Musing of One Watching a Guy Who Fell Out of an Antique Biplame at the Top of a Loop, Landed on the Side of a Haystack, Slid All the Way Through It...

...And Set It on Fire by Friction of His Pants.


Semi-fantasy #1:

The board of directors of a large corporation finished its review of a proposal for production of the goozlemawhatchit, a new product. It exhaustively studied the market analysis, the facility requirements, profit and loss projections etc. Having done so, the board decided to approve the project and duly notified the CEO of that decision. The CEO hired a plant manager who in turn hired a controller, a director of human resources, and director of industrial engineering and they began work. Before the workforce requirement had been determined the board sent a letter to the CEO specifying the skills and pay grades of the people to be hired. The director of industrial resources began struggling with this since it did not conform to general labor practices in the area. While he was doing so, the board sent another letter to the CEO specifying the types of accounting systems and banking arrangements that were to be used. This resulted in confusing the controller, who nevertheless began to try to comply with the letter. While he was so engaged the board sent another letter to the CEO specifying the size of the new facility, its layout and the manufacturing flow. The industrial engineers climbed up the wall trying to figure this one out.
As a result of all this, the whole project became enmeshed in a tangle of conflicting requirements and solutions. The project fell behind schedule by about a year. Meanwhile, a competitor began producing a similar product and garnered about 2/3 of the market.
In the light of all this, the board finally decided to cancel the project with a substantial loss to the company. Because of this the plant manager was summarily fired, the CEO lost his annual bonus and two directors decided not to stand for re-election.
The foregoing is the fantasy part.
Reality - Congress does the same thing with much of its legislation, an outstanding example being the health care law. Instead of acting as the policy-making board of directors which it is supposed to be, Congress has become mesmerized with the details of upper- and middle-management, for which it is not qualified and which should be properly left to the executive department.
Sic transit gloria mundi.

The Musing of One Thinking About the Guy Who Tried to Sell Santa Claus Batteries for Rudolf's Nose

Fantasy #2
The Dream Act passed and people began to come out the shadows to claim their share. One guy joined the military, served two years in Hawaii, got his citizenship papers and began to organize his compatriots into a solid voting block. He succeeded to such an extent that the block was able to force passage of an open borders act.

Within a few months after the act was passed some one billion people from around the world flooded into the United States. The financial strain was so great that the economy collapsed resulting in a depression worse than the Great Depression. It was so bad that the military took all its equipment and went to Canada, where in conjunction with Canadian military it set up a defence line along the U.S. and Canadian border.

Things were so bad in the United states that people started heading south to find a better life. Mexico, whose population was down to 50 million because of out migration, tried valiantly to seal its borders but failed.

With all the new arrivals things got just as bad in Mexico and the masses continued to migrate south eventually arriving in Argentina, Chile, parts of Brazil, and the Falkland Islands.

Meanwhile a false rumor arose that Australia had enacted an open borders act another couple of billion people of Oriental decent headed to Australia which was unable to resist the on slot.

All this weight at the bottom of the world caused an imbalance so that the Earth tilted one half a degree from its normal inclination. The result was drastic climate changes aroused the world. Mexican resorts began to order ice skates. skies, and snow shoes in the hope of attracting more vacationers. Central California became the Ski capitol of the world, the Riviera found its self encased in ice two feet thick, and all the snow melted off Mount Fuji.

This prompted a group of environmentalists, who had blamed the US and George Bush for global warming, to head for the now and feeble united nations to ask for establishment of an office to monitor global cooling, ignoring the fact that Scandinavia has an average temperature of 95 degrees.

Eventually everybody realized the whole thing was a pipe drain and returned to their native lands, where upon the Earth turned to its normal angle of inclination. The climate changed again, and everybody resumed their practice of debating who was responsible for what.


Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus but during the great upheaval it got so warm at the north pole that he moved his entire operation to the South pole, where he had proceeded to review his navigational charts and adjust Rudolf's nose. Whether he is still there or has returned to the North pole is unknown at this time.

Musing of One Thinking about a Congressman Who Went Home to Campaign for Re-election, Accidentally Hit His Head on a Brick Wall...

... Got Confused and Campaigned for his Opponent, and Wound Up Winning the Election Anyway.

There is a general premise to which, we believe, the vast majority of law-abiding people subscribe: no one should benefit directly or indirectly from the violation of the law. It appears to us that the so-called Dream Act directly contradicts this premise, and may well be a long-range effort to buy future votes.

Musing of One Watching a Man Who Found a Peapod Containing One Red Pea and One Green Pea

Recently, the President called for a 2-year freeze on federal pay scales. This is laudible, but it does not go far enough (See our posting from Saturday June 12, 2010 entitled "Musing of One on Crutches When Someone Offered to Help Him Put Roller Skates Under the Crutches to Help Him Go Faster").
It is good that some Congressmen have come to the realization that we are approaching the edge of the cliff and that drastic action needs to be taken. However, in all the interviews with Congressmen that we have wacthed on tv, not one has mentioned that Congress should take a hit.

