8.7% COLA

Just received a message that the Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment will be almost 9%. I don’t know if that’s a record but it’s the biggest in recent history.

Still, it doesn’t truly represent the real increase of living. Consider my grocery cost rarely went more than $125 per visit to the store. Nowadays, it’s over 200. My gas bill has doubled and the only reason my TV watching hasn’t gone through the roof is tha I no longer have cable.

When Biden keeps driving the up costs faster than he drives up Social Security payments, he’s not helping anyone relying on Social Security for a living. Even more, the cost goes up day by day. The COLAs go up once a year. As such, even if the COLAs were accurate, they would always be a year behind.

Then why should he care? I doubt he is concerned about the price of a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas. He likely could care less about how much bread it costs for a loaf of bread. His last concern is how much change it costs us for the changes he’s made.

Of course he does care about our votes, but only just before election days. On the other hand, should he lose any more of his mental facilities, it will all be over for him anyway. The dems can only conceal so much.

I Knew it Had to Happen!

When they came out with battery powered push mowers, I knew the battery powered rider mower would be next. I even predicted it in one of my posts.

When I visited Lowes this afternoon, I noticed two zero turn machines that had electric mower trademarks on them.

I made a point to check them out on the way in. They had a sign on it that bragged 2 acres on a charge. I actually do have a decent sized yard, but it doesn’t get close to a 1/4 of an acre. Sadly, my yard just doesn’t justify the price tag.

Even so, considering my age, I was still tempted. Maybe I could use it to make money. I could advertise a green friendly way to keep your lawn well manicured. I wonder just how many lawns it would take to justify spending $5500.

Maybe one or two of my readers can figure a way to pretend I need a zero turn rider mower.

Maybe they will come out with a little lawn tractor mower soon. Maybe they will come out with one I can afford. In the meantime, I guess I will trudge behind the one I have. At least it’s electric. That will make those “going green” nuts happy.

Oh. And by the way. I won’t have to pay road tax to cut my grass.

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.

THE PROBLEM WITH BEGGING!

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.

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.

A Much Better Compromise

I understand the Minority Leader’s concern for buckling here. There was an awful lot of pressure on those two senators. However, he should not have completely given in here. He should have made it contingent on restoring the border to the way it was under Trump. He should have required the walls to be completed. That would have accomplished something, maybe. It actually would have saved lives. Moreover, it would have exposed Biden’s open borders.

Wait a minute. I don’t think that McConnell would have liked that. If my memory serves me, he was not so much in favor of the wall. There were a few republicans who didn’t like the idea of cutting off the cheap labor.

I guess he could have used the alternative. He could have insisted on continuing the pipelines, drilling and fracking, including New York. This would have helped a lot. It would have helped to bring down the price of oil. It would have put people back to work and it would have made the US energy independent again.

Then again, the FOCs might not like that. They like us dependent on others, especially Russia and China. They might have preferred to let us default. Either that, or the dems would have done the increase in debt by themselves.

At least that would have exposed the FOCs for what they are, a bunch of power hungry characters that would prefer to allow death than to permit energy independence.

Where Are the Dimples?

I know that might sound like an odd question. Then again, I hope it grabs the attention of a few people. Nonetheless, it is a valid question. On an episode of Myth-busters, they went through a great deal of effort to prove a car is more efficient when the body has dimples all over it… like a golf ball.

There wasn’t much difference, but there was a measurable difference. I thought by now some engineer would pick up the idea and make cars with dimples. I know some research would be needed. The ideal size and quantity of dimples would need to be determined. Moreover, it might work better if the dimples were oval instead of round.

Then again, why stick to cars. Can you imagine how much fuel could be save with trucks. I figured some “going green” outfit would have noticed it and made a fortune off the idea already. For that matter, why aren’t the Myth-buster guys working on it. I mean there is a big world out there that really needs to be dimpled, like the sides of buildings to keep the wind resistance down as the wind goes blowing by them.

Someone in the yacht building industry should grab hold of the idea. Not only might it make the yachts more efficient but also faster. Speaking of making yachts faster, why doesn’t one or more of the America’s Cup teams take up the idea. One or two knots would make an enormous difference, or at least I would think so. Then again, it might be one of those visionary things. Does anyone want to be seen sailing a dimpled yacht.

