Smarter Than Thou!

"CATCH AND RELEASE"

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: This comment is all based upon the following premise.  The Mass Media is actually reporting facts.  This is not always the case, but this is all I have upon which to base my analysis.  It deals with the current war on terror, and is the second in a series on how appearances may not be reality. 

    THE current administration---and the past one!---seem to be engaged in a “catch and release” program with regard to captured terrorists.  This term refers to how certain sportsmen catch fish and then let them go, sometimes after tagging them.  This allows those who care about these things to determine how fish travel, breed, feed, grow, etc. 

    There are several terrorists, who, having been caught in Iraq and Afghanistan, have then been released, literally.  Some have been caught again.  Others are back in their terrorists units, trying to kill Americans.  Of course, one’s first, apparently rational, reaction is to find this policy to be idiotic.  However, maybe it is quite rational, and effective. 

    I am reminded of an episode of “The Sopranos.”  This was a long running TV series about the Mafia, which is another kind of terrorist organization.  Tony was the chief of one family in New Jersey.  The series was told from his point of view.  On several occasions his men were caught… and then released, to come back to him.  One was “wired.”  That is, he had turned informant.  He was now working for the FBI.  One of the others was not, and suggested that the first might be a “traitor.”  

    Tony then spent several episodes trying to determine whom to believe.  He needed hard evidence before he would act (i.e. kill).  Of course he could shoot the real traitor, simply to be safe.  But then he might lose a good soldier, along with his income producing ability, and demoralize the others.  That is, he would be doing the job of the FBI, which was to end the careers of career criminals.  So he waited, and watched, and waited, and was extra, extra careful when he spoke, and where, and to whom, and about what.  Every action was more difficult, and moral was hurt.  In other words, the presence of his own men made his suspicious of them.  But he had no one else to use, so he crippled himself. 

    The released terrorists might, or might not, be working for the US.  The terrorist leaders simply do not know.  They are uncertain, and have to modify their behavior, and channels of communication, and plans.  This applies even if the released terrorist is still loyal to his original cause. 

    Maybe our political leaders are not such jerks after all.  Or maybe they simply have good advisors.  

   Or maybe they are subscribers to the A&E, as you should be.   

    

THE NEW AND IMPROVED PHONY WAR

   BACK in World War II, after Stalin invaded Poland, there was essentially no fighting, as Hitler (apparently) tried to arrange peace talks.  This went on for some time, and was called the “Phony War,” because there was no real fighting.  I use the same expression to indicate a conflict which may not be as it appears.    

    The most recent failed terrorist attack has given the impression that the security measures taken by the US are not working.  These guys keep getting on planes.  So far, “we have been lucky,” no?  I offer the following alternative view.  That is, I offer one aspect, and hope to comment on others in future installments. 

    The guy (whose name, as reported in the Mass Media, is obviously a case of mistaken typing), who tried to do something on Christmas, has been arrested as a criminal.  He is now being advised by a lawyer.  Thus “we” can not coerce information from him.  Thus, vital intelligence is being lost. 

    Really?  Suppose that you are a terrorist leader in Yemen.  Suppose that this guy was your guy.  Do you REALLY believe that the US officials are not beating him daily?  You probably are destroying files, changing PINs and moving headquarters anyway.  Of course, some other members of the terrorist board are arguing that the US really does treat prisoners nicely.  That is, the action is probably dividing the leadership.  In other words the pure idiocy of the US policy is keeping the enemy off balance. 

    Way back, when it was fashionable to do so, some Chinese guy, named something like Sun Tzu, wrote a book called “The Art of War.”  One principle was deception.  He wrote, “When you are near make the enemy think that you are far…” and stuff like this.  Maybe the US is actually doing the same, as in “Act like idiots and they will not believe you.”  This may all be part of a plan. 

 

I hope to add more next time.  In the meantime, get Sun Tzu latest book “Killer Celestial Abs in Two Fortnights.”  Available here with a year long subscription to “Analysis and Explanations.”  Can not be combined with another offer, as we have no others.    

 

"AND THE WINNER, IN SECOND PLACE, IS..."

   THE concept of affirmative action is that some, who are “disadvantaged,” need extra help.  At the other extreme are the rewards  given to the gifted.  These people (e.g. the exceptional athlete, or the really smart kid in math) usually get scholarships, often after taking competitive tests.  This may seem fair (i.e. to give the prize to he who comes in first), but this part of the system is, in fact, wrong. 

    The purpose of scholarships, etc, is to help people, and they, in turn, are to do things to make “society” better.  So the medical genius, who may find a cure for cellulite, should be helped in learning his basic undergraduate research.  Thus “we” give him some advantages, such as paying for his education.  But there is a better way to handle these things, if we really want results. 

