Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Numbers and Words

We are verbal or a word related society. Things would be so much clearer if instead, we were a mathematical or numbers society. Words can have many interpretations, but mathematical equations generally only have one right answer and there are no grey areas. The answers to math problems are generally right or wrong. But my interpretation of a book, play, or the constitution can be vastly different than others. In fact, if everyone in the United States read the constitution you would get 315 million different interpretations. Here is one of Bohan’s Laws: “Political statements without corroboration of facts, data, and solutions are merely divisive opinions and propaganda whose purpose is to find fault and contort public opinion with misinformation.”

Our convoluted judicial system is a prime example of a vastly different interpretation of words or the law. A person can be put on trial in the same district, but the outcome can vary by changing a single variable: the judge, the jury, or the lawyers. This is a travesty of justice. It simply does not make sense that people committing the same crime are given different sentences. What if the sentence of all criminals (across the United States) was carried out by a single computer program instead of a judge? Criminals committing the same crime would receive the same sentence (given their prior offenses were also identical). A computer program and numbers do not discriminate and eliminate human error. Numbers do not see ethnicity, race, religion, or political ideology and are therefore unbiased. A computer program can also be devised to find guilt or innocence. I will not go into the details here, but it would not be very difficult to create a point system for credible evidence. And yes, this can be done without violating a person’s right to due process in the constitution.

Words are never a good solution to any complex problem. We would have no technology – no TVs, no cell phones, no computers, no cars etc. – if we used words to innovate, create, and invent. Words do not build society – numbers do. To solve complex technical problems we use numbers and equations. Numbers are precise and accurate whereas words can have multiple meanings, different spellings, and can be written and spoken in 100 different languages (can anyone say lost in translation). Think about it, there are only 10 unique numbers and they are universally defined around the globe – the true universal language. On the other hand, there are thousands of different letters from hundreds of different languages. The definition of logic suggests the use of science and methods or principles of reason. One may deduce that a statement of words can be a method of reason. Maybe, but that is debatable, whereas a system of equations is clearly a logical process. If a statement, word, book, movie, or document can be interpreted hundreds of different ways, then how is that logical? Logical or illogical by definition mean that something is true or false, period. In the digital world true or false is defined as a 1 or 0, respectively. All statements in a program or flow chart must be true or false (yes or no; 1 or 0). There is no maybe or some irrelevant explanation. Numbers are as simple as that. There is no question that the art of language is more complex than numbers. But language experts would tell you differently. Even mathematical models using chaos theory (like predicting the weather) have some semblance of order or trends that can be somewhat predicable. Words are never predictable. I certainly cannot predict what people are going say or write (I may guess correctly for instance, I can predict Obama may blame Bush in his next speech). I think less than one in every 1000 people visualize problems and solutions in numerical formats - the rest use words. This is the big reason why we are polarized as a society. Words may not seem confusing, but when each person can have a unique interpretation of the constitution, this is a problem. Interpretations are merely biased opinions and nothing good can come from that because opinions are not solutions. Think about it, when was the last time you had a failure in communication, I bet it was over words and not numbers (because your computer or phone was broke).

A numbered base society could eliminate grey areas created by the opinions of lawyers and judges. In fact, it could eliminate the need for lawyers and judges all together. Besides, anyone can be a lawyer since the only prerequisite appears to be having a diverse opinion. Yes, the laws of localities, states, and of the nation can be computerized. Yes, a program can be written to interpret the constitution, but that would be an ugly fight. Imagine (my take on John Lennon’s song) a country without politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, and even a president. It sounds good to me, but I know the 99.9% of our verbal society would disagree (they will take exception using the technology that numbers, not words created – computers and phones). It is not that far-fetched of an idea; sporting events are now using technology to eliminate judging or human errors made by umpires and referees during professional hockey, baseball, basketball, and football games. I am not suggesting eliminating language and words, I merely suggesting that numbers should play a bigger role in society decisions – not just words.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, January 27, 2012


