultra-rich seized the levers of power and rigged the system in their favor.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Part of their strategy involved demonizing the U.S. government on the grounds that if government was neutralized—assuming that trade unions were crushed (which was part of the plan) then power would inevitably gravitate towards private enterprise. After all, where else could one turn? </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The trade unions were, indeed, crushed—almost completely in the private sector (and bloodied in the public). Corporate power, as predicted, became dominant. It is today.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Actions almost always have unintended consequences. In this case, the campaign to destroy trust in government—while almost completely successful (with President Reagan setting the tone) has had the devastating side effect of destroying the typical citizen’s trust in just about all institutions—and, demonstrably, corporations have not been able to fill the gap, excerpt in certain areas. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This should scarcely be a surprise. Corporations have a completely different mission in life, lack the necessary expertise, and have mainly used the public purse as a feeding-trough when given the slightest opportunity. Examples are rife. Look no further than healthcare, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, or the financial sector driving the entire economy into the Great Recession (and the rest of the world with it).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Corruption has been rife. The public good has been almost entirely neglected. The entirely appropriate term of ‘crony capitalism’ has entered the language (and it woefully understates the case). This is predatory capitalism run wild. In a disturbing number of cases, particularly in the financial sector—but certainly not confined to it—explicitly criminal behavior has been involved.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Some of the guilty have been forced to pay massive fines—frequently offset against taxes—but virtually no criminal prosecutions have taken place. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Some degree of trust is essential if people are to get anything done. It has been so destroyed in the U.S.—knowingly and deliberately—that virtually the entire country is so divided and suspicious that it seems virtually incapable of resolving any of the long list of issues that threaten the wellbeing of most Americans.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is a much more serious problem than political gridlock inside Washington’s beltway. Americans are angry, resentful, suspicious, surly, confused, conflicted—and just don’t know what to do—or where to turn. They are also, by and large, frighteningly uninformed. The mass media—owned by the ultra-rich—serve primarily as instruments of distraction and propaganda.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The graphic below illustrates this mindset all too well. On the one hand, the majority profess not to trust the government. On the other hand, most see a significant role for it in most areas. This is not rational thinking.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It seems to occur to remarkably few that the correct approach would be to make government work. Like it or not, we have to have it—and it works most effectively in many other countries.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">On top of that, their citizens, by and large, enjoy a higher standard of living.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Government should be watched like a hawk—as should corporations—but it can be made to be a significant force for good.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It clearly isn’t right now—primarily because it is in thrall to the ultra-rich.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The Constitution is no longer working. It needs to be updated.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Meanwhile, the American Tragedy continues.</font></p> <p><img alt="Americans' overall views of the federal government are very negative..." src="http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/11/Overview-1.png" width="500" height="1057"></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-21831342469574158652015-12-07T03:36:00.000-08:002015-12-07T03:49:01.651-08:00December 7 2015. Nations, like people, can lose their sense of direction, their sense of purpose, their confidence—and their values. Sometimes they recover; sometimes they do not. The Roman Empire took a remarkably long time to collapse (hundreds of years). The British Empire took decades (quite a lot of them). The Soviet Union vanished in what seemed like the blink of a hung-over-eye (all that vodka). The decline of the U.S. looks like like being a little slower—but not a lot. This is a sorely wounded Great Nation—and most of the wounds are self-inflicted. When I use the phrase: “The American Tragedy continues,” I mean just that. It doesn’t have to be—but it is looking increasingly inevitable. The underlying economic data are damming—and the problems are not confined to the economy. They are social, cultural, racial, and educational—and run deep.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">AMERICANS HAVE EVERY REASON TO BE DEEPLY WORRIED RIGHT NOW. THE NATION IS SHOWING EVERY SIGN OF SOMETHING AKIN TO A MID-LIFE CRISIS—AND IT MAY BE A GREAT DEAL WORSE THAN THAT (and be justified).</font></p> <p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZvheHeJQrHU9zex4hhS5XWUG5GYaCIbrsQ7L9-QfdZihiSh9e766vGXuvFM9O1Sp8Gzs-MAm_NRKbv4a-EkbZqs8twcqpVHEDPYK9FSIUe3hgy5P6TAwJpLQerImMieWeT1kj_RxDq3-F/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhT0EquAj-wjrigbxMGh4rFHh1MdAgY17u_xf0_53R0NUz_s0tiIS8GzQg8Qz72b02rwOQHe-pm3Zru06pX09i-uAXdtzGWs0HflKYCKJ2_t8EeP-ChFZUO0F8v_dlFRNyG3HOIC3eeKiv/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="4"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT WILL SIGNAL THE END OF THE U.S AS WE KNOW IT (except that we really didn’t—and don’t. The myth was—and remains—so much more appealing.)</font></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="4"></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">So where is the evidence that the U.S. has lost its way—has diverged in its values and direction from what most people would regard as fair, tolerable, reasonable, acceptable, civilized, and democratic? </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">No, I am not offering mass shootings as evidence. They are an aberration and a symptom of something very wrong—but they pale in relation to other issues. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Nonetheless, I do consider the fact that the U.S. regards the gunshot deaths of over 32,000 Americans every year as tolerable, as horrific—and a distortion of what should be acceptable in a civilized and developed nation. I write this as someone who likes guns, enjoys shooting them—and who features them in his thrillers—but, it is self-evident that the gun-culture, <em>in real life</em>, has gone too far. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is both a symptom of a deeply confused and unhealthy mindset—to the point of being delusional—and a paranoid flight into fantasy. There is every evidence that the widespread availability of guns has made life a great deal more dangerous, not less.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This level of death from firearms—let alone injury and human misery—equates to more than a Vietnam War ever two years. It’s an insanity—and morally wrong.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">There is so much evidence that the U.S. is adrift that it is hard to know where to begin. The scale is truly alarming. Much of it is in plain sight. Much requires a little digging.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The core belief of most Americans (which is that the U.S. economic system (the American Business Model) is the best in the world is palpably being proven not to be true. Instead what you’ve got is financially dominated crony capitalism which is predatory in nature—and which is squeezing most Americans to the point where two thirds are living paycheck to paycheck, well-paid jobs are vanishing, costs are rising, the national savings rate is entirely inadequate, and the standard of living of most Americans is in decline. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Other developed nations have had setbacks—particularly since the U.S. originated Great Recession—and haven’t fully recovered, but the U.S. situation is much more severe and dates back decades. Almost everywhere else, earnings, in real terms, and the general quality of life, have improved. The U.S. is a depressing exception.</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As for the U.S. being the bastion of democracy—as it certainly was during WW II, it is now pretty clear that it isn’t even a democracy anymore—except in appearance. The trappings are still in place—but they are dedicated more to entertainment and distraction than to substance. Gerrymandering, combined with a whole series of practices which inhibit ease of voting in less affluent areas, represent major obstacles to genuine democracy just in themselves. However, the influence of money now so dominates politics that they relegate such difficulties to the sidelines. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As a consequence, the U.S. is now a plutocracy. It is run by the ultra-rich for the ultra-rich (and their followers)—and the legislation that is passed reflects that fact.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The plutocrats cannot get everything they want passed at federal level as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, but they can still have extraordinary influence—and can block almost anything they don’t like (and they do).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">At state and local level, the plutocrats have had considerably more success. It is consistently disastrous for the less fortunate. Worker rights are being undermined. Gender equality is laughed at. Women’s health is under chronic attack.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">By the standards of other developed nations, these kinds of behaviors are reprehensible, foolish, and wrong—but they represent business as normal in the U.S.—which seems obsessed with a race to the bottom.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A representative democracy demands that the elected representatives listen to those who elect them—and, in the U.S., they don’t. They listen only to those who fund them—and primarily to major donors at that.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Let me list an extract from the long list of other issues.</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN UNCEASING BARAGE OF PROPAGANDA (STEMMING LARGELY FROM THE ULTRA-RICH OWNED MEDIA) WHICH PREVENTS MOST AMERICANS FROM BEING ADEQUATELY INFORMED—AND WHICH FOMENTS A CLIMATE OF FEAR AND INSECURITY.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A FOREIGN POLICY THAT SEEMS BASED UPON ENDLESS, FRUITLESS WARS.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">THE EXTRAORDINARY LEVELS OF DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND CORRUPTION THAT BECOME PERVASIVE IN EVERY COUNTRY THAT THE U.S. OCCUPIES OR EVEN BECOMES MILITARILY INVOLVED WITH.</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT HAS EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE AND WHICH USES UP AN EXCESSIVE PROPORTION OF THE BUDGET.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY ON SUCH A SCALE THAT IT PRACTICALLY DEFIES CREDULITY.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF FAITH IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HAS BECOME SO EXTREME THAT DONALD TRUMP IS THE FRONT RUNNER.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>THE INCREASING REALIZATION THAT THE U.S. IS NO LONGER A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A NEAR ABSOLUTE BREAKDOWN OF TRUST IN A BROAD SPECTRUM OF INSTITUTIONS (AND TRUST IS WHAT ENABLES SOCIETIES TO FUNCTION).</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY INCREASING NUMBERS THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM IS LARGELY A MYTH.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>THE DECLINE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN INCREASE IN POVERTY COMBINED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVER EXPANDING, SOCIALLY NEGLECTED, UNDERCLASS.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">HUGE FOOD INSECURITY—AND THIS IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHOSE WASTE OF FOOD IS UNPRECEDENTED</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A MASSIVE DECLINE IN LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN THE RATE OF GROWTH OF PRODUCTIVITY.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">AN INCREASING LACK OF INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS IN MARKET SECTOR AFTER MARKET SECTOR.</font></strong> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A DECADES LONG FAILURE TO BALANCE TRADE.</font></strong> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT IN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A WIDESPREAD LACK OF SOCIAL CONCERN RESULTING IN AN INADEQUATE SOCIAL SAFETY NET.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A MASSIVE INCREASE IN ECONOMIC INSECURITY.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A WAY OF LIFE THAT PRETTY MUCH ENSLAVES PEOPLE IN DEBT FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN AMERICAN BUSINES MODEL THAT ISN’T DELIVERING FOR MOST AMERICANS.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">AN INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM BASED UPON MONOCULTURE AND INTENSIVE REARING OF FOOD ANIMALS WHICH IS DESTROYING THE SOIL, UNDERMINING THE INTRINSIC NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THE FOOD, AND IS INCREASINGLY SUSPECTED OF ACTIVELY CAUSING HARM.</font></strong> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A PROCESSED FOOD SYSTEM BASED UPON SUB-STANDARD INGREDIENTS WHICH PRODUCES UNHEALTHY FOOD.</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>THE FACT THAT AMERICANS LIVE SICKER, AND DIE MORE THAN TWO YEARS SOONER THAN THE CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT COSTS UP TO TWICE AS MUCH AS DEVELOPED EQUIVALENTS—AND DELIVERS AN INFERIOR RESULT.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN UNHEALTHY AND FREQUENTLY OBESE POPULATION THAT RELIES TO EXCESS ON LEGAL MEDICATION AND WHERE OVER HALF OF ADULTS HAVE A CHRONIC CONDITION.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A DECLINE IN INNOVATION RELATIVE TO OTHER NATIONS.</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>A DECLINE IN ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>AN INCREASE IN MONOPOLIZATION IN MOST MARKET SECTORS.</strong></font> <li><strong><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A STOCK MARKET WHICH HAS LESS AND LESS TO DO WITH THE REAL ECONONOMY</font></strong> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>THE DOMINANCE OF THE ECONOMY BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.</strong></font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>EXCESSIVELY MILITATARIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH ALL TOO FREQUENTLY IS PROVING TO BE VIOLENT, CORRUPT, AND RACIST.</strong></font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I am now in my 11th year of monitoring the U.S. economy—and its way of life in general—in some detail, and the most frightening things to me are:</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The seeming general lack of awareness, as far as most Americans are concerned, as to how bad things really are. I say ‘seeming’ because, like most, I rely heavily on the media and the internet for information, and it is hard to judge the mood of a country through such propaganda influenced filters. But all I can see is that there isn’t the outrage I would expect given the situation.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Fundamental weaknesses in the structure of the U.S. economy which may well be more severe than I have suspected for some time. The recovery from the Great Recession does not stand close examination. The gutting of U.S. manufacturing, the exporting of jobs and expertise, and chronic underinvestment in the real economy has left it much weaker and less internationally competitive than is generally realized. These core deficiencies have been largely hidden by booming corporate profits—but the latter have come at the expense of the longer term—and owe a great deal to financial engineering. Massive debt at every level has temporarily disguised the scale of these problems—but they remain very real. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The fact that the U.S. seems incapable of solving any of its problems even when the solutions are self-evident. In fact, just about everything is getting worse year by year. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The fact that the U.S., which has a great deal to be proud of—and which has done a great deal of good in the past—is now fast losing the respect of much of the rest of the world.</font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I wish it were otherwise. I am very fond of this Great Nation—but the America Tragedy continues.</font></p> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-85157944341003128052015-12-06T08:50:00.000-08:002015-12-06T08:50:47.259-08:00December 6 2015. Synergistic lethality—where chemicals are can concerned, two and two can make a toxic five (or higher). And drugs, by the way, are chemicals. So are we poisoning ourselves even more than we think—and/or are we being poisoned? It seems highly probable.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THIS IS AN INTERESTING TALE OF YET MORE TACKY CORPORATE BEHAVIOR. BUT THAT UNDERSTATES THE CASE. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">DOW CHEMICALS LIED ABOUT A MATTER INVOLVING MANY THOUSANDS OF LIVES—AND WERE CAUGHT OUT. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">AS NORMAL, NO INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVES WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">That is the current American Way—and it’s wrong</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq2MtTg1wMYPp5Cm1iUTf4uCuF7N5KgJ2dCIJBwWbYfnfGOIFI5Fmi-UBSCrI6kF3ihHFxRr4Lb_mng1wNTldUO_itakT4-1neUf6jEgKZKve293FvvPT0An7hWEUcr-sU1EZhCwVZZd6U/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgazh6AFK9ymQRxPfYTyBkJsfnLEHKSSerkB-Q6T-M4PhsLzSVgQ9bE3clRBwZw8R59WhAIOxU0JkSqAaneEJgThADCmuHktVoevb_EGLKB-4tNgVp2oYJhG-URZwWvAiDqCx980K39Pa_s/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">TOM PHILPOTT WRITES SOME WONDERFUL STUFF IN MOTHER JONES—MOSTLY ABOUT FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">One of the saddest things about the American Business Model right now is that it has conditioned us to assume that corporate duplicity is normal—and we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it as being just part of life, and free of consequences.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This is rather like assuming that being mugged or robbed is normal—and ignoring the possibility of calling the police and having the miscreants arrested, tried and imprisoned.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Mostly, we don’t tolerate traditional crime (for want of a better phrase) but for a number of reasons—with the corruption of the political system playing a major role—again and again we find corporations behaving criminally (in the sense of blatantly violating an existing law) and not only is nothing done about it, but the public as a whole (us) accept it. We don’t feel outraged. We just feel helpless and turn our minds to other things.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This is a very dangerous evolution in our culture because it adds up to:</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Accepting that the law discriminates in favor of the ultra-rich, their followers, and the corporations they control—regardless of what the Constitution says.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Tolerating reprehensible behavior—if a corporation does it.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Accepting a general lowering of standards of behavior.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Failing to give credit to the very decent behavior of some corporations.</font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The following is a classic example of the kind of dishonest corporate behavior that takes place all too often—and which rarely incurs any kind of penalty. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In this case, it is deadly serious because there is ever increasing evidence that such toxic chemicals are just that—toxic—especially when used in combination. And when I say toxic, I don’t just mean to weeds and bugs. I mean that they are poisoning us in various ways because the corporations concerned are, by and large, not telling the truth. They reveal only the data that suits them—and repress the rest.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This is Big Tobacco all over again—and it is a pattern that has become all too common.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Read on—and bear in mind, that this is just one tiny example of behavior which is undermining both our health and the integrity of our society.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">We should be ashamed that we tolerate it.</font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Environmental Protection Agency revoked its controversial approval of a novel herbicide mix, sending shares of its maker, chemical giant Dow, </font><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-chemical-slips-epa-withdraws-161004052.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">down nearly 3 percent </font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">in Wednesday trading.</font> </p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The product, Enlist Duo, is the signature weed-killing cocktail of Dow AgroScience, Dow’s ag subsidiary. It’s composed of two </font><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/introduction_to_endocrine_disrupting_chemicals.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">endocrine-disrupting chemicals</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, 2-4-D and glypohosate, that have landed on the World Health Organization’s lists of </font><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/06/another-common-herbicide-linked-cancer"><font size="4" face="Verdana">“possible”</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/monsanto-herbicide-cause-cancer"><font size="4" face="Verdana">“probable”</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> carcinogens, respectively. Dow markets it for use alongside corn and soybean varieties that have been genetically engineered to withstand the combined herbicides, to counter the rapid rise of weeds that have evolved to resist glyphosate alone. Approved by the EPA last year, Enlist Duo is the company’s “crown jewel,” a Wall Street analyst recently </font><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-revokes-approval-of-dow-chemicals-enlist-duo-herbicide-1448469843"><font size="4" face="Verdana">told</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>. The US Department of Agriculture thinks farmers will embrace it rapidly—it will boost 2,4-D use by as much as 600 percent by 2020, the agency </font><a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/24d_feis.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">projects</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">How inconvenient for Dow’s shareholders, then, that the EPA has changed its mind. Last Tuesday, the agency </font><a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/2015-11-24_EPA_Voluntary_Vacatur.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">petitioned</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to </font><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-revokes-approval-of-dow-chemicals-enlist-duo-herbicide-1448469843"><font size="4" face="Verdana">revoke its approval of Enlist Duo</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, temporarily barring farmers from using it.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The reason for the reversal is fascinating. The decision hinges on the so-called “synergistic” effects of combined pesticides. When you combine two or more herbicides, do you merely get the weed-slaying properties of each—or do you also get something new and greater than the sum of the parts? There’s not a lot of data on that. Generally, pesticides are tested for safety in isolation, even though farmers tend to use several at once in the field. Yet studies have repeatedly shown—see </font><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661902/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">here</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="http://www.inra.fr/en/Scientists-Students/Food-and-nutrition/All-reports/Cocktail-effects-of-toxic-substances/The-cocktail-effect-of-pesticides"><font size="4" face="Verdana">here</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">—that chemical combinations can be much more toxic than you’d expect from analyzing each of their components.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">When the EPA reviewed safety data supplied by Dow, it found “no indication of synergism between [the two Enlist Duo ingredients] for mammals, freshwater fish, and freshwater invertebrates,” its </font><a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/2015-11-24_EPA_Voluntary_Vacatur.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">court petition</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> states, and thus it concluded that the “mixture [of the two ingredients] does not show a greater toxicity compared to either parent compound alone.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But later, agency officials looked at Dow’s application to the US Patent Office for Enlist Duo, originally filed in 2013, and found something quite different: “claims of ‘synergistic herbicidal weed control.’” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The EPA was not amused. “Specifically, Dow did not submit to EPA during the registration process the extensive information relating to potential synergism it cited to the Patent Office,” the agency complained to the court. “EPA only learned of the existence of that information after the registrations were issued and only recently obtained the information.