I figure there must be a reason no one has done it. Am I the only one that saw the episode. Then again, maybe engineers don’t watch such things. I don’t know.

By the way, here’s one. A dimpled airplane. If it would save a barrel or two of fuel on each flight, that would really make the green people happy.

What about those Frisbees, you know, those flying disks? Maybe an old man like me might be able to throw one 5 or 6 feet farther. More than that, they just might fly straighter. Who knows until they try it?

By the way, I hear porpoises and seals develop wrinkles in there skin at high speed, which streamlines them. Maybe we need to discard the dimples and develop wrinkles instead. I mean, if we really need to save the fuel, if we really need to cut down on pollution don’t we need to check every possibility.

Can you imagine an Air Force One with wrinkles? Really? Maybe.

Pipelines and Electric Cars

It has come to my attention that there are many that suggest that electric cars are the answer to pipeline problems. After all they don’t need gas. I have heard, though I was unable to confirm it, that among them was the energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm.

If Granholm was among them, she should be fired. She is supposed to have some working knowledge of energy. Here’s an alert for all who have thought EVs are the solution to pipeline problems. Almost all electricity originates from oil or natural gas. If the oil line stayed down for too long, they would have had to start shutting down parts of the electric grid, then eventually all of it.

Then where will you go to charge your electric vehicle?

As a side note, Granholm has allegedly invested heavily into an electric car company. There are two things I have to say about that. First, it is a dumb investment at this time. It will take decades before EVs will be practical. Second, it would appear as if it was not ethical. She ought not be invested in anything involved in energy or she should resign her post immediately. I think they call that sort of thing a conflict of interest.

Then again, she does have a D after her name. She will be able to get away with it.

Energy (Oil)

For a nation to be strong, it all starts with oil, coal and natural gas. We need steel, we need aluminum and we need food, but it all starts with energy. We need the energy to make steel. We need energy by the megawatt to make aluminum. We need energy to extract it all from the earth and we need energy to make the raw products, which we turn into cars, tractors, trucks and a list far too long for me to mention.

You remove the energy from us and our country will go back into the stone ages so fast it would make your head spin.

By the way, we need the oil in three ways for farming. We need it for the fertilizer, for the pesticides and for the operation of farm equipment. If the tractors remain silent, we won’t eat. Those of us who are able, might grow a little in our backyards but not nearly enough. Besides, the plants need water. Actually, so do we. Without fuel, the water pumps won’t work. We might haul it up from the lakes and rivers, but we would have to do that by real horse power the type that eats hay.

But that’s not the half of it. There will be no way to remove the trash and garbage, especially from heavily populated urban areas. Disease would run rampant in weeks, if not sooner.

and, guess what. The dummycrats want us to wean ourselves off oil in a couple of decades. They want us to rid ourselves of it all. It is dumb. Guess what? Our farms not only feed our people here in the US but we feed people all over the world. If the democrats have their way, the folks in other countries will starve too. They will wonder why the largest producers of food in the world aren’t sending them any food. We will have to tell them. Sorry. The dummycrats don’t want us to produce carbon dioxide.

Maybe those dummycrats would like to explain to the children of our nation why we have no more potatoes. Those Black lives who matter. They will die without food.

But they don’t care. They don’t care about any lives, least of all Black lives. Their whole purpose is control. They want to win those elections and they will tell us anything to that goal. The truth is, Obama killed thousands by withdrawing the troops from Iraq early. Ask him if he lost one night of sleep over it. The governor of New York directly caused the death of 11,000 people as a result of the virus. Ask him if he cares.

I don’t know. I lack the research ability, but I would guess at least 1100 of those people who died in those nursing homes were Black, African-Americans. It bothers me more than I can tell and I had nothing to do with it. Had I known and were able, I would have done all I could to prevent it. I don’t think it bothers him one little bit. I sense not one little bit of remorse.

By the way, the government of New York will not let people use fracking to produce oil inside New York. You can easily tell where their interest lie.

As I said, it all starts with energy. Without it, the US becomes another third world country. It is exactly what the dummycrats want. Then they can rule and they can fly around in their planes and drive around in their limos while the rest of us make do.