The older I become the more disappointed I am with human behavior. Sure I am disappointed with the performance of our President and Congress (that is obvious to anyone who reads my blog). And I am not just disappointed in Obama; I was also disappointed in many aspects of the performance by his predecessor – GW Bush. But I am more disappointed with general human behavior – people have become shallow and narrow minded - seemingly more influenced by political jargon and talking points outlined by amateur media pundits. People, in general, have become less responsible and chose to live in the past by blaming everyone else for what is wrong with their lives – just like politicians. For instance, it is someone else’s fault when we are in debt and cannot pay the bills (this is true whether it is individual, corporate, or government debt).

I recently stopped participating on Facebook. I tried to join the narcissistic generation, but after a year the disappointment in lack of original thought and innovativeness forced me to stop participating. Remember, Facebook was created by a few social illiterates who can only communicate behind the face of technology. These people cannot communicate face to face or even over the phone, so they developed a way around their social retarded ways. Now, the globe is becoming socially retarded. Do not get me wrong, I have no issue hearing about what friends are up to (as long as it is not a constant daily update) or hearing their about their opinions. Facebook participants tend to post a link to an article that expresses their beliefs. The problem with this is that these articles are always from some opinionated news source: NY Times, Huffington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, and so forth. What disenfranchises me is that Facebook participants fail to provide their original thoughts about the article subject matter, a synopsis, or even an analysis as to why they liked the article. And what’s worse, 99% of these articles are not only highly opinionated and polarizing; they are not backed up with facts or data. In fact, very rarely are reasonable solutions proposed to solve the problem addressed in the subject matter, instead the authors of these articles like to place blame or fault. To make matters worse yet, most of the journalists and media pundits are giving opinions on topics they have absolutely no expertise: green technology, climate change, or food additives to name a few examples. But society, and my friends included, seems to think what they read or watch is gospel. And if all this is not bad enough, everyone in society thinks they are an expert on everything – the Iraq War, enhanced interrogation techniques, global warming and so on (armchair politicians). Everyone is 100% correct while adversaries are 100% wrong and there is no room to compromise.

I may agree with certain opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, but I came to those conclusions by investigating facts and data (not reading polarizing and biased articles by self-proclaimed experts). I do not watch these pundits because they are polarizing and do not back up their opinions with solid arguments based on data.

I do not care if someone disagrees with my ideologies or philosophies, but I expect people to back it up with original thought, innovation, data, and facts – not a link to some article written by a polarized journalist, media pundit, Hollywood star, or politician. And I expect to hear innovative solutions to problems instead of living in the past by placing fault and blame. Is this too much to ask or expect? It is hard to believe we live in a society of know-it-alls, but we cannot debate or talk about problems and issues from a solution based approach instead of dwelling on past mistakes. Today, a typical debate over an issue generally includes insinuating adversaries are extremists, Nazi’s, or racists. When will this nonsense stop?

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Obama Unveils Economic Blueprint: Fairness

"We can go in two directions," the president said. "One is toward less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few." Obama said he will concentrate on four areas designed to restore economic security for the long term: manufacturing, energy, education, job training and a "return to American values." Let’s evaluate this statement:

The Obama job training program primarily consists of extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Is this fair?

The Obama energy plan has been to squander taxpayer money on failing “green” energy companies while avoiding increasing oil production at home. The result is record high gas prices (for winter season) and energy costs. Is this fair?

The Obama education plan is the “Race to the Top”, which has never been passed by Congress. In fact, to implement the policy the White House has been bribing cashed strapped states to begin their educational vision (Race to the Top) in order to receive federal funding. Is this fair? What is the motivation for children to go to school if everyone is going to be granted a “fair” share of income during their lives?

Obama’s vision of “American Values” is a nation dependent on government assistance. Under Obama, American poverty rates and reliance on welfare programs has risen to record per capita levels. Is this fair?