Musing of One Trying to Convince a Guy who Never Studied Geography that the Rock of Gibraltar is not a Musical Group

We note rumblings of some sort of amnesty approach for illegal aliens and their children born in this country. In our opinion, this is wrong for the reasons shown below.
We think it is a generally accepted premise that no one should benefit from a violation of the law. Therefore, adults who enter this country illegally should get no consideration whatever so far as permission to remain here is concerned. Children born in this country to illegal aliens are a special problem. They can not be required to be unborn; on the other hand, they should not be a vehicle through which benefits pass to other people. Accordingly, they should be classed as resident aliens, not citizens. This classification would allow them to live and work in this country and enjoy all the benefits except that as non-citizens they can not vote, hold public office or bring into this country other members of their families to reside with them.
The denial of citizenship to such people in our view is consistent with a number of interpretations of the 14th Amendment which we have read, including one by the Supreme Court. These generally state that a child born in the US is a citizen only if at least one of its parents is a citizen.
These restrictions would not prevent the child from applying for citizenship through the usual channels.
We think that such a policy, although strict, is in no way punitive. Further, it does not permit anyone to benefit from violation of the law except that as a matter of necessity, children born here should be able to remain here.

Musing of One Thinking About a Guy Who Shot an Arrow Into the Air, Watched It Land on a Passing Freight Train...

...and Sued the Railroad for Loss of a Valuable Antique Arrow.

The health plan we posted on this blog envisions a major role for insurance companies. Just to make the record clear, we have no direct involvment with any insurance company. We know some insurance agents and we carry the usual kinds of policies, but that's it (we may have some kind of remote connection through a mutual fund or something like that, but, if so, we're completely unaware of it).

Musing of one wondering how many dogs there are in Manhattan

We have learned that the new health care law prohibits insurance companies from rejecting an applicant because of pre-existing conditions. We can see several consequences arrising out of this policy.
1. It will cause the premium of those who do carry insurance to increase. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
2. It will encourage people not to apply for insurance until they need to file claims (inspite the $2000.00 penalty's).
3. In the long run it quite possibly result in the demise of private health insurance, which may well be what the drafters of the legislation had in mind in the first place. Remember the debates of the single payer systems.

The musing of one wondering if the Swiss actually invented Swiss steak

In April 2009 during the big debates on health plans, we sat down and wrote our own which takes up about three and a half pages.

It was reviewed by a number of people including, a RN case manager, an engineer, two attorneys (one from East coast and one from West coast), insurance agent, CEO of a relatively small health care organization, and an individual whose own health care arrangement is secure enough that the law won’t affect him. All agree the plan is workable.

Since then, we have tried to find an actuary who would do the necessary study to produce a model set of numbers which could be used to estimate cost and savings. We have had no success.

We also submitted it to two congressional offices hoping to arouse some interest. We had no success there either.

Now, acting on the advice of two people whose opinions we value highly, we have decided to publish it on our blog. For better or worse, here it is. See below.

Further deponent say it’s not.


A Concept for “National Health Care Plan”
By J. D. Eiland


Cautionary Notes

1) I make no claim to have expertise in the health care field, the insurance field or the legislative field. The ideas presented herein are based on plain old horse sense accumulated over many years.

2) The figures used herein are not taken from any data base or statistical analysis; they are purely arbitrary and are used only for illustrative purposes.


General Description

1) All individuals over the age of 15 are entitled to establish a Health Savings Account. The amount placed in this account should be free from all taxes of any kind, federal, state or local.

2) The account should be established in financial institutions regulated by the federal government. Each account should be clearly identified as an HSA account, and the financial institution involved should be required to limit payments from it to licensed health care providers, licensed pharmacists, or recognized health insurers. This requires that the payee place its license number on the check.

3) Individuals should be encouraged to use part of the HSA to purchase high-deductible health insurance.

4) The amount in the HSA should be allowed to accumulate tax-free over the lifetime of the individual. Upon his/her death his beneficiaries should have the option of rolling the balance into their own HSAs or taking it as ordinary income, in which case it would be subject to the usual taxes.

5) Insurers should be authorized to place a lifetime cap of perhaps $700,000, pro-ratable according to the age of the insurer at the time of the enrollment, on payments. Beyond that cap the liability should pass to the federal government as insurer of catastrophic events or chronic health disabilities. To finance this part of the plan the federal government should receive some portion of monthly premiums paid by the insured. These amounts should be held in an actual trust fund. When the fund reaches a predetermined maximum, further collections can be suspended until additional funds are required to maintain that maximum. The suspension would pass through the insurance companies to the insured as a reduction in premium.

6) The purchase of a high deductible insurance should be voluntary but appropriate incentives should be established to encourage such purchases. (See discussion in later paragraphs).

7) As an example of the concept, assume the following: the total amount of the HSA contribution is $4,500. The insured uses $2,000 of this to buy a high-deductible medical insurance policy, with the deductible set at a minimum of $2,500. The insurer does not become involved until the HSA is exhausted.


Medicaid

1) As best as I can determine, the current Medicaid program covers about 50 million people and costs an average of $6,100 per person per year, or somewhat over $300 billion.

2) In lieu of Medicaid, current Medicaid patients would be given an HSA account equal to the maximum HSA contribution. For 50 million people, this would cost $225 billion. The difference would be used to finance other activities covered in later paragraphs. Current Medicaid patients should be instructed to select a preferred provider organization and to go to that organization for health care. They should no longer be allowed to use emergency rooms for non-emergency concerns. Nor should an ER be required to treat non-emergency ailments.

3) I recognize the reality that many current Medicaid patients are not dependable in arranging their own affairs. The welfare programs of the last 70 years or so, which have had noble ideals and have actually produced many benefits, nevertheless have created a permanent underclass of people who depend on the government or others to take care of their problems. Its time to change for the better and this is a good place to start.

