Column for week of December 30, 2013
The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Census estimates show 1 in 4 US counties are dying." Nothing
new about headlines that scream disaster. Also, nothing new
about the article under the headline not living up to the hype.
Why did the writer conclude that the counties were
dying? The counties recorded more deaths than births. Does
this mean we should prepare to eliminate such counties from the
map? The so called dying counties aren't even necessarily
experiencing a decline in population.
I suspect that many retirement counties across the south
record more deaths than births. Does that spell doom for the
counties? So long as people can afford to retire, the retirement
counties will likely find people to fill the empty houses and
patronize the local stores.
Birth rates don't measure the vigor of a county. A
county may have a high birth rate and still have shrinking
population because people leave.
Even shrinking population doesn't mean a county is
dying. The population of many farming counties shrunk during
the past century. Many of those counties now produce more
farm products than ever before. The counties may have fewer
people while those people still there prosper. The counties aren't
dead. They downsized.
The article laments that the federal government isn't
doing more to help those dying counties. It is that kind of silly
thinking that is drowning this country in a sea of red ink.
Some of the examples of dying counties were ones where
coal mines had closed. If the main reason for living in a county
is to mine coal, people should leave when the mines close.
Trying to keep people there with nothing to do is foolish.
Trying to create an artificial economy and artificial jobs is even
worse.
Government should butt out. If there are sound economic
reasons for engaging in new production in the counties,
entrepreneurs and investors will find and develop them. All that
government can do is subsidize inefficient, wasteful production.
After the lumber boom, the population of towns and
counties in northern Michigan shriveled. There was nothing for
the no longer needed lumber workers to do. Some tried farming
for a while. The soil was too poor in most of northern Michigan
to make farming work. Eventually tourism restored some life to
northern Michigan.
As technology changes old production will often cease or
move to a more economic location. When that happens the
people should move too. If a community's reason for existence
ceases, the community must find a new reason, or go away.
This is part of a natural process. Lamenting that
communities die is harmless. Putting those communities without
any reason to exist on life support is wasteful and dangerous.
The dying communities can suck the life out of areas that would
otherwise prosper. Then the communities can all die together.
Let businesses and people locate wherever they find that
it makes sense for them to locate. Interfering with this
spontaneous order is costly and destructive. It also creates strife
between those who are subsidized and those who pay the bills.
If government butts out and allows people to freely and
peacefully interact, we can build a peaceful stable nation. If we
continue down the road of propping up every special interest
with a strong lobby; waste, strife and a shrinking economy is all
we have to look forward too.
There will be one bonus. Shallow minded reporters will
find many dying counties to write about. Will anyone be able to
afford to pay for those articles?
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Should Counties Die?
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Santa's Bad Day
Column for week of December 23, 2013
The recent mini fire storm over Santa Claus's complexion
raises a question. Is anything too trivial to create a brouhaha?
Perhaps I should provide a little background for anyone
so fortunate as to have missed the controversy. A columnist
wrote a lighthearted article suggesting that Santa should be a
penguin to appeal to different races. I don't know if she would
have the penguin Santa wear a red belt and a yellow headband.
A television personality responded that of course Santa
was white. A school teacher took it to the next level by telling a
nonwhite boy he had no right to wear a Santa costume because
Santa was white. She was suspended as the plot continued to
thicken.
The Santas I have seen were predominately white. So
what? Does this mean a Smurf couldn't be Santa? How about a
green or purple Santa?
People who don't see Santa as blue, green or purple can
claim that the rainbow of Santas aren't real. They will be right
too. Maybe some lost sight of one minor fact. None of the
Santas are real. Santa exists only in myths.
Must everyone share the same Santa myth? Should all
Easter bunnies and tooth fairies be the same color? If
uniformity of color is vital, What about size and shape? Why
not a short, skinny Santa who must look up to his elves?
I probably shouldn't have mentioned elves. Someone will
start writing uniform specifications for elves. This might lead to
an entire book on distinguishing between elves and Leprechauns.
Dare I ask, Must all Leprechaun be green? Yes, I dare, but
perhaps I shouldn't have. Where may it lead?
For the record, I am willing to let everyone design their
own mythical characters. If you prefer a unicorn with six legs,
go for it.
The Santa myth has untapped room for variety. Let us
consider some of the options. My Santa's sleigh is pulled by
four buffaloes. Why buffaloes? Reindeer are ill suited to pull a
sleigh, or anything else, through the sky. Reindeer don't have
wings. Buffaloes do. Otherwise, where do buffalo wings come
from? Buffaloes are bigger, so four buffaloes can pull as much
as eight reindeer.
Someone else can decide what to do with the out of work
reindeer. How big a deal is it to lose a one night a year part
time job?
And, what about that silly sleigh? What is the point of
runners in the sky? Give Santa a glider. So, you aren't warming
up to my skinny Santa and his outfit. It is my myth and I don't
care. If you have a better myth, better for you that is, you are
welcome to it. Just don't try to mess with my myth. The world
is big enough for everyone's personal myths, so long as no one
tries to impose their myths on others. It will also help if people
don't confuse their myths with reality.
Even with fantasies one size doesn't fit all. It is
important to allow everyone the freedom to chose their own
fantasies. Trying to control the fantasies of others can only lead
to needless animosity and strife.
Trying to control real world choices of others causes even
more strife. Most of that strife is also needless. When
conditions don't dictate that everyone must abide by the same
choice, there is usually no good reason to try and force our
choices on to others. In addition to being free to chose the
complexion of their Santas, everyone should be free to chose
their soft drinks, food, medical insurance, schools, vehicles,
fuels, door latches, etc. We should also be free to chose who
will provide them.
Interfering with the choices of others invariably creates
animosity, strife and destruction. The greater the meddling, the
worse it gets. Delegating the meddling to government only
makes matters worse.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
What Should Be Illegal?
Column for week of December 16, 2013
The federal government has enacted about 200,000 pages
of statutes and regulations. State and local governments have
thousands of more pages of laws for you to obey. You will be
in trouble if you are caught violating any of those laws.
What is the justification for all of these laws? The laws
exist because people with power want them to exist. Should this
be the end of the discussion? Should powerful people be able to
prohibit or mandate any action they want to? Should we blindly
do whatever government orders? Is there a standard by which we
should judge all laws?
