August 2012


Now is the time for all those things put off or dreaded to happen. Now is the time to have those rare experiences that happen “once in a blue moon,” because that is occurring right now. Hopefully all your comments on this rare event were pleasant.

Advertisements

by their fruit you will recognize them…

Our crew has from time to time pulled out the UNO cards and played a game or two. We have done the same with the regular deck of cards – “Rummy?” “Sure.” “Duces wild?” “No, let’s leave them straight.” “Straights, or just books?” “Let’s do both.” Then we sit down and start the game, once all agree on the rules by which we are to play. The game starts after the agreement, so that the center confusing part is eliminated. What is the center confusing part? I have the experience of starting a game to see a fellow player set down cards not anticipated by the assumed rules and had to stop and query their play. Invariably, that player has the assumption that the agreed rules of card association work in fashion D, while I was playing by fashion R. The game has to start over at that point, or we both agree on which rules are used from that point forward. I don’t think there is anything strange here, just the enunciation of experience many have and expect in their interactions at the card table. There is wider application. How many companies would enter into an agreement without considering details? How many would accept changing the association between businesses without consulting the rules of the initial agreement? How many businesses would enter into an agreement with another entity where that entity would be allowed to change the rules on their whim without input? That is what we are supposed to accept with the Republican National Committee. They have decided that participation of all the delegates may be problematic and have offered Rule 12 where anytime between conventions, they may alter the rules and effectively eliminate a minority opinion. Is this acceptable anywhere outside of a totalitarian regime? If this party is supposed to be representative of the history of the Constitution and those voting in that fashion, why are you oh leadership, behaving like president (zero) 0? We, in the country are evaluating your behavior and wondering if the spectacle of Janus has arrived. Depending upon which side of the idol one faces, one sees a different face. We are looking towards the side labeled R and our opponents are looking towards the side labeled D. Both faces belong to the same idol. Once convinced of this existence, can we honestly provide our support for this idol? The idea of eliminating the population’s representative also speaks of an arrogance not befitting this country’s history. “State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.” This occurs because we, out of the beltway, have to live with reality and evaluate behaviors and actions by the results they produce, not the theory that started the cascade. I am pushing for an honest representation of our ideas and behavior demonstrating that our political Janus can remain in mythology.

I saw this article and noted a link in the comments. The video was impressive. I saw the beginning and it occurred to me that these are the same people (philosophically speaking) who are in the highest reaches of government today. There was an argument of the muslim prayer before the democrat convention on the blogs a couple of days ago. Realize that these are the same people who disarmed the Armenians with the plan to kill them for the crime of being Christian. These are the same philosophical children of the people who starved the breadbasket of Europe. We are experiencing the same in the supply of energy and corn. How can anyone expect different results now?

But one has to wonder if a cannibal using knives and forks and observing proper table manners is really an improvement over the cannibal in his natural state: nasty, brutish and short.

From here.
We already know about the dog.

I was listening to some radio show yesterday and got a bit irritated. I can’t even name the show right now, but the subject was safety related to surveillance. The assumption of the discussion is that we are all monitored every time we do anything – like paying a toll, and as such should have no problem with excessive surveillance by the government as that is to keep us safe. Let me start with the initial assumption of this premise – the government is charged with keeping us safe. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What was a “well regulated militia at the time of this writing? How about every able bodied male? How about everyone who could physically move in concert with neighbors and fellow citizens against a common foe. Each was charged with defense of their own. After all, when danger is seconds away, police will respond in minutes. The police are not responsible for your safety. They are only charged with assessing the damage and applying charges appropriately.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

From here.
It is clear in the courts that the police cannot be held responsible for safety of the public. It is not their job, therefore logic would suggest it is the job of the individual. That is the portion of the amendment “shall not be infringed.” Since we were ascribed the responsibility, we have been given the tools to accomplish the task. This is another reason I am blessed to live in Texas. At least we have an appreciation of the second amendment here. Close editorial quote.
Information is power. The more one knows about something, the better that person can interact with that item and elicit a desired outcome. I am in the process of finding a software to operate the lights for my Samson project. At the beginning, I knew nothing. Now, I’m just shy of being able to squeak out my first syllable. Given time and more reading, and appropriate equipment, I fully expect to have this computer running my lights at the appropriate intervals, at the appropriate locations, all at my direction.
When you walk into a BigBox store, note on the ceiling the covered video cameras all through the store. One may assume that these are for the purpose of keeping track of inventory and ensuring the police may later apprehend and appropriately charge a thief. The may have that ancillary use, but their primary goal is to monitor customers’ movements through the store and provide data to analyze and show a better pattern of stock placement that may stimulate more buying. The small items stocked at the register are not there as a convenient location for their placement. They are there for people who are standing in line to grab something else for which they were not planning. This placement was tried and now utilized nationwide as being effective in selling “stuff.”
Knowing the way people behave and what stimulates attention allows marketers to better sell their items. The information gained produced better sales.
Government wants information as well. The marketing scheme is the same as those cameras in the ceiling. “We are doing this for your safety,” when no charge of safety exists. What is missing is acknowledgment of what they are really planning to do with the information. Just as the knowledge of behavior and color schemes tells the marketer what sets of stimuli produce the best sales, knowing what the population of a particular town prefers as activity gives politicians power to manipulate those preferences.
Realize what power information gives. Take one’s two year old who likes to play with blocks. The parent wants this two year old to start going to the toilet and has the knowledge of the child liking blocks. The parent may use this like as a tool to get the child on the toilet. Two ways come to mind with this illustration: either remove them if the child fails the desired action, or provide them incrementally after the desired action has been attempted and later more blocks with better success. Listen to the language of our top officials and note the child directed language towards us, their voters. We are viewed as children to them, and as such, I can see no limits to the behavior they will try to regulate. Example: How about telling a kid in North Carolina that the turkey sandwich her mom made was not good enough. “Here take these processed, pressed, breaded chicken nuggets. We are the government and know better what is good for you than your own mom.” What may be going through that child’s mind next time her mom makes a turkey sandwich? If the government will go that far, is there any limit to what they would do? How much knowledge should they be allowed to obtain knowing how that knowledge will be, and has already been used.