Obama’s vision of American manufacturing and education is to promote and increase union enrollment. And what is the goal of unions? To protect bad employees with both unrealistic benefits and pay. Is this fair?

Is it fair that “green” companies receive taxpayer money while other companies receive the wrath of regulations and rules implemented by the EPA?

Is it fair that some companies and organizations are receiving a waiver from ObamaCare while others are not? In fact, every liberal law or policy is never applied equally or fairly to all corporations, organizations, and or citizens. For instance, wind farms are not fined for killing endangered birds, but oil companies are.

Is it fair that “dead beats” receive extended unemployment benefits, ObamaCare and other welfare handouts that have to be paid for by hardworking Americans?

Is it fair that people who bought a house they could not afford are getting bailed out by hardworking Americans?

Is it fair that union employees receive better benefits and pay at the expense of other hardworking Americans?

Is it fair to reward irresponsibility and punish accountability?

Is it fair to portray a class of people and corporations as evil, especially since they already pay a majority of all tax revenues?

Since when has “American Values” or the “American Dream” been to receive something that was not earned? Is this a new constitutional right?

Face it; there is nothing “fair” about the Obama economic blueprint.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Is the U.S. Visa System Broken?

One thing that Republican presidential candidates can agree upon (and most Democrats for that matter) is that the U.S. visa system is broken and needs to be fixed. In particular, the H-1B system is broken, which “allows employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations”. Specialty occupations include architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, biotechnology, medicine, education, law, accounting, theology, and the arts. Many of these occupations are a dying breed for U.S. citizens hence, corporations’ only recourse is to hire foreigners to do these types of jobs.

Our immigration department allows up to 65 thousand H-1B visas annually. An H-1B visa is for 3 years and can be extended to 6 years, but by that time, most H-1B visa recipients have earned their green card and or have already become citizens of the United States. There are other types of visas that foreigners can obtain to gain temporary work status in the United States that are similar to H-1B visas including L1, TN-1, E3, H-1B1, and H-2B visas. Yes, the U.S. visa system is complicated and needs to be reformed and made more simplistic.

In 2008, 276 thousand H-1B visas and extensions where granted. In 2009, 214 thousand H-1B visas and extensions where granted. In 2010, 117 thousand H-1B visas and extensions where granted. Obviously these numbers are much more than the supposed cap of 65 thousand H-1B visas annually, but increasing the allotment of visas is necessary so companies can fill employment vacancies where U.S. citizens fail to meet the employment requirements. In 2001, a record 331 thousand H-1B visas and extensions where granted – over 5 times the capped limit.

Interestingly, the only solution that politicians on both sides of aisle can agree upon about the U.S. visa problem is to increase the cap from 65 thousand to ensure our technical companies and our medical institutions are getting the talent they need to properly conduct business and ensure Americans have the best medical treatment options available. To increase the visa cap may sound like a reasonable solution, but they are missing the point and real issue at hand. Besides, the H-1B visa cap is raised yearly without political intervention in the form of new legislation.

In 1994, the ratio of American born engineers to foreign born engineers working at U.S. companies was 6.2 to 1. By 2006, that ratio was cut in half to 3.1 to 1! Today, it is estimated the ratio may be as low as 2 to 1. From 1994 to 2006 this equated to nearly 800 thousand more jobs for foreign born engineers. Remember, this is just engineers and does include other H-1B visa jobs such as those in the medical profession – which incidentally is also being dominated by foreign born persons. This means millions of jobs being created by U.S. companies each decade are not going to U.S. citizens.

What is the root cause of this issue? It is obvious; our school systems are failing to develop technical professionals in the fields of math and science. Yet, instead of trying to develop advanced learners in our school systems to obtain these jobs, our solution is to make sure these jobs go to foreign born students – who incidentally get educated at U.S. universities and master their trades at U.S. corporations before moving back home to compete against U.S. companies.