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In others words, Dow was assuring the EPA that its proposed cocktail was really nothing new—just the combination of two already-approved agrichemicals—while simultaneously telling the patent office that Enlist did indeed bring new and different weed-leveling properties to the farm field. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In short, two different messages for two different audiences—the EPA sees potentially heightened toxicity from synergistic effects, while the investors who pore over patents might see a potential blockbuster in an herbicide mix that’s more than just the sum of its two components.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Dow has now handed that “extensive information” on Enlist Duo’s synergistic effects to the EPA. In a </font><a href="http://www.dowagro.com/en-us/newsroom/pressreleases/2015/11/enlist-duo-statement#.VlyFk9-rT_Q"><font size="4" face="Verdana">press release, </font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">Dow AgroSciences President and CEO Tim Hassinger vowed to resolve the EPA’s issues “in the next few months, in time for the 2016 crop use season.” Given that the EPA relies on company-supplied data to make these decisions, he’s probably right—the EPA’s action last week will amount to a speed bump on the road to Enlist Duo’s conquering of the nation’s vast corn/soybean belt. But considering the confusion so far, now might be the time for the EPA to demand independent testing of this powerful and potentially soon-to-be ubiquitous mix.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Meanwhile, last Wednesday’s action marks the second time in November the EPA has seen fit to revoke registration of a would-be blockbuster Dow pesticide. Just a week before, the agency </font><a href="http://www.agrimarketing.com/s/99953"><font size="4" face="Verdana">nixed</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> its approval of the insecticide sulfoxaflor, months after a federal appeals court </font><a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/sulfoxaflor-opinion.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">found</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> that Dow had delivered the agency “flawed and limited data” about the chemical’s impact on honeybees.</font> <p><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/11/epa-dow-not-so-fast-herbicide-cocktail"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Mother Jones</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> · by Tom Philpott</font></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-57798839935364959282015-12-05T10:14:00.000-08:002015-12-05T10:14:18.198-08:00December 5 2015. Share Buybacks revisited—a symptom of entrenched corporate corruption, and massive under-investment in the real economy.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">WHEN A CORPORATION SPENDS MORE ON SHARE BUYBACKS THAT IT HAS EARNED, MATTERS ARE SERIOUSLY ADRIFT.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuRfO4qZfTGPbCBTurzEjVFUqi8HS7PFhfur8aDgILL2eHjJ3Ptpv5JUffDL9_3IGLlHRkpSwagM0jQe3oXEBBsj-L4VP_3_HMGIZEd68nfy3_v5ieeHJ4M7FKWzst5gWgWconaKxhdRQi/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpX4_ZOclY4OPiShXFskKiMkRKyUFT3hEtYOuDqw5l-KVpPfvnYdbocrYQSpwpNE6Oi78cbFAtKhua6ir4uLzmOg4aB0Uewf_-_Fqqeo8fZSi2ylKbt_YfJIFaW1RsSlyRhVBdO6vY6Md3/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">YET SUCH A BAD PRACTICE HAS BECOME ALL TOO COMMON</font></p> <p align="center"><img alt="Image result for niagara falls" src=""></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">There is a positive Niagara (see picture in case you were wondering) of data demonstrating that the U.S. economy is being singularly ill-served by the current American Business Model—yet the status quo seems near impervious to reform.</font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I guess that should scarcely be a surprise because the ultra-rich have long had the levers of power in their hands—and they like things just the way they are. In fact, they have become downright comfortable with what they have achieved. The offensive they started in the 70s to roll back the gains labor had made under the New Deal, and after after WW II, has been such a resounding success that the very special status of the ultra-rich has become the accepted norm—the American Way, so to speak. It has become institutionalized and hereditary. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is a widely accepted fact that the ultra-rich and their followers are no longer subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions as other Americans. Look no further than the Great Recession to appreciate that even the most blatantly criminal behavior corporate behavior no longer has consequences. Forget drug-dealing. that’s for the little people. Financial criminality and corporate corruption, within the free-fire financial zones of wars, are the way to go.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Of course, for the latter to really take off, you need wars. Not a problem as far as the American Business Model is concerned. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>We do what has to be done to make a profit—regardless of what it is.</em></font></p> <p><em><font face="Bookman Old Style"><font size="4">We have friends in the highest places. We should. We put them there.</font> </font><font size="4"><font face="Bookman Old Style">We know how to create and sustain virtually indefinite wars to create the necessary financial opportunities. We’ve had plenty of practice since WW II—and we made out like gangbusters in Vietman.</font> </font></em></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Yes, the U.S. lost the war—but WE didn’t. Don’t confuse the U.S. with the MICC. </em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>One is a country—rather past its prime. The other, the U.S. Military Industrial Congressional Complex, is a de facto syndicate that ensures that the money flow continues on an unimaginable scale. And, yes, needless to say, it flows to us. What would be the point otherwise!</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Blood flows too—but not our blood. The rest, whether it be American, hostile, or someone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, is just a cost of doing business. And, it’s a cost we don’t bear.</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>We, The (Ultra-Rich) People run things—and we should not be confused with the little people who do what they are told—and who are kept distracted, deluded, disciplined and denied—and otherwise socially controlled.</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>They, the little people, outnumber us massively, but they are ignorant, divided, and dependent on us for their every need—so they do what they are told. They are too scared not to. We keep them confused, insecure, fearful—indeed downright frightened—and we keep them financially struggling and in debt. We feed their prejudices and play on their emotions. We threaten them with financial doom—and with terrorism. We squeeze their pay, deny them job security, increase their copayments, refuse them worker rights or paid vacations, laugh at gender equality and maternity leave, eliminate their defined pensions, deny them accurate information—and make sure they never have a chance to organize against us.</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>It’s not difficult. We control the political and legal systems and the media—and , thanks to computerization and Big Data, we now know everything they do. They can’t organize without our knowing—and then we respond. We own virtually all the resources of power. We have access to the most powerful surveillance systems in the world. We retain the most talented and expensive lawyers. We finance the elections of most of the judges. We make sure that the police, who we have made heavily militarized, know which side their bread is buttered. They have no chance against us.</em> </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Trade unions have been rendered near irrelevant in the private sector—and badly bloodied in the public—and who else can challenge the dominance of the rich and privileged.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">So, who else is going to push for reform?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The obvious answer is the American people by way of the electoral process. That is what the Constitution dictates—and that is what it is there for.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">But, the ultra-rich have learned to game the Constitution—and have made the Republican Party little more than a Right Wing extremist tool.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Meanwhile, all too many Democrats are in thrall to corporate interests as well—particularly financial interests. That is where the money is.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">So, who is representing the typical American?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">No political party—as matters stand.</font></p> <p> <img alt="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/buybacks.png" src="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/buybacks.png" width="550" height="443"></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">SHARE BUYBACKS & DIVIDENDS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET INCOME (blobs above the line indicate an expenditure on share buybacks greater than earnings).</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The purpose of share buybacks is to push up the corporate share price so that corporate CEOs and other senior executives, who are largely paid in shares, can make ever more money.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The money that is used, which comes from earnings and borrowings, should be being used for productive investment which will prepare the corporation concerned for the future (Training; Research & Development; Plant & Equipment). </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Instead, the bones of a trillion dollars a year is going into this kind of dubious financial engineering. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It pushes the stock market up—but leaves the real economy short of investment—and less able to compete internationally.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Productivity suffers (and is suffering). </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">You end up with a hollowed-out economy which, superficially looks successful enough—if you focus on such inadequate metrics as GDP growth and employment—but which skips over underlying weakness like an over-valued stock market, massive under-investment elsewhere, a deteriorating infrastructure, ever climbing debt, gender inequality, inadequate productivity growth, loss of international competitiveness, and most of the working population living in economic insecurity.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">And then we have the catastrophic state of U.S. healthcare—and health—combined with the disturbing fact that Americans, on average, die two years or more sooner than the citizens of other developed nations.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Less an American Dream than a nightmare.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Share buybacks used to be illegal—and should be again.</font></p> <hr> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-73322023208965430372015-12-04T01:10:00.000-08:002015-12-04T01:11:09.941-08:00December 4 2015. Yet another truly electrifying flying-machine<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">AN AIRCRAFT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE EITHER FIXED WING OR A HELICOPTER</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgozling67__Jf8hWkH5c4zgd-C6bJFpMc-Rv3VDPHsfF2nQBUbTBY52wPOpiW7QF6vPg8_s80WZx1JS7WFM-0gpupZx7xLxfcb4Rzy5WcgwCBsC5wJcUVH18Heq2xsXufmTWT5j3pBxHsY/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-Y-2CexpQBcI1FLnN7QIWr6ItzPdrreO1AZefgEgHjGuQuYMA_BBzr9RWRB9jrkdPZYObMZ3XNjSHjVzEJs8q9UkN9pK1s7GwB_P-P0HUQkE9UhsyqntYljxBbCIU_0fAUmOpdIbrgehyphenhyphen/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT CAN BE BOTH</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">CRAZY? MAYBE NOT</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As I comment fairly frequently, much of life is a battle between the status quo and the innovators (with most people just going with the flow). The status quo do just fine out of the world being the way it is—and resist change with some ferocity—whereas the innovators want to change things (and tend to be tiresome, troublesome people who seem to take a positive delight in wrecking comfort zones). Some are even writers.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">When considered this way, it is hard not to sympathize with the status quo. After all, who wants to leave the comfort of a perfectly good cave and go to all that bother to build something out of trees, stones, mud, and things which is probably not nearly as waterproof—let alone likely to be trampled on by some absent-minded dinosaur with no respect for private property? Damned troublemakers!</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">One even suggested burning food using that fire stuff that lightning makes! What’s wrong with raw rabbit anyway. Natural has to be better.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Where flying is concerned—scarcely a natural occupation if you are a human—but fascinating unless you are using an airline—I have long held to certain beliefs.</font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Long runways are a pain. They make flying much more of a hassle than it need be. You should be able to take off and land vertically (or in very short distances).</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Wings are long, bulky things—but really cool and energy efficient. They even work pretty well without engines (though finding a place to land can be tricky).</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Biplanes are astonishingly efficient as long as you don’t want to go very fast. We need to look at them again. You can take of and land in very short distances with them.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Helicopters are marvelous but spend their time trying to shake themselves to pieces. Vibration is a serious problem. They are also incredibly complex, hard to maintain, expensive, and they suffer from speed limitations. There has to be a better way. That said, I love helicopters. There is something particularly cool about just hovering</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Airships are wonderful—but a whole separate subject.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Aircraft engines, as a rule, are far too noisy. I don’t mind a little noise (but too much disturbs my writing).</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Electric motors strike me as being the way to go for low speed flying. They are quiet, are mechanically simpler, and tend to have unusually powerful torque. They also lend themselves to mass production. Add in a better battery or some hybrid option (both wouldn’t hurt)—and what’s not to like.</font></div></li></ul> <p align="left"><font size="4"><font face="Bookman Old Style">Clearly s<font size="4">erial entrepreneur JoeBen Bevirt is telepathic. The following story from the ever inspirational <a href="http://www.gizmag.com"><strong>www.gizmag.com</strong></a> is food for the soul.</font></font></font></p> <p align="left"><img title="Joby conceives the S2 VTOL tilt-rotor aircraft as a kind of commuter aircraft" alt="Joby conceives the S2 VTOL tilt-rotor aircraft as a kind of commuter aircraft" src="http://img-2.gizmag.com/joby-s2-vtol-electric-aircraft-tilting-multirotor-4.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=670&q=60&w=930&s=ccbde4e8d39a7f5b362fdcf64629b66b" width="550" height="312"></p> <p align="center"><img title="In cruise configuration, the Joby S2 VTOL tilt-rotor aircraft's 12 tilting VTOL propellers fold away into aerodynamic bullet shapes" alt="In cruise configuration, the Joby S2 VTOL tilt-rotor aircraft's 12 tilting VTOL propellers fold away into ..." src="http://img.gizmag.com/joby-s2-vtol-electric-aircraft-tilting-multirotor-2.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=670&q=60&w=930&s=b2da1082808ed975888c8e1882bf218d" width="550" height="349"><strong> <font size="5" face="Verdana">Joby's wild 16-rotor convertible aircraft for long-range, high-speed, electric VTOL commuting</font></strong></p> <blockquote> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/author/loz-blain/"><i></i><font size="4" face="Verdana">Loz Blain </font></a> <li><i></i><font size="4" face="Verdana">December 1, 2015</font> </li></ul></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Personal electric VTOL (vertical take off and landing) commuting may not be far off, thanks to accelerating improvements in battery technology. Joby Aviation has put forward an incredible two-seater plane concept that uses 12 tilting electric propellers to provide multirotor-style balanced VTOL capabilities. Once it reaches cruising speeds, these rotors fold away into aerodynamic bullet shapes, and the aircraft can reach speeds of up to 200 mph (322 km/h) and ranges of up to 200 miles using four additional cruise-optimized props on the backs of the wings and tail fins.</font> </p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Serial entrepreneur JoeBen Bevirt made his name selling innovative bendy camera accessories under the </font><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/tag/joby/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> brand. Nifty jiggers, I've got a </font><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/now-a-gorillapod-for-zoom-lens-slrs/6438/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Gorillapod</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> myself. In 2008, he branched out into renewable energy with a focus on airborne wind turbines under the </font><a href="http://www.jobyenergy.com/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby Energy</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> brand.</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The control systems and electric generators required to get the flying wind generators running produced a lot of technology relevant to another rapidly developing field – electric aviation – so </font><a href="http://www.jobyaviation.com/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby Aviation</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="http://www.jobymotors.com/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby Motors</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> were born.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The aviation company's first aircraft concept is an absolute cracker in the form of an electric twin-seat tilt-rotor capable of VTOL as well as high speed, long-range flight.</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Taking advantage of the speed, responsiveness and efficiency of electric motors, the Joby S2 features no less than 16 propellers along its thin, forward-swept wings and V-shaped tail. Because electric motors are so quick and torquey, they're fixed-pitch propellers requiring no </font><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/video-how-to-fly-a-helicopter/16214/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">collective or cyclic control like that used by helicopters</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Twelve of those props are tilting designs that can face upwards to provide balanced, multirotor-styled vertical lift for takeoff and landing, then tilt forward to develop forward thrust and get you moving. They're also designed for low tip speeds to keep takeoff as quiet as possible, and having 12 of them on board gives you plenty of redundancy if a motor or two fails. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This kind of tilting electric multirotor action has recently been proven by </font><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/ten-engine-electric-plane-takes-off/37280/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">NASA's GL-10 "Greased Lightning" prototype</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, but once you reach cruising speed, the Joby S2 has another trick up its sleeve; all 12 tilting props fold away into bullet-shaped pods for minimal drag, and four thinner rotors take over. These are cruise-optimized fixed-pitch propellers located on the backs of the wingtips and tailfins.</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In cruise configuration, the S2 is designed for a 200 mph (322 km/h) top speed, which is much higher than, for example, the 120 mph (193 km/h) a Robinson R22 helicopter can manage, and some 60 mph (97 km/h) quicker than the cruising speed of a Cessna 172, the most common fixed-wing aircraft in production.</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Running on lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide batteries, the range would be around 200 miles (322 km) before you hit the 45-minute reserve mandated by the FAA. Range can be boosted by taking off and landing runway-style instead of VTOL, and since every prop on the plane is connected to an electric motor, there's some possibility of using ambient wind to put some power back into the battery when the aircraft is on the ground.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby believes it can produce the S2 for a price around the US$200,000 mark, and due to its fully electric operation, running costs should be a fraction of what a typical helicopter requires.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">So what you've got is a two-seater with the convenience of a helicopter, the redundancy, stability and reduced noise of a 12-prop multirotor, the efficiency and low maintenance of an electric, and top speed figures closer to what fixed wings can achieve. A remarkable design that's only possible because of the rise and rise of lithium battery technology and high power electric motors.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It's an extraordinary design, by a true innovator with a well documented knack for starting very successful companies, so we wouldn't be surprised if the Joby Aviation team gets this one off the ground, so to speak. We sure hope so.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Check out some computer animation of the concept in the video below. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Source: </font><a href="http://www.jobyaviation.com/S2/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Joby Aviation</font></a></p></blockquote> <hr> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"> </font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-38289133864997791512015-12-03T00:52:00.000-08:002015-12-03T00:52:58.385-08:00December 3 2015. “The uniqueness of Reaction’s brainchild is largely founded on an ability to accommodate both space and air modes of travel in one engine.”<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">SOME TRULY ASTONISHING DEVELOPMENTS ARE TAKING PLACE IN AVIATION RIGHT NOW. </font></p> <p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrfijddiyK3tKVh6FsCgcpT9qHkhbQcmwAFxJrsQIlxPbkmU17gRuD2wCX69BIv6wgejpNlJlxiycillbssrPg05_9Qtfv1vp6ODVUMcUfieZwSVkftpRMdrZisK3tvoUVmSblT1Y26B4p/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><font size="5" face="Impact"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyqZb-FFRab4KlYDs9Wg4K8UUqxaOB8uZCtgFxAf4mVLfvkUzJBBTlDj0LtylJn-BcC96__wE1sTAecplqhz0sAFRo1_Yse-zjFfLzLtTUixCEUrldyltbLgwQRblNCLyj3mi9ADqQMGRj/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE UK’S REACTION ENGINES MAY BE ONE OF THEM. BAE HAVE JUST BOUGHT INTO THEM. THEIR ENGINE SOUNDS TOO FANTASTIC TO BE TRUE—BUT, IF IT WORKS…HYPERSONIC, HERE WE COME!</font></p> <p><img alt="" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03513/orbit_3513454b.jpg" width="500" height="315"></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I retain a great interest in aviation matters for a variety of related reasons:</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Many of the books I read while growing up were aviation based—starting off with Biggles. They were exciting and inspirational—terrific stuff.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m seriously interested in military matters generally—and aviation is of key importance there.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have my own strong views about military aviation—particularly in relation to land warfare—and plan to incorporate them in a novel in the future.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have had quite a few aviation based adventures—with the high point being flown in an Apache AH-64 attack helicopter—both by day and by night. It was a life-changing experience for a whole host of reasons—and I met some very special people through it.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I was involved with a completely fascinating project based upon using a supergun to fire supplies and other material into space—as an alternative to using rockets—in the 90s. It never happened but it still could. The supergun was my first introduction to the concept of hypersonic speed (and SCRAMJETS! We authors get around!</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I love technology—and some of the most exciting developments are happening in aviation technology.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m always on the prowl for a good story.</font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Let me quote from the Daily Telegraph of November 29 2015.</font></p> <blockquote> <h3><font size="5" face="Verdana">British technology company to 'transform' air and space travel with pioneering new engine design</font></h3> <p><font face="Verdana"><font size="4"><strong>Reaction Engines says its invention will allow airliners to fly at five times the speed of sound</strong></font> </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For a small technology company trying to revolutionise low-cost commercial space travel, the sale of a </font><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11967229/Want-to-fly-at-2500mph-BAE-Systems-does-and-is-willing-to-pay-20m-for-it.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">minority stake to aerospace giant BAE Systems</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> could turn out to be the defining moment in its quest. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Its Sabre engines for commercial air travel can go from zero to five times the speed of sound, and up to 25 times the speed of sound for space travel. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Experts believe </font><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/48861/supersonic-flight-comes-a-step-closer.