4) Without some sort of incentive, current Medicaid recipients might be inclined to use the funds completely, regardless of whether medical necessity really required it. To prevent this, the former Medicaid recipients should be informed if any balance remains in his HSA at the end of the year. If so, he may withdraw half of it tax-free. Whether this should be done on an annual or accumulated basis will need to be determined.


Medicare

The Medicare program would continue in its present form for those over 50 years of age, when this plan is installed. Others would transition to the proposed health care plan. After age 65, and after the lifetime limit has been exhausted, these people would be placed in the catastrophic or disability category and their medical costs would be assumed by the federal government. If the insured is unable to meet the premiums after retirement he may apply for aid as described in the paragraph titled "Underinsured (Working Poor)" below.
After the exhaustion of the lifetime limit the insured will no longer pay premiums, but would remain eligible for the federal government's reinsurance plan.




Underinsured (Working Poor)

For this group the federal government would provide funds sufficient to finance an HSA in the maximum amount. Funds for this could probably come from the savings in Medicaid. There should, of course, be predetermined standards of eligibility. The same incentive described above for the former Medicaid recipient should also apply for the underinsured.


Uninsured

This category includes those who are financially able to purchase health insurance but who choose not to do so. In this case, a negative incentive will be provided, as described below. People should understand that the whole program is voluntary. They should also understand that if they choose not to participate and then incur medical bills beyond their ability to pay, the creditors may then go to federal court and obtain a federal lien on all property belonging to the debtor as well as 20% of his monthly income. As a federal lien, the creditor could obtain action no matter where the debtor moved in the United States or no matter how he tried to dispose of real property. This lien should be superior to and survive all legal actions, including bankruptcy, and it might also apply to property transferred after the debt is incurred.


Other Provisions

1) The lifetime cap should apply to the individual, not to the insurance company. Therefore, if an individual changes insurance companies the new insurer would establish a cap of $700,000 minus all amounts previously paid by previous insurers. For this purpose insurers would be required to furnish each other with such information. The purpose of this provision is to prevent manipulation of the system by anyone - insured, insurers, or the federal government.

2) The insurance community should establish an insurance clearing house similar to a bank clearing house. With such an institution, providers could send to it their request for payment which would then reroute the claims to the appropriate insurance companies. This could involve the use of a preprinted forms provided by the insurance company to each insured (similar to a pad of checks) and the provider would nearly have to add its name and billing data, attach its supporting documents, and forward all claims to one addressee. This should alleviate, if not eliminate, the concern about the single-payer concept. Appropriate time limitations could be placed on the clearing house and the insurance companies. For example, the clearing house might be allowed 72 hours to reroute the claims to the appropriate paying companies, and the paying companies might be required to either pay within twenty-one days or notify the provider of any objections within those same twenty-one days.



Closing Thoughts

1) The incentives discussed under the Medicaid and underinsured headings should probably be extended to everyone, for the sake of simplicity and ease of administration.

2) The insurers should retain the administration of all claims including those filed with the federal government. This would provide simplicity, continuity of information, and consistency and would relieve the federal government of the burden of establishing another bureaucracy. The insurance company could be paid a processing fee. The fee would be paid from the health plan trust funds of the federal government.

3) This discussion has not addressed the question of whether there should continue to be group insurance, or whether it could be handled on an individual basis. That question should be settled by agreement among the insurers and the federal government.

4) Insurance companies should be allowed to compete across state lines, subject to normal regulation by the states.

5) Properly structured, a system such as this probably would result in a reduction of health care costs.



Original April 2009; Revised October 2010

Musings of One Wondering What Dolley Madison Would Think about Bubble Gum Ice Cream

For a number of months we have been discussing at dinner and other occasions the recession and its causes. Here is our take:

What causes a recession? Answer: people stop buying things. In other words, demand goes down (it never vanishes completely).

What causes demand to decrease? (1) people lose their jobs; (2) people get maxed out on their credit (think of the mortgage meltdown) and are unable to buy what they would like to buy; (3) everybody has everything they want (theoretically possible but highly unlikely).

So what is the cure? Beats us. Except we know you have to have more demand to get out of a recession. But the theorists in the Potomac Pantheon are happily trying to make more credit available for people who are not at the moment interested in borrowing anyway (I recall a TV spot in which a small business owner answered a question by saying, "why would I hire more people if I can't sell what I have?").

Incidentally, "stimulus" was known during the Great Depression as "pump priming." That didn't work either. All efforts should be directed at increasing demand, possibly by cutting taxes, investigating ways of helping people reduce their personal debt, etc.

Comments

If you'd like to comment, but you're having trouble leaving them on the blog, feel free to email comments to dsrtreilands@gmail.com

Musing of One Wondering What Captain Nemo Would Have Seen Had He Piloted the Nautilus Through the Bermuda Triangle

The other day we watched a news broadcast about a report submitted by the US government to the United Nations. In effect, the report apparently acknowledged that the United States discriminates against practically everyone in the world. As the litany went on, a rhetorical question occurred to us -- if all of these groups are being discriminated against, who's doing the discriminating? The answer eventually occurred to us -- it's the straight white male under 40 who is the only group not mentioned as far as we could see. Then another thought occurred to us -- that there are not enough of them to do all that discriminating so someone else must be involved. Perhaps an additonal answer is that some groups which are being discriminated against are simultaneously discriminating against other groups. My goodness, we certainly can get confused. It also occurred to us to wonder -- whence came the divine wisdom which enables some in government to determine whether discrimination exists and, if so, whether it's good, bad or indifferent?