If an action is immoral and wrong, Should we do it
simply because government so orders? If an action isn't
immoral and wrong, Is it wrong to do it simply because
government says, If you do it, I will hurt you? Was it wrong to
help fugitive slaves escape to Canada?
If we have no standard for judging the law, might makes
right. We must unquestioningly do whatever the powerful in
government order. If the law says, Kill your neighbor for
spiting on the sidewalk, you can be punished for not killing your
neighbor.
If you accept that there is or can be even one law that
should be disobeyed, you have accepted the principal that we
have the right, and even the obligation, to refuse to obey some
laws. The remaining question is, What standard should we use
to judge the laws?
Every society has its rules of conduct, whether is has a
government or not. Stable human interaction would be
impossible without rules. How would you like to live in a
society where there was no common understanding that random
nose punching wasn't acceptable.
Anytime people have continuing interactions with each
other rules of conduct evolve. When most people recognize the
value of following a rule, the rule needs little enforcement. Peer
pressure will back the rule when enforcement is needed. If
government enacts a law reinforcing a desirable rule, few will
object or disobey the law. Such laws will have popular support
and not be divisive.
Government can, and does, enact laws contrary to popular
practices. Such laws are enacted for the benefit of the powerful
people who support the laws. Usually such laws exploit others.
Thus, they aren't prime candidates for popular support.
Government is few. The people are many. No
government can long survive without having at least general
acceptance. Thus, government likes to instill the idea that it is
immoral to disobey any law, even if the law is immoral.
Unless the people recognize the pitfalls of blindly
following the law, government will run muck. Before we can
judge the law we must have a standard by which to judge. I
fear that as a nation we are straying from any common standard.
If we don't soon find a common morality, the future will be
bleak.
It is beyond the scope of this column to even contemplate
a moral standard. It does matter what standard people chose.
A counter productive moral standard can be worse than none.
The standard we seem to be migrating toward today is based on
do unto others before they do unto you.
In seeking a useful national moral standard we should
keep two points in mind. That which is immoral when done by
private individuals is still immoral when done by government. If
an action is moral it isn't rendered immoral by government
forbidding the act.
Most laws today don't reflect an accepted standard of
morality. The main reason for obeying these laws is government
will hurt you if you don't. As one nearly insignificant example,
Who believes it is immoral to put two flowers in a vase and sell
them in Louisiana without the difficult to obtain permission of
the state? Why obey such a law, other than to avoid being hurt
by government?
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Saturday, December 14, 2013
What Will Be Next to Go?
Barely a day passes that the Internet doesn't report that
government nannies have relieved us of the need, and
opportunity, to make some choice. The latest addition to the list
isn't quite of the magnitude of eliminating the right to choose the
medical insurance we prefer. Still, it is one more step down the
road to total domination by government.
Strip away the smoke and mirrors and you will find
government has only one function. Government limits our
choices. Government has only one way of limiting our choices.
It says "Do it my way, or I will hurt you." Sure, government
can offer bribes. To get the wealth to offer the bribes,
government threatens to hurt someone.
So far as I know Vancouver, British Columbia broke new
ground when it banned doorknobs. At least it is reported to be
the first city in Canada to do so. Chances are that if I dug deep
enough I'd find that some place beat Vancouver to the punch.
On the other hand, someone had to be first.
Why ban doorknobs? Vancouver claims that some
people have trouble turning doorknobs. On that Vancouver is
probably right. When my hands are covered with oil, or some
other slippery substance, I find it difficult to turn the small brass
knob on my back door.
It is my doorknob. If I want to I can replace the knob
with a bigger or rougher one. Also, I could replace it with a
lever. So far I have dealt with the problem by carrying a paper
towel in my pocket when I expect to get oil on my hands. If
Vancouver has its way the only choice I would have left would
be to get rid of the doorknob.
I must admit Vancouver is more imaginative than I am.
It never crossed my mind that the solution to my doorknob
problem was to threaten to hurt anyone who chose doorknobs. I
do suspect that banning doorknobs would take a lot more effort
than does grabbing a paper towel.
So far Vancouver has only banned knobs in new
construction. That is how it starts. Next, ban knobs in all rental
housing. Then require that in any remodeling all knobs be
removed. In the end the only remaining knobs will be in
museums and, of course, in government buildings which will
likely be exempt from the ban.
Loss of choices has been sweeping through the nation,
and most of the world, since long before my time. Whenever
anyone says "There ought to be a law" they are advocating
hurting people for making "wrong" choices. Obama care
threatens to hurt anyone who doesn't buy the kind of medical
insurance prescribed by a band of politicians and bureaucrats.
Every law threatens, directly or indirectly, to hurt people
for making forbidden choices. There are people who believe
that we shouldn't threaten peaceful individuals to stop them from
making any particular choice. Threats of force should only be
used to discourage individuals from choosing to commit acts of
aggression.
These people who oppose threatening peaceful people are
called libertarians. Many people believe libertarians simply want
to be left alone. If this is true, almost everyone is a libertarian.
How many people do you know who want to be coerced into
giving up a choice they want to make?
Being a libertarian takes far more than merely wanting to
be left alone. Libertarians are defined by their willingness to
leave other people alone, and free to choose for themselves.
Libertarians do demand that those choices be peaceful.
A libertarian tolerates the peaceful choices of others, even
if the libertarian strongly disapproves of the choices.
Libertarians do reserve the right to voice disapproval of peaceful
choices. Also, libertarians feel free to refuse to associate with
others because of the choices they make. Libertarians won't ban
the use of doorknobs, except for using the knobs in acts of
aggression.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
How Warm Is It?
Column
for week of December 2, 2013
THOUGHTS,
RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS
by
Albert
D. McCallum
How
Warm Is It?
The man
made global warming enthusiasts live in difficult times. Real
temperatures refuse to cooperate with the predictions made with
computer models. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Computer models
are, and always will be, useless for proving any theory.
A
computer models tells the programmer exactly what he tells it to
tell. The basic rule is still “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Program the computer to find that your birthday is on Christmas one
year and the Fourth of July the next. That is the answer it will
give you every time.
Program
the computer to predict temperatures based on increased carbon
dioxide causing global warming. The computer will dutifully predict
increased temperatures based on the size of the increase in carbon
dioxide. Of course, the computer has no more control over real
temperatures than it does over the date of your birthday.