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">hypersonic air travel </font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">could enable people to one day journey anywhere in the world within four hours. At Reaction Engines, based in Oxfordshire, they think this could be a reality within 10 to 15 years. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">However, before last month’s deal, Reaction was a highly respected research business, but with limited funding had been effectively stuck as a start-up since its foundation in 1989. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Now, with the backing of a major strategic partner, the 75-employee company and its team of rocket scientists should be course to expand their orbit. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">With BAE’s backing and an additional government funding commitment of £60m, Reaction will be able to move to the next critical engineering development stage, while remaining an independent company. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Guiding its “unique” Sabre engine concept towards a seminal breakthrough has been an evolutionary experience. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Recently-installed managing director Mark Thomas admits the deal took time. “They [BAE Systems] have put in £21m, which implies the company is valued at £100m,” he says. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“I spent much of the five months I’ve been here working on that process. It was very clear to me that we needed a big industrial aerospace company and one of the key capabilities we were looking for was systems integration. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“It’s a combination of jet engine technologies and rocket technologies, so actually it’s a complex system (requiring everything to function as one unit). When we looked at organisations with that ability, BAE Systems were top of the list.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">With hindsight, his arrival in May was ideally timed. A Cambridge engineering graduate, Thomas has spent a quarter of a century working in the defence and civil aerospace divisions of Rolls-Royce. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">His previous position was as a chief engineer in the industrial giant’s civil aerospace arm, making engines for super-jumbo jets. Prior to that, he held similar posts working on the Typhoon fighter and the Trent 900 jet engine that powers the world’s largest passenger airliner, the Airbus A380. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Mark Thomas, of Reaction Engines, says the company's Sabre rocket engine will enable airliners to fly at five times the speed of sound </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The uniqueness of Reaction’s brainchild is largely founded on an ability to accommodate both space and air modes of travel in one engine. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Thomas describes the company’s Sabre – or Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine – as “the next big thing”. When might it become reality? </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“I think we are at the start of a fantastic ride. It really is the start of something very big.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The intent is to double in size in the next two years. Even with 150 highly qualified people, Reaction will probably need to stretch that figure to complete the programme, something Thomas is content to admit. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I think we are at the start of a fantastic ride. It really is the start of something very big </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Mark Thomas, CEO, Reaction Engines </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font><a href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I%20think%20we%20are%20at%20the%20start%20of%20a%20fantastic%20ride.%20It%20really%20is%20the%20start%20of%20something%20very%20big&url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/12023867/British-technology-company-to-transform-air-and-space-travel-with-pioneering-new-engine-design.html?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_pq_tw_20150423"> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/12023867/British-technology-company-to-transform-air-and-space-travel-with-pioneering-new-engine-design.html?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_pq_fb_20150423"> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></a> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It remains a business without a product, yet it has no immediate funding requirement beyond its faithful private and institutional investors, the Government’s pledge, revenue from two fabrication subsidiaries and its new partner’s stake-holding. There was a key turning point in 2012, when the company demonstrated the enabling technology that is the key to its concept. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Many people – and I would say Rolls-Royce included – did not believe that would be possible,” Thomas reveals. “That triggered the government interest and the work that’s been done since, not just by the company but also with (validation from) the European Space Agency and the US Air Force Research Laboratory. That has given BAE Systems the confidence to join. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“If we can get the Sabre engine demonstrated, then there is no end to the possibilities – and we are not able, here and now, to predict all of those things – but there’s a hell of a lot to look forward to.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Ultimately, Reaction Engines will need to the viability of Sabre’s possible applications, whether for traditional airlines or those trying to conquer space travel such as </font><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11858115/First-look-inside-the-SpaceX-Dragons-luxury-spacecraft.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">SpaceX,</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> the US spacecraft designer headed by business magnate Elon Musk, which Thomas views as a potential customer. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Given the slower than expected uptake of the A380 super-jumbo, what sort of customers will be in the market for </font><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11789239/Hypersonic-spaceplane-could-fly-at-10-times-the-speed-of-sound.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">hypersonic engines that propel planes at five times the speed of sound?</font></a> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“The A380 example is a great one,” Thomas counters. “It was an extremely bold step for Airbus to take. In contemplating an aircraft like an A380 they clearly saw a market opportunity, and it’s not sold as quickly as perhaps predicted. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“But if you look at an airline like Emirates, it is clearly showing how you can build almost an entire airline around a product like the A380. They’ve changed the long-haul concept through that product. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Time is critical. What we’ll see with hypersonic air travel, and it’s clearly a long way out there, is that it gives people that option of travelling anywhere in the world within four hours. That would be a fantastic offering and we believe there is a market for that. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“This is a really versatile propulsion system that we’re developing. It is an air-breathing rocket engine that can go from zero to five times the speed of sound and for the space-access variant, 25 times the speed of sound, and has a huge range of operation. The other advantage of this engine is that it’s highly scaleable.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The ability to up or down-size the concept is undoubtedly a trump card. Reaction has already studied a large “civil high-speed air transport vehicle”. It seats 300 people, on a par with larger versions of Boeing’s twin engine 787 Dreamliner. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“There would be a business case for a vehicle of that nature,” Thomas contends. “It doesn’t preclude you doing something that could be a step towards that. I think really the defining moment is going to be when we test the first engine. We’re planning to do that by the end of this decade.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Thomas estimates that the world is 10-15 years away from commercial space flight. Returning to comparisons with SpaceX and other rocket engineers, he acknowledges Musk’s ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets, but points to a key differentiator. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We don’t see them as competitors because they’re working with the current generation of rocket technologies. They’re doing great things, I have huge admiration for SpaceX. But what we are doing is pitching ourselves as the next generation. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“I actually look at those guys and say they will be our customers one day. They will come to us for an engine or we will work with them to help deliver a vehicle concept. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We don’t see anybody working on anything like Sabre. To do something with a single propulsion system is the dream ticket. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We are in a prime position at the moment and we have to exploit that for us, for UK industry, for the next generation of engineers and scientists.” </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Does the sheer magnitude of the opportunity mean the company is likely to end up being fully acquired by a much larger enterprise in the future? </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We haven’t written the script for how this is going to go,” he says. “But we do know that to develop the entirety of this engine, and certainly a product that it’s going to power is not going to be done by Reaction Engines as an independent company. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“We see us being in some form of bigger industry collaboration and/or another company. But it’s way too early for us to be making predictions on that,” says Thomas. </font></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-2668571106280117952015-12-02T03:18:00.000-08:002015-12-02T03:19:19.715-08:00December 2 2015. We need to subject the injured to much misery in order to save them. It’s the American way.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I HAVE LONG BEEN SCEPTICAL OF THE RAPID EVACUATION OF THE WOUNDED—OFTEN OVER VERY CONSIDERABLE DISTANCES—BY AIR</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">It suits the system—and makes for good public relations—<em>but does it suit the patient?</em></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4F-JUXcxf_QUVKd-82YzG7-tulMu41ZWJyvRnWCsuHWP5H6iRkthLZf1GII2WBbSkDQf1G02g0pWr7i7_Ar3X_9nHSK47LfzVbjZqOAO13cH3wD7yyDBKDFc_WIoc2tZG6jHPeuDetXR-/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHLkb7EQy5xVevjU1ajquVfNgeDWhXRAQ71K-vLvyEZyonKcpeBdVXmHGw7o8yXIVdKjBbzoHue2TK4wQQVikfRpFm-9MXmIsDUTRvizPdvrESRsnTD3exIRBt-QBfRGYkAQn0GbILrMM3/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">WHY SO? BECAUSE FLYING (as most of us know first-hand) EVEN WHEN YOU ARE FIT AND WELL, IS PHYSICALLY STRESSFUL—JUST IN ITSELF.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Read and sweat. How many have been harmed in this macho, thoughtless, way? It is a <em>very large number</em>.</font></p> <blockquote> <h3><font size="5" face="Verdana">Why evacuating wounded troops by air might do more harm than good</font></h3> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">By </font><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/thomas-gibbons-neff"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Thomas Gibbons-Neff</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> November 30 at 12:01 AM </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Over the last 15 years, the United States has flown its wounded troops out of combat zones to hospitals around the globe. The logic: get those hurt in places where medical supplies are limited to places where they are not. The fastest way to do this? By air.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Yet according to a new, first-of-its-kind study conducted by the University of Maryland School of Medicine, rapid air evacuation has the potential to cause more damage to those patients suffering from an extremely prevalent battlefield affliction–traumatic brain injury.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">More than 330,000 U.S. service members have suffered from traumatic brain injuries, one of the leading causes of death and disability for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the study that was published Monday in The Journal of Neurotrama.</font> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">[</font><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/11/18/in-afghanistan-a-series-of-attacks-on-americans-during-non-combat-operations/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">In Afghanistan, a series of attacks on Americans in ‘non-combat’ operations</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">]</font></em> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The study, funded by a $2.5 million U.S. Air Force grant, was helmed by Alan Faden, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.</font></p></blockquote> <hr> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-34063966227244446572015-12-01T01:47:00.002-08:002015-12-01T01:49:30.471-08:00December 1 2015. Intelligence is a fine thing—but it is very far from enough<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">WRITING IS HUGELY ABOUT DEALING WITH FAILURE—BECAUSE YOU RARELY WRITE QUITE AS WELL AS YOU FEEL YOU COULD—<em>IF ONLY YOU COULD PUSH YOURSELF A LITTLE MORE!</em></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBdzYhh0Za6dcsD2Esg7lR0pdPt_SQzkT37xYBatbnIA9rafgXJUKll74vSFzdShf4MFi6D2klOQcALeJy9IgELgFTfmo-8TwS2Yvhls5g5w2hVCaEE3U_lKQeJnoDUwjAH5lAaxRRxhLV/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQqeVOSsPq6yGMMxfI6jfI99ZGg28mY3m3iMdPfiKW3CRODWUFGnrvHynBp48iAMDUwuk9kEi7tO2zRIxOmGh96xHLw_xrtpNrjhucXWYnTyblIRwiWjQbAKVlfYSCPxVPH5fue0FnPWOC/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">ON TOP OF THAT, WRITERS (MOST OF US ANYWAY) HAVE TO DEAL WITH REJECTION—AND A GREAT DEAL OF IT AT THAT.</font></p> <blockquote> <p><strong><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>According to Dweck, success in life is all about how you deal with failure. She describes the approach to failure of people with the growth mindset this way, </em></font></strong> <p><strong><em><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Bookman Old Style">“Failure is information—we label it failure, but it’s more like, ‘This didn’t work, and I’m a problem solver, so I’ll try something else.’”</font> </em></strong></p></blockquote> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As if all of that wasn’t enough, it’s a financially insecure and generally badly paid occupation—and it can take years, if not decades, to become really professional at it. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">So why do we do it? </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because, if you are a writer, it is the most satisfying occupation in the world—and virtually impossible to explain to someone who isn’t a fellow writer (in which case you don’t have to).</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">You need a very particular mindset to make it as an author—and the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius. The following piece describes it well.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Truly successful mass-market writers (a remarkably small group) make a great deal of money, but most writers—even those of us who make a living out of it—live on a relative pittance. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Money is not the point. Like any normal human being, we would like reasonable lives,but money is not the objective. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Writing is. It is sheer, visceral, high-octane joy.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <blockquote> <h3><font size="5" face="Verdana">Why Attitude Is More Important Than Intelligence</font></h3> <p><a href="http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253095"><font size="4" face="Verdana">entrepreneur.com</font></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.entrepreneur.com/author/travis-bradberry"><font size="4" face="Verdana"><img alt="Travis Bradberry" src="https://assets.entrepreneur.com/content/1x1/124/20150428182341-travis-bradberry.jpeg"></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Travis Bradberry</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></a> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Contributor & </font><font size="4" face="Verdana">Co-author of Emotional Intelligence 2.0 and President at TalentSmart</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">When it comes to success, it’s easy to think that people blessed with brains are inevitably going to leave the rest of us in the dust. But new research from Stanford University will change your mind (and your attitude).</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Psychologist Carol Dweck has spent her entire career studying attitude and performance, and her latest study shows that your attitude is a better predictor of your success than your IQ.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Dweck found that people’s core attitudes fall into one of two categories: a fixed mindset or a growth mindset.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">With a fixed mindset, you believe you are who you are and you cannot change. This creates problems when you’re challenged because anything that appears to be more than you can handle is bound to make you feel hopeless and overwhelmed.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">People with a growth mindset believe that they can improve with effort. They outperform those with a fixed mindset, even when they have a lower IQ, because they embrace challenges, treating them as opportunities to learn something new. </font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana"><img alt="" src="https://assets.entrepreneur.com/static/20151120032107-1.jpg" width="550" height="508"></font></strong> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Common sense would suggest that having ability, like being smart, inspires confidence. It does, but only while the going is easy. The deciding factor in life is how you handle setbacks and challenges. People with a growth mindset welcome setbacks with open arms. </font> <p><font color="#920000"><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">According to Dweck, success in life is all about how you deal with failure. She describes the approach to failure of people with the growth mindset this way,</font> </strong></font> <p><font color="#920000"><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">“Failure is information—we label it failure, but it’s more like, ‘This didn’t work, and I’m a problem solver, so I’ll try something else.’”</font> </strong></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Regardless of which side of the chart you fall on, you can make changes and develop a growth mindset. What follows are some strategies that will fine-tune your mindset and help you make certain it’s as growth oriented as possible.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Don’t stay helpless.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">We all hit moments when we feel helpless. The test is how we react to that feeling. We can either learn from it and move forward or let it drag us down. There are countless successful people who would have never made it if they had succumbed to feelings of helplessness: Walt Disney was fired from the <em>Kansas City Star</em> because he “lacked imagination and had no good ideas,” Oprah Winfrey was fired from her job as a TV anchor in Baltimore for being “too emotionally invested in her stories,” Henry Ford had two failed car companies prior to succeeding with Ford, and Steven Spielberg was rejected by USC’s Cinematic Arts School multiple times. Imagine what would have happened if any of these people had a fixed mindset. They would have succumbed to the rejection and given up hope. People with a growth mindset don’t feel helpless because they know that in order to be successful, you need to be willing to fail hard and then bounce right back.</font> <p> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Be passionate.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Empowered people pursue their passions relentlessly. There’s always going to be someone who’s more naturally talented than you are, but what you lack in talent, you can make up for in passion. Empowered people’s passion is what drives their unrelenting pursuit of excellence. Warren Buffet recommends finding your truest passions using, what he calls, the 5/25 technique: Write down the 25 things that you care about the most. Then, cross out the bottom 20. The remaining 5 are your true passions. Everything else is merely a distraction.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Take action.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It’s not that people with a growth mindset are able to overcome their fears because they are braver than the rest of us; it’s just that they know fear and anxiety are paralyzing emotions and that the best way to overcome this paralysis is to take action. People with a growth mindset are empowered, and empowered people know that there’s no such thing as a truly perfect moment to move forward. So why wait for one? Taking action turns all your worry and concern about failure into positive, focused energy.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Then go the extra mile (or two).</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Empowered people give it their all, even on their worst days. They’re always pushing themselves to go the extra mile. One of Bruce Lee’s pupils ran three miles every day with him. One day, they were about to hit the three-mile mark when Bruce said, “Let’s do two more.” His pupil was tired and said, “I’ll die if I run two more.” Bruce’s response? “Then do it.” His pupil became so angry that he finished the full five miles. Exhausted and furious, he confronted Bruce about his comment, and Bruce explained it this way: “Quit and you might as well be dead. If you always put limits on what you can do, physical or anything else, it’ll spread over into the rest of your life. It’ll spread into your work, into your morality, into your entire being. There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there; you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If you aren’t getting a little bit better each day, then you’re most likely getting a little worse—and what kind of life is that?</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Expect results.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">People with a growth mindset know that they’re going to fail from time to time, but they never let that keep them from expecting results. Expecting results keeps you motivated and feeds the cycle of empowerment. After all, if you don’t think you’re going to succeed, then why bother?</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Be flexible.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Everyone encounters unanticipated adversity. People with an empowered, growth-oriented mindset embrace adversity as a means for improvement, as opposed to something that holds them back. When an unexpected situation challenges an empowered person, they flex until they get results.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Don’t complain when things don’t go your way.</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Complaining is an obvious sign of a fixed mindset. A growth mindset looks for opportunity in everything, so there’s no room for complaints.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Bringing it all together</font></strong></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">By keeping track of how you respond to the little things, you can work every day to keep yourself on the right side of the chart above.</font> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></em></p></blockquote> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-8722408826447460132015-12-01T01:47:00.001-08:002015-12-01T01:55:44.631-08:00December 2 2015. Mirror, mirror, on the wall—where do the richest take it all? The U.S,, it would appear.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE MOST INTERESTING CHART BELOW IS THE BOTTOM ONE WHICH SHOWS MEDIAN WEALTH PER ADULT. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieCWOH5oE9p4XWKdbOio9pGoaMT9A6wIvbTiGVnY4REz-jmKwrl23wXIZubWGRBvMMjlrnx7x057cc4dOBVN0RtXPGt99aALPiaRZ0RWZADdXQP6d6N1-F2fx77hOCFuHG_MhtgBRRlO4f/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2a84Kl0WkID6XxYivHmo93VhRKcse31orN7iFv28Qzd-F0DFcvDXFeCAQi0ElHqr7pMXQ_GaRMOlr8zhNVKPJMcFQbogs8dvm99I___x-JdVHfi1HZ5T69xkCVuATlvvX5iLjqqMLemqS/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT DEMONSTRATES <font color="#920000">THE ABSOLUTE FAILURE</font> OF THE <em>‘WINNER-TAKES-ALL’</em> AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">USA $49,787</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">NETHERLANDS $74,659</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">CANADA $74,750</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">FRANCE $86,156</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">JAPAN $96,071</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">NORWAY $119,634</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">UK $126,472</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">BELGIUM $150,348</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m not arguing in favor of income equality or against capitalism. I am arguing, pragmatically rather than ideologically, in favor of what works for most people financially, seems like a reasonable and fair balance of interests, and promotes—as a minimum—an adequate quality of life for all concerned (with a little progress thrown in for good measure).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The American Business Model (Crony Capitalism) doesn’t do that. The Northern European Business Model (Social Capitalism) largely does.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The more data I collect, the clearer the picture becomes. The plight of the typical American is becoming increasingly serious. Roughly two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck—with no reserves available in case of some setback. Costs are going up—pay is static or in decline. Personal debt and economic risk are ever increasing. The prospect of poverty hovers. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Americans, on average, live sicker, and die about two years sooner. The life-span of poorer Americans is actually diminishing.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Such growth as there is goes to the ultra-rich. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">But does anything change in the U.S?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Remarkably little where the ABM is concerned. And the Republican promotes more tax breaks for the rich.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Let me introduce some data from Paul Krugman.</font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Many wealthy white conservative males believe that hard work is the reason for their great fortunes. But for every ONE DOLLAR in safety net programs, SIX DOLLARS goes to tax expenditures, tax underpayments, tax havens, and corporate nonpayment. For many privileged Americans, denial is easier than facing the fact that the hardest workers are those who have to fight their way up from the bottom.</font></p></blockquote> <p><font size="4">The American Tragedy continues.</font></p> <p><img alt="December infographic" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjzmdvZUrczWVXpZbDuRNjV_rQYiVd9h8Pknfbe_qwSIYVWWzW4Gm2ntYafSA8EqOQXlaWQ2pUcfZchllEXCfwrPZXUeQFAt-LoYAWQzFiL7_WgvURCcbWdlt2tr_ZvoLX1IuxGNbuiMmzOHkjUKZkIHek5UuMIyAu9CkH24cjj1uw6Ez5k=s0-d-e1-ft" width="550" height="1232"></p> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-52563337597082489002015-11-30T05:53:00.000-08:002015-11-30T05:53:38.517-08:00November 30 2015. What do you think—or do you? Instinct or education?Words or pictures? Rationality or emotion? Where are we heading in a world of informational overload, emotional visual short-cuts, and an inability to focus?<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">WORDS ARE MY BUSINESS SO I REGARD THIS INFOGRAM WITH SOME HORROR (though it is fascinating)</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">My god—we’re back to drawings on cave walls!</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWk7Ihm7TylvaXTacJ6DD7AYT66zlUsdE6bW6hu-URWDhn-LbDAVuaqLjvuL3ojrCu7e-viXrTt31-Ot6qFUImffg83KMT0Mkxc4_PFXjnmpe6dPE7ZOwArV5zuKbyyX-kBptuKuQZo8_s/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVedxPyHf3U-qfWOk2-b6GkgvMjiTPSb9rXULmcbdlXXS2LerSHoTUlHhKHcj_vPCcUKaTImAJytzH6Bz0BUU4H0HRY3iJd1Lxc66H1afBcaWH15aoB1LWEaxulTYmGstJZlTZlQ07fwd8/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I WORRY GREATLY ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO REASON RATIONALLY. WE THINK WE KNOW HOW TO THINK, BUT DO WE? I AM FAR FROM CONVINCED.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I will admit that I am strongly biased in favor of the following.</font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Verbal communication—particularly when the discussion is fact-based, reasoned, two-way, and leads to some kind of conclusion with the parties concerned being wiser,</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Written communication because it allows for focus, detail, context, complexity, nuance, reflection, full use of the imagination, consideration over time, depth, perspective, and can constitute, if required, a permanent record. While giving full credit to the power and efficacy of shorter pieces, I believe writing is at its very best in the form of a book. </font></div></li></ul> <p align="left"><em><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">But—being a book-writer—I would say that, wouldn’t I?</font></em></p> <p align="left"><em><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Very true—but, not only am I admitting my biases up front, but, let me be clear, I was a reader before I became a writer so my sentiments are genuine. I regard books as absolutely extraordinary, and like the creativity which drives the writer, a force of truly remarkable power—though, sadly, much under-utilized. </font></em></p> <p align="left"><em><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have a strong suspicion that the answers to most of the issues that plague the human condition are already out there in written form.</font></em></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I admire and enjoy the visual also, but find it more emotional (unless balanced by text)—so less suitable for explaining or developing the logic of the argument (whatever that my be). As a consequence I see the current trend to skim rather than read the written word, but rely much more on graphics, as disturbing.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">What worries me about this trend towards the visual, against a backdrop of the internet and social media, is that we may be diminishing our ability to think rationally and in the necessary depth that the complexities of this world require.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I regard images as marvelous and fascinating—but, all too frequently, inadequate. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The issues involved are so serious that I would love to be proven wrong.</font></p> <p><img alt="http://i.imgur.com/468Awwl.jpg" src="http://i.imgur.com/468Awwl.jpg" width="550" height="6313"></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-63526997500150425302015-11-29T01:39:00.000-08:002015-11-29T01:40:02.448-08:00November 29 2015. “"Some of our questions are missing—so is our knowledge of history and philosophy.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">AS I KEEP ON SAYING, THE ANSWERS ARE OUT THERE –IF YOU CARE TO LOOK (and if you know where, how, and why to look)</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJh0vZ3mskwva_gm-_Lx45BnaPeZEcyFjf6LalXO7WGIttIv6I5chcSN90ljdsdm9XVWKziuMQvn6OkfOl9Y-GavZikwmxgxkh2F12c6JpPgRehCSKakPtnMH5IAfNXnk7ecysL0TZZib2/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqDj5AKAAw0dzWMWa41SoFt4uTStZ7cFO6FXFM2fK6FuWpucZTBruALScoMyDX_ocvvyI5vh4iwSvHV8BUob7EPCfA_Y6NnQzvyphXPLPHn6WW2vFyk6LeweGMjw_fKeMXXmgAnjK8jtYz/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">BUT TO LOOK, YOU HAVE TO BE INTELLECTUALLY CURIOUS.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">There is a shortfall of this quality in the U.S. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A great deal of life makes no sense at all—unless you know the context—and a great deal of context is in history.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In turn, history is surprisingly hard to understand unless you have some knowledge of, and training in, philosophy. The latter discipline is what underpins how a rational person should think to best advantage. Of course, it is much more than that, but merely to know how to think in a disciplined, focused, open-minded, creative way is hugely beneficial.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Are most of us capable of such clarity of mind? </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Is the commonsense of the largely uninformed population adequate for the operation of an effective democracy?<font color="#000000"> Many would argue that it is—because such is the make-up of a typical society, and human nature is immutable.</font></font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I take a different view—certainly in the U.S. context. Here are my reasons (and, as always, I am certainly open to counter-argument).</font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Propaganda, largely because it is virtually unconstrained in the U.S. (unlike most other developed nations) has reached a level of sophistication whereby it is distorting the process of democracy severely. ‘Freedom of speech’—a praiseworthy principle, that is inherent to the constitution, is being interpreted in absolute terms—especially where the ultra-rich, corporate power, and money is concerned. </font></div></li> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Wealthy and income inequality are now such that one dollar one vote has now, in practice, become the norm</font></div></li> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The U.S. media, owned by the ultra-rich, have done an unusually poor job of informing American about developments in other countries(let alone their histories).</font></div></li> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The myth of American exceptionalism combined with a long tradition of isolationism, and a notoriously poor education system, have combined to produce an excessively ill-informed electorate.</font></div></li></ul> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">What should be done about all this (assuming my premise is accepted, either in whole or in part)?</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The answers would take too long to incorporate in this blog, but let me draw attention to two.</font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">An awareness of the problem.</font></div></li> <li> <div align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The need to update, quite substantially, the U.S. constitution.</font></div></li></ul> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Incidentally, I’m not a great fan of Kissinger—through, undoubtedly, he is a remarkable man—but I do think he is entirely right about history. I further believe that Neil Ferguson’s comments sum up the U.S. situation with commendable accuracy.</font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Read them and shudder—particularly as this dreadful situation continues. </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Verdana">“In researching the life and times of Henry Kissinger, I have come to realize that my approach was unsubtle. In particular, I had missed the crucial importance in American foreign policy of the <em>history deficit</em>: The fact that key decision-makers know almost nothing not just of other countries’ pasts but also of their own. Worse, they often do not see what is wrong with their ignorance.”</font></p></blockquote> <p align="left"><font color="#000000" size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p align="left"><img style="float: none; margin-left: auto; display: block; margin-right: auto" src="http://images.booksense.com/images/535/206/9781594206535.jpg"></p> <blockquote> <p align="left"><font size="5" face="Verdana"><strong>The Key to Henry Kissinger’s Success: Applied History</strong></font></p></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/kissinger-ferguson-applied-history/417846/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Atlantic</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> · by Graham Allison</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In his </font><a href="http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206535"><font size="4" face="Verdana">new biography</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> of Henry Kissinger, the historian Niall Ferguson recalls that halfway through what became an eight-year research project, he had an epiphany. Tracing the story of how a young man from Nazi Germany became America’s greatest living statesman, he discovered not only the essence of Kissinger’s statecraft, but the missing gene in modern American diplomacy: an understanding of history.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For Ferguson, it was a humbling revelation. As he confesses in the introduction to <em>Kissinger</em>: “In researching the life and times of Henry Kissinger, I have come to realize that my approach was unsubtle. In particular, I had missed the crucial importance in American foreign policy of the <em>history deficit</em>: The fact that key decision-makers know almost nothing not just of other countries’ pasts but also of their own. Worse, they often do not see what is wrong with their ignorance.”</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Ferguson’s observation reminded me of an occasion three years ago when, after an absence of four decades, Kissinger returned to Harvard. Asked by a student what someone hoping for a career like his should study, Kissinger answered: “history and philosophy”—two subjects notable for their absence in most American schools of public policy.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">How did Kissinger prepare for his first major job in the U.S. government as national security advisor to President Richard Nixon? In his words, “When I entered office, I brought with me a philosophy formed by two decades of the study of history.” Ferguson uncovered a fascinating fragment from one of Kissinger’s contemporaries when they were both first-year graduate students at Harvard. John Stoessinger recalled Kissinger arguing “forcefully for the abiding importance of history.” In these conversations, Stoessinger said, Kissinger would cite the assertion by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides that “The present, while never repeating the past exactly, must inevitably resemble it. Hence, so must the future.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“More than ever,” Kissinger urged, “one should study history in order to see why nations and men succeeded and why they failed.”</font></p></blockquote> <p align="center"><font size="4"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-29185164448299142612015-11-28T05:04:00.000-08:002015-11-28T05:04:55.936-08:00November 28 2015. Terrorism, blood, Paris, and Hemingway<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">SOMETIMES BAD THINGS BRING GOOD DEVELOPMENTS</font></p> <p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq4JED84igwBKVC7mPjHFSWBpQHPMXmVd2ZuVNiuWmt1utz5hPDnP3bc06OAZPiAli3UJy3JurRxMhyyQgbgSA5y8i1YMIxBbQ_bYDn-aQUB1FyO0l37ZJbxzw6Ut6LufR0IoyVZfXeRFy/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><font size="5" face="Impact"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg27xS0xTTkwrzFPfy9uZAWPWR6ewVZb16VLk-NfleJxh6vY3R0HpnXajZ6d3dcHTx-Z1PcfZWs00uhBgl0Pgg-WfysAOoIiBTwca36DRbFFH6zsa7T_q3SQkzzuL7hELHub_1kBwIoPeBn/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">ONE OF MY FAVORITE BOOKS IS BECOMING POPULAR AGAIN.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Hemingway is very far from my favorite writer—but I truly love <em><strong>A MOVEABLE FEAST</strong></em>. Certain books are life-inspiring—and this was just such a one. It projected the kind of life I wanted to have—and have had. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">More than a few have commented that the book is more fiction than memoir. I don’t know enough to judge. Instead I take the view that if it is not the way it was, it is the way it should have been</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I craved adventures and interesting times ahead of happiness—and I have been blessed with all of them (the third included). This isn’t to say that I haven’t experienced setbacks and difficulties—I have had those in profusion, and still have. But, the joy I get from writing is just plain awesome. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">And here is the thing. If you have joy in your life, it spills over into other areas. It makes setbacks less important, the good great, and one’s failures a warm-up for success (which they are).</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It makes adventures—by definition journeys of risk into the unknown—addictive. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As a consequence of some strange mix of upbringing, environment and circumstances—all unpromising in the extreme, on the face of it—I have stumbled into a way of life I absolutely adore.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">My mother, with whom I had a contentious relationship from an early age, used to call me “Hemingway,” and not as a compliment. It was a taunt. In her eyes, she was the creative ultimate—she was both a writer and painter—and she hated competition. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Her dying words to me were: “You were never very good, were you?” </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have no idea what demons haunted her, but I doubt those were the kindest words said by a mother to her eldest son. I felt nothing but relief when she died.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Strangely enough, her sustained cruelty towards me when I was a child—which involved physical and psychological abuse—has contributed enormously to my writing success. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It made me accept nothing on face value, think unconventionally, and steer me towards the extraordinary world that lies in books. That world made me convinced I could do the impossible in real life—and, much battered by reality, I still do. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Of course—especially since words are my business—I know perfectly well I can’t literally do <em>the impossible</em>—but I have learned that even if my grasp exceeds my reach, if I persevere and learn from failed effort after failed effort, I can accomplish much more than any reasonable person would think.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I never though old age would make me optimistic, but, to my immense surprise, that’s exactly how I feel. Indeed, while writing, a better word would be ’happy.’</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The following story is from that commendable publication, <a title="http://www.theatlantic.com/" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/"><strong>http://www.theatlantic.com/</strong></a></font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">. </font></p> <h3 align="center"><font size="5" face="Verdana">How Hemingway's <i>A Moveable Feast</i> Has Become a Bestseller in France</font></h3> <p align="center"><font size="4" face="Verdana"><strong>Following the deadly attacks in Paris, the author’s memoir about life in the city has sold out of bookstores.</strong></font> <p><img src="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2015/11/AP_3901010466/lead_large.jpg?1448306121" width="500" height="336"></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">AP</font> <p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/author/adam-chandler/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Adam Chandler</font></a></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Nov 23, 2015</font></p> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">There is never any ending to Paris and the memory of each person who has lived in it differs from that of any other. We always returned to it no matter who we were or how it was changed or with what difficulties, or ease, it could be reached. Paris was always worth it and you received return for whatever you brought to it.</font></em></p> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"> —Ernest Hemingway, <em>A Moveable Feast</em></font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The horrific attacks in Paris earlier this month, which </font><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/paris-attacks/415953/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">killed 130 people</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/paris-attacks-muslims-america-trump/417069/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">stirred transcontinental riptides</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, has also set off a renaissance for Ernest Hemingway’s book, <em>A Moveable Feast</em>.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Paris memoir, published posthumously in 1964, holds the top spot on Amazon’s French site, has </font><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/europe/paris-hemingway-moveable-feast/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">sold out of stock</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> at a number of bookstores and, as <em>Le Figaro</em> reports, has become </font><a href="http://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2015/11/18/03005-20151118ARTFIG00216-attentats-resister-avec-paris-est-une-fete-d-hemingway.php"><font size="4" face="Verdana">a fixture among the flowers</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> in memorials across the city.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">According to Folio, the French publisher, orders for the book have risen to 500 per day from just 10 to 15 orders before the attacks. “We also received many orders from groups such as Fnac and Amazon, amounting to 8,500 copies,” one Folio executive </font><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/hemingway-paris-memoir-no-1-france-following-terror-attacks-a-moveable-feast"><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">told <em>The Guardian</em></font></font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. “Usually, we sell between 6,000 and 8,000 copies a year.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">“I found it fascinating that Parisians were snapping up the book,” said professor Sandra Spanier, the general editor of the Hemingway Letters Project at Penn State University. She added that the book is enduring evidence of the hold that Paris has on people’s imaginations. “It’s such a place of possibility.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">That’s seemingly always been true. But why a 51-year-old book, written about the Paris of nearly a century ago, appears to resonate among Parisians in the wake of its worst loss of life since World War II is another question.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In his glowing review of <em>A Moveable Feast</em> in <em>The Atlantic</em> in 1964, Alfred Kazin </font><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/64jun/6406kazin.htm"><font size="4" face="Verdana">alludes to Hemingway’s depictions </font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">of the glories of the city writ large, but also anoints its place as muse for a striving 22-year-old ex-pat finding his way into writing.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But this is Paris in the early twenties, the best place in the world to live and work, for the French have a way of life into which all needs easily fit, as they have cafés where a young fellow can sit for hours over a <i>café crème</i> and write “Up In Michigan.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Kazin concludes that Paris, as a setting for Hemingway, is one that he “never handled more suavely and lyrically than he did in this book.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It’s the life of the café culture and Paris as locus for the exchange of ideas that are particularly worth celebrating as the city rebounds from attacks on its restaurants and nightlife. This is what Hemingway observes in <em>A Moveable Feast</em>; it’s not war or bullfighting in Spain or hunting in Africa or swordfishing or boxing, but glamor of the quotidian in the City of Light.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Spanier describes a section in the book where Hemingway walks down the steps near the Île de la Cité to watch fisherman cast their lines into the Seine. Beside all the art and history, beneath the Pont Neuf and a statue of Henri Quatre, is everyday life with expertly caught fish. “They were plump and sweet-fleshed with a finer flavor than fresh sardines even, and were not at all oily, and we ate them bones and all.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">With the tide of tributes from afar this month, Parisians have seen the love of their city reflected again through the eyes of outsiders. “Maybe they appreciate the fact that Paris is appreciated by non-Parisians,” Spanier concludes. “Hemingway certainly expressed that in a way that has transcended time.”</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The late Christopher Hitchens </font><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/hemingways-libidinous-feast/307425/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">probably would have agreed</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. Writing in <em>The Atlantic</em> back in 2009, Hitchens described the book as both “an ur-text of the American enthrallment with Paris” and “a skeleton key to the American literary fascination with Paris.” Hitchens also praised the book for bestowing advice on writing for young practitioners just starting out. (In a 2013 interview with <em>The Atlanti</em>c, Daniel Woodrell </font><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/09/two-tacos-for-i-a-moveable-feast-i-a-writers-life-changing-barter-in-tijuana/279273/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">vigorously agreed</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.)</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But, given what’s happened in Paris this year, Hitchens’s central point about the endurance of <em>A Moveable Feast</em> is now accompanied by a gut-punch—what Hemingway was celebrating of the city and of himself at a young age are triumphs lost to time. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Most of all, though, I believe that <i>A Moveable Feast</i> serves the purpose of a double nostalgia: our own as we contemplate a Left Bank that has since become a banal tourist enclave in a Paris where the tough and plebeian districts are gone, to be replaced by seething Muslim <i>banlieue</i>s all around the periphery; and Hemingway’s at the end of his distraught days, as he saw again the “City of Light” with his remaining life still ahead of him rather than so far behind.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Parisians </font><a href="http://qz.com/552106/with-sarcastic-hashtags-parisians-are-defiantly-asserting-their-joie-de-vivre/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">would likely scoff</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> at that assessment. After all, part of what attaches Hemingway to this moment is the symbolic and defiant heft of the French-language title of <em>A Moveable Feast</em>—<em>Paris Est Une Fête</em>. Translated back into English, <em>A Moveable Feast</em> becomes <em>Paris Is a Celebration</em>. In the days following the attacks, the French title of the book became </font><a href="http://twitter.com/search?q=%23Parisestunefete&src=tyah"><font size="4" face="Verdana">a trending hashtag</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> on Twitter.</font></p></blockquote> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-75367292419975550532015-11-27T11:57:00.000-08:002015-11-27T11:57:30.372-08:00November 27 2015. Robotics—both a nightmare scenario and an unprecedented opportunity.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">JOHN ROBB IS AN INTERESTING MAN.