Musing of One Wondering What the Chinese Who Invented Gunpowder Did With the First Batch

We saw a news report that a number of state and local governments have unfunded pension liabilities aggragating about $3 trillion, and that they are considering asking the federal government to bail them out. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The states, their legislatures and their unions got themselves into the problem and it's up to them to do whatever they have to do get themselves out. And as a consultant in Chicago who would benefit from such a bailout remarked, "This would help to destroy federalism and should never be done." What we need is some realism.

Musing of One Watching a Man Who, Using a Casting Rod to Fish From a River Bank, Accidentally Snagged a Sunken Log, Thought He Had Hooked a Huge Fish,

and Reeled Himself Into the River

We saw on the news the other day that the Los Angeles school district has just completed a $578,000,000 "Taj Mahal" high school complete with extravagances. This seems to us to be characteristic of the tendency of public bodies to persuade taxpayers to provide funds to allow them to build they want instead of the minimum needed.
Young people should not go to school for fun. It's a tax supported institution, not a free one and young people should go there to learn the skills and develop the self-discipline required to become a productive self-supporting member of society, and for no other reason. This requires only that there be adequate classrooms fully equipped for this purpose. They should be designed to encourage the student to accomplish the goals and move on.
This is this kind of philosophy that has gotten the United States into its current fiscal mess.

Musing of a Native Arkansan Still Wondering How Smackover, Arkansas Got Its Name

It seems to us that in all the dithering about illegal immigration, congress has never considered one of the most effective solutions. That solution is the establishment of the strongest possible DISINCENTIVES.

So we offer below a couple of these, accompanied by a proper incentive:

First, citizenship should be denied to all illegal immigrants and their children, including those born in the US. This is consistent with the 14th Amendment and various interpretations of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" contained in the 14th Amendment. It is also consistent with the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 which states that no matter where in the world a child is born if at least one of its parents is a legal US citizen the child is a legal US citizen. Conversely, it seems obvious that no matter where in the world a child is born, including the US, if at least one of its parents is not a legal US citizen than neither is the child. (Apparently, congress can confer citizenship on anyone when it chooses to do so; it seems evident they can choose not to confer citizenship.)

Second, all forms of public assistance, except for emergency medical care, should be denied to anyone who is in this country illegally.

Third, if there is not one already, there should be a guest worker program which permits people to come to this country to work, but which, so as each individual is concerned, is limited both in duration and in the number of persons the worker can bring. This should be a tightly controlled, easily policed program.

This is probably not a very popular approach with alot of people.

Musing of One Who Wonders Whatever Happened to Hetty Green's Fortune

We have not read the new Arizona law which is the subject of so much controversy. However, we have listened to innumerable interviews with people ranging from the governor through legislators, sherrifs and interviewees on news shows. After all that, we can only conclude that all the protestations about constitutionality and racial profiling must be based on either political considerations or on a perception that the law in inimical to self-interest. Based on the interviews we heard with those who authored the law and those who will be administering it, we say "Hooray for Arizona!" and for any of the other states who follow Arizona's lead. It seems to us, Arizona is not usurping the federal authority, but is merely helping the feds do the job they're supposed to do.

See the comments under:
Musings of One Who Has Just Been Asked the Question "Why is a Biscuit?"

Musing of One Wondering What Happened to the First Mrs. Julia Ceasar After the Divorce (Debt)

In a previous posting I suggested that congress should lead the way in debt reduction by taking a hit to itself. This would be only an indicator of a firm intention to reduce the debt.

For many years efforts to cut back have been primarily band-aid type measures, which only try to reduce the costs of a function without any further action. That does not work very well. Instead what is needed is to change or eliminate the function itself.

An example of this can be found in the Medicare/Medicaid functions. Cost apparently keep rising, band-aids keep being applied until there is no more room and effective results are not obtained. What is needed is to eliminate these functions and replace them with more controllable functions as a part of a simplified health plan, which should replace whatever the thing is that they call a health plan now. Incidentally, I myself am on Medicare.

There are conscientious and dedicated people in congress, but I doubt that congress as a body has the political will to take such draconian actions as described above. That's too bad.

Musings of One Who Found a Needle in a Haystack and Didn't Know What To Do With It

There's been much ado about immigration reform lately. While we're not privy to the discussions going in congress, what little information we can glean indicates that congress wants to avoid inconvenience to or injury to the feelings of illegal immigrants. Further, there seems to be a feeling in congress that the logistics of deporting 12 million illegal aliens (or however many there are) would be insurmountable. We think they're wrong on both counts.
If you want people to do something, you provide incentives for them to do it. (See previous musing about balancing the budget). When you want people not to do something, you establish the strongest dis-incentives that you can design. Some such dis-incentives already exist, but are not being enforced, and others could be easily established. In our opinion, if such dis-incentives were established, the illegal immigration problem would probably solve itself.

Musing of One on Crutches When Someone Offered to Help Him Put Roller Skates Under the Crutches to Help Him Go Faster

There has been a multitude of appearances by politicians on tv discussing the need to cut costs in order to balance the federal budget, but no one so far as I know has offered any specific suggestions on cutting costs. Congress should be leading in this respect, not prodding others. So I make the following suggestions:

1. Cut the pay of members of Congress and their staffs by %10. Freeze the salaries at this level until the budget is balanced. Also, freeze benefits at their current level.

2. Cut the pay of the President and all memebers of his staff by %10. Freeze pay at this level as well as benefits at this current level until the federal budget is balanced. (If this causes a ripple effect down through the ranks, so be it.)