Some of
the attempts to explain why temperatures aren't obeying the
predictions are humorous. One claim is that the world is rapidly
warming. The problem is that it is warming only in those places
where there are no thermometers. Does this mean we can prevent
global warming by putting thermometers everywhere?
We are
at the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. To the surprise of some,
sunspot activity is the lowest it has been at the peak of a cycle in
one hundred years.
This
isn't a surprise to everyone. Five years or so ago I read a
prediction that we were headed into a 30 years period of low sunspot
activity. The scientist who made the prediction had studied hundreds
of years of sunspot data. He had also discovered that world
temperatures follow the sunspots. Lower sunspot activity is
accompanied by lower temperatures. Based on this he also predicted
that the 30 years of low sunspot activity would be cooler.
None of
this is enough to prove that sunspots control the temperature of the
world. The odds are great that sunspots are more likely to influence
temperatures than are computer models. The fact that the computer
models have been consistently and substantially wrong gives more
reasons to put your money on the sunspots.
The
so-called scientists who scream about global warming seem to be part
of the same crowd that warned that we were experiencing soon to be
disastrous global cooling during the 1970s. Having twice tripped on
their own predictions, they now prefer to warn about climate change.
It is
all but certain they are riding a winner this time. The one thing
certain about climate is that it has endlessly changed for so long as
we have any records of climate. Cores from glaciers and from ocean
sediments show thousands of years of change. What are the chances
that the climate will suddenly stop changing?
Past
changes have gone back and forth, hot and cold, wet and dry. Today's
climate change mongers want us to believe that the changes will all
be endlessly for the worse. How would they scare anyone into
providing endless grants for research by admitting that climate
change might be a good thing? The even bigger scare game is to
frighten people into accepting draconian government control of their
lives in the name of saving us from the climate change bogeyman.
I don't
have space to cover the details of temperature change for the 150
years since temperatures began recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Check the record and you will find three periods of warming, all
followed by cooling. Also, there is no correlation between warming
and increased carbon dioxide. Most of the warming occurred before
there was a major increase in carbon dioxide.
We
should look to real climate scientists, not to politicians and
talking heads with agendas, for the truth about climate. The people
who have so far been nothing but wrong aren't good candidates to be
our guides to the future. For information on climate, checkout
climatedepot.com
aldmccallum@gmail.com
*
* * * *
*
* * *
*
* *
*
*
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Monday, November 25, 2013
The Dominant Weapon
Column
for week of November 25, 2013
THOUGHTS,
RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS
by
Albert
D. McCallum
Someone
noted “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.” Those who
passionately demand the elimination of firearms should take heed.
What
might a world without firearms be like? Firearms weren't invented
until a few hundred years ago. In terms of human existence that is
day before yesterday. History might offer a few clues about what
life without firearms would be like.
Before
firearms the dominant weapon was the sword. Skilled swordsmen
trained and practiced for years. They had to endlessly polish their
skills to stay at the top of their game. Clubs also served as
weapons.
In
the world of muscle powered weapons, physical strength dominated. It
was the world of the thug. Physically weaker people had to rely on
the strong for safety and survival. Many lived in the confinement of
walled cities and castles.
Firearms
weren't just another new weapon. They were a new kind of weapon.
Firearms harnessed the power of chemical reactions to replace muscle
power. Early firearms were cumbersome and required some strength to
use. Lighter, simpler firearms followed.
In
the world of firearms anyone who who can lift the weapon and pull the
trigger commands as much defensive power as the strongest thug. A 90
pound old woman can bring down a 250 pound muscled thug.
There
is a reason why firearms are called “equalizers.” Firearms are
perhaps the most egalitarian invention in the history of the human
race.
The
leveling effect of firearms, and the gunpowder that powered them, may
well have been indispensable to creating the environment that made
the industrial revolution possible. A few powerful men in castles
could no longer dominate. The security of the castle was destroyed.
We
can't shape the world to fit any fantasy we might dream. We must
accept one of the available options dictated by reality.
Part
of that reality is that some people, probably many, are willing and
eager to use force to exploit and abuse others. Such individuals
will use any available means to injure and kill those who stand in
their way. They will use the most effective weapons available.
Likewise the victims will use the most effective weapons available
for defense.
When
the Japanese made possession of a sword too dangerous to risk, the
disarmed people invented marshal arts to defend themselves with
hands, feet and common tools. There will always be a superior
weapon. The only question is, What will it be?
Another
lesson from the Japanese is that the oppressors who banned others
from having swords kept their own swords. Force and violence are the
tools of oppressors. History tells us, if we listen, that those who
dominate in the realm of force and violence always end up being
oppressors, no matter how they started. This is the lesson of George
Orwell's “Animal
Farm.”
History
is a bit sneaky. It only whispers its lessons until it runs out of
patience. Then it swings the club. Those who weren't listening to
the whispers are always surprised and shocked, and often dead.
Fantasizing
about a world without firearms is a fool's dream. Those who ban an
effective weapon always keep that weapon for themselves. While
ranting about gun control, nonmilitary agencies of the US government
are stockpiling ammunition.
Let's
assume for a moment that firearms can be eliminated. What would life
be like in that world for the weak and down trodden? Will the
victims of thuggery be better off facing the thugs sword to sword, or
knife to knife than gun to gun? Could it be that equalizers aren't
such a bad thing?
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Monday, November 18, 2013
It Isn't Insurance
THOUGHTS,
RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS
by
Albert
D. McCallum
Calling
a dog a cat doesn't change the dog. Calling a wealth redistribution
scheme insurance doesn't change the scheme one bit. Calling the
foundation of Obama care “insurance exchanges” doesn't convert
the product they are selling into insurance. The only exchange is
exchanging what is left of real medical insurance for a government
wealth redistribution scheme,
Real
insurance is a device for the sharing of risks. Suppose that
statistics show that 10 people in a group of 1,000 will die within
one year. No one knows which 10. If each of the 1,000 pays $100
into a pool, the beneficiaries designated by each of the 10 deceased
can receive $10,000.
If
it was known in advance which ones would die insurance would be
impossible. Only the ones who were going to die would buy the
insurance.
The
essence of Obama care is to coerce young, healthy people to pay far
more than real insurance would cost in a free market. That money
will be used to pay overhead and medical benefit to the unhealthy,
mostly older, individuals. This is just one more scheme to force
young workers trying to raise families to give money to the oldest,
and wealthiest, generation.