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjsKtoz1zrPEHKBYhCsoqz8fhFZrD5GI2gwkDUPwQirgTP8dckGFwt03A4Vi9cqu_BuGJynMvlAqmdXwgfJ6HdZhBWOqnnYuyGiezVb8yOxwUFmB8Nd-WP9jxv31CbqXadUI0wkFzP51Rx/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig2Ac_HCtWbAVR-13SrX8SmOIQZYkQNYmKkjDv9ICLrBNhSdulIeVUzftwwB4cWE5i6nItSK7edW44sOPM1Bmqkgjeluv9fVRv410b7IdM__L2QSGEg037pCWLoik5FzpmAvVIR0htxSAq/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THIS IS WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ROBOTICS.</font> </p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Read, think, and act!</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Check him out at <a title="http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com" href="http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com">http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com</a></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have read many reports about the likely impact of automation—and have been interested in this area since I researched Artificial Intelligence (AI) for my first book back in 1986. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">AI was all the rage in the media for a while, and then it stopped being written about much. One article I read said it had been massively over-hyped, and was falling short of expectations.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">While that was partially true (where some aspects were concerned), the reality was the AI had progressed into being used so extensively that it wasn’t really newsworthy any more. Nonetheless, quietly, it was becoming more and more sophisticated to the point where it is now clear that automation, based upon AI, is likely to replace a truly significant number of jobs.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This is something that many corporations—who make use of automation—prefer not to talk about. Under the current American Business Model, people have become disposable commodities. There is no social concern. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">What percentage? Most of the figures I have read estimate 40-50 percent.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>That is mind-boggling! But, it is going to happen. It has already started to happen.</em></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">You might think that we should be preparing for this by coming up with appropriate policies. In practice, we seem to be doing nothing of the sort. Instead, the savings being obtained from automation are largely flowing to the ultra-rich—and the earnings of the rest of us are being squeezed to the point where social unrest—including violence—seems inevitable.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">When people are desperate, they do desperate things—because they have little choice in the matter. And violence breeds violence. Terrorism is rarely mindless. It might be wrong, in itself, but it exists for a reason (and frequently a valid one)..</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In fact, there are all kinds of policies we could come up with to cope with such dramatic changes in our lives—including a minimum income for everybody, shorter working weeks, longer vacation times—and so on. But we certainly won’t cope if the ultra-rich are allowed to gain all the marbles.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The positive side of all this is that automation in its various forms should lead to us being able to do all sorts of things we couldn’t do previously—and to our solving a whole series of intractable problems. For instance, it should allow the costs of government to be cut dramatically, manufacturing costs to be lowered substantially, healthcare to be improved beyond recognition—and so on. But, the benefits won’t accrue to the average person unless we have the right policies in place.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As matters stand, we haven’t even determined what they should be. We are still working as if the concept of being an employee working roughly 40 hours a week was set in stone.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It isn’t—and we are behaving like a bunch of ostriches—heads buried in the sand.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">One could well take the view that humans are so inadequate it is just as well that robots seem destined to take over! And one good thing about robots is that they are not innately greedy. Humans—certainly those who hold the reins of power—certainly are. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Robotic rule could be an improvement! </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Here is John Robb’s piece.</font></p> <blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Wednesday, 25 November 2015</font></h4> <h5><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Revolution in Robotics</font></h5> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">There are two parts to the revolution in robotics we are seeing. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The first revolution in robotics is based on tech trends already underway. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The inflection point for this revolution occurred in 2001, when the standard computer chip exceeded the intelligence of an insect. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">With chips like this, robots quickly became inexpensive, accessible, and powerful. For example, an autopilot system that cost ten thousands of dollars a decade ago is now available for $30 and can run on a small amount of power.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Here's an example of what is possible with this revolution:</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">While this revolution is fairly dramatic, don't expect too much. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The capabilities of these robots won't advance any faster than the ability of human beings to write code, design and build hardware, and build successful businesses to support than activity. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This reliance on human design and development also means that progress in navigating, interacting with, and making sense of complex, dynamic environments will be slow and hardwon. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The second revolution in robotics is different. It will be much more dramatic in its impact. It is based on exponential improvements in machine learning.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">These advances make it possible for machines to learn behaviors that make it possible for robots accomplish tasks that only humans can do today -- like driving cars safely in urban traffic to providing physical assistance and medical support to homebound elderly. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Further, these cognitive machines will learn in days what it takes human developers months to accomplish (if they can do it all). </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In contrast to the previous revolution, this one will be amazing and traumatic at the same time. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For example, this revolution in synthetic cognition has the potential to remake the modern economy as completely as industrial machinery and computation changed the agrarian economy of the 1700's. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I've spent the last year thinking about how this machine learning revolution will change the way we fight wars and provide security. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Happy Thanksgiving!</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">John Robb</font></p></blockquote> <hr> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font></p></blockquote> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-9967466531948799692015-11-26T03:21:00.000-08:002015-11-26T03:34:06.899-08:00November 26 2015. Financialization is so pervasive that we think it is inevitable. It isn’t. We desperately need a better balance and there are ways of achieving it.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">FINANCIALIZATION REPRESENTS A SERIOUS DISTORTION OF THE CURRENT AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL (AND OF SOME OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEMS) YET IS RECEIVING NO SERIOUS ATTENTION</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR5n4EmMKxx1TdZrgrTrRRfyY01F23K8x1HChbR_uBXQM0o8mkNJh8jpmQ8bhjo25YbzXS4WaYLrK46mPF91mMYcfos6F4BPVSE_YNiIXAbw0aA1f3dpS6QkPYYZPuFJK0VlvwTaLXbaIk/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXMYlmh0OYqtwuLXvpsnn8N3Vip2b54AkPC5bzMarDH0Rb5WKat99rhaIhZSuNGtEU5itOhPGiyd6RmtVBndPJ4mmyS7j1MsA2eqVCvqaFsnNgeUggpYsfNzp_Bu9hBykPbBzmNamrIzLE/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE ARTICLE BY CLIVE CROOK THAT FOLLOWS MY INTRODUCTION IS THE BEST DISTILLATION THAT I HAVE YET ENCOUNTERED ABOUT FINANCIALIZATION</font></p> <p><img style="float: right; display: inline" alt="" src="" align="right"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Financialization has so many seriously negative consequences that it would take a book to list them. Fortunately, there is one which addresses the topic in detail. It is John Kay’s <strong>OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.</strong> As you will read, the man has impeccable credentials, and the book comes highly recommended. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is my belief that if we don’t address financialization, our economic prospects are going to be grim indeed. Financialization is a cancer of the economic system.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Every country clearly needs a financial sector—but its purpose should be to serve the economy—not rob it blind.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A whole series of papers, backed up by extensive research, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that an excessively large financial sector hinders growth, and actively damages economic wellbeing.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In truth, you don’t need formal research to tell you that. Just look around the world, and contemplate the damage financialization is inflicting. Let me list some examples—starting with the <em>piece de resistance</em>. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I would also point out that there is a direct relationship between financialization and the increase in corporate power (at the expense of democracy). Firstly, the major financial institutions are, themselves, corporations. Secondly, they find it both easier and more profitable to lend to, or otherwise do business with, large corporations—so they actively promote mergers and acquisitions which lead, inevitably to less competition and de facto monopolies.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Regrets for using the word ‘egregious’ so much, but that word seem to fit better than most. The situation is way beyond outrageous. The consequences exceed the harm caused by mere criminality.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Financialization has been responsible, in whole, or in substantial part, for the following—and substantial evidence is available to back up that statement. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is not an opinion.</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The Great Recession. With hindsight, this may well prove to be even more catastrophic than the The 1929 Great Depression. Appreciate that it was global in its impact—and that most countries and people have not yet recovered from it even though it has been officially over since 2009. The U.S. is no exception. Employment has nominally recovered but real earning for many are actually in decline. Growth is abysmal. The chances of a further recession are high. Insanely, the financial institutions which caused the recession have been bailed out by the system though direct government aid and the Federal Reserve. The banks who were too big to fail have become substantially larger. It is hard to describe a more disastrous or unjust scenario. It reflects a political system that has been hijacked by the ultra-rich.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Income and Wealth Inequality on an unprecedented scale.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious corporate power. Simply put, major corporations now own government. Most politicians are financed by corporate money—and ‘owned’ as a consequence. Harsh words? The data say no more than a statement of fact.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious corporate tax avoidance. In the U.S. corporate tax used to fund roughly a third of government expenditure. Thanks to tax breaks and tax avoidance strategies, that figure has declined by two thirds. Who is picking up the slack? The typical working American.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious corporate corruption of political systems. The distortion of the U.S. political system is a perfect example of this. Gridlock apart, research shows that only those who give money to politicians are listened to by those same politicians. The typical voter is no longer heard. The U.S. is no longer a representative democracy. It has become a plutocracy—run for, and by, the ultra-rich for their own advantage.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious financial engineering. Financial engineering means manipulating the base data to yield a result which looks better than it really is. Where public companies are concerned, it has become commonplace.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious financial charges across the board from banks to hedge funds. Anyone who handles money in any way is a victim of this. The sums involved are huge. In essence, the financial sector is pillaging the rest of the economy—with prodigious success.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious share buybacks. Insider trader is illegal because it is considered unfair for anyone with special information to have an advantage. If you want free and fair competition, that makes sense. It is right and just. It is fair. On the other hand, corporations (by which I really mean corporate CEOs, their senior executives, and their directors) are legally entitled to by buyback their own corporations’ shares—even though they are, by definition, the ultimate insider traders. That makes no sense at all. It is criminal—by any reasonable standard. Yet, right now, the SEC (which polices such matters) permits it. Like so many other regulatory bodies, they have been corrupted. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Egregious concentration of major corporations in market sector after market sector—better known as monopolization.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A heavily manipulated stock market. The stock market has morphed into a casino for the ultra-rich.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Short-termism. This is a catch-all term which covers a pattern of behavior by CEOs whereby the long-term good of the corporation is undermined by a series of decisions which, on the face of it, yield short-term profits but weaken the company strategically. Cutting back back on Research and Development is an example. It increases immediate profitability but means the company is less prepared for the future.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Underinvestment in training, research and development, and plant and equipment.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Underinvestment in infrastructure. The shortfall is in trillions of dollars.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Underinvestment in small business. Small businesses make a surprisingly large contribution to the economy. apart from some being the large businesses of the future, they generate a surprisingly large amount of economic activity just by themselves—are are major job providers. However, lending to them takes more work—so today’s large financial institutions tend to eschew them</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Poor productivity. Historically, productivity has increased at a healthy pace every year. It has declined—roughly in proportion to the increase in financialization—despite the (potential) productivity advantages stemming from computerization. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Static or declining pay in real terms. Unlike most other developed nations, let alone many who are still developing, most Americans have not experience a real pay increase—in real terms—of any significance, for over 40 years. That is such an extraordinary situation that most Americans have not got to grips with it yet. It is reflects an absolute breakdown of the American Business Model—and the remarkable success of prevailing U.S. propaganda.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">No concern whatsoever for social justice or the public good—and the </font><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">absence of any kind of moral code. Some would argue that such standards are irrelevant in business. I disagree profoundly. Things have come to a pretty pass if common human decency is considered no longer applicable. Such behavior is what makes the world tolerable—and life worth living.</font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The above is a fairly savage indictment of financialization by any standards—yet we are doing almost nothing to remedy the situation. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Why not? </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Firstly, most of us are largely ignorant of the full implications of financialization. Secondly, because it is pervasive to such an extent that we feel powerless.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Best to start by becoming less ignorant. Read on. This is a very important article and is a credit to the publishers <a title="http://www.bloombergview.com" href="http://www.bloombergview.com"><strong>http://www.bloombergview.com</strong></a></font></p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/topics/financial-reform"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Financial Reform </font></a></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <h3><font size="5" face="Verdana">The Future of Finance</font></h3> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Nov 22, 2015 10:00 AM EST</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">By </font><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/contributors/clive-crook"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Clive Crook </font></a> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">There's no shortage of books on the financial crisis and its aftermath. By now the bar is pretty high for new entrants making a claim on one's time. I want to recommend two new titles that meet that demanding standard, and then some.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I'll say more about Adair Turner's "</font><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Debt-Devil-Credit-Finance/dp/0691169640/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Between Debt and the Devil</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">" (recently </font><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-06/inequality-and-excessive-debt-cause-financial-crisis"><font size="4" face="Verdana">excerpted by Bloomberg View</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">) next Sunday. This time I want to focus on the other excellent newcomer, John Kay's "</font><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Other-Peoples-Money-Business-Finance/dp/1610396030/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Other People's Money</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">."</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Kay and Turner agree about a lot of things, but Kay takes an unusual approach. This is not a detailed guide to the pre-crisis financial plumbing, much less a blow-by-blow narrative of what went wrong. (For the latter, Alan Blinder's "</font><a href="http://www.amazon.com/After-Music-Stopped-Financial-Response/dp/014312448X/"><font size="4" face="Verdana">After the Music Stopped</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">" is hard to beat.) Instead, Kay goes back to first principles, asking what purposes the financial system is meant to serve, and measuring just how far the modern financial economy has moved from that ideal.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The point of finance, he argues, is to connect savers and borrowers -- end-users, that is, not financial intermediaries. The test of a financial system is whether a household with surplus funds, say, and a company or government needing to borrow for investment can be connected at low cost and in a way that makes both parties better off. Correctly understood, all the institutions that lie between such end-users exist to serve this underlying purpose.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In Kay's view, modern economies have lost sight of this vital point. Finance has come to be seen as an end in itself, as though the global economy exists to serve Wall Street and the City of London rather than the other way round. If you applied that mindset to electricity generation, for instance, the absurdity would be obvious: You don't generate electricity for its own sake.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Yet the modern economy has come to see finance and all its frantic complexities -- intermediaries dealing with intermediaries dealing with intermediaries, with never a thought for the end-user -- in just this way. Does something of social value happen when investment bank A transacts profitably with asset manager B? Not necessarily. Only if the gain somehow makes its way through to end-users. If that doesn't happen, the costs of the intermediation amount, in effect, to a tax on everybody else.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This insight raises many intriguing questions, which Kay carefully works his way through. In a modern economy, how big does the financial sector need to be? Not nearly </font><a href="http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/financial-services-industry-united-states"><font size="4" face="Verdana">this big</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, he argues. How did it come to be so big, if it's failing to justify its expense of resources? Essentially, by collecting various explicit and implicit subsidies -- notably, the subsidy implied by the government's promise to stand behind a failing institution.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">What makes Kay's analysis so probing is that he's no knee-jerk anti-market type. He's a </font><a href="http://ineteconomics.org/community/experts/jkay"><font size="4" face="Verdana">distinguished scholar</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, a successful businessman, and was chairman of a U.K. government review of equity markets after the crash. His overall perspective is actually pro-market. He opposes calls for stricter and ever more complex regulation; he's against a "Tobin tax" on financial transactions because of its likely unintended consequences; and he thinks the obsession with "too big to fail" misses the point. (The problem isn't size, he argues, but complexity.)</font> <p><a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/banks-leverage-capital-ratios"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Capital Requirements</font></a> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The right way forward, he argues, is to interrupt the flow of subsidy. Do that, and market forces will start to nudge finance in the right direction. This sounds straightforward enough but it has radical implications. It isn't just a matter, for instance, of requiring banks to hold more capital -- though that would be a good place to start. The problem is that, in Kay's view, the amount of capital needed to make banks safe, and hence to deny them the implicit subsidy of government protection, is probably beyond the market's capacity to provide.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Then what's to be done? Deposit-taking banks, he believes, should be confined to buying very safe assets -- confined, that is, to "narrow" or "limited purpose" banking. This is a proposal with a </font><a href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">long lineage</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">; the idea goes far beyond more standard prescriptions, such as reinstating the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking. Narrow banking means that lending to firms and other risky borrowers should be undertaken by institutions that openly pass the risk on to the savers who invest with them. In general, Kay favors a financial system with many more such specialists, each of them more directly connected to one or other class of end-user.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In some ways, as Kay acknowledges, he's asking for the clock to be turned back. Prudent lending to small businesses, for instance, requires deep local knowledge rather than smart algorithms and rocket-science math. That old-fashioned kind of specialist expertise, he believes, needs to be recovered. Modern finance should be more outward-looking and less obsessed with itself. If that's turning back the clock, so be it.</font> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">[The] perpetual flow of information [is] part of a game that traders play which has no wider relevance, the excessive hours worked by many employees a tournament in which individuals compete to display their alpha qualities in return for large prizes. The traditional bank manager's culture of long lunches and afternoons on the golf course may have yielded more information about business than the Bloomberg terminal.</font></p></blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Well, let's not get carried away. The Bloomberg terminal is self-evidently a force for good. But there's no question that something has gone badly wrong with modern finance, or that the present approach to regulation is compounding many of the industry's defects.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Kay's insistence on stepping back, on judging finance by the humdrum standards of any other industry, with its self-serving mystique and aura of inevitability stripped away, makes "Other People's Money" one of the best two or three books I've read on the crash. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">To contact the author of this story:<br>Clive Crook at </font><a href="mailto:ccrook5@bloomberg.net"><font size="4" face="Verdana">ccrook5@bloomberg.net</font></a></p></blockquote> <hr> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-27636516387673713292015-11-25T01:04:00.001-08:002015-11-25T01:13:48.342-08:00November 26 2015. A writer today (blogger or otherwise) has to be more a sales person than a writer?