A New Wonder Plane

Just saw it on the web…an electric powered seaplane capable of a hundred miles with 19 passengers. Now let’s see. That means it can go between L.A. or San Diego and Catalina. maybe without a recharge. That means it can go from L. A. to San Diego. I suspect it would take a few stops to go from L. A. to San Francisco.

That is a somewhat limited range though there is an advantage. Should the fuel…er, the charge, start running low, as long as it is over water, it can just about sit down anywhere. No need to look for a runway. On the other hand, it could be a long swim to shore.

I kind of like the idea of seaplanes. If I were a billionaire, I just might buy one. However, I think mine would be powered by gas. Much better to fly than swim.

Okay. That is just over the edge. I shouldn’t say things like that when people are doing what they can to save our planet. However, sometimes a person has to go over the edge a little to get people to that we are a long ways from truly practical electric planes. I did see the photo of the plane, though. It looks nice. Put a couple of gas guzzling engines on it, and they just might have a product they can sell.

Who Do You Trust?

It’s an interesting question, one you should ask of yourself as well as others. I must admit the question was prompted by an old TV show where the question was the title. During the show the contestants were asked if if they trusted themselves or their spouse to answer a question.

However, we must admit that we make decisions of of trust, not only daily, but by the minute. We trust the others to follow the rules of the road. We trust those who work in stores restaurants, mechanics and many other merchants. Most of us take it for granted that when we turn that key in the ignition, the car will start. (Or we become angry) We flip the light switch in a room and, usually the room is lit.

I have noted that, according to trust, people can be divided into at least 3 categories. As in the national motto, some of us trust God. We are called Christians. Some trust themselves and not God. I call them libertarians… conservatives without morals. Then, there are the liberals. Their motto is, in government we trust. In general, they lie, cheat, and steal all for themselves and the advancements of government control. In many cases they don’t even know it. But if they have no trust in God or themselves, who do they trust.

They rely on government for medicine, welfare and their next meal. If they don’t get substance from God or their own hands, from whom will they get it? The almighty government will provide but only if the almighty government is almighty. On the other hand, Christians and libertarians don’t want want to rely so much on government. So they really prefer keeping government size down.

I have an idea. Let’s put all the liberals in 25 states…their choice. Then we stand back and watch to see how long it takes for them to destroy those states. When everyone has their trust in their government, it will take very little time for their government to fail. I suppose some states will last longer than others. Some may actually figure things out and stop putting ultimate control in the hands of fallible humans.


The recent train derailing in Ohio has resulted in the following solid proof.

  1. dems are only interested in ecology when it is politically adventurous for them. You notice how Joe and Pete and their dem friends are trying to ignore the obvious disaster.
  2. dems can’t fix the disasters when they try. Politics, they are good at. Impeachment of guiltless presidents, they are well experienced at. Accomplishments of real work, not so much.
  3. Anything, especially oil can be shipped by pipes far more safely than train or truck. And by the way, while also producing less pollution.

Among other things, maybe the dems need to take another real look at pipelines. Then again, maybe ecology isn’t their real goal. Perhaps it isn’t the real issue. Just maybe Joe is more interested in delivering on bribes than in American interests.

Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.

Cutting Costs

Joe says it’s not his fault. He says that there’s nothing he can do about it. Yet since he occupied the Oval Office, things have been going up, fast…gas, milk, cars, rent, cable, dining out, etc, etc.

I’m retired now so I thought I was immune somewhat from the increase in gas costs. Wow! Was I wrong! I mean I only fill my 13 gallon tank every other week but it over costs twice as much to. Every time I go into the grocery store, it costs me $130 or more to get out…and we visit the local restaurants quite often.

The realization has hit me. It’s time to cut costs or our bank accounts will start shrinking. So I’ve started preparing a list of things we won’t need.

1st. Cable and internet. They are really nice but we don’t need them. Dropping them will say more $150 a month. I’ll have to rely on the old antenna for entertainment. Oddly, I’ll miss the DVR more than the stations. Other than a few news stations, I watch very little. Though I must admit I will miss watching Hannity, I can still listen to him 3 hours on the radio. Besides all this, they raise their costs every now and without my permission.

2nd. Cell phones. This one is painful for a number of reasons. Mostly I, it is a matter of emergencies. For instance, if I need to call a tow truck or I have an accident. The alternative to T-mobile is going with the cheapest company I can find.