Forcing
insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions isn't insurance
either. There isn't an unknown risk to spread among people who will
never suffer the loss.
How
would fire insurance work if the owner could wait until the fire
started to buy insurance? It is impossible to insure against a 100
percent certain risk. Obama care doesn't provide insurance for
preexisting conditions. It forces someone else to pay for the
conditions.
Another
scam is forcing every policy to cover what the politicians want
covered instead of what the insured wants covered. Forcing the
insured to have unwanted coverage also forces the insured to pay for
the coverage. The added bells and whistles may cost so much that
seeker of insurance won't be able to buy any “insurance.”
The
political success of Obama care depends on convincing the majority of
voters that someone else is paying for the coverage. Then it doesn't
matter how mad those forced to pay may be.
If
young, healthy people refuse to sign up, Obama care will crash and
burn with a deficit that will make the city of Detroit and the US
Postal Service look prosperous.
I
suspect that Obama care was designed to fail. Then blame private
insurance for the government's failure. Politicians will play this
into an excuse for forcing everyone into a government run and
rationed system where individuals have no voice in the treatment they
receive. This is what government has wanted from day one.
Remember
the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, even if he
stole the gold. The rationing that has already begun will grow
slowly at first each time the government starts running out of other
people's money.
Based
on what is happening now, both here and in other countries, smokers,
obese and the elderly will be among the first to be told to go home,
suffer and die. It is impossible to provide all the medical
treatment and tests that individuals would demand if they didn't have
to pay anything.
Thus,
rationing is inevitable. As the waste and inefficiency inevitably
grows, so will the rationing. Obama care isn't about providing
affordable medical insurance. It is about ending medical insurance
and individual choice in medical treatment.
The
politicians and bureaucrats want to control every dollar and every
aspect of everyone's life. For them Obama care is a dream come true.
Obama care is “from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need.” In other words, Obama ripped a page out of
Karl Marx's play book.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
*
* * * *
*
* * *
*
* *
*
*
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Thursday, November 14, 2013
The First Law of Wages
The physical world
is
governed by many laws of nature. We ignore those laws at our
peril. some laws of nature are difficult to ignore. The penalty
for
ignoring the law of gravity is usually immediate and often
severe.
An individual may
be
exposed to lethal radiation for months, or even years, and not
notice
any consequences. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences.
Consuming small amounts of arsenic may for a while seem to
improve
health. Then it kills.
Many laws of
economics are
as ridged and demanding as the laws of the physical world. Some
of
the laws of economics are merely extensions of the laws of the
physical world. One of these basic laws of economic laws is, we
can't consume that which hasn't been produced.
The first law of
wages is a
corollary of not being able to consume that which isn't
produced. Total wages can never exceed total production. The use
of money
obscures this law.
Consider a barter
economy
where people trade things for other things. Employees are paid
with
some of what they produce. Part of what the employee produces is
used to pay those who produce tools, supplies, etc. for the
employee
to use. It should be obvious that the total wages paid to the
people
producing axes can't exceed the total axes produced.
Using money to pay
the
employees doesn't change reality. Money is only a medium of
exchange. The money will buy no more axes than were produced.
Printing new money and doubling the employee's wages doesn't
make any
more axes. If the employee uses his increased wages to buy more
axes, or anything else, someone somewhere must settle for less.
Printing new money to pay the ax maker is the same as taking
some of
the axes used to pay other suppliers and giving them to the ax
makers.
A frustrated bowler
threw
his ball out the window of the car onto the road. The ball
bounced,
hit the windshield of another car, and killed a passenger. As
far as
gravity was concerned the bowler suffered no consequences from
his
ignoring the laws of physics. The victim paid the price.
Like the law of
gravity,
the first law of wages can be ignored, but not violated. Someone
will suffer the consequences.
Still, for ages
politicians, often at the urging of voters, have ignored the
first
law of wages. The politicians are rewarded by getting reelected.
Some of the voters temporarily benefit from higher pay.
The first law of
wages
dictates that someone must pay. Often that someone doesn't even
realize he paid the bill for someone else's higher wages. Some
pay
through lower wages or higher prices. Others pay by being
unemployed. Some pay through higher taxes. However the payment
is
disguised, someone always pays the full cost of all artificial
wage
increases engineered by politicians. The first law of wages
forces
someone to pay.
Any subsidy to get
a
business to produce in a way other than the most efficient one
hurts
someone through either lower pay, higher prices, or higher
taxes. This includes all subsidies paid to lure businesses to a
particular
location, or to induce then to make a product they couldn't
otherwise
afford to make. The list includes subsidies to makers of movies,
windmills, ethanol, electric cars and biofuels. The subsidies
result
in some workers being paid more than the value of what thy
produce. The only question is, Who is paid less?
Union wage
increases and
minimum wage laws along with restrictions on imports and other
government interference with free trade all prompt the first law
of
wages to force someone to pay. Pursuant to the law of supply and
demand artificially high wages always increase unemployment. One
of
the dumbest things politicians do is increase minimum wages
during a
recession. Inevitably when anyone gets higher pay without
increased
production, someone, somewhere gets lower pay, or no pay.
*
* * * *
*
* * *
*
* *
*
*
*
Copyright
2013
Albert
D.
McCallum
Thursday, November 7, 2013
What About the “S” Word?
For as long
as I can
remember it was common practice for writers to leave some of the
letters out of certain words. This never made much sense to me.
If
the reader couldn't guess the word from the clue letters, What
was
the point in including any part of the word? If the reader could
guess the word, What did leaving out a few letters accomplish?
Are
letters so expensive that writers must economize? Are dashes
cheaper
than letters?
The next step
was
chopping off everything except the first letter. Certain words
came
to be known by their initials. Again, what does this accomplish
other than saving letters? For one finger texters this may be
important. How much benefit is it to anyone else? If the word is
annoying or offensive to someone, Does calling it another name
make
it smell more like a rose?
Why do
people find one
word bothersome while accepting another that means the same
thing? It must be the sound that bothers them. Why do some
condition their
minds to react to some sounds the way they do to finger nails
squeaking on a blackboard. Yes, I am so old I actually remember
black blackboards.