<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT’’S A GREAT THING THAT AN AUTHOR CAN NOW BYPASS TRADITIONAL PUBLISHERS</font></p> <p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9kHV6PR-VANg3r8pp-yNcZ3oA_aMVzqpqDMhdD3tHIh9zTiOLXm9XgcRiJxp48sBSa74B7BQA3Qni_6RgzS_D-rRTN7cyZ9bYMCTF1nhQ7b8B85bow9CZ0qUgSGdY-jf1XickYEMCXudd/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><font size="5" face="Impact"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD711IrlJ2A50lMxZvXu9mtWBtxvbioQfXRa20JXTxVDrjTDCF4tUIWEeKJHTe1yCqkG8waV9oSz_47D8LPbaTPKZQdJ4r9dDZl1z3K30pwObml4X-kJr-mHDdvyhh-6uYGcxhyCxsrON1/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT IS DEEPLY DISTURBING THAT A WRITER HAS TO SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON SALES—RATHER THAN WRITING</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">But 60% on sales! That is getting silly</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><font color="#000000">The e-mail</font> below is from a consultant who teaches marketing. As part of endeavoring to track the book marketplace, I subscribe to quite a few of such e-mails, Some are extremely informative. Some are pure hype. I have never worked with Ms. Hayden so don’t have an opinion about her general effectiveness.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Is Beth Hayden accurate in this case?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have a suspicion that she is more right than wrong—but clearly a great deal depends upon the quality of the product and the marketing involved.</font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If you want more traffic, you've got to promote your content after you publish it. </font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Yes, I know that's a pain. But it's true.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">You used to be able to publish a top-quality blog post, then sit back and watch as your perfect readers found that post in the search engines and shared it on social media. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But it's not true anymore. There's just too much happening online every single day (and you've got too much competition) to rest on your laurels. </font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">So here's my little traffic tip for you: You need to spend 40% of your time writing and publishing content, and the other 60% <em><strong>promoting that content.</strong></em></font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">That means sharing the link on social media and asking other people to share it - anything you can do to send a little traffic toward your new post. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If you'd like to learn more about how to promote your best content and drive lots of traffic to your blog, join us for </font><a href="https://bf127.infusionsoft.com/app/linkClick/9015/2e469c315f23470f/1546463/cb9db793398c92a9"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Beth's Blog Traffic School</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">I'm offering a very special extra-low price on this course right now, to make it really affordable - and that low price ends this Wednesday night at midnight.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Registration is open now - </font><a href="https://bf127.infusionsoft.com/app/linkClick/9017/ff44ce58314cf101/1546463/cb9db793398c92a9"><font size="4" face="Verdana">click here to get all the details</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Cheers,</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Beth</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">BethHayden.com 29th st Boulder, Colorado 80301 United States </font><a href="tel:%28303%29%20888-4999"><font size="4" face="Verdana">(303) 888-4999</font></a></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-5227127673688303162015-11-25T00:55:00.000-08:002015-11-25T00:55:40.384-08:00November 25 2015. Social control in a plutocracy known as THE LAND OF THE FREE<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IF YOU RUN A THOROUGHLY ROTTEN PREDATORY ECONOMIC SYSTEM HOW DO YOU KEEP PEOPLE FROM RISING UP AGAINST YOU?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact"><em>It’s called SOCIAL CONTROL</em></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVe8kPmzYRRtRanwZ0hGY99NBJ39TysF-j2-A_VGZxntz6UhIqdlJ_BALujXg49Ofh1LZIdwyof8xOqxk0P2sbcR812-kAhLLJbTbWffrMq2I6g2992QCckTaXHxkBFjZUh9yRRmk78WM3/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOQIp824NkRBopOJECa2pfjrKKagDC4bgmlewqZhkLdN7_7eerNbUBEKejYaaunx0njNEZOfnsvs9iE95ZoSiICOA8bsGHJnbDFSJHgJN76anWWkvZ3vNFs7O2izVkThyphenhyphenur2TsWzjmtjGi/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">YOU KEEP THEM BUSY, INSECURE, FEARFUL, DISTRACTED, HARRASSED, IN DEBT—AND IGNORANT (with as little time to think as possible). </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Sound familiar?</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT STEPPING OUT OF LINE HAS TERRIFYING CONSEQUENCES</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The following extract was written by Mathew Friedman and published in </font><a href="http://www.truth-out.org"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><strong>www.truth-out.org</strong></font></a><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"> on November 23 2015.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Today, nearly one third of the American adult working-age population has a criminal record (roughly the same as those with college degrees)</font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In an effort to make complete criminal histories easily accessible to all law enforcement agencies, the FBI maintains a database indexing these records known as the Interstate Identification Index (III). Whenever a suspected criminal is arrested and fingerprinted by a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency; those records are forwarded to the FBI to be included in the III. The FBI assigns each subject a unique identification number that indexes all state records existing for that person, meaning each number corresponds to a distinct individual.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">As of July 1, 2015, </font><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-arrest-records-rise-americans-find-consequences-can-last-a-lifetime-1408415402"><font size="4" face="Verdana">more than 70 million people have records indexed by the III</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">The Numbers in Perspective</font></strong> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">America now houses roughly the same number people with criminal records as it does </font><a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_104.30.asp"><font size="4" face="Verdana">four-year college graduates</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Nearly </font><a href="http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/18/0011128713514801.full.pdf+html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">half of black males and almost 40 percent of white males</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> are arrested by the age 23.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">If all arrested Americans were a nation, they would be the world’s 18th largest. Larger than Canada. Larger than France. More than three times the size of Australia.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The number of Americans with criminal records today is larger than </font><a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/pre-1980/tables/PE-11-1900.pdf"><font size="4" face="Verdana">the entire US population in 1900</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Holding hands, Americans with arrest records could circle the earth three times.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <p><strong><font size="4" face="Verdana">Large Groups of People in America</font></strong></p></blockquote> <p align="center"><img alt="2015.11.23.Chart" src="http://www.truth-out.org/images/images_2015_11/2015.11.23.Chart.png"></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">When I started to research the U.S. seriously in 2004, I was already convinced that matters were seriously adrift, but, initially, was incredulous at what I was finding. Surely, I thought, if such were the situation, then—in a democracy—people wouldn’t stand for it. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It has taken me time, and a humungous amount of work, to develop an overview and appreciate how the dots are joined. In practice, the system is extremely logical if one accepts the premise that the U.S. is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, where corporate power is dominant, where the ultra-rich control the large corporations and the media, and social control has been brought to a high art.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The tools of social control that are used are classic carrot and stick—which the Romans would have recognized—with extraordinarily sophisticated propaganda added together with a surveillance system that just plain boggles the mind. Appreciate that apart from government surveillance, credit cards, the internet, and social media mean that virtually every facet of our lives is monitored every day the major corporations. Armed with that level of information—and the tools to distract, delude, mislead, and manipulate, it is fairly easy to keep people under control.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The U.S. is the most socially controlled nation in history—masquerading as a democracy and ’The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.”</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">9/11 was a gift from heaven for the ultra-rich because it allowed them to implement the kind of surveillance that would have been considered unacceptable prior to the terrorist threat—and as a bonus to militarize law enforcement, and profit financially from the unending wars. In fact, there are times when one has to wonder whether Bin Laden was not really working for the ultra-rich—because what he set in motion has benefited them so much.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It could be that he also knew too much! </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>No, I don’t really believe that Bin Laden was working for the ultra-rich—though it is possible—but my other conclusions stem from the data.</em></font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Join the dots—and prepare to be terrified. Then, ask yourself what should you do about it. It certainly isn’t going to change for the better by itself.</font></p> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-8862044694534327382015-11-24T02:11:00.000-08:002015-11-24T05:35:45.227-08:00November 24 2015. Why do we build houses the way we do—and could we do it better? Of course we could. We can do almost anything better. But will we? There are powerful people who like things just the way they are.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I SEE EVIDENCE OF PEOPLE’S CREATIVE <em>POTENTIAL </em>CONSTANTLY (Let me stress ‘potential.)—BUT IF I WANT A REAL BOOST, I TEND TO TURN TO GIZMAG.COM</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="http://www.gizmag.com">www.gizmag.com</a> </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQCR6YWbZ1rln9FudQGBMwpq45w8kLu_NcI5ulsVijmvD-n3yZdL6IgnIof25CKZuuwCsBlavhcW5-vVAqM-19oCeLIpRBIFK7uDQqRkYIvf3R_W6KEPws2Oj4XDxKyLq6Eectj2fiQMsS/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEQmmUWGOOeiZgaZrxWkpfwE65yp_hBWe2vgjeAouvWyHprUOxxlUUeuOzoCGSCWMal5eE46EoOQrNjpREdPW4gRowSZQNhIRLZf0OODUBFNXDtGNgHXo1dX-qkKo6mMQf6w7g6Lt5b_Bx/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">THE STUFF,THAT WE IMPERFECT HUMAN BEINGS COME UP WITH, IS <em>CONSISTENTLY</em> REMARKABLE.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Creative people, for instance, are just, plain, bloody, amazing!</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">Tiny houses are an example --and some tiny houses are not so tiny. C.600 square feet could also be described as ‘modest.’ Hell, you could even call it ‘practical.’ I’m a fan.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I write about creativity regularly both because it is such an astonishingly powerful force—and because I don’t think we are even close to tapping its potential. Worse, we grind it out of people through education and socialization—and largely confine it to the creative arts (where it is further whittled away through exploitation, underinvestment, and other negative influences). </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Essentially, vested interests want us to conform and accept the status quo because they do so well out of it. They are not entirely successful, because creativity is unstoppable, but they can and do hack away at our creative impulses to the point where most of us toe the line—and where creative constructive change is delayed severely for very considerable periods of time.</font></p> <p><img style="float: right; display: inline" alt="Sir Ken Robinson at The Creative Company Conference.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Sir_Ken_Robinson_at_The_Creative_Company_Conference.jpg/220px-Sir_Ken_Robinson_at_The_Creative_Company_Conference.jpg" width="220" align="right" height="146"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Sir Ken Robinson is one of the most articulate and witty commentators on the negative effects on our current education systems. This is an extract from what Wikipedia has to say about him. He is well worth exploring <a title="http://sirkenrobinson.com/" href="http://sirkenrobinson.com/"><strong>http://sirkenrobinson.com/</strong></a> I also happen to think he is largely right.</font></p> <blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Ideas on education</font></h4> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">Robinson has suggested that to engage and succeed, education has to develop on three fronts. First, that it should foster diversity by offering a broad curriculum and encourage individualization of the learning process; secondly, it should foster curiosity through creative teaching, which depends on high quality teacher training and development; and finally, it should focus on awakening creativity through alternative didactic processes that put less emphasis on standardized testing, thereby giving the responsibility for defining the course of education to individual schools and teachers. </font></font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">He believes that much of the present education system in the United States fosters conformity, compliance and standardization rather than creative approaches to learning. Robinson emphasizes that we can only succeed if we recognize that education is an organic system, not a mechanical one. Successful school administration is a matter of fostering a helpful climate rather than "command and control".<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_%28educationalist%29#cite_note-death_valley-10">[10]</a></sup></font></font> <p><sup><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></sup> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Criticism</font></h4> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">Critics of Robinson have stated that he has "exercised an extremely corrosive and destructive influence on education while contributing almost nothing to its improvement" and that "a close analysis of his view shows that he believes students have no minds of their own and are incapable of acting independently of their teachers or of being held accountable for their own success",<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_%28educationalist%29#cite_note-12">[12]</a></sup> and "Sir Ken’s ideas are incredibly seductive, but they are wrong, spectacularly and gloriously wrong."<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_%28educationalist%29#cite_note-13">[13]</a></sup> </font></font> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">In the <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Educational_Supplement">Times Educational Supplement</a></i> William Stewart wrote, "Teachers initially dazzled by his lectures have later given thoughtful responses that question whether the witticisms and seeming insights amount to anything of substance that they could use in the classroom".<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_%28educationalist%29#cite_note-14">[14]</a></sup></font></font></p></blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Education, socialization, and religion apart, one of primary tools used to inhibit creativity is the way so many of us are conditioned that just because things are the way they are, we have to accept them (and it is a sign of immaturity if we don’t). </font></p> <p><font size="4"><font face="Bookman Old Style">I find this an extraordinarily dangerous and negative mindset which I have fought against all my life—and which I intend to keep on fighting until I drop.</font> </font></p> <p><font size="4"><font face="Bookman Old Style">Good grief! If I thought this was the best we could do with the human condition, I would despair. Fortunately, my own direct experience—let alone my research—teaches me otherwise. Despite all the negative forces out there—and there are times they can seem overwhelming—I am absolutely convinced we can and will do better (and that we have to).</font></font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Am I as optimistic about political change, or the evolution of a more viable economic system, as I am about technology? In truth, I am not—but I still see sheer need overwhelming the intransigence of the status quo. It will just take a great deal longer than it should—and the transition may be bloody. But, I am absolutely certain that the U.S. situation, for example, cannot continue on its current path. The combination of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy is unviable—and the corrupt American Business Model is not delivering for the American people. Change is inevitable.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">But, enough of gloom. I am much cheered by what is going on technologically—and particularly by developments in housing and materials.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Check out the ingenious and visually striking Warburg house<strong> </strong><a title="http://www.bioi.co/warburg.html" href="http://www.bioi.co/warburg.html"><strong>http://www.bioi.co/warburg.html</strong></a></font></p> <p><img alt="The Warburg House by Bioi" src="http://www.bioi.co/img/warburg/bioi_WRBG_2.jpg" width="500" height="376"></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">If ever there was an unnecessary problem—in that we have the physical and financial resources to house everyone with relative ease, it is the housing issue, Yet over 50,000 people are homeless in New York every night (and about half that number in Los Angeles). The national total is a disgrace.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Utah (scarcely a Left Wing state) has found the most cost effective solution—which is to give people homes!</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The American Tragedy continues—quite unnecessarily.</font></p> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-68773036099748503042015-11-23T00:33:00.000-08:002015-11-24T00:33:40.085-08:00November 23 2015. Let me confess a predilection for evidence. The fact that so much medicine is not evidence based (for instance) give me the creeps.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I ATTACH GREAT IMPORTANCE TO BEING ABLE TO WRITE CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY—WHICH REQUIRES CLARITY OF MIND</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie-5YFY48b1WfICBKF0dFtxhUqSwGE_c9WmiGCyPxL6xw6lpzJJCHxndXfjfm_-D4k0umHcMjQ9KyQAhrjfFLeQSJBEBtOBfKfK7TA4xIe29gonBcfeCixzrd-CsR4ZEZrJudKXGJyjCiX/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDRYu9GCl5KV6PJCyPqcZ7_tXpI6gMN1KMe5Mq6QjyvsS1GNYYHCDzKUk7Mq7Cegj9bFEcfhosPjWr2X5azmLyqomGIzo8mCDwkFod5Rqcx1afELhxzAFcYVYedcjmiToC6dba5m8rsXgC/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">YET, HOW CAN ONE COME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSIONS—LET ALONE EXPRESS THEM CLEARLY—IF THE BASE DATA ARE WRONG?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Riddle me that</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As I have written previously, when I was about nine (I can’t recall precisely) I came to the conclusion that a great deal of what I was told was wrong. The details can await my memoirs—but it was an extremely useful insight.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">What caused this epiphany? It was a combination of reading, observation, and a specific incident. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Why had I not come to this conclusion a great deal sooner? </font></p> <p><em><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Good question! Let’s destroy the credibility of the source.</font></em></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Age and inexperience were two co-related reasons, but an important additional one was that I had been brought up <em>not to lie</em>. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Lying, I was trained to think, resulted in damnation. I wasn’t quite sure what that was, but it didn’t sound good. Bear in mind I was raised a Catholic—so doubtless Catholic guilt came into it too. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">My mother, creative, charming, and charismatic though she was, was far from admirable in many ways. Nonetheless, she hammered that principle like nothing else. That apart, she was impressively cruel and violent. As she got older, she mellowed. There was no hint of that when I was young. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">If I lied, I got beaten. If I didn’t lie, I got beaten. For a long period of time mother was convinced that that the way to handle boys was to beat them—for any and every reason. She was an only child—and craved men. She had a serious problem with boys. I was the eldest and the one she experimented on. It wasn’t fun.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Later, I was to find that she lied constantly—<em>but didn’t see it as lying</em>. It was more a matter of constructing a scenario—which she would adjust as needed, and which would become, as far as she was concerned, the absolute truth. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">She was adept at scenarios and the fast mental re-write. The truly frightening aspect was that this process was the norm. As a consequence, I didn’t believe anything she said—unless it was something I had witnessed personally. That is a very sad thing to say about one’s mother—but such was my upbringing.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Be that as it may, I am very uncomfortable with lying personally, even for good social reasons, and attach particular importance to that elusive thing—the truth. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">My conscience apart, I am also attached to the truth for practical reasons. It is the foundation of rational thinking—or so it seems to me. In turn, evidence-based thought leads to clarity of mind, which leads to clarity of writing (once you have practiced for a decade or two).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Voila! What more could you want (if you are a writer)?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Well, I could answer that in a number of ways starting off with readers, fame, and fortune—<em>one can but dream— </em>but I want to stick to the theme of veracity, because it seems to me that society attaches disturbingly little importance to the truth. Aspiring to it has become no more than a convenient convention. We don’t really expect it. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Whereas you may be punished for lying as a child, there is virtually no penalty for lying as an adult. In fact, the incentives are tilted strongly to promote the advantages of lying. Indeed, if you work for a corporation, or any kind of institution, you are pretty much expected to lie either to defend it, or to promote it to advantage in some way—normally profit. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Try telling the truth if you work in Big Pharma and you won’t be employed for long—and one can say much the same about any other industry or organization. Instead the standard seems to be the effectiveness of one’s lies. If you can lie convincingly, the world is your oyster.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Is lying now more common than it used to be? I don’t <em>know</em> the answer to that, but my suspicion is that it is for a number of reasons.</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because of the ever increasing power and influence of corporations—which lie constantly about their good and services.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because legislation hasn’t kept pace with either the increase in corporate power, or the advances in technology.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because professional communicators—advertising, public relations, and market researchers in particular—armed with unprecedented information about their target audiences, and with ever increasing computer power to process it, have become better and better at their business, and now truly excel at what they do. They now know, with some precision, that propaganda works, and what tools to use. They are that good. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because the corporate-owned media have cut back their personnel so much that there is far less fact-checking—and investigative reporting in depth has practically gone the way of the dodo. Why should media expose the truth when it exposes the lies of the very advertisers who support them?</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because increased communication simply gives more opportunities to lie.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because we are now so drowned in information, it becomes harder and harder to check out the truth.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because a great many of us are lazy, and prefer to rely on our prejudices rather than make any serious effort to ascertain the real situation. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Because, whether we admit it or not, it has now become accepted as the social norm.</font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m not totally negative about all this. Though our commercial culture seems to have wandered into the dark side, and careerism is rife, I still run across a great deal of ordinary human decency fairly regularly—and certainly don’t think integrity is dead. It is more that I feel we have got the balance wrong.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">When you get right down to it, most issues are a matter of balance.