We have had unemployment near 9% for the past two years and only 15% of college graduates are receiving jobs. This is a huge problem, but our politicians fail to see this as an issue. Our educational system (K-12) spends billions on education, but most of that money is spent on trying to elevate test scores of underachieving students instead of focusing on elevating overachieving students to higher learning levels. Face it; the primary emphasis or educational system is to ensure both advanced and digressed students meet the minimum proficiency requirements on standardized tests. The bottom line is bureaucrats only care if a student passes or fails the minimum requirements for reading and math and that is it! This is not education; instead this is a recipe for failure – mediocrity at best.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, January 20, 2012

Education Mediocrity: The Grade System

The biggest problems facing the education system are its emphasis on standardized testing; the focus on underachieving students; and the shift to mass educational methods. Standardized testing fails students for many reasons. First, teachers and schools focus on teaching to the test and lose focus on other academic subjects including history, geography, and specials (i.e. art, physical education, home economics, music). Secondly, most standardized tests focus only on meeting a minimum set of requirements instead of testing for maximum achievement. Thirdly, students are graded on one test that takes a few hours. Everyone is entitled to a bad day, but not in our school system. All of these reasons equate to a formula for underachievement and mediocrity.

A perfect example of the educational system focusing on underachieving students is Title I. Under Title I the federal government provides funding to school districts so they can hire special educational teachers whose emphasis is to help underachieving students. On the other hand, very few educational dollars are spent on addressing advanced students’ needs. Unfortunately, a great number of advanced students are bored in school because teachers are too busy trying to elevate the level of underachieving students. I am not saying schools should not try to help underachieving students, but equal money and time should go to advanced students. The focus of school systems to solely help underachieving students is also a formula for underachievement and mediocrity.

What is the underlying issue causing underachievement and mediocrity in our educational system? The grade system! The grade system was set up as a means to mass educate children. Unfortunately, this system makes the assumption that children within the same age group learn at the same rate and in the same manner. This is obviously not true! A better model would be to eliminate the grade system and place students in learning pods or what educators refer to as a “standards-based learning” system. For instance, a level 1 pod for reading may consist of students anywhere from age 5 to 8 whereas, a level 7 pod for reading may consist of students between the ages of 8 to 14. Students can move up a level in a few weeks, months, or years depending on when students meet the minimum proficiency requirements. In other words, student advancement is not restricted to the yearly basis per the current grade level system. Also, the “non-grade level” structure allows students to advance at different rates depending on the subject matter. For example, one particular student may be in level 3 reading, but at the same time they may be in level 8 math and science. Meanwhile, teachers can focus on a specific subject matter to teach as well as focusing on teaching groups of students that are equally challenged because they have the same ability. Under a standards-based learning system students are not frustrated with work that is too hard or bored because the subject matter is too easy. This type of learning system empowers and motivates students to move to the next level. This is an environment which fosters maximum learning because both underachieving and overachieving students obtain equal emphasis in the learning process. This is the easiest way to maximize educational dollars while at the same time maximizing test scores. After all, it is a proven fact that advanced students learn at a faster rate than underachieving students. Once educators realize that not all students are college material they will come to realization that a standards-based learning system works best coupled with a good vocational program in high school.

Of course a change to a standards based learning system will face scrutiny from bureaucrats and oblivious parents will object. Yes, the proposal has flaws, but it is better than the current system that has been ineffective and continues to fail millions of young Americans. The Adams County Colorado school district began a similar educational system three years ago. Adams County made the shift to a standards-based learning system after they were placed on the “academic watch list”. Since changing to the standards-based learning system test scores have been on the rise in Adams County.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

If You Believe, Then .... (Part II)