I have insurance on my car, house contents (as a renter), and health insurance with my job. This is probably considered a “normal” set of coverage that many of our income bracket would keep. What does this coverage really mean? After all, I pay a fair amount of my monthly income to these companies with the promise if something happens, they will cover the bills. The doctor a couple years back informed me of the torn meniscus on my knee. I paid a couple of thousand out of the bill of 9 thousand once the process and surgery was complete. So, the cost I incur is for the purpose of reducing the cost of an incident later. Otherwise stated, the risk has been transferred to the company providing the insurance with the understanding that in return for a premium payment, they cover the risk associated with me. To cover that risk, the company has to maintain an account much larger than mine. My premiums paid were a small portion of the cost of the surgery. (There was also the agreement with the hospital on prices which the cash paying customer doesn’t get, but that’s a discussion for another time.) The insurance company spreads the risk across the population of those covered as the chance of anything happening to one of the group is low, therefore the company can make money by spreading the risk. The higher the population of those covered, the greater the risk and chance that the company will have to pay a claim. This is the downfall of obammacare. By covering everyone, they are guaranteeing an increased risk and force to pay coverage where the ability to cover the claims is insufficient – hence, controls. Once the ability of the insurance company covering claims is sated, the remainder of risk must be placed elsewhere. This is what happened with the FIDC in the ’80’s with the savings and loan debacle. I happened to be near Houston at the time and can attest to streets of houses with numbers written on their windows. The entire back page of the newspaper was listings of houses foreclosed and for about a thousand dollars, one could bid and get a house at a sweet price. I didn’t have a thousand dollars at that time, oh well. What did the federal government do with the risk and resulting costs when the S&L went down the tubes? They used our taxes to fund the bailout. We paid on that bailout from the 80’s to Clinton’s presidency. The payments stopped then allowing that impeached so-in-so to say he had cut costs. No, the loan was repaid and premiums were no longer due.
We’re here again. Go read Barnhardt.biz and here is the link from her page. Instead of having a greater amount of currency to cover any risk incurred by the participating banks, our FDIC has an account of 0.0015 compared to the risk they are taking. For comparison, let’s say I have a car worth a thousand dollars. I am required to insure it per state regulations and desire to reduce risk on myself in case of accident. I pay the insurance company a premium to provide risk coverage in the amount of 1000 dollars on the car itself and 5000 dollars for medical care in case of an accident. The insurance company should have an account of 6000 dollars to cover the risk they are assuming, in an honest world. In our government’s case they have a balance of 6000 x 0.0015 = 9 – that is nine dollars to cover a 6000 dollar risk. How much risk is the FDIC covering? How safe is your money? Remember what the government did last time? They will do the same again. The top bundlers get no charges for their theft (read Corzime) and we the taxpayer are given the tab. So the accounts are raided to steal our money, and then we are taxed in addition to the already excessive rates to cover the loss the theft created.

It has been a month in coming, but the dongle has arrived. This is the little unit that plugs into the USB port and on the other end has a three prong plug to connect to the relay/dimmer unit for the lights. I already tried one dongle, without success, and had the gift of much frustration and loss of time. So with joy that it arrived and apprehension of the unknown ability of this new piece of hardware to operate, I set about the installation. A few tries later, it finally was recognized by the computer – definitely NOT plug and play. So now I have a computer with a program that allows light direction, dimming, on, off, flicker, to a time line, the dongle transmitting this information to the relay box which controls the lights that have been set up to receive instruction from this new program. Just a moment on the lights. The average 100 watt lightbulb puts out about 750 lumens. The lights on top of my desk are 100 watt halogen rated at 1400 lumens each. That is 2800 lumens in our bedroom on top of the desk. What to do with this. That question was answered by spouseinbox with the statement – “You’re not going to wake me up with that.” (pause) What a great idea. I can simulate a sunrise. Why not? What else can I do with 2800 lumens in a small space?
Well, I figured out the settings to perform the feat, but have held off on implementing it as there is this thing about marital harmony which I wish to keep singing in key – but it was a fun thought. 🙂

Next Page »