</font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Where health is concerned, it strikes me that matters are very far from balanced. </font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Most of us are under the illusion that the medical profession is almost entirely evidence based—and that is how the profession markets itself. The facts say otherwise.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In more than a few cases, the medical profession gets it entirely wrong.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Conflicts of interest are rife—and the patient almost always loses out.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The profit motive, where medicine is concerned, certainly doesn’t seem to work to the average patient’s advantage in the U.S.. American healthcare costs more than twice as much as in the UK—a truly staggering drain on the U.S. economy—and Americans live sicker and die, on average two years sooner than the citizens of other developed nations. On top of that, many people still don’t have healthcare—and the system, unless you are rich, has serious quality problems. It’s fiercely complicated, a source of ongoing stress for most families, and all too many avoid treatment because they can’t afford the deductible.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Deductibles are steadily increasing—whereas earnings, in real terms, are not. </font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">All in all, i</font><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">t’s a disastrous mess, which is not being addressed—and the U.S. is the richest nation in the world.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A reasonable person might expect riots and outrage—but many Americans still believe the canard that they have the best system—and do nothing.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"><em>Propaganda works! It is frighteningly effective.</em> In effect, if it is allowed on a virtually unrestricted basis—as is the case in the U.S.—it can neutralize, or otherwise distort, representative democracy. It is not just that politicians only listen to donors. It also means that the average American doesn’t have the necessary information to vote rationally.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">This makes a nonsense of the Constitution—but explains a great deal.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The following piece is taken from <a href="http://www.mercola.com"><strong>www.mercola.com</strong></a><strong> </strong></font></p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">"Statin Nation II: What Really Causes Heart Disease?" is the sequel to the documentary "</font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/11/statin-nation.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Statin Nation: The Great Cholesterol Cover-up</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">." However, it stands well on its own, even if you didn't see the original film. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For many decades, the idea that saturated fats caused heart disease reigned supreme, and diets shifted sharply away from saturated animal fats such as butter and lard, toward partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and margarine.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">However, as people abandoned saturated fats and replaced them with trans fats, rates of heart disease continued on a steady upward climb. And, the more aggressive the recommendations for low-fat diets, the worse this trend became.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Last year, </font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/24/butter-consumption.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">butter consumption</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> in the US reached a 40-year peak, and the resurgence of butter has been attributed to a shift in consumer preferences away from processed foods and back toward natural foods.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">This is a positive trend, showing that the old myth claiming that saturated fat is bad for you is finally starting to crumble. People are also starting to recognize that refined <em>sugar </em>is far worse for your heart than dietary fat was, and processed low-fat foods are typically <em>loaded</em> with sugar. </font></p></blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">The French Paradox</font></h4> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">According to the film, the long held view that saturated fats and cholesterol caused heart disease came under closer scrutiny in the 1990s, when researchers like Kurt Ellison with the Boston University started taking notice of what became known as the French Paradox.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The French eat a lot more fat than many other nations, yet they don't have higher rates of heart disease. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For example, in the UK people on average eat 13.5 percent of their total calories as saturated fat, whereas the French eat 15.5 percent saturated fat, yet their rate of heart disease deaths is about one-third of that in the UK — just 22 heart disease deaths per 100,000 compared to 63 per 100,000 in the UK. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Icelanders also consume higher amounts of saturated fat — on average 14.6 percent, but their rate of heart disease deaths is also lower than the UK, just 34 per 100,000.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The film reviews a number of statistics from other countries, including Denmark, Lithuania, and Portugal, which defy the idea that saturated fat consumption is associated with heart disease. The data simply doesn't bear this out.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Here's another startling example. The American Heart Association recommends keeping your saturated fat consumption below seven percent of your total calories, ideally around 5 or 6 percent. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Lithuania is very close to being on target, with a saturated fat consumption rate of 7.7 percent of total calories, yet Lithuania has one of <em>the highest</em> heart disease mortality rates in the world — 122 per 100,000.</font></p></blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Cholesterol Is Not a Major Factor in Heart Disease</font></h4> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Like saturated fat, cholesterol has also been wrongly demonized despite the fact that 60 years' worth of research has utterly failed to demonstrate any correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Despite this, many, even most health professionals still cling to the idea that cholesterol raises your risk for heart disease, and that strategies that lower cholesterol also lower your heart disease risk. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Fortunately, limitations for cholesterol will likely be removed from the </font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/25/new-dietary-guidelines-fat-cholesterol.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">2015 edition of Dietary Guidelines</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> for Americans, which would be a welcomed change. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Cholesterol is actually one of the most important molecules in your body; indispensable for the building of cells and for producing stress and sex hormones, as well as vitamin D.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It's also important for brain health, and helps with the formation of your memories. Low levels of HDL cholesterol have been linked to memory loss and </font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/29/dr-perlmutter-gluten.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Alzheimer's disease</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, and may also increase your risk of depression, stroke, violent behavior, and suicide.</font></p></blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">What You Need to Understand About HDL and LDL Cholesterol </font></h4> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">While cholesterol is typically divided into HDL/"good" and LDL/"bad" cholesterol," there's really only <em>one</em> kind of cholesterol. The division into HDL and LDL is based on how the cholesterol combines with protein particles. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">LDL and HDL are lipo<em>proteins, </em>meaning fats combined with proteins. Cholesterol is fat-soluble, and blood is mostly water, so for it to be transported in your blood, cholesterol needs to be carried by a lipoprotein, which is classified by density. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Large LDL particles are not harmful. Only small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, as they can squeeze through the lining of your arteries. If they oxidize, they can cause damage and inflammation.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Thus, it would be more accurate to say that there are "good" and "bad" lipoproteins (opposed to good and bad cholesterol). </font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/17/stephen-sinatra-on-cholesterol-statins-coq10-ubiquinol.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Dr. Stephen Sinatra</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, a board certified cardiologist, and </font><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/28/nmr-lipoprofile.aspx"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Chris Kresser</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, L.Ac., an integrative medicine clinician, have both addressed this issue in previous interviews. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Some groups, such as the National Lipid Association, are now starting to shift the focus toward LDL particle number instead of total and LDL cholesterol, in order to better assess your heart disease risk. But this approach has not yet spread into the mainstream.</font></p></blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Statins Are Prescribed Based on an Incorrect Hypothesis</font></h4> <blockquote> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana">Since the cholesterol hypothesis is false, this also means that the recommended therapies — low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, and cholesterol lowering medications — are doing more harm than good. Statin treatment, for example, is largely harmful, costly, and has transformed millions of people into patients whose health is being adversely impacted by the drug. As previously noted by Dr. Frank Lipman:<sup><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/21/statin-nation-2.aspx?e_cid=20151121Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20151121Z1&et_cid=DM90628&et_rid=1227371054#_edn1" name="_ednref1">1</a></sup></font></font> <blockquote> <p><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><em>"[T]h</em><em>e medical profession is obsessed with lowering your cholesterol because of misguided theories about cholesterol and heart disease. </em><em>Why would we want to lower it when the research</em><sup><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/21/statin-nation-2.aspx?e_cid=20151121Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20151121Z1&et_cid=DM90628&et_rid=1227371054#_edn2" name="_ednref2">2</a></sup><em> actually shows that three-quarters of people having a first heart attack, have normal cholesterol levels, and when data over 30 years from the well-known Framingham Heart Study</em><sup><a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/21/statin-nation-2.aspx?e_cid=20151121Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20151121Z1&et_cid=DM90628&et_rid=1227371054#_edn3" name="_ednref3">3</a></sup><em> showed that in most age groups, high cholesterol wasn't associated with more deaths?</em></font></font> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">In fact, for older people, deaths were more common with low cholesterol<strong>.</strong> The research is clear – statins are being prescribed based on an incorrect hypothesis, and they are not harmless."</font></em></p></blockquote></blockquote> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Statins Can Wreck Your Health in a Number of Ways</font></h4> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">The film points out that research shows statins promote calcification of your arteries, and even though arterial calcification <em>increases</em> heart disease, these studies seem to be largely ignored by mainstream health professionals. Sherif Sultan, a professor of Vascular and Endovascular surgery who is featured in the film, notes that many people have in fact improved their health by getting <em>off </em>statins. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">That certainly doesn't surprise me, considering the fact that studies have discovered a wide variety of problems associated with statin use, and virtually all of these problems are being downplayed or ignored altogether by conventional medicine. </font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Odds are actually very high — greater than 100 to one — that if you're currently taking a statin, you probably don't need it. Based on my own review of the evidence, the ONLY subgroup that might benefit from statins are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia. Dr. Sinatra believes males with obstructions in their left anterior descending coronary artery might also benefit. For all others, statins are more likely to do you harm than good. </font></p></blockquote></blockquote> <hr> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="5"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-57146592582592218642015-11-22T09:11:00.000-08:002015-11-22T09:12:03.048-08:00November 22 2015. Great minds discuss ideas… It might be helpful if ordinary minds did as well.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Bookman Old Style"> <font face="Impact">I WROTE ABOUT THINKING YESTERDAY—AND THEN RAN ACROSS THIS HIGHLY RELEVANT QUOTE</font></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjee_q2b4Y8ASEvt6BA3t45-fv1EXuFlKoAdKoIzFTU0AtsOVJ5Qd7FgYLU_YWfZLM4kSVRAwnLw4p208WqqSDYn8wKg6vxV8b_ZKQWbjCmcpEDRD6H9nwBbmQWbqsxDWGUe6YOeknfQGuy/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh2BG_pMg45Tr_3792k32DCUo28ciA2BFgjrgh-KdUme30gF_522vX5EL2dh28rOI89VKtuuiSPwKLiZGPAvTSY45uiyq3xgBlwY6zPScsygZZbD9jvfBFRYacziEZ_JtIpBNCVz-ZluFS/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">I FIND IT STRANGE, INDEED, THAT WE DON’T DISCUSS IDEAS MORE</font></p> <p><img alt="" src="https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12108273_1124750164220301_7260111031698190118_n.jpg?oh=a3789c2f98dde555ab7f984d791a77c4&oe=56F6124B"></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Before I went to university (at the tender age of 16) I harbored the rather idealistic notion that much of our conversation there would be intellectual in nature, and appropriately stimulating. I don’t quite know where I got this naïve notion from, but it was almost certainly from reading. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Reading is a fine and wonderful thing—but it can be misleading until leavened by experience of real life. For instance, I had read numerous adventure stories featuring combat before I first came under fire—but I found the real thing decidedly different to the written word. I found much the same thing about falling in love—and sex—or firing a .50 heavy machine gun. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is not that the written word is necessarily inaccurate. It is more that even the most brilliant writer has a hard time communicating the intensity of reality, the impact on your emotions, and the fact that the mental and the physical are so intertwined—and so extraordinarily had to control. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Reality—outside the mundane—has a tendency to be intense, confusing, and physical to a level that reading can rarely match—no matter how good your imagination.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In practice, most of our dialogue at university was as banal and uninteresting as it tends to be in life generally—and focused more on pubs, sex, sport, cars, vacation jobs, and gossip, than whether communism could be made to work, or lasers invented. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">As is the nature of social life, it was pleasant and convivial enough in a mild way (it is always nice to be socially accepted), but—at least as far as I was concerned—extremely frustrating. I longed for the cut and thrust of intellectual debate—but encountered it seldom.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I graduated at 20, and throughout the intervening 51 years still find the serious discussion of ideas to be a comparatively uncommon thing. Issues are discussed—but, when they are, there is a tendency for argument by assertion to take precedence over genuine debate.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Certainly it is entirely legitimate—to the point of being helpful—to merely exchange views, and it is less contentious, but I miss what I tend to think of as ‘the logic of the argument’ whereby another’s perspective, hopefully supported by fresh information, can bring fresh enlightenment, and perhaps even change your mind. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I enjoy having my mind changed. It is truly exciting when you are exposed to new evidence, or a different slant, and you suddenly realize, with a rush, that your assumption was wrong or flawed in some way. I tend to think of it literally visually as light invading darkness—starting as a chink, and then flooding in. I guess many of us do given the frequency of the word ‘enlighten.’</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I now realize that most people don’t really like discussing ideas <em>in any depth. </em>They take the view that most things can’t be changed, that the most practical approach is to accept things the way they are—and just get on with life, and, anyway, they are simply not used to exercising their minds in this way. They find the process uncomfortable.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I accept this reality—and have for many years—and fill the gap with reading, radio, and the internet, but it has made me wonder whether we might not all be in a better place if the social norm of not discussing ideas was changed. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I don’t profess to know the answer. My current view is that we could be taught to think much more effectively than we are—but, that is merely an opinion. For all I know there may be some genetic reason why we steer clear of serious discussion of ideas. Perhaps, indeed, we are not capable of it. Certainly, the quality of most comments on the internet is scarcely reassuring. On the other hand, the most extraordinary work is being done in the technological area. Some remarkable minds are out there.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It is a concept I am more than happy to discuss.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In writing this, am I implying that I have a great mind?</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m making no such claim. In fact, I don’t quite know what a great mind is. It strikes me that although that is a neat phrase, the more general tendency is for people to excel in some ways, but be flawed in others. Certainly, I would come into that category.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I do think I have been gifted with an unusually interesting and creative mind, which a combination of circumstances, writing, my own intellectual curiosity, and my willingness to take career risks have enabled me to develop way more than I would have thought possible when I was younger.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I would almost certainly have had an easier life if my mind was more conventional—but I feel extraordinarily lucky that it is what it is. It is intense to the point of being exhausting—but I am rarely bored.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">But, do I bore other people?</font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Not normally when I write. Suffice to say that though I love discussing ideas, I have learned to raise them conversationally with caution. I regret it—I’m pretty much driven by ideas—but that is just the way it is (and I try and avoid the glazed look that people get when a serious subject comes up).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Mind you, ideas don’t have to be discussed too seriously, though they have a tendency to evolve that way.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Since I mentioned the invention of the laser in this piece, I though I would look it up to see when it really was invented. Coincidentally, the year in question was 1960—the same year I started university.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Here is Wikipedia on the subject.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">A <b>laser</b> is a device that emits </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light"><font size="4" face="Verdana">light</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> through a process of </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplification"><font size="4" face="Verdana">optical amplification</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> based on the </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission"><font size="4" face="Verdana">stimulated emission</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> of </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation"><font size="4" face="Verdana">electromagnetic radiation</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. The term "laser" originated as an </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym"><font size="4" face="Verdana">acronym</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> for "<b>light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation</b>".<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#cite_note-Gould1959-1">[1]</a></sup><sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> The first laser was built in 1960 by </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_H._Maiman"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Theodore H. Maiman</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> at Hughes Laboratories, based on theoretical work by </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Charles Hard Townes</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Leonard_Schawlow"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Arthur Leonard Schawlow</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29"><i><font size="4" face="Verdana">coherently</font></i></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_coherence"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Spatial coherence</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> allows a laser to be focused to a tight spot, enabling applications such as </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cutting"><font size="4" face="Verdana">laser cutting</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography#Light_sources"><font size="4" face="Verdana">lithography</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. Spatial coherence also allows a laser beam to stay narrow over great distances (</font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light"><font size="4" face="Verdana">collimation</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">), enabling applications such as </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer"><font size="4" face="Verdana">laser pointers</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. Lasers can also have high </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_coherence"><font size="4" face="Verdana">temporal coherence</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, which allows them to emit light with a very narrow </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_spectrum"><font size="4" face="Verdana">spectrum</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, i.e., they can emit a single color of light. Temporal coherence can be used to produce </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrashort_pulse"><font size="4" face="Verdana">pulses</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> of light as short as a </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtosecond"><font size="4" face="Verdana">femtosecond</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">Among their many applications, lasers are used in </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disk_drive"><font size="4" face="Verdana">optical disk drives</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_printer"><font size="4" face="Verdana">laser printers</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcode_scanner"><font size="4" face="Verdana">barcode scanners</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">; </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication"><font size="4" face="Verdana">fiber-optic</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication"><font size="4" face="Verdana">free-space optical communication</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">; </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_surgery"><font size="4" face="Verdana">laser surgery</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and skin treatments; cutting and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding"><font size="4" face="Verdana">welding</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> materials; military and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement"><font size="4" face="Verdana">law enforcement</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> devices for marking targets and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder#Military"><font size="4" face="Verdana">measuring range</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> and speed; and </font><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_lighting_display"><font size="4" face="Verdana">laser lighting displays</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> in entertainment.</font></p></blockquote> <hr> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-14135997928344655742015-11-21T05:31:00.000-08:002015-11-21T05:31:32.978-08:00November 21 2015. Groupthink or thinking—there is a difference. I’m far from sure most of us are aware of it.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">IT’S AN EXTRAORDINARY THING—BUT MOSTLY WE ARE TAUGHT WHAT TO THINK—NOT <em>HOW TO THINK</em>. THE DIFFERENCE IS PROFOUND.