3. Cut the other budget items of Congress by %10 until the federal budget is balanced.

This is known as an incentive. The states (especially California and New York) should follow this procedure.

4. Freeze social security payments at their current level. This will be the hit the seniors take. It's not an incentive for seniors, but it will probably cause them to vote against any handouts.

5. Freeze federal pay scales and benefits at their current levels, except for those possibly of the military. Keep this freeze in effect until (1) the federal budget is balanced and (2) the average pay and benefits for federal employees no longer exceeds those of employees in the private sector.

If this offends anybody, just remember that I belong to Krotchety Old Kurmudgeons Klub.

Musing of One Writing an Article on Why Neither Hair Nor Grass Will Grow on a Billiard Ball

One of the unpleasant side effects of the Gulf oil spill has been the oppurtunity afforded for political posturing.

A couple of examples:

1. A number of times BP executives went on television and stated they would pay all costs resulting from the spill. Even after this, the President and various members of congress continued to stand in front of the camera and declaim: "We are going to make BP pay."

2. One of the major news services interviewed a boat captain who was sitting on his boat high and dry. He stated that he had been called out one day to do some clean up work on the ocean, but had since then been sitting idle without anything to do. The news service left the story at that. Another news service contacted BP about the same captain and boat and was informed that storms in the area made it unwise to send boats of that size out to do clean up work and that as soon as weather permitted they would be called out again. Meanwhile BP had been paying captain and crew. Sounds to me like the first news service had been doing a little political posturing.

Musings of One Who Was Riding on a Truckload of Turnips When...

...the Truck Tailgate Broke and All the Turnips Fell Off.

Grandson Dan has a friend who is an electronic genius. He decided he wanted to make something totally unique so after due deliberation he built a wood-burning steam-powered music synthesizer. I think we will all admit that he succeeded in creating something totally unique. This guy, being a genius, could be very useful in the R & D department of some large company. Or, if he wanted to go in another direction, he could probably do well at the IRS or HHS.

Musing of One Watching a Squirrel Trying to Crack Open a Golf Ball

In the news reports lately there's been a story that the new national security strategy will focus more on diplomacy and international cooperation than military pacts and actions.
This is a laudible goal. However, there is an old truism about treaties and pacts. It says that a treaty is good only so long as each party to it intends to, and does, comply with its terms. Some examples of broken treaties come to mind; the Treaty of Versailles, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Munich Accords and the Paris agreement between the U.S. and North Vietnam. I think that prior to World War Two the Germans and Russians had one or more treaties which probably neither one of them ever intended to honor.
One of Ronald Reagan's famous one-liners was "Trust, but verify." To which we would add "Stay alert."

Musing of one preparing to explain...

...to a student who is unfamiliar with it that the Great Depression was neither a topographical feature nor a period of extremely high demand for Prozac.

Way back in the days of the mastodons, saber -toothed tigers, and early cavemen, and before there were any formal languages, a young caveman was wandering though the forest one day looking for something to eat when he came upon a clearing with a stream running through it. Sitting on a rock by the stream was an absolutely ravishing cave girl sunning herself. “wow” said the cave man by whatever means cave men used to communicate with themselves , “ that’s for me” he started toward the rock , and about half way there he admitted a grunt that sounded like “ah-ha”! she looked up and grasp her club that was lying beside her .Then she admitted an answering grunt which sounded like “unh-unh” he came a little farther and grunted again something like “uh-huh” and received the same reply “unh-unh”.
By this time he was close enough to reach over and touch her shoulder, where upon she whacked him over the head with her club. Fortunately his thick hair cushioned the blow somewhat, but he still saw stars and felt woozy. While he was standing there trying to recover he suddenly began to speak regular words in English, which wasn’t even going to be developed for another zillion or so years. She shows some evidence of interest and soon becomes intrigued and then so entranced that she throws herself into his arms, they precede to head back to his cave, settle down, and then begin production of some little “ah-has”.
Periodically the Muse visits him and he spouts more English words. this always entrances his mate who drops whatever she is doing to sit there and listen. One day he is in the mood and she is listening to what he is spouting when he accidently strings together a number of words that make up a complete intelligible sentence. Both of them are trying to figure this latest thing out when a saber-toothed tiger sticks his head into the entrance of the cave. They forget everything while they grab their clubs and attend to business. After ward they try to recall what he had said, but have no luck what so ever, and so the sentence is lost to posterity for another zillion plus years. Then one day a minor bureaucrat, trying to decide which one in his group may have the data needed to answer the question from his superiors, kicks a waste basket and resurrects the sentence, and brings it immortality- “next week we gotta get organized” .
And so, children the moral of the stuff is: any account of history may or may not be factually accurate in all respects, depending on the mindset of the author and the reliability of his sources.

Musings of One Who Has Just Been Asked the Question "Why is a Biscuit?"

I have been having trouble ascertaining what is included in the current immigration reform proposals in congress. However, from what I have been able to glean they include some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants along with a path to citizenship. If so, this is probably the only instance in all recorded human history in which a government proposed to reward people for breaking its laws.
(As far as unrecorded human history, there probably weren't any governments then anyway.)
How ridiculous can it get?
This seems to me to be the ne plus ultra of absurdity.

Musings of One Finally Admitting Membership in the Krotchety Old Kurmudgeons Klub

Amendment 1 of the US constitution gives people the right to "peacably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievance." I was reflecting on this some days ago as I watched a demonstration in Phoenix against the new Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants. What I saw was a crowd rampaging through the streets, impeding traffic, defacing buildings and injuring at least one police officer. I said to myself "This is hardly peacably assembling." And so we have the situation where a group of people who have flauted the constitution in at least one way, and two if they entered the country illegally, calling on that same constitution to invalidate a law which they consider inimacal to their personal interests. I call this sheer hypocrisy. I also call this blatant arrogance.