  • If you believe in diversity, then you should not be angry when jobs go overseas because education standards are lowered.
  • If you believe in climate change, then why do you support renewable energies which are dependent on climate and stable weather patterns (renewable energy sources will obviously be rendered obsolete if weather patterns change)?
  • If you believe in entitlements, then why do you support abortion (entitlements require a large taxpayer base to sustain them)?
  • If you believe in expanding entitlements for more Americans, then how does the government sustain this burden if the taxpayer base to pay for entitlements is shrinking?
  • If you believe in taxing the wealthy more, then what tax rate do you find acceptable for them? Keep in mind if the government taxed the top 1% at a 100% rate, it would not account for paying off one third of our national debt this year alone. Also, most analysis show that a tax rate higher than 35% (local, state, and federal combined) reduces incentives to earn more and therefore, lowers economic growth and lowers employment (Laffer Effect).
  • If you believe education, food, housing, and healthcare should be free then how do you propose to pay for it (these items account for over one half of U.S. GDP)?
  • If you believe everyone should be a vegan, then how do you propose to feed the global population if over half of its food supply is off limits (keep in mind that today, one third of the worlds’ population is already underfed)?
  • If you believe the government is the answer to our problems, then why are they so far in debt (hint – waste, fraud, redundancy, and bureaucracy)?
  • If you do not believe in food additives, chemicals, and growth hormones, then how do you propose we meet the demand of feeding 315 million people in the U.S alone (this is an economic problem based on supply and demand)?
  • If you believe in gun ownership restrictions, then amend the Constitution.
  • If you believe corporations are greedy and evil, then why do you use the products they produce?
  • If you believe in lowering the costs of healthcare, then why are you unhealthy?
  • If you believe that CO2 is causing manmade climate change, then why is your lifestyle and personal footprint emitting CO2?
  • If you believe the economy is doing poorly, then why do you support cap and trade policies?
  • If you choose not to work and to be unproductive, then what you gives you the right to accept income from hard working and productive Americans?
  • If you do not believe in big government, then you should not accept any help from any government agencies.
  • If you believe waterboarding violates civil liberties, then why do you think it is acceptable to execute enemies and innocent civilians (i.e. al Awlaki, bin Laden, drone attacks)?
  • If you believe Citizens United was a poor decision because money is not free speech, then explain how burning the American Flag is free speech (money is just as much a freedom of expression as burning the American flag)?
  • If you do not believe the Iraq war was necessary because they were not a threat to our national security, then why was our involvement in Libya acceptable?
  • If you do not believe in God and religion, then you should not accept any charity from religious organizations.
  • If you believe in something, then you should practice what you preach and if you must complain about something, then offer solutions without placing blame.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

If You Believe, Then .... (Part I)

  • If you believe in science and the theory of evolution, then why can’t you believe evolution is God’s plan?
  • If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, then why do you believe in welfare and helping the poor?
  • If you believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, then why do you believe in rewarding irresponsible behavior and penalize responsible behavior?
  • If you believe in evolution, then what makes you think we can alter climate change?
  • If you believe that painting the roofs of our homes white will cool the planet, then why do you think CO2 is causing hotter climates (roof painting does nothing to reduce CO2 concentrations in the air)?
  • If you believe ocean levels are rising due to climate change, then why rebuild New Orleans (a city that resides -10 feet below sea level) and why are coastal areas the fastest growing areas not only in the U.S., but around the globe?
  • If you believe CO2 is causing global warming, then why are most studies focused on Arctic regions where climate change effects should be minimal based on environmentalists’ claims? Remember, Artic CO2 concentrations are very low (earth’s gravitation pull is less), artic snow and ice reflect heat, and there is a lack of population and infrastructure to absorb heat.
  • If you believe in protecting endangered species, then you may consider allowing humans to eat them (most animals eaten by humans are plentiful – cattle, deer, chickens, turkeys, etc.).
  • If you do not believe hunting is necessary, then you probably never realized that a large portion of Americans count on hunting to feed their families.
  • If you believe in the fairness doctrine, then you cannot truly believe in free speech.
  • If you believe in the fairness doctrine, then why are you against applying the doctrine to other media outlets such as the internet, TV, and even our schools?
  • If you must protest something, then do it a lawful and respectful manner.
  • If you believe in separation of Church and State (which, incidentally is not in the Constitution), then why don’t you believe in separation of State with ANY organization or company – this too is a conflict of interest and welcomes lobbyists and quid pro quo crony politics?
  • If you believe in multiculturalism, then why don’t agree with assimilation - remember language in the biggest barrier for cultures to integrate?
  • If you believe in diversity policies, then why do you agree with entitlement policies, which promote the segregation of minorities and the poor in our inner cities (and the segregation of Native-Americans on reservations)?
  • If you believe in green energy and everyone should own a home, then you should not be angry when these economic bubbles burst and cause a recession.
  • If you believe in the economic stability of our nation, then you should never elect anyone to any government post that does not have business experience.
  • If you believe in diversity policies, then why do you believe in the evolution theory survival of the fittest?
  • If you believe in climate change, then you must have seen and understand the complex scientific and mathematical models used to predict future outcomes (a picture of a Polar Bear on a melting ice float is not science)?
  • If you are wealthy and believe the government should raise your taxes then why don’t you donate money to the government to pay off our debt (there is a government program for this) and or eliminate your tax write offs?
  • If you believe in unions, then you should not be angry when jobs go overseas and education standards are lowered.
  • If you believe in mining lithium and cobalt to make car batteries, then why are against drilling for oil (much smaller footprint)?
  • If you believe that corporate CEOs are greedy and evil, then why don’t believe Washington politicians are the same? Most Washington politicians exit the profession as multi-millionaires on modest salaries because they are exempt from insider trading laws and they sell political intelligence.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, January 13, 2012