3rd. We will need to eat at home more. I don’t mind cooking. I just don’t like the clean up. Besides, with just the two of us, we end up wasting a lot. I hate that. It rubs me the wrong way. Well, the going green folks would like it. It would cut back on my fuel usage. On the other hand, those at the local eateries wouldn’t like losing my business. On the other hand the cable company will not miss me. In Indeed, they sort of act like they want to get rid of me.

Beyond that, I guess I will have to go back to work. I’ve already considered that option. I’d already be punching time clock but my wife panics when she’s left alone. I guess if Joe keeps running things, I’ll have to figure out something.


There is an old adage. (I know adage means old saying and saying old adage is being redundant. However, nowadays, many are unaware of that and expect the word pairing.)

At any rate, as I was saying, it is an old saying that beggars can’t be choosy. Certainly that’s so, so true today as well as when the adage was first uttered…or written, whichever.

So, the day Joe became the occupier of the Oval Office, he set this nation on a path to begging. So, it would appear his wish has come true.

About 18 months ago, the US was an exporter of energy. Now, Joe is going around, hat in hand, begging for oil. As a beggar, he will need to accept their conditions or we’ll need to cut down our forrests for fire wood to stay warm.

This would cut back on fossil fuel usage; but it sure would increase the pollution. Also, with no more trees, the birds would have to build their nests on the ground, on power lines or tops of buildings.

Maybe the better idea is as it was when Joe took office…DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

He might not like fossil fuel but it would be our fossil fuel and it would be so much better than chopping down all those wonderful trees. Still, chopping down the trees is still better than freezing to death. Besides, what do we use in the place of fire wood when the trees are gone, fossil fuel?

There are a few asides. I can’t get my car to burn wood. 2nd, with the price of oil back down at 40 dollars a barrel, it would sure slow inflation. Finally, possibly most importantly, Putin couldn’t afford to wage wars at the lower price. Neither would he be able to make his threats.

What Happens When the Lights Go Out?

It’s one of those frequently asked questions, especially after the lights go out.

In the home, it means we break out the flashlights 🔦. If it goes on too long, it means we start looking for somewhere to plug in the cell phones.

In hospitals, the question becomes, how long will the generator hold up?

On the other hand some will be looking for a place to plug in their vehicles. For sure, with the load they put on the grid, they just might be the reason for the sudden darkness.

It sounds like a good reason to add to the grid, both in generating power and distribution. I mean, you just might want to get out of Dodge before your neighbors find out the grid went down when you plugged in your brand new Tesla, especially if it is in the middle of the Super Bowl.

I Have Decided to Do My Part

According to those in the Biden WH, we should do our part to save on energy usage. My first thought was “Forget it!”

Then I had second thoughts. I have a fantastic idea on how I can do my part. All I need do is go out and buy a horse and buggy. Being as I am retired, I could use it for 80 to 90% of my travel and my use the car for the rest.

Actually, better yet, I could sell my car and just rent an auto when I need it. It might save me a dollar or two.

Wait a minute. What am I thinking of? I can’t get a horse. I think they have laws against that sort of thing here in the city.

Oh, well. Guess I’ll have to settle on my car, at least until they change the law. And I would really like to get a horse. I like horses . It’s maybe better anyway. I’ve kinda gotten used to air conditioning and I don’t think I can put one on a buggy. The extension cord would be too long.


They say war happens when diplomacy fails.

Well, guess what. Diplomacy failed.

It failed during Obama’s term now there is no more country of Crimea.

Diplomacy did not fail during Trump’s term. We know this because there was no war.

Diplomacy failed during Biden’s term…just a short time after his first year.

I wonder. Just how many more of these diplomacy failures are we going to have before Biden’s term is over? Maybe the next one will be that little island off the coast of China. Even now, Xi is likely making preparations.

As usual, I have an aside. While China is busy adding to their real estate, Putin just might go after one or two of the Bulkens or maybe Poland. Do you think Biden can actually deal with two diplomacy failures, or maybe three. Iran just might like the idea of making Biden juggle three disasters at once. It is not likely, but it’s possible, some would say probable.

Let’s All Park Our Cars

The newsman asked, “What happens if gas goes upto 8 or 10 dollars a gallon?”

The man replied, “I guess I park my car walk or take the bus or train. “

That would seem to be the answer for most of us. To be sure, that is certainly the desire of the FOCs. They have said as much.

On the hand, you know the FOCs won’t park theirs. I would suspect they won’t park their planes or yachts either. They are privileged by power and wealth.

So, how will you feel when they ride while we walk?

As usual, here is my side note. Good luck selling your car while everyone else is selling theirs.

2nd note. When people park their cars, less cars will be built. That is bad news for those that build cars.