Nevertheless, the custom
is well entrenched. If you can't lick them, join them. If other
people can cut the tails off from words they find annoying, I
should
have the same right.
There is one
four letter
“S” word I find irritating and annoying, especially this time of
year. Even in July I am irritated by a mere picture of a
mountain
covered with S. For my peace of mind everyone must forever cease
speaking the cursed “S” word.
The “W” word
that
the “S” word commonly hangs out with needs to go too. Another
“W” word often used as a prefix to “Christmas” is also
skating of rather thin ice. The “I” word isn't my favorite
either.
If some can
ban words,
everyone should have the same right. Perhaps we should limit
banning
to one word per customer.
Some may
have noticed
that there are many more people than words. They may also have
noticed that every imaginable word can be offensive to someone.
I
recall reading about a man who shot his girlfriend three times
because she threatened to say “New Jersey.” Yes, “New Jersey”
is two words. Perhaps that makes it twice as offensive. The man
was
supposedly equally offended by Wisconsin, which is all one word.
After
everyone exercises
their right to reduce one word to its first letter most likely
all we
will have left is first letters. T S M F I C. For those who
failed
to decipher the last sentence, it was “This should make for
interesting conversations. What else could it possibly have
been?
Obviously we
will need
more letters, one for every word. With all of those letters, no
one
will ever again have to worry about being asked to recite the
alphabet.
A different
letter for
every word isn't a revolutionary new idea. It is pretty much
what
the Chinese do now. If we don't quit reducing words to one
letter we
are all going to have to learn to speak Chinese. Is catering to
people who choose to be upset by certain sounds worth the price
of
having to learn Chinese?
I'm willing
to sacrifice
the right to reduce the “S” word to one letter when everyone
else
is ready to give up truncation of words.
*
* * * *
*
* * *
*
* *
*
*
*
Copyright
2013
Albert
D.
McCallum
Thursday, October 31, 2013
How to Prevent Bad Laws
Our society is obsessed with voting and passing laws. Supposedly voting
magically makes everything alright. Whatever the majority wants, everyone
else must live with. This is garbage. How would you like to have to eat the
one and only breakfast approved by a majority?
Having that one and only majority mandated breakfast, served only at the
majority mandated time, would lead to endless strife over what to eat and when
to eat. It would also generate a black market in other kinds of breakfasts.
A law is an order. Those passing and enforcing the law say “Do it our
way, or we will hurt you.” A law not backed by force and threats of force
isn't a law, it is a joke. We can't change the violent nature of laws. We
can make it more difficult for lawmakers to invoke the use of force to control
others.
Why should a mere 51 percent be allowed to resort to the use of force
against 49 percent? Sometimes the use of force is justified. Murders should
be forced to stop. Does anyone believe murder would be legal merely because
we required a two-thirds majority to pass laws?
Why shouldn't we require at least a two-thirds majority to pass any law?
Why shouldn't those who want to resort to the use of force and threats have to
convince at least two-thirds that such use of force is justified?
Requiring super majority approval to repeal a law would be a disaster. We
need to make it easier to repeal bad laws. Let the opponents of a law
petition for reconsideration of any law. If on reconsideration the law fails
to gain super majority approval it would cease to be a law.
This will not end all exploitive and abusive laws. It will drastically
cull the herd. Few laws beyond basic laws against force and violence such as
murder, robbery, arson, rape, etc. ever had two-thirds support. Even fewer
still have such support.
Consider Obama Care. It squeaked through by a vote or two. It never came
close to having two-thirds support. Obama Care would be dead and all but
forgotten if it had needed two-thirds approval. Even if it had passed it
would now be repealed by failure to gain approval on reconsideration.
Most of the special interest strife in this country is over special
privileges granted, or sought to be granted, by laws that didn't or couldn't
ever come close to gaining super majority support. We would have a far more
peaceful and less divided nation if we eliminated the possibility of a mere
majority passing any law.
Deprived of using the political means to exploit their neighbors,
individuals would have to resort to the only means still available. They
would have to use persuasion, rewards and voluntary cooperation to pursue
their goals. They would no longer be able to resort to “Do it my way, or I
will hurt you.”
There are only two things that should be subject to voting. The first is
laws against all forms of aggression where the law must be enforced with force
and violence. The second is matters where circumstances dictate that everyone
must accept the same choice. There are very few things that fall into the
latter class.
What to eat for breakfasts, which school to attend, and the size of soft
drinks aren't included on the list. People get along better and accomplish
more when they aren't endlessly threatened with “Do it my way, or I will hurt
you.”
The federal government alone has enacted about 200,000 pages of “Do it may
way, or I will hurt you.” And, you are presumed to know, and are required to
obey, every one of them. Requiring at least two-thirds approval to keep these
laws might shorten your reading list. You do read and understand all the laws
you are ordered to obey, don't you?
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
What Is the Price of Money?
Prices of most everything have been going up since long before my time. I remember $0.12 loaves of bread and quarts of milk. Some bread cost $0.20 or a bit more. Nickel ice cream cones and candy bars were the standard. Big candy bars and double dip ice cream cost a whole dime.
Does a multi dollar loaf of bread today cost more than a $0.20 one 60 years ago? Is certainly costs more money. Money isn't the real measure of either cost or value. Money is merely a tool we use to make trading easier.
The cost of something is the human effort used to make it. Its value is determined by it usefulness to the person using it. It requires less time to make a loaf of bread today than it did 60 years ago. The real cost of bread today is less than it was when bread sold for little more than a dime. The usefulness of bread hasn't changed much over the past 60 years.
Labor also costs much more today. I remember working for less than a dollar an hour. In my first job as an engineer my pay was a bit less than $3.00 per hour. Most college graduates started for less. I lived very well on $3.00 per hour.
When the real cost of making just about everything is less than it used to be, Why do we pay so much more? The simple answer is, money is cheaper. It is common practice to state prices in dollars. It is unusual to hear someone say “A dollar costs a loaf to bread.”
In a barter economy two people might exchange a dozen eggs for a loaf of bread. The eggs cost a loaf of bread. The bread costs a dozen eggs. Likewise, if the price of a loaf of bread is one dollar, the price of one dollar is the loaf of bread.
The price of bread hasn't gone up. The price of money has gone down. Sixty years ago a loaf of bread would buy the grocer $0.15 or so. Today dollars are so cheap the grocer can buy two, three or more dollars with a single loaf of bread.