How a Stimulus Package Works

I received this from a friend and found it very funny and true at the same time:

It is a slow day in the small Saskatchewan town of Pumphandle, and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.  A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.
As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op.
The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything... However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works!

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Welfare Case Study: New Orleans (Part II)

The “% Welfare” column (From the table posted in Part I of this blog yesterday) shows the percentage of the states’ tax revenue spent on welfare. The “Per Capita ($)” column shows how much welfare is spent on each person. Although the welfare spent per capita is going up, these numbers are negligible (fairly flat from 2005 to 2009 – the growth is less than inflation). The key statistic here is that the “% Welfare” statistic was going down immediately following Katrina until the recession hit in 2008. This means people were becoming less reliant on welfare, which coincidentally coincides with a quarter of a million people leaving the state (mostly from New Orleans) after Katrina hit in 2005.

The Heartland Institute did a study where they ranked each state in its ability to tackle poverty and welfare from 1996 to 2006. Louisiana ranked first in its ability to tackle poverty – which included an 85% reduction in the number of people on welfare. However, Louisiana received a failing grade (ranked 48th) for its welfare reform policies. Thus, Louisiana was successful in reducing the number of people reliant on welfare, but its welfare reform policies were bad. How can this happen? Katrina is a big reason. State and city welfare dependent blacks and whites fled their Katrina ravished neighborhoods and resettled in other regions around the country.

New Orleans offered residents, who needed work, job opportunities to rebuild the city after Katrina hit in 2005. Based on Census statistics, this did not happen. Instead, hardworking Hispanics (legal and illegal) moved into the city to take those construction jobs to rebuild the city. Even Mayor Ray Nagin has been outspoken about the influx of both legal and illegal Hispanics moving into the city. Nagin has been controversial by citing the city’s new multicultural mix may cause racial tensions.

Hence, it is easy to conclude that many of those government dependent inner city folks that were desperately trying to be rescued following Katrina, have turned down work in New Orleans in favor of showing up on the welfare payrolls in other states. Yes, this is also proof that illegal aliens will take jobs that lazy welfare dependent whites and blacks will not do at any cost. Thus, Louisiana and New Orleans are excellent examples of what happens when we create a welfare state. We create a population of people that not only refuses to work, but this mind set and philosophy is passed down to future generations. Hence, the number of people living in poverty dependent on government handouts increases annually. And more entitlements and freebies proposed by liberal politicians are not going to solve the problem of our growing welfare dependence. Meanwhile, the number of job opportunities for illegal aliens is increasing making border security issues more complex. For these reasons welfare is not only an economic problem bankrupting our nation, but a national security problem.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Welfare Case Study: New Orleans (Part I)