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBKMN-GWPk4h9m-opURR8e4KxPDW5MqrYCRFIMHK6fQUG-lCwJFpNlX3Cax1j1a58nFRVFH0HzKRCwRMvKJRSX-r0iL3khL4dm3D2Gv_3fanPoE2tI3ikBpjnk5oXkPk7Hi-A1WWp4EVgf/s1600-h/VICTOR---SHOT-BY-MICK---WEBSITE-12.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwukO6xVlH2CyUlK-_lyFABv2CkTBI_zhpE87-D4aHcBeh5myelRbx3DSYEZcTNbrDjdDZSlm0s2FG-_m5iLbXBwOWPxoAuGJBauCvhYvtymM4jJzz9xYrT3XSpPQhWk2gqJW-tSAXxvyx/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">AS A CONSEQUENCE, MOST OF US DON’T THINK VERY WELL—AND WE DON’T THINK HONESTLY.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#920000" size="5" face="Impact">Supposing we did</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I think about thinking a great deal for a number of reasons.</font></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Virtually everything starts with a thought—conscious or otherwise—so thinking has to be important.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">You cannot write without thinking—so since writing is my passion, pleasure, and purpose—improving how I think is of the greatest importance to me. Do I think honestly? I try <em>very</em> hard to do so. I am pretty tough on myself. I doubt I succeed completely.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I seem to be naturally intellectually curious—and question just about everything. I am particularly skeptical of the received wisdom that underpins our culture. History shows that the status quo can always be improved—so why so many of us accept it so readily puzzles me somewhat (or would if I didn’t know that most of us don’t know much history and make little effort to keep adequately informed).</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Since I was very young—around nine as I recall—I have been of the view that a great deal of what we are told isn’t true—which, logically, meant that I was going to have to work a great deal out for myself.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have read voraciously for most of my life—and reading promotes thinking.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I found early on that experience leverages the knowledge gained from reading, so have made it a policy to have a particularly broad breadth of experiences. I’m not particularly physically courageous, but I have been willing to take career risks on numerous occasions. That combination of reading, risk-taking, and an unusually varied life has enabled me to improve my thinking considerably. <em>That apart, I love adventures!</em></font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I find the process of thinking just plain exciting—to the point of being exhilarating. It is incredibly hard work—but that is part of the pleasure. Much as one gets a ‘runner’s high,’ so one gets much the same feeling from thinking.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have discovered that I am extremely intelligent, but that my ability to use this intelligence is marred by a form of dyslexia (certain memory issues which I try and compensate for by devising numerous work-arounds) and by some character flaws and fears (which I seem to have spent most of my life trying to remedy—with some, but not total, success). I regard life, in essence, as a journey to improve one’s character. That strikes me as a noble goal—just in itself. If there is an after-life, that bet is covered also. By the way, I am not cynical where the possibility of an afterlife is concerned. I just don’t know—and I have yet to meet anyone who does. I respect those who believe—but I prefer evidence-based thinking.</font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have discovered that thinking normally brings a result—and that most problems can be resolved if you do enough research, and then build on your findings. I have developed a saying that is almost a mantra—which has made me much more optimistic than I used to be. It is: <em>The answers are out there, if you are prepared to look. </em>The qualification is significant. Culturally, we are disinclined to look. Society discourages it. It questions the status quo. It implies change—and change is uncomfortable. The movers and shakers do not like, in their turn, to be moved and shaken. </font></div> <li> <div align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I am a passionate admirer of creativity in all its forms, and believe the human mind is our greatest single untapped resource—one of truly awesome power. No day goes by that I am not shaken to the core by admiration of those who harness it, and by what they have accomplished, and what they envision for the future. Conversely, I am also somewhat saddened by the fairly obvious fact that most of us make so little use of the powerful resource we have at our disposal. Society is structured to preserve the power of vested interests and the status quo—not to encourage free thinking and creativity. Creative people push the envelope, regardless of the personal cost, because that is just what we do—but we have only limited impact. Yet, potentially, we are all creative.</font></div></li></ul> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Clarity of mind depends upon quite a number of things including one’s genetic makeup, upbringing, education, direct and indirect experiences of life, environment, health, mood, the influence of one’s peers—and much else besides. Those apart, good sound information is fundamental.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In that context, I am extremely concerned at the weight of propaganda we are all exposed to—and the way we so casually place such reliance on myth, prejudice, and rumor, and seem to be so indifferent to evidence and objective reality. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A further complication is the conjunction of that attitude with unprecedented advances in communication technology. We have now equipped ourselves with the potential to allow ourselves to be distracted, deluded, and entertained from the cradle to the grave—and all too many of us seem to be availing of the opportunity.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The U.S. is the supreme example of a technologically advanced, propaganda dominated society—and the outcome is frightening, particularly because there are virtually no limits to the excesses of influence peddling, whether they be through advertising or some other propaganda technique. Worse still—the only standard is profit. No moral code applies. No other value seems to be culturally relevant. Social concern is minimal. Even religion is operated as a business. This is corporatism gone mad—and the consequences are horrendous. You have a government that is largely ineffective, and an economy, based on financial capitalism—not to be confused with traditional industrial capitalism—which fails to deliver for most Americans. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Worse still, most Americans don’t even know how bad the situation is because they are not told—or choose to find out—what is going on in other countries. Instead people are largely led to believe that the U.S. is thriving, and that the American Business Model remains the most effective economic system. This flies in the face of the evidence—evidence that has virtually being made un-American to consider. Instead, the myth of American exceptionalism dominates.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Europe is very far from perfect, but corporations are kept under some kind of control—and there are fairly serious attempts made to limit advertising, factor in the public interest where issues are concerned, and rein in the excesses and abuses associated with some interpretations of free speech. In short, the balance is better—though the threat remains.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">If we are to cope with all this—and the scale of these advances is both extraordinary and unprecedented—it seems to me that we going to have to learn to think in a more rational way. Can such an approach be taught? I rather think it can—but it will mean upending our educational system and making some other rather fundamental changes in society. </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I often wonder at what kind of society we could build if we really harnessed the power of our minds and worked out how to cooperate. Now and then an extraordinary individual emerges who gives us an inkling. Within the current context, they are rare.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Elon Musk comes to mind. An excellent article by Jessica Stillman of Inc.com provides some pointers as to how he thinks, and why he is so effective.</font></p> <blockquote> <h3> <p><font face="Verdana">This Is the Mindset That Makes Elon Musk So Incredibly Successful</font></h3> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">A writer who recently spent a lot of time talking to Musk explains how his mind works (in great detail).</font></p></blockquote> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/5-steps-to-pitch-like-elon-musk.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Elon Musk</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, in the words of </font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com"><font size="4" face="Verdana">WaitButWhy</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">.com blogger Tim Urban, is "the world's raddest man." Plotting to colonize Mars? Revolutionizing the energy industry? Serving as the inspiration for Hollywood's Iron Man? Check, check, check. That's all Musk. The guy has the title in the bag.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">But you knew that already. What you don't know is how a mere mortal with the same 24 hours per day at his disposal as the rest of us manages to accomplish so much. But I bet you want to find out.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">WaitButWhy.com thinks it has the answer. As Urban explains, he recently got a call that 99.9 percent of bloggers can only dream of -- someone from Musk's office was on the line asking if Urban was interested in interviewing her boss. The result of that stroke of luck is a series of (extremely lengthy) blog posts laying out </font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html#1http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html#1"><font size="4" face="Verdana">how Musk became a self-made billionaire</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, </font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html"><font size="4" face="Verdana">how Tesla will change the world</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, </font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/11/the-cook-and-the-chef-musks-secret-sauce.html#12"><font size="4" face="Verdana">why Space X is aiming to colonize Mars</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">, and finally a more personal look inside the brain of Musk.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">For fans of the Tesla and Space X founder (who have some time to burn -- I'm not joking about the lengthy thing), the whole series is a definite must read, but for those most interested in how Musk manages to be both so phenomenally productive, and so unbelievably innovative, the last post is where you should focus your energies.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">In it, Urban aims "to understand why Musk is able to do what he's doing." What's the mindset behind his success? Urban thinks he has the answer and claims </font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/11/the-cook-and-the-chef-musks-secret-sauce.html#3"><font size="4" face="Verdana">Musk's secret sauce</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana"> "is actually accessible to everyone."</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">The short answer.</font></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">It takes a bunch of funny doodles and a whole lot of words (quite a few of them profane) for Urban to explain his ideas about Musk, but he also offers a short reply to the question "What's Elon's secret?" Answer: "He's a scientist through and through."</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">To illustrate the point, Urban provides some odd but illuminating quotes from Musk, such as this one about his childhood fears: "When I was a little kid, I was really scared of the dark. But then I came to understand, dark just means the absence of photons in the visible wavelength--400 to 700 nanometers. Then I thought, well, it's really silly to be afraid of a lack of photons. Then I wasn't afraid of the dark anymore after that."<font color="#920000"> Obviously, this is a person with a greater than average commitment to evidence and objective reality.</font></font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">How does that commitment to scientific rigor play out in practice? Urban argues that to Musk, we're all computers. The slimy grey material in our skulls acts as hardware, while our thoughts and beliefs perform the role of software.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">You might think it's Musk's hardware -- the talented brain he was born with -- that makes him an exceptional entrepreneur, but Urban is convinced it's the software that makes the man. And he's also convinced we can reprogram our own software to be more like Musk's.</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">The long answer.</font></h4> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">How to do that resists quick summarizing, so if you're convinced Urban is on to something, I'd strongly suggest you</font><a href="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/11/the-cook-and-the-chef-musks-secret-sauce.html#13"><font size="4" face="Verdana"> give the complete post a read</font></a><font size="4" face="Verdana">. It is possible to boil down a few key points, however:</font> <ol> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><font color="#920000"><b>Unlike most of us, Musk reasons from first principles.</b> He doesn't do something because others say it's a good idea or that's how it was done before. Instead he reasons from first principles. "You look at the fundamentals and construct your reasoning from that, and then you see if you have a conclusion that works or doesn't work, and it may or may not be different from what people have done in the past," he tells Urban. </font></font></font> <li><font size="4"><font face="Verdana"><font color="#920000"><b>Musk continually tests his conclusions. </b>Being rigorously logical in your thinking isn't enough if you do it only once and then let it drift. "So after Musk builds his conclusions from first principles, what does he do? He tests the s**t out of them, continually, and adjusts them regularly based on what he learns," writes Urban. </font></font></font></li></ol> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">How has this approach worked when it comes to the big decisions of Musk's career? How are most of us sidetracked from thinking this way? (Spoiler: Dogma and tribalism are two of the top culprits.) How can we get our own mental software to function more like Musk's? The post goes into great depth on these sorts of questions, but let me leave you with one final quote from Urban summing up what makes Musk great (and what makes most of the rest of us comparatively mediocre).</font> <p><font size="4" face="Verdana">"The difference between the way Elon thinks and the way most people think is kind of like the difference between a cook and a chef," writes Urban. "The chef reasons from first principles, and for the chef, the first principles are raw edible ingredients. Those are her puzzle pieces, her building blocks, and she works her way upwards from there, using her experience, her instincts, and her taste buds. The cook works off of some version of what's already out there--a recipe of some kind, a meal she tried and liked, a dish she watched someone else make."</font> <p><em><font size="4" face="Verdana">Do you approach life more like a cook or a chef?</font></em> <ul><font size="4" face="Verdana"></font></ul> <h4><font size="4" face="Verdana">Elon Musk: 'Profits Are Not Our Primary Goal'</font></h4></blockquote> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Could we change the way think—or does inherently flawed human nature doom us to eternal mediocrity? </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m an optimist on this point. I think sheer circumstances—such as climate change and how we treat the environment generally (examples to illustrate the point) are going to force us to change how we think—whether we like it or not. I tend to think we may learn to like it. Once you really begin to learn the power of the mind, it is a refreshingly liberating and exciting feeling (and it beats the hell out of watching TV or otherwise escaping). I’ll go further. Thinking is downright entertaining.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Beyond that, technology (such as Big Data) is giving us the tools to get to grips with all kinds of issues which previously have appeared beyond our capabilities, or were otherwise intractable.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The toughest problems have to do with how we can live together to best advantage. My feeling is that technology is going to enable us to devise better social structures and methodologies for doing just that. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">We need to because:</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The current American Business Model (Crony Capitalism) just isn’t delivering.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Northern European Social Capitalism is much better—but there remains vast room for improvement.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Democracy—in its present form—isn’t working too well. In the U.S., the Constitution has essentially been hijacked by the ultra-rich who operate a plutocracy behind the trappings of democracy. In Europe, which works very well in many ways, many people have the feeling that the EU is both too remote and too intrusive—and certainly isn’t democratic (even when it is).</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Dogma (which I tend to think of as ‘ideologies’) and tribalism are rife. Political ideologies and religion have a lot to answer for. When they become intertwined and, essentially, one and the same, the consequences are disastrous. Evidence and objective reality are anathema in this context. Think Christian Right and Islamic Fundamentalism. </font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">At my age of 71 I doubt I’ll live long enough to see the changes I envisage come to pass—but I look forward to doing everything I can to encourage them. </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I’m absolutely convinced that we can—and will—do better (providing we change the way we think).</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-734958571794840571.post-8896764100110872352015-11-20T05:30:00.000-08:002015-11-20T05:34:37.487-08:00November 20 2015. When the facts change, I am quite prepared to change my mind.<p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact">SHOULD THE U.S. NOW PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO HELP DEFEAT ISIS?</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="5" face="Impact"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_cEXv4mnTiozdo5NWPseHcY0Dp4Ca0ujQvEAVni85PyITD8VSP76w2Jk_3ZD8hWnVhMOHvYUFGT25ctzuMFbIqL0XVcB_9ZPVLs6QLM8PPQp28BE8GhMNA_lHlEf3eAjCE6rdJS5qV931/s1600-h/VICTOR%252520-%252520SHOT%252520BY%252520MICK%252520-%252520WEBSITE%2525201%25255B2%25255D.png"><img title="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn0tKVeLGJ5U_oGEwT7Ry6JBW0OLbHzUN27o0HaOfHiCLneZIJkzhWAgykQE4uWR42Bn6HuVZHuTo3Fe3JqGZYE8-QBRu7FEdGAXQvTQdFaBp0c3veGz4PJgH_LPVxxuyl5z27lkJQggcP/?imgmax=800" width="174" height="244"></a></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font size="5" face="Impact">YES</font></strong></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Between you, me, and the gate-post, I’m not overly fond of the expression ‘boots-on-the-ground’—and it’s a cliché. On the other hand it conveys its meaning to useful effect—partly because of its lack of precision. In fact, it is pretty much ideal for this propaganda-oriented age. It can be interpreted broadly.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In essence, I understand it to mean ‘conventional troops directly committed to combat’ because training, supposedly, doesn’t count—and special forces tend to be used covertly (whatever that means where the U.S. is concerned).</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I have long disagreed with the way U.S. troops are deployed internationally (having well over 800 bases internationally is ridiculous) and am equally opposed to the U.S.’s unhappy habit of drifting almost casually into one seemingly unending conflict after another (many concurrently). However, if the situation genuinely warrants it—in that there is a direct threat to National Security (existential or otherwise) then I do think military action is both justified and necessary.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">It was far from clear that ISIS did pose a direct threat to U.S. National Security initially, so President Obama’s caution may well have been justified (whatever one thinks about his overall strategy) but several things are now absolutely clear.</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">ISIS not only intends to attack the U.S. and its allies directly, but has the capability to do so (or thinks it has).</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">ISIS’s particular brand of Islamic Fundamentalism has global appeal as far as a subset of Muslims is concerned. How large that subset is numerically is open to debate—but even if the percentage is tiny there are so many Muslims, in all, that this could pose a global problem. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Time allows ISIS to gain more and more followers so the sooner it is contained, and substantially destroyed, the better. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">ISIS’s leaders are smart and adaptable. That means the organization will become more dangerous over time.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Air power alone will not do the job—either militarily or psychologically. </font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The decisive defeat of ISIS militarily will, almost certainly, not end it completely—it is likely to morph into pure terrorism and linger on indefinitely (perhaps under another name)—but it will puncture ISIS’s image of success, and will certainly deter its ability to attract more recruits.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">For all it’s propaganda,ruthlessness, and ferocity, ISIS is neither a major, nor particularly significant, military power. Its main successes so far have been against ineffective Iraqi forces—themselves heavily compromised by the Shia/Sunni divide—or against less than stellar Syrian troops. In contrast, the Kurds, despite lacking the full range of weapons they both need and deserve, have defeated ISIS on a series of occasions.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The Kurds should be armed directly and comprehensively.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The future of Iraq and Syria is their current geographic form is debatable in itself, and less important than the destruction of ISIS.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Getting ride of Syria’s Assad is less important than the destruction of ISIS.</font> <li><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Turkey’s fear of the Kurds, ambivalence about ISIS, and implacable hostility towards Assad are worth bearing in mind, but, essentially, should not be regarded as pivotal. </font></li></ul> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">One serious problem when it comes to committing U.S. combat troops directly is that the U.S. Army seems to have scant understanding of the principle of economy of force—let alone speed and maneuver. As a consequence, it invariably commits way too many troops—and then spends a disproportionate amount of time protecting them. Though individual units can be outstanding—and both the courage and training of the average soldier are impressive—the overall style of the Army is to be slow, clumsy, and somewhat brutal (though, to be fair, such is the nature of war). That is primarily a leadership issue. It’s my strong impression, based upon substantial exposure to, and involvement with, the Army over the last couple of decades, that the caliber of the generals isn’t up to that of the fighting troops. But, as always, there are exceptions.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">A consequence of this tendency to over-commit, combined with a lack of understanding of expeditionary warfare, is that the Army is not good at limited operations. This limits a president’s choices to a major involvement—or no involvement (other than using special forces). That is a serious, and unnecessary, limitation.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">Strange as it may seem, the U.S. Army, despite having access to the strongest Air Force in the world, not to mention a substantial force of attack helicopters and some fixed wing (overall larger than any other air force just in itself) hasn’t yet fully adjusted to the implications of fighting in a truly integrated way. By that I mean that it hasn’t yet thought through the basic fact that if one fights <em>in a fully integrated manner</em>, you can do a great deal more with a smaller ground force than would otherwise be the case.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">I don’t have access to classified intelligence sources. Nonetheless, based upon what I have read, it is my belief that a U.S. ground force of about 5,000, fully supported from the air, when combined with special forces, and with Kurdish and Iraqi troops, could defeat ISIS decisively with relative ease—providing it avoided the kind of time-wasting and provocative activities that it so loves to indulge in (building large permanent bases and patrolling, for instance). </font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">In practice, it appears virtually certain that both France and the UK would join with a U.S., Kurdish, and Iraqi force.</font></p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style">The next question concerns what should be done with the area after ISIS has been defeated. But that is a blog for another day.</font></p> <hr> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font> </p> <p><font size="4" face="Bookman Old Style"></font></p> Victor O'Reillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08211678865180045386noreply@blogger.com0