Musings of One Trying to Remember What a Flint Lock Was

Here is my take on responsibility for the mortgage meltdown and the recession. It's based on what I have been able to glean from various news reports, talk shows, and printed reports. Listed below, in descending order of importance, are those whom I think were, in my opinion, responsible for the mortgage meltdown:
1. Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. Smith of main street USA who bought a house they could not afford, took on a mortgage not justified by their income, and later when the value of the house rose- took out a home equity loan without really considering the possible risks. (I'm not blaming them, that's human nature, in the same circumstances others of us might do the same thing. What I'm doing is trying to assign responsibility.)
2. Real estate agents and others who entered fraudulent data on loan applications in order to qualify the buyer for a bigger mortgage.
3. The government and large lending institutions, which over the years, cooperated to relax lending standards to the point where a homeless person without a job could qualify to buy a home, with nothing down and 40 years or so to pay it off. I'll admit to some hyperbole's here.
4. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which provided a market for mortgages, but apparently didn't carefully analyze the risks.
5. Wall street for packaging mortgage obligations into securities and selling them world wide.

In my opinion, also a factor in the recession was unrestrained use of credit by individuals to the point where they could no longer buy things on credit.

Instead of accepting responsibility it seems that everybody is busy pointing fingers at everybody else. Reminds me of a line from some piece of literature, (I would gladly credit the author if I had any idea of who he was): "Lord Henry stormed out the door, flung himself onto his horse, and galloped off madly in all directions."

Oh well!

Musings of One Trying to Remember How a Flint Lock Worked

Recently there has been quite a bit in the news about SEC charges against Goldman Sachs, also there has been an item in the news, in which Warren Buffet is quoted saying that he isn't selling any of his Goldman stock. Somewhat confusing. Also note that the president and various other politicians have castigated Goldman for causing the mortgage meltdown and the recession. That brings to mind the fact that over the years various politicians have used big corporations in some fields of endeavor as favorite whipping boys to arouse the electorate and thereby gain support for further government interventions. In my opinion, Goldman Sachs had very little to do with the recession and the mortgage meltdown. In general, that is another stick of confusion thrown on the fire.

Way back in the 1930's an Ogen Nash character uddered the immortal line "O tempora, O mores, O God, O Montreal!" which makes about as much sense as some of the things going on today.

Musings of One Trying to Visualize How the Ancient Romans Multiplied XVIII by LXX and got MCCLX

Thinking about the part of the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding freedom of speech, upon reflection it seems to me that the right is not absolute. As a Supreme Court justice once observed, it does not give one the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Nor does it give one the right to indulge in slander or libel without penalty. Similarly, it seems to me, that the right is limited to areas owned or controlled by governmental bodies. For example, if one in charge of private property chooses to post a sign "No Profanity" that is his right; it does not restrict anyone's freedom of speech. Those who wish to engage in it are free to go out on the sidewalk and spout cuss words to their hearts' content (though they might arrested for disturbing the peace).

Musings of One Trying to Help an Ant Find Its Way Home After Being Caught in a Tornado

After many years of observation, I have reached the empirical conclusion that if you walk down the sreets of any large city except for Washington, D.C. and ask the first hundred people you meet to define the word "corporation", 95 would give a wrong definition or no definition at all. And the same would hold true of the terms "net profits" and "net earnings". Some individuals would probably consult the appropriate dictionaries and make a liar out of me. That's okay.

Musings of One Watching a Donkey and an Elephant Spar Over a HUGE Shipping Container Marked "Hundred-Dollar Bills",

but Actually Containing Slips of Paper Marked "IOU One-Hundred Dollars"

I wonder how much attention high school and college curricula give to the Constitution and its history, or if indeed they give them any attention at all.

Musings of One Idly Contemplating a Stopped-Up Gutterspout

With my usual keen and perceptive insight, I have noted that a great many people seem to have a subconcsious notion that government is some sort of big physical being with its own source of wealth. Wrong.

In its nature government is akin to a corporation: "...an artificial being - invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law." (In fact, some governmental organizations are corporations.)

As such, government's affairs are conducted by fallible human beings who are no smarter than the rest of us, and certainly not qualified to manage or regulate the ongoing activities of three hundred million individuals of varied origins and backgrounds, multitudinous opinions and differing objectives. Nobody is that smart.

Government has no independent source of wealth. It gets its wealth from taxes and borrowings, and redistributes it in various ways. Often it gets a return for its disbursements, e.g. military service; in other cases, such as grants and similar disbursements, it doesn't get any return.

Moral: Take everything with a grain of salt and vote for those who at least claim fiscal responsibility.

Musings of One Loading a Turnip Truck So Someone Else Can Fall Off It

With my usual keen and perceptive insight I have observed over the years that in most elections votes are cast on the basis of emotion or political affiliation rather than on the basis of objective analysis and reasoning. This is not too suprising because the candidates and the media rarely produce any hard data on which an objective analysis can be made.

Usually, the candidate with the most charisma and the greatest number of promises wins. If nobody has any charisma then the one with the greatest number of promises wins and thereafter spends a goodly amount of time explaining why promises which were valid before the election became invalid after the election, usually blaming predecessors and/or the opposition.(These are empirical conclusions, but I think they're justified).