A lot can be learned from comparing the 2000 and the 2010 Census data for both Louisiana and New Orleans. There has been a dramatic shift in the demographic makeup of both the state and city – pre and post Katrina. I wrote in my book that a comparison of these demographics along with some other vital social data will tell us a lot about welfare and its effect on the people who accept these handouts. Below is a table outlining both the 2000 and 2010 Census data for New Orleans (Populations are in thousands of people):
















This data tells us that the population in New Orleans decreased by 30% over the decade with the black population decreasing by nearly 100 thousand people and the white population decreasing by 14 thousand people, but the Hispanic population grew by 5 thousand people. The Hispanic population does not include illegal aliens, which is estimated to be somewhere between 12 and 17 thousand people. This is a substantial increase of illegal aliens by 6 to 10 thousand people over the past decade. The next table shows how much the state of Louisiana pays out in welfare benefits – keep in mind that New Orleans residents receive a very high percentage of the states’ welfare handouts (numbers are in millions of people and billions of dollars):



Tax Revenue

Welfare Payment

% Welfare

Per Capita ($)











































My Book: Is America Dying (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, January 6, 2012

I'm 63 and I'm Tired

Robert A. Hall is the actor who plays the coroner on CSI if you watch that show.  He also is a Marine Vietnam War veteran.
"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"
By Robert A. Hall
I'm 63.  Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired. 
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it. 
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the  Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their  own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers.  In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.
I'm tired of being told  that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of  stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims  murdering Christian and Jews because  they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape  victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Sharia law tells them to. 
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.  
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance. 
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough. 
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"?  And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet.  Do our troops sometimes misbehave?  Sure.  Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists  at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in  Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda  torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the  heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the  girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear. 
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.  
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor."  The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing. 
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm tired.  But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
Robert   A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Multiculturalism (Part II)

A symptom of multiculturalism is political correctness. Political correctness has gotten so out of hand that many organizations and schools have implemented speech codes. Speech codes are used to suppress hate or discriminatory talk in order to create a better atmosphere for members or employees. This sounds great, but does violating someone’s first amendment rights solve the problem of bigotry and racism in America? No, it is an attempt to cover up those feelings instead of openly debating them and tackling the problem head on. The Fort Hood massacre is a classic example of how political correctness can be dangerous. In essence, the military was afraid to discipline Major Nidal Hasan because they did not want to be seen as offensive or discriminating against a Muslim soldier. Hasan, by all accounts, was classified as unstable and delusional. Instead, the Army promoted Hasan to avoid any conflict. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said “True multiculturalism acts as a bulwark against further extremism”. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have echoed the same sediments. In other words, multiculturalism has not worked, but instead fosters an environment for extremists and terrorists to plot and kill innocent people.

Studies have shown that multicultural communities lack trust, are less charitable, and are unable to develop public infrastructure systems. This makes sense since people with the same heritage and ethnicity tends to colonize in the same area. Every major U.S. city is divided into ethnic sections – Irish, German, Italian, African-American, Chinese, Hispanic, and so forth. Multiculturalism philosophies want to break down these barriers, and that is admirable, but it is misguided. After all, this concept of dividing cities into ethnic sections has been going on for thousands of years. In many respects, pure ethnic communities are how many immigrants cope with being in a new country. After all, in these communities they are free to practice their cultural views and beliefs from their native lands. This is fine, as long as U.S. immigrants assimilate to our language and laws.