Why are dollars now so cheap? Money is useful only for buying things. The supply of money has increased far faster than the supply of things to buy with the money. The only use for that surplus money is to bid up the prices. Otherwise, the surplus money has to remain unspent. It is most unlikely that people with money will refuse to spend it merely because spending it requires them to bid up the prices.
Where does all the new money come from? Probably most are aware that government can print all the money it wants to. That is only one tenth of the story. Once that money is deposited in a bank, that bank can create $9.00 of credit money for every dollar deposited. That is the “magic” of 10 percent, fractional reserve banking.
It is beyond available space to explain how banks get away with loaning out the same dollar nine times. The government controlled banking system does make it possible, for a while at least.
Whether the money supply is such that bread cost $0.20, $2.00 or even $200.00 doesn't matter. What matters is changes in the money supply. Changes in the money supply change prices and disrupt the economy in many ways.
Money created out of thin air by banks can quickly evaporate back into thin air causing great economic disruption and triggering recessions. As long a we have the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banks creating money out of thin air, we will never have a stable economy. Try as it might government is incapable of preventing fluctuations in the money supply from reeking economic havoc.
Our ever increasing money supply causes far more serious problems than having to adjust to ever increasing prices.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Monday, October 21, 2013
EXCITING TIMES
We live in perilous times. All times are perilous. We always face dangers and challenges. We can also find hope if we know where to look.
Few people see the hopes before they are realized. The forces of technology and public sentiment build quietly and unnoticed like the forces building up along fault lines. Few notice until the earth moves. Few also see forces building for technological and social change.
On Saturday evening, November 4, 1989, I was at a gathering in Miami. A number of Ukrainians sat near by discussing the fate of the Ukraine. Did anyone there even suspect that in less than a week we would awake to the headline "Berlin wall falls?" Who foresaw that in a couple of years the Soviet Union would cease to exist and Ukraine would again be an independent nation?
Forces for monumental change are building today. Many people see the dangers. How many see the hope? People see change as a political process acted out within the political frame work.
Forces for truly revolutionary changes build outside of, and in spite of, the political order. They shake and change the political order. Only force beyond the control of government can change government.
Government is the most conservative of all institutions. The foundation of government is force and coercion. Above all else government seeks to conserve, protect and expand its power. Those who seek to build peace and prosperity by getting government to reform itself seek the impossible. The only things that can save us from the plunder and destruction of all powerful government are the irresistible forces from new technology and the will of the people.
Those forces are building in spite of government's best efforts to stop them. Government's efforts to prevent change amplify the forces that propel us toward change.
We live in exciting times. We are witnessing, mostly unaware, the buildup to what may be the most revolutionary and earth shaking change in history -- more earth shaking than gun powder, the atom bomb, or the fall of the Soviet Union.
The secret to government power is manipulation and control of the minds of the people. Those who rule and exploit are few. Their victims are many. No government can long survive if the will of the people turns against it.
All governments must control the minds of their subjects, at least enough to gain passive acceptance. No where is such control more important than in a democracy where people vote.
It is no accident that governments world wide control education. The goal of the rulers isn't to teach the there Rs. In the name of education, starting in childhood, they indoctrinate the citizens to be compliant and dependent on government. Dependent victims don't rebel. Abused voters are as compliant to their abusers as are abused wives to their abusers.
We have front row seats as world shaking forces build to the climax. The forces of cyber education threaten the existing order. In a few years decentralized cyber education will be available and affordable for most children. The more government and the teachers' unions resist it and make government schools even more of a disaster, the more parents will be driven to private cyber education.
The movement to decentralized education began in the paper book era decades ago. It required a great effort to leave the government schools then. The required effort diminishes today, while government schools grow ever worse.
Government and the teachers unions will try to outlaw independent cyber education. They will claim to be protecting the children. Someone said "Religion is the last refuge of scoundrels." Actually, “for the children” is the last refuge of scoundrels.
The move to parental controlled cyber education will build slowly. Suddenly it will break though. On a quiet September morn teacher will return to nearly empty classrooms. The next day's headline will shout "The educational wall has fallen." People will be freed from government propaganda and in control of their own minds.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
What Can Government Do?
Millions seem to believe government can do anything.
The flip side is they also believe nothing can be accomplished
without government. This attitude of dependence on government
grows every day.
The gold standard for government accomplishment is a
man on the Moon. Man on the Moon spawned the phrase "If we
can put a man on the Moon, Why can't we _____________?"
At one time or another that blank has been occupied with about
every unachieved goal known to humans. Rarely, if ever, have I
heard any of those questions answered.
First we will consider what the government actually did
in putting a man on the Moon. Government hired private
businesses to do the heavy lifting. Government set the goal and
confiscated the resources from the private sector through taxation
and borrowing.
In other words the private sector put men on the Moon.
All government did was coerce and bribe the private sector.
Those businesses that profited from the Moon project
enthusiastically went along.
Everything comes with a price. Doing one thing requires
passing up the opportunity to do something else. Economists
call the lost opportunity the "opportunity cost."
Going to the Moon had many opportunity costs for many
people. We will never know what millions gave up to put a
man on the Moon. We can have some ideas about the nature of
the sacrifice.
People first spend resources to achieve their most
important goals. If putting a man on the Moon had been the
most important goal for the people forced to pay for it, those
people would have voluntarily paid to put a man on the Moon.
The mere fact that people had to be coerced proves that a man
on the Moon was well down their priority list.
Eventually man would have visited the Moon. Very
possibly voluntary efforts would not yet have achieved that goal.
We would have used the lunar resources to have achieved other
things, perhaps cures for some diseases. For most people going
to the Moon has provided no more benefit than does the home
team winning a ball game.
The Moon project boils down to one thing, powerful
people in government forced millions to sacrifice their more
important goals to pursue a goal that was important to powerful
people. That goal wasn't important enough to those powerful
people for them to finance it with their own wealth.
Nevertheless, government did command the resources that
greatly accelerated man's arrival on the Moon. Why does
government fail to achieve goals such as ending poverty or
stopping drug use?
Putting a man on the Moon involved things. Government
efforts are usually wasteful. Still, if government can seize
enough resources it can hire the private sector to achieve any
physical thing that is achievable.
