Smarter Than Thou!

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.  

 

THE PUBLIC THEATER OF THE ABSURD

   THERE is a mild controversy regarding public trials for captured terrorists.  The Bambam administration has decided to take some of them and try them for “regular” crimes in New York.  The objectors argue that the trials are a risk, as the defendants could be found innocent.  They also argue that this makes NYC a target, again.  And it may give these mass murderers a chance to “go public.”

    I explain my position of mild support.  Suppose that the trials become political theater.  This is not common in the US, although it was, and maybe still is, in other countries.  It did happen here, at least once.  IN 1968 a group of rioters were arrested in Chicago, and were tried as the “Chicago Severn.”  The defendants refused to cooperate with the court, gave speeches, misbehaved, got book deals, and became, literally, world famous. 

    The objectors fear that the terrorists may do the same, and, by doing so, help their cause.  They may inspire others, etc.  This is what they want, namely to be public martyrs to their cause.  The objectors fear that, as was true with the ancient Catholic Church, the “blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

    I hold the opposite.  One should NEVER attribute sincere religious feelings to Mohammedans.  It may be that the terrorists expected, or even welcomed, death, abstractly, at first.  But the longer they live, and the farther away is the “battle,” the more they want to live longer.  It is at least as likely that these defendants will “go American.”  That is, they will dodge, evade, take the Fifth, and otherwise disgrace themselves. 

    In addition, the Media, being totally controlled by Bambam, can be used to present a certain view favorable to him, and not to the defendants.  The defendants will not “speak to the world” in their native language, but only via official translators.  The tone, the passion, the fire will all be lacking as the world hears these words, not from a wild radical, but from a frumpy middle aged woman who sounds half asleep. 

    I am NOT saying that I know that the administration was smart enough to figure out this, and implement it.  However, I am saying that, as I am, maybe they are too.  It would be nice if they did something to help America.  Stranger things have happened (well, maybe not). 

In the current (NOV) issue of the A&E, it is explained why corruption in the Middle East means nothing with regard to the nation building efforts.  You should want to read it.