Is it the Green Fairy's Fault?

     Two recent articles about the European Union seemed
unrelated.  Then again, maybe not.  The first was about the EU
parliament considering revisions to the definition of Absinthe,
also known as the "green fairy."  For some on this side of the
puddle, Absinthe may not be a familiar beverage.

     Absinthe is an alcoholic beverage that, traditionally at
least, contained a touch of thujone that is described as a
wormwood plant toxin.  Doesn't that make you thirsty?  The
thujone gives the green fairy its color and its wings.  It
supposedly causes hallucinations that "inspire" poets and writers. 
I know what you are thinking, but, I never touched the stuff.

     After due deliberation the EU parliament decided to punt
and leave the definition alone.  The definition doesn't require
that the green fairy contain any thujone.  What is left of the
green fairy without any fairy?

     Whatever the results, Doesn't the EU have enough bigger
problems to occupy the parliament's time?  Considering what
usually comes out of the EU parliament, fiddling with frivolities
may well be the best use of its time.

     I was ready to ignore the green fairy controversy.  Then
Reuters posted an article reporting some musings of Martin
Schulz, president of the EU parliament whom the reporter
described as a socialist.  Is describing a member of the EU
parliament as a socialist redundant?

     Mr. Schulz offered, "We saved the banks but are running
the risk of losing a generation."  He is probably overly
optimistic in believing that the EU bailout saved the banks for
more than a brief spell.  His other point deserves more serious
consideration.  Young people in various southern European
countries face unemployment rates of 50 percent and above.  In
the US only teenagers face such levels of unemployment.

     Then I read Mr. Schulz's prescription for a cure.  That
was when my mind drifted back to the green fairy.  Perhaps
while considering the hallucinating green fairy Mr. Schulz tested
a few too many bottles.

     I won't repeat all of Mr. Schulz's plan.  The substance of
it was that the EU should spend billions of euros to provide jobs
or welfare for unemployed young people.

     Let's see.  The youth are unemployed because the people
of various European nations are too broke to invest in the
facilities to provide productive jobs for those who want to work. 
The governments are worse than broke.  They wallow in debt
and are at the end of their lines of credit.

     Where will the billions of euros come from?  Oh, I
almost forgot, the EU can print the euros.  Unfortunately the EU
can't print anything to buy with those euros.  More money
without more things to buy isn't much of a solution, except for
those who enjoy the taste of money.

     In the short term the people in countries that squandered
their investment capital on spending binges can't do much to
help themselves.  All they can do is work at low paying jobs,
scrimp and save to replenish the investment that will again allow
workers to be productive.

     The only other option is to attract investment capital from
other countries.  High taxes, regulations and government
spending doesn't create an environment that screams "INVEST
HERE!"  The EU and the European national governments need
to clean up their acts and be responsible.  They can spend their
way into bankruptcy and poverty.  They can't spend their way
out, no matter what the green fairy may have whispered in their
ears.

     Should we in the US care?  The green fairy seems also to
be whispering in the ears of some congress critters.  The US is
plunging toward where the worst of Europe is now.  By letting
Europe serve as our bad example perhaps we could avoid its
fate.  Then Europe's self destruction would not be a total waste.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

Which Spending Is Important?

      According to certain politicians in D.C. every nickel
government spends is vitally important.  Cutting any expenditure
will jeopardize the future of the nation and its citizens.  The
politicians claim that even a small cut in the rate of increase in
government spending will bring on disaster.

     The now famous, or infamous, sequester doesn't reduce
government spending by even one cent.  It only reduces the
spending increases that the big spenders claim are vital.  Even
the House Republicans' proposed "drastic" cuts will, by their
own admission, result in government spending increasing by
more than one trillion dollars a year by the end of a decade.

     Let us consider a multiple choice question.  Which of the
following expenditures are vital and untouchable: a) $277,000
for three White House calligraphers: b) $1,500,000 to study why
lesbians are fat (supposedly most of them are): c) $227,000 for
Michigan State University to study how "National Geographic"
depicted animals for 120 years;  d) an undetermined amount for
White House tours?

     According to the politicians and bureaucrats only (d) is
expendable.  The first three march on.  A TV station ran a
feature showing that an invitation crafted with inexpensive
software was indistinguishable from one crafted by the three
pricey White House calligraphers.

     I don't question that a bankrupt nation can't afford to
spend on White House tours.  How can this same nation afford
the first three expenditures?

     There is a simple solution to the White House tour
problem.  Contract with a business to conduct the tours. 
Charge the business for any government costs of the tours.  The
business would charge its customers to recover its cost and earn
a profit.  If the tourists don't consider the tours worth paying for,
then ending the tours is the right thing to do.

     The government is also planning to buy 400,000 tons of
sugar to raise sugar prices and help the sugar industry.  Through
quotas, etc. the government already enables US sugar producers
to sell sugar at twice the price of sugar in the rest of the world. 
Without government protection the US sugar industry would
likely all but vanish.  So what?  We could use the resources,
including labor, to produce something to trade for cheaper sugar.

     How vital is it that the government spends to make
consumers pay more for sugar?  How much sugar is produced in
Canada, Norway, Sweden and other cool climate countries? 
These countries do fine without sugar production.  And, the
consumers pay half as much for sugar as we do.  Also, how
many bananas are grown in the US?

     There is a bit more behind the proposed government
sugar purchase.  The government lent money to the sugar
industry.  Even with the inflated price of sugar, the sugar
producers are having problems paying off the loans.  Thus,
government proposes spending millions of dollars for sugar to
raise prices enough so the sugar produces can repay the
government.

     The phrase that keeps popping into my mind is
"Throwing good money after bad."  This is also a solid example
of how government tries to paper over one mistake with another.

     These few examples aren't even a big start on saving the
nation from bankruptcy.  I didn't do any searching to find them. 
They simply popped up in headlines over the past few weeks. 
Undoubtedly these examples are the tip of the iceberg that
serious research would find.  Some have done that research and
found hundreds of billions of dollars is wasteful and frivolous
spending.

     The problem is that even frivolous expenditures are
someone's income   The people who get the money consider it
important, even if they too believe their work is frivolous. 
These people vote and lobby.  They also circle the wagons and
defend each other's special privileges.  If government can't fire
at least one of three White House calligraphers, How will it ever
screw up the courage to eliminate the billions in ethanol
subsidies and other government boondoggles?

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

Fools and Their Princes

     An E-mail circulating through cyberspace refers to
Barrack Obama as the Prince of Fools.  The message concluded
that the problem never is the prince of fools.  The problem is the
fools who make him their prince.  The prince is more likely a
clever manipulator than a fool.

     An article covering a poll about government spending
reminded me of the E-mail.  Many polls have found a substantial
majority want government to cut spending.  I haven't taken these
poll results seriously.  I believed that those polled only wanted
to cut spending for other people.

     I had no proof that this was true.  A recent pool reported
by Newsmax confirmed my beliefs.  "Six in 10 adults oppose
scaling back the entitlements for seniors." Also, "Three-quarters
of Americans believe the nation can get its finances in order
without touching the public safety nets. . . ."

     Newsmax also reports "The only other federal spending
that survey respondents ranked higher on their don't-touch list
was education funding."  These are the fools who select our
princes.

     What is the foolishness?  Endless studies have found no
connection between high spending and better education.   Detroit
schools have one of the highest per pupil spending rates in
Michigan.  About 