Poverty, education, drug use, and most other problems we
face are matters of human choice and behavior. When it comes
to achieving positive changes in human behavior, force, coercion
and bribes (the only tools of government) are next to useless.
Usually force and threats result in people behaving in more
destructive ways
Government's attempts to change behavior have mainly
created attitudes of victimhood and dependence on government.
In the process government has forced most of us to sacrifice our
important goals to fund government failure.
A recent article reported that the money the government
spent on poverty during 2011 was enough to have given every
poor household over $59,000. Yet most of those households are
still ranked below the poverty line.
What can we expect in the future? Nothing but more
government failures and waste denying us the opportunities to
purse our most important goals. Unless we somehow achieve a
major change in voter attitudes, the toboggan ride to the end will
only accelerate. The end won't be on the Moon.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Thursday, October 3, 2013
What Will the Next Outrage Be?
Outrageous actions of government are so common they
have lost most of their shock effect. They are still outrageous,
but expected. This week brought word of two actions that prove
government can still stretch the envelope.
Both actions sprang from fertile soil that has germinated
many past outrages. Both are new, mutant varieties. One
sprouted in the realm of gunaphobic school administrators. The
other was the fruit of civil asset forfeiture, the mere existence of
which is an outrage.
The gunaphobic school administrators suspended a
student and threatened to expel him for one year. His alleged
offense was playing with some kind of spring powered gun. It
wasn't clear from the report if the student's actions were dumb
or not. Apparently the son of the complainant was also
participating in whatever happened.
The key point isn't what happened, but where it
happened. The student was still in his own yard at home. I
don't know if the school administrator's name was Blomberg.
Whatever his name, he apparently believes he has the right to
completely control everyone else's life.
It will be a challenge for someone to stretch that
envelope further. I don't doubt that some bureaucrat and his
minions will find a way.
The big push for civil asset forfeiture started in the
1960s. Prosecutors were upset that drug dealers hired lawyers
who made it more difficult for prosecutors to get convictions.
The plan was to allow the prosecutors to take all of the alleged
drug dealers money. Without money, how could the defendant
hire a lawyer?
This scheme wouldn't work if the defendant had to be
found guilty of something before taking his money. Civil asset
forfeiture allows the government to allege that the money or
other asset was involved with a crime. Nothing need be alleged
against the owner of the asset. The asset need not be proven
guilty.
The government simply files the allegation and takes the
money. The burden is then on the owner to try and get his
property back. The owner, who may be penniless because of the
asset seizure, may be required to post bond before he can even
challenge the forfeiture.
The headline read "Feds Steal $35K From Small Grocer's
Bank Account Despite Finding 'No Violations' To Justify the
Grab." Sometimes headlines exaggerate. This one didn't.
According to the article from "Reason" the grocer in
Fraser, Michigan made a substantial amount of cash sales. His
insurance didn't cover losses of cash in excess of $10,000. The
grocer made many cash deposits to avoid holding large amounts
of cash. To anyone but the Internal Revenue Service that might
appear to be reasonable and prudent.
Federal law requires banks to report all cash deposits in
excess of $10,000. The same law, part of the so-called "Patriot
Act," makes it illegal to structure cash deposits for the purpose
of avoiding $10,000 deposits. Apparently in the government's
view if you split $10,000 into two deposits, that entitles the
government to take every dollar in your bank account. If you
didn't have the second $5,000 when you made the first deposit,
tough. The government still gets your money.
A few months before taking the grocer's money IRS sent
him a letter saying no violations of banking laws were identified.
The money had been accused of a crime. That was enough to
prompt the IRS to punish the money. Any impact on the grocer
was merely collateral damage.
The saga isn't over yet. The Institute for Justice is
representing the grocer. It has a great track record of stopping
abuses by government. Even if the grocer gets his $35,000
back, it is likely to cost him or the Institute for Justice more than
$35,000. That is how government gets away with most of its
outrages. Fighting back costs more than giving up. In other
words, government is the biggest extortionist on the loose in the
land.
aldmccallum@gmail.com
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Good and Bad Competition
I have noticed the term "social Darwinism" popping up in
the news. Social Darwinists claim that in free competition the
most capable will out produce the less capable causing the less
capable to parish. The social Darwinists fail to distinguish
between the two types of competition.
Competition can be either productive or destructive.
Destructive competition is worse than a zero sum game. When
competitors destroy the wealth of the other competitors, on
average everyone ends up with less then they started with.
Total war is the extreme example of destructive
competition. Any competition to take from others is destructive.
The victims end up with less. The "winners" gain less than the
victims lose. The cost of taking the loot consumes part of the
loot, often most of it.
The US government welfare system consumes over 70
percent of the wealth taken to aid the poor. In other words, the
welfare system provides more than twice as much in benefits to
those who run it as it provides to the poor.
Government is the realm of destructive competition.
Uncountable special interests use government to destructively
compete for wealth produced by others.
As this competition increases, it drains effort from
production. The competitors for what is produced by others
inevitably end up competing for an ever decreasing pool of
wealth. In the end the weak will inevitably parish.
Productive competition is a horse of a different color. In
an environment of liberty, individuals compete to out produce
each other. Some may try to out produce everyone else. Others
may compete mainly with themselves. Primarily they seek to be
more productive than they were. They don't worry about how
productive others may be.
The more we produce for others, the more others will
give us in exchange. This motivates us to compete to increase
what we produce for others. Yes, this is totally selfish. Who
should care when everyone benefits? Failure to recognize how
we all benefit from the selfishness of others often leads
individuals to act against their own best interests.
Even those who fail to increase their productivity are no
worse off than before. They may be relatively worse off when
compared to others. In absolute terns they haven't lost a thing.
The farmer whose corn production is stuck at 100 bushels per
acre doesn't have less corn merely because another farmer
increases his yield to 150 bushels.
When the more successful producers invest their
increased productivity in facilities that increase the productivity
of others, those others are better off, rather than worse off.
Productive competition doesn't drive anyone to extinction. It can
only aid the survival of all.
There is another point worth noticing. When the more
successful producers increase their productivity, they have more
that they can, and often do, donate to aid the less successful
producers.
For most of history, competition was more destructive
than productive. A few rulers and slave masters grew wealthy
by forcibly taking from others. Competing tribes battled to take
from each other. In this world of destructive, government style
competition, life was cruel, brutish and short.