Unless this is what you want, vote republican and tell your friends to do the same. If you don’t, then after the election, it will be too late. No one will be able to do anything then. and then you will experience first hand what I am saying.

What type of energy will people use then. They will have to burn wood just to stay warm. Do you have any idea how much CO2 and smog wood causes? At least we won’t need to concern ourselves with forest fires. There will be no forests. People will burn the wood to stay warm, those who can. The rest will simply freeze.

Smog in the Los Angeles valley didn’t start with cars but the burning of wood long before white man arrived on the scene.

Contradiction

A few days ago, I wrote that one way to control people is through propaganda, the art of making the unbelievable sound true. Today, let me suggest one way of separating propaganda from reality, contradiction.

Contradiction does not exist in all propaganda, but it does in most. Maybe the best way to demonstrate and convince you of this is by example. Let’s look at the supposed “Green” movement.

In one regard, they want us to give up fossil fuel. Though I am sure there are parts of the movement that would prefer doing away with all mankind, I will confine myself with the less extreme element. These same people are fanatic about cutting down trees.

Now… Let me start by stating on the front end that thoughtless wastes of our resources is horrible on its face. Nonetheless, many of the leaders of these green organizations are among the most wasteful. They don’t want us to drive around in cars while they fly around in personal executive planes. It is but one of their minor contradictions. There mansions are made with wood and their limos drink fuel by the gallon. Some even own yachts, one of the most wasteful ways to use fuel.

However what I really want to point out is their ridiculous attitude toward forests, especially in our western states. They absolutely refuse to let anyone go in and remove even one out of three of the trees. It is something called forest management. New trees can be planted.

The point is this. Every time we have a forest fire, or nowadays what they prefer to call wildfires, that part of the forest is lost. If the density of the trees were to be decreased, it is possible, maybe probably that the fire could be stopped more quickly, saving the forest we have. So, instead, they insist to maintain the density of the fuel and they lose them all, which endangers human lives, which endangers animal lives, and which leaves our hills and mountains bare to the inevitable rains. The resulting floods do no one any good, least of all the trees. The trees must have the soil which the floods will most certainly remove.

And… watch… here is the contradiction. The fire will emit far more into the atmosphere than cars or power-plants. Not only that, the fumes they emit are far more poisonous. Finally, if we had removed one third of the trees, all else being equal, that would reduce one third of the fuel. As a result, there would be one third of the poisons released into the air.

And.. by the way, after all is said and done, after the fire, we still have nothing. Actually, it is worse than that. We have less than nothing. And, worse than that, because of the fires, we lose lives and property.

In addition to all that, we use tons of fuel in the effort to extinguish the fires. In addition, we draw enormous amounts of water from lakes and rivers in an effort to put the fires out. And, in addition, the very forest they desire to save becomes a wasteland; millions of acres of it.

And so you see, the contradiction, the reason it is propaganda. The truth of the matter is that the green movement is no more than another means to gain control over the people.

The sad part is, there are million of well meaning people who have become indoctrinated. In their effort to do what they think is good, they hand the controllers something else with which to control us.

Meanwhile, the communists continue their methods in which they make their rules for all others but themselves. Notice, no leader of any communist country goes hungry. They all eat well while their servants starve.

Their goal is the set this up under one world government. In this world, we would all be workers while they would all be eaters. We would hit our pillows at night, tired and hungry. They would party past midnight. Many of them would fall asleep from their drunken stupor.

As I wrote before, communism is not their goal but rather their tool, their method that they use to achieve their goal, control. The only place that the beautiful world that Marx talked about exists is in the minds of the masses that are duped by the controllers. One of the methods they use is propaganda. It only works when the masses believe it. Right now, the masses believe it. They have been duped. The only question is, can we ever get them to see the truth in time or are we doomed to be another Russia.

I might remind you, very few lived well in Russia. That is true even today. The Russian controllers have left the country in a shambles. The communist controllers have only been replaces by other controllers. Their goal is still the same, world conquest. It is nothing new. It is certainly older than the kings of Persia. It is older than the pharaohs of Egypt. I don’t know when it all started but it seems as old as civilization itself.