    The genius---like Einstein---WILL prosper in his field, if he cares to pursue it.  By definition, the extra extraordinary will excel.  They will contribute to the general welfare, whether we contribute to their college tuition fund or not.  However, what about the not-quite-as-smart category?  These people, with a bit of help, also could contribute massively.  Their results may not be on the level with the first place finishers, but they will be close, because, well, they are close.

    Think this way.  Mr. X, the genius, contributes a 10 on some abstract scale of general welfare, because he is a genius.  Mr. Y, not quite a genius, would contribute a 7, but will not because he can not afford college.  If we give the scholarship to X we get a 10.  If, instead, we give it to Y then we get a 17, which is much, much better.  Now you understand why the current system of rewards is wrong.  Those who come in second and third, at best, in competitive tests should get the scholarships.

    The only problem is this.  Should my system be implemented, the really smart people will probably figure out a way to come in second.  But then no system is perfect, is it?      

    And a Merry Christmas to all... and to our Jewish readers: you too!

The current issue of the A&E explains how to win the current Afghan war, and it is very simple.  

THE CASE FOR FRAUD (this is NOT a joke)

   IN case you somehow missed it, the health care (insurance) debate continues. And some Conservatives, in order to oppose the Bambam plan, use the fact that current federal medical programs have lots of waste, fraud, and abuse. However, a case, and a good one, can be made in FAVOR of (even more) fraud. And it is a Conservative argument too! The core revolves around an error of Keynesian (i.e. Liberal) economic theory. This holds that prosperity can be achieved by spending, and spending can be achieved by giving lots of money to lots of people. 

   The theory fails, among other reasons, because, as so many people are receiving it, the amount given to each individual is not very much. This retards capital formation, a necessary element for businesses. To explain why this is a problem, consider the following. For a businessman to begin a business he usually needs a loan. He can go to a bank, where the available money is “concentrated.” He has to convince, maybe, two bank officials to get the loan. And then he is on his way to profits, employer status, and doing his part for national prosperity. However, imagine if he has to go to “everyone” to get the loan. That is, he has to convince thousands of people to loan him $8 each. You can easily see why this will not work. So I repeat the following Conservative and anti-Keynesian principle: concentration of money in as few hands as possible is good. And if these are the hands of private citizens, then this is better, as private citizens want to make a profit, which will help national prosperity. 

   OK, now what is fraud? Fraud, in Medicare, etc, is when some crook lies to the government, and gets paid for what he has not done. That is, instead of the government payments being distributed widely, the thieves get an extraordinary (i.e. concentrated) amount. That is, they concentrate these government funds in their hands. And they are enterprising and greedy private entrepreneurs, who will probably bank it, or spend it in concentrated amounts. As long as the program is not going to work, we may as well consider it as a way to aid capital formation, and help private enterprise. 

   We can only hope that the Bambam program, whenever it is finally passed, allows for more such opportunities. The nation may be saved after all… if only by accident. 

And corruption means nothing overseas... as is fully demonstrated in the current issue of "Analysis and Explanations."  Subscribe yesterday, if not sooner.  

 

IT IS A PUZZLEMENT

   TWO things puzzle me about the health care insurance debate.  I do not pay much attention to most politicians.  Instead I listen to the analysts.  According to them there is a time limit for the passage of the bill.  For some reason it is strongly held that if it is not passed relatively soon, then it never will be. 

   The second thing is that the Democrats want it passed as soon as possible, so that their votes will not be held against them when the 2010AD elections come around.  The more time between the vote and the reelections, the better chance they have of being reelected. 

    As the Democrats are the clear majority, and as they control the legislative agenda, they can try again, and again, again.  I recall a vote in the Reagan days, which involved a large expenditure for highways.  It lost the first time (when the senator who sponsored it then voted against it!).  It was then resubmitted a few days later, and passed, the sponsor changing his vote.  In the last days of George Bush the first bank bailout bill was rejected.  About one week later the exact same legislators passed the same bill.  So what is the basis for the universal analysis? 

    And please correct me if I am wrong on this.  Elected officials should vote for a bill if and only if one, or both, of these two alternatives exist.  (1) The bill is good for the nation, or (2) the people want it.  If the people want it, then the officials should have no fear.  If it is good then a case should be made, especially in, and by, the Democratic loving Mass Media.  But the Democrats want collective amnesia.    

    I am at as much of a loss on this matter, as they seem to be. 

The November issue of A&E explains why official corruption can never be eliminated, anywhere.  You may wish to obtain it by subscribing.