Moral: Demand hard data and then vote for the one making the least number of promises and advocating smaller government.

R Comes Before R or, Let's Review the Alphabet

For several decades now, there have been multitudes of pronouncements and speeches about individual rights and group rights. These have emanated from clerics, TV news magazine shows, politicians, activists espousing various causes, jurists and regulators, and probably some who are not mentioned here. All of them no doubt promote worthy objectives. However, in general they fail to consider the rights of other individuals and/or groups.
Often the arguments or claims invoke the Scriptures of one or more of the world’s great religions as a basis for the position taken. But even a cursory review of some of these Scriptures, e. g. Hebraic, Christian and Muslim reveals that, while advocating individual rights, they also place heavy emphasis on individual responsibility. Hence it is time to examine the relationship of individual rights and individual responsibilities.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence contain general statements of such rights, but they do not state that they may be exercised for the benefit of one individual or group while simultaneously diminishing the rights of other individuals or groups.

In the dictionary, words beginning in “re” precede those beginning with “ri.” And that illustrates a basic principle – BEFORE ASSERTINGINDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ONE MUST DISCHARGE HIS INDIVUDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES. It seems self-evident that if this principle is followed by all then rights will automatically flow appropriately to all.
So – how are responsibilities defined for this purpose? There are two general types:

1. Assigned, delegated or assumed.
2. Inherent or basic.

With each type of responsibility goes, or should go, commensurate authority:

1. In the case of inherent responsibilities, authority for individuals is inherent.
2. For Government, such authority, while inherent, derives its inherent authority from the Constitution. This applies to all three branches of Federal Government – Legislative Executive, and Judicial. It further flows to state and local governments from the U. S. Constitution, state constitutions, local charters and the like.

The inherent type is the one contemplated in the capitalized statement above.
Inherent responsibilities are those common to all human individuals regardless of circumstances:

1. Each individual is responsible to take care of himself and his family to the best of his ability.
2. Each individual is responsible not to impose on society in general or on any individual member of society. (For this purpose, “impose” and “imposition” refer to a deliberate act by one party, in circumstances under the immediate and direct control of that party, which results in a detriment to another party. This excludes accidental or unintentional impositions, but in those kinds of case restitution should be made wherever possible and feasible.)

Within the constraints of those principles each individual should be free to do whatever he wishes. These principles are really nothing more than a restatement of the Golden Rule. They are also self evident; common sense analysis tells one that universal adherence to them would make the world far more peaceful and prosperous than it is today.

Of course, universal adherence to the principles is currently an even more remote probability than the achievement of Utopia. However, they can be, and should be taught to all people as much as possible. If they can be inculcated in the attitudes of children from the earliest practicable age, then a future generation will have a much better world than that of the current generation. The feel good or politically correct approach that nowadays is almost universal itself is a hindrance to the development of good order in society, reflecting as it does the views of people who do not understand that they themselves are not necessarily qualified to establish codes of moral conduct. Therefore it needs to be abandoned.

The principles discussed above apply not only to individuals but also to society as a whole, as it is represented by the various levels of government. Here we have the same problem – groups of fallible human beings arrogating unto themselves the moral privilege of establishing rights for some individuals while simultaneously abridging the rights of others. Governmental bodies, especially legislative ones, have long since abandoned the idea that they are servants of the people in favor of a ruling elite approach which sets themselves up as superior moral determiners of what is right and what is wrong in individual morals and conduct. Somehow these bodies need to reclassify themselves as organizations composed of the people’s servants who impose the absolute minimum in restrictions on individual freedom, and who consider it their main duty to provide policies and procedures to insure to the extent possible that all individuals are discharging their inherent responsibilities. Thus most laws for internal application should be based on the idea of preventing imposition by one individual or group on other individuals or groups. Above all, each Governmental organization should recognize its own imperfections as well as its proper role as a servant of the people, and should act accordingly.

It is necessary to have a system of laws and regulations to insure the maintenance of a civilized society. Therefore, Government must, of necessity, impose some restrictions and/or responsibilities on society as a whole, and in such cases all members of society share equally in the resulting impositions. But when government (as represented by fallible human beings) decides that it is necessary to establish a benefit for some individuals or groups within society by restricting the rights and freedom of other individuals or groups, then it is (or should be) incumbent upon government to compensate the injured individuals or groups.
The compensation could range from direct monetary compensation to provision of alternate rights and benefits to requiring the beneficiaries to accept responsibilities for any harm to the injured individuals or groups. And if government doesn’t do this then it is denying the injured ones the equal protection of the law.

Two examples of this kind of problem are Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Endangered Species Act. As to Equal Employment there is no argument that all Government bodies, which represent all the people should practice this. But when it is forced upon private enterprises, which have no authority or ability to conduct activities on behalf of society as a whole, and whose members bear the responsibility of success or failure of the enterprise, then we have another example of creeping socialism. In a truly free country, an employer should be free to hire and fire at will. If he wants to hire only black men, only white men or only green eyed Italian women over 5 ½ feet tall, he should be free to do so. Conversely, if he decides to establish an employment program based on diversity, that is his privilege. So at best, the Government should stay out of it; at worst, if in its infinite collective wisdom it decides to restrict freedom, it should indemnify the enterprise for any damage which may result from establishment of a diversity or quota system.