The industrial revolution, which still continues, is
powered by productive competition. Competing to increase our
productivity and service to each other has lifted us to by far the
highest productivity and standard of living in the history of the
human race. Out producing your neighbor doesn't beggar your
neighbor. It benefits him.
The total insanity of social Darwinism is that its
advocates seek to replace the productive competition of free
people with destructive, government based, competition among
special interests. It is the social Darwinists that have embarked
on a course of action that threatens the survival of the least
successful producers, and everyone else.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Right Man
Imagine that every state in the country has a shortage of
electricity. The people cry out to Washington, D.C. for more
electricity. But, D.C. had no electricity. D.C. wants to help. It
builds power lines to every state to supply the needed electricity.
Then D.C. builds a second set of line for the states to
send electricity to D.C. Electricity flows from the states to D.C.
and back to the states. Still the people complain that they need
more electricity.
D.C. builds more lines. Eventually all the electricity in
the nation flows to D.C. for retransmission back to whence it
came. As a result every state has less electricity due to the
losses during transmission. In addition (or, perhaps subtraction)
the people had to pay for building and operating the lines. D.C.
didn't have any wealth of its own to use to build the lines.
Still the people complain, some louder than others. The
states who shout the loudest convince D.C. to send them more
electricity. D.C. then diverts electricity from the states that
produce it to those who don't. This pleases the recipients while
only further impoverishing the losers.
A high paid consultant in D.C. finally comes up with a
miraculous solution. Only in D.C. would the solution be
considered a solution. The plan was to make the collection and
distribution so complex and confusing that D.C. could convince
the people that they were all getting back more electricity than
they sent.
The plan worked. Even as the lights flicked and went
black across the nation, the people ever demanded more juice
from D.C. They also refused to even think of the possibility of
taking the D.C. middleman out of the power loop.
Everyone knew they were totally dependent on D.C. for
electricity. Without the electricity from D.C. everyone knew
they would starve, and freeze to death in cold, dark basements.
The determined citizens were sure that incompetence and
corruption on the part of those who operated the system were the
only problems. Nothing else stood between the people and
Utopia where abundant, free electricity and honey flowed to all.
A "reformer" cried out to the people in their most
desperate hour. "There is hope. We can throw out the nay
saying greedy crooks and bring abundant electricity to all. Trust
me. I will change everything for the better." The people
shouted "Hosanna."
Only one man raised his voice to question. "Where will
the electricity come from? Who will pay for it?" The people
hated this man. He wanted to deny them admittance to Utopia.
A screaming mob poured into the streets surging toward the
home of the evil one who dared to question the plan for Utopia.
When the sun rose his body dangled from a tree. No one ever
again raised a voice in opposition.
The man of hope went to D.C. while the people cheered.
Soon some noticed something was wrong. The lights faded even
dimmer. The people felt betrayed. A new voice proclaimed,
"The man of hope is a charlatan. Only I can clean up the mess
in D.C. and make your lights grow bright again." Once more
the people shouted "Hosanna."
Alas, the new last, best hope failed to brighten the lights.
The lights continued to dim. Still the people never lost their
faith in D.C. and Utopia. Even as they lay starving and dying in
their cold, dark basements the people still dreamed that before it
was too late the real man of hope would rise up and solve the
problems that prevented wise rulers from opening the doors to
Utopia.
The people went to their rewards clinging to the belief
that D.C. could have saved them, if only the right man had
arrived in time.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Where Does Butter Come From?
I found a quart of heavy whipping cream in the
refrigerator. It had expired over a month ago. My wife
pondered what to do with a quart of sour cream. I wonder how
many people would simply throw it out.
I said "Why not make butter?" How many people have
ever seen butter made the old-fashioned way? When I was a
young boy I watched Grandma make butter. Sometimes I helped
by pumping the dasher in the churn.
My grandparents had a small farm. As was common in
the area, the farm included a small dairy heard. By today's
standards the heard was infinitely small, five to eight cows.
The cows would freshen (for city slickers that means they
had calves and started giving milk) in February or March.
Caves have to eat. My grandparents didn't want to use up whole
milk feeding calves.
At each milking Grandma saved out a couple of quarts of
milk in a pan for each calf. The pans set on the pantry shelf for
a couple of days. The cream came to the top. Before feeding
the calves Grandma skimmed the cream from the top of the
pans.
The calves got skimmed milk mixed with a powder
supplement called "Calf Manna." The cream went into a crock.
Twice a week Grandma churned the then sour cream into butter.
The churn was a crock five gallons or so in size. It had
a wooden cover with a round hole in the top for the dasher
handle. The handle had a wooden X on the bottom. Pumping
the handle up and down stirred the cream causing the butter to
float to the top. Pumping the churn was fun, for a while.
Sometimes the butter took at least forever to separate. Adding
some cold water to the cream aided the separation.
After the butter floated to the top, Grandma skimmed it
off and put it in a wooden butter bowl about a foot and a half in
diameter. She then added cold water and used a wooden butter
paddle to work the water through the butter. This washed the
butter milk out of the butter. The final step in the bowl was
adding coloring, if needed, and salt.
Grandma then formed the butter into one pound bricks
with her butter mold. It was a wooden box just the right size to
hold a pound of butter. It had a plunger in the top to push out
the brick of butter.
The natural color of butter is anything from orange to
white. The color of the butter also depends on the color of the
cow. Different breeds of cows produce different colors of butter.
When the cows were on green grass in the spring, the butter was
very yellow to orange. In the dry summer the butter was nearly
white.
Armed with all this knowledge I was ready to make
butter. I didn't have a churn handy. A mere quart of cream
would have gotten lost in a churn anyway. My wife set up her
mixer and put the aged cream in the bowl. I put the mixer on
low and let it rip.
A few minutes later a thick scum was forming on the top
of the bowl. I stopped the mixer. The final separation required
a gentler agitation. I worked it with a spoon. Soon the butter
was separated. I skimmed it into a bowl and worked cold
water through it a couple of times to rinse out the buttermilk.
I had over a half pound of very pail yellow butter.
Disregarding the half hour or so I invested in "Project Butter,"
that beats pouring the cream down the drain.
The survivalists who are planning to survive the collapse
of civilization might want to add this column to their scrap
books.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
*
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)