In many respects we can blame failed liberal policies for the segregation of minority ethnicities. Many African-Americans and Hispanics have become prisoners to inner city slums. They are living lives filled with poverty, addictions, crime, and poor health conditions. Ever since the passing of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s, liberal politicians have been creating legislation and policies to correct for what they call are social injustices. Policies such as entitlement welfare benefits have given people money, food, housing, and healthcare without ever making a positive impact on society. In essence, we have trained poor minorities and whites to be dependent on the government, and for this reason they will always be poor living in decaying inner cities. And what’s worse, this lifestyle will be passed on to future generations. How do these social justice policies promote multiculturalism? They do not, in fact, they do the opposite and work to segregate the poor and minorities.

The bottom line is that although multiculturalism sounds great and looks great on paper, it is truly hard to accomplish this type of utopia in the real world. In fact, progressive policies such as entitlement benefits, affirmative action, quota systems, speech codes, political correctness, and so forth, are the creating an environment that is the antithesis of multiculturalism. Instead, these mandates, rules, restrictions, and laws are working to increase hostility between ethnic groups and is keeping them segregated in city slums. A nation that is narcissistic, overly sensitive, and offended easily is not going to openly accept other cultures and ideas that conflict with their own views. It simply is not going to happen.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Multiculturalism (Part I)

As the United States and other nations become more diverse, multiculturalism has become a national issue. In the United States, for instance, there has been a huge demographic shift. Every Census the percentage of Caucasian Americans decreases by more than 3 percentage points as both African-American and Hispanic populations gain a larger share. By 2050, it is estimated there may be more people of color in the United States than Caucasians. On the surface multiculturalism sounds great – it is defined as the acceptance, promotion, and appreciation of multiple cultures. In essence, the goal of multiculturalism is to unify all races and ethnicities to build a stronger national bond. In many aspects, diversity policies and multiculturalism are one in the same. Here are some of the arguments, both pro and con, surrounding multiculturalism in the United States and around the globe.

Education is probably the most controversial subject about multiculturalism. The debate is whether or not schools should implement a multicultural curriculum. Proponents for a multicultural curriculum argue that it promotes unity by reducing fears, ignorance, stereotypes, and personal detachment. The goal is to integrate all cultures into the classroom with the hope it may, for example, decrease the expulsion and dropout rate amongst minorities. Once again this sounds straight forward, but does multiculturalism really promote unity? Many argue that multiculturalism divides and alienates ethnic groups. After all, to dwell on cultural differences is to foster negative prejudices and stereotypes. Think about it; ethnicity battles around the globe have literally split nations apart (Ireland, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia to name a few).

Multiculturalism also enforces the belief, philosophy, and concept that minorities and even women are inferior to white males. Why else promote diversity and multiculturalism? It would not be an issue if genders and or ethnic groups felt they were treated equally in the eyes of the nation. This is nonsense; women and minorities are every bit equal to white males and are afforded the same opportunities. In fact, diversity policies discriminate against one group of people to afford other groups of peoples more opportunities. Multiculturalism and diversity policies are therefore, overcompensating by giving minorities, in many respects, more rights than other groups. This type of policy does not unite people; instead it further divides and polarizes them. Affirmative action and quota systems lower standards. In other words, positions are given to minorities in corporations and universities even though they failed to achieve the higher standards given to other ethnic groups. First of all, these types of policies do not correct the problem of a poor education. Instead, these policies work to promote mediocrity and hinder excellence in our universities and corporations. If multiculturalism is supposed to promote unity and equality – how exactly is that being accomplished by affirmative action and quota systems? It does not; it is promoting the opposite – more polarity.

Profiling is another issue created by multiculturalism. Muslims are offended if they are put through extra security before boarding a plane; Hispanics are offended if they are questioned further about their legal status; African-Americans are offended because they are being targeted for inner city crime; and Caucasians are up in arms every time more restrictive gun laws are passed. Multiculturalism has made Americans more sensitive and to a further extent more narcissistic. Individual Americans believe everything revolves around their culture and their feelings. Everything is about me, myself, and I. Americans need to look at the bigger picture and allow our police and government to do what is necessary to keep us safe. Individuals need to stop thinking that every policy and law is specifically targeted at them.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)