With respect to the Endangered Species Act, some different factors exist. The Federal Government owns about 30% of the land area of the U. S. If state and local holdings are added to that, then governmental bodies own probably 40% - 50% of the total land area of the U. S., or probably somewhat over one billion acres. Much of this is in forests, parks and monuments. That ought to be enough to take care of a bunch of endangered species. But if unusual cases the Government in its wisdom determines that a particular piece of land is absolutely essential to the existence of a species, then instead dictating by law it should negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the landowner, one which will compensate him for giving up his right to free use of his land. See Appendix A for an actual example.

The foregoing illustrate a basic defect in society today – the seizure of authority without accepting any responsibility whatever for that over which authority is going to be exercised. While this type of authority can generally be described as assumed authority, it is probably more appropriate to classify it as asserted authority to recognize the duress associated with it.

The second type of responsibility – assigned, delegated or assumed – has another characteristic which is not required in the first type. That is the axiom that all delegations or assignments of responsibilities must carry with them commensurate authority for the carrying out of the responsibilities. One of the serious defects of modern society is the failure to assure that a delegatee or assignee is vested with the proper authority to carry out the mission. Therefore, each person who delegates or assigns responsibility must see that appropriate authority accompanies the delegation or assignment. If he cannot do that, then he must share responsibility for any failure to accomplish the mission. See Appendix B for an illustration of this principle.

Assumed Responsibility is that taken to himself by an individual, usually in connection with a specific event or occurrence when no properly constituted authority is present, or if present, is capable of handling the situation. For example, after a traffic accident an individual might take the responsibility for directing traffic until police arrive. Or in the case of an obstreperous passenger on an airplane or train, another passenger might restrain him until he can be put in the custody of properly constituted authorities. In these cases, successful discharge of the responsibility depends on the voluntary cooperation of those involved, or on upon physical ability to carry out the activity, or both.

So, what does all this mean? It means that before you caterwaul about your “rights” (other than the inherent ones of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) you should first examine your own conduct, to be sure that you are discharging your inherent responsibilities. Then you may properly assert whatever rights you think you deserve, provided that you observe the second inherent responsibility. And society, as represented by government bodies (including regulators) must recognize its own responsibility to not impose on its members. It must also recognize its own fallibility. This dictates that there be as few laws and regulations as possible consistent with the maintenance of a civilized society. Government has lost sight of this principle of freedom.

All of this points to the conclusion that both society and government have lost sight of the basic principles of individual responsibility and individual freedom on which this country was founded.

One final note – people who believe that their definition of “human rights,” “group rights,” “societal rights,” et al must always control should recognize their own egotism and possibly their own arrogance.



J. D. Eiland
January 2009





APPENDIX A

Actual Example of “Endangered Species” Philosophy

The following is quoted from the august 2006 Newsletter of the Citizens for Private Property Rights, an organization located in California:

“Scott Schellinger owns 20 acres in Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California where he is planning to develop a 145 unit housing project.
One day in April 2005, Bob Evans, a 72 year old environmentally conscious resident accidentally discovered a rare endangered flower called the Sebastopol Meadowfoam growing on Schellinger’s land.
Being an opponent to growth and development, Evans promptly notified state wildlife authorities of Schellinger’s apparent “bad luck” for having a federally protected speciesshow up on his land.
However, when the wildlife people came to investigate, they noted that the species appeared to be out of place. They noted that it normally occurs at a lower elevation and it was associated with other plants that normally didn’t occur at that location. As a result the authorities determined that the meadowfoam had been transplanted and stated that it appeared to be a case of fraud. As a result of this surprising verdict from Fish and Game, the agents ordered the plant to be removed and closed their case.
Despite this official ruling, biology professor, Phil Northen, head of the local chapter of the Native Land Society was summoned by Evans and his environmental pals to observe this unusual occurrence and he naturally disagreed with wildlife authorities’ decision claiming that the plants were native. As a result of the environmental stigma created by fraudulent use of the ESA, Schellinger’s project was tabled by the planning commission.”

At this writing I have been unable to ascertain the ultimate outcome of the case. Entirely apart from the question of fraud, the treatment of Mr. Schellinger was wrong. Rather than merely tabling the application and leaving the applicant “twisting in the wind” the authorities should have said to him, in effect: “Since ESA legislation is for the benefit of society as a whole, the burden of complying with such legislation must fall on society as a whole, not on individuals. Therefore, until this matter is resolved, the County will pay you an amount sufficient to cover the ongoing cost associated with the land – taxes, insurance and upkeep- plus a modest return on your investment.” Such action would place the burden where it belongs.
APPENDIX B

Illustration of Assignment of Responsibility and Delegation of Authority

Assume that Ms. Smith, a fifth grade teacher at Hopeful Grammar School, has been given the responsibility by her superiors to assure that he children in her class of 25 will be able to read at a level above their grade by the end of the school year.

Her superiors should now give her the authority to take whatever action she deems necessary to maintain discipline and to accomplish her assigned task. The authority can be restricted in some respects, such as prohibition of corporal punishment, but must leave her free to teach by whatever methods she deems necessary. This means that, in the absence of moral turpitude, gross negligence, gross incompetence, or insubordination, her decisions should not be subject to change or question by anyone, including superiors, parents, public interest groups or any others.

Likewise, her decisions on discipline should be unquestioned unless she inflicts physical harm. Correspondingly, any physical assault on a teacher on school grounds should be treated as a felonious act, and the perpetrator should be punished accordingly.

J.D. Eiland

January 2009

COPYRIGHT 2009

NO REPRODUCTION OR DUPLICATION
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION

Grandparents G3

Hello, we have started to blog and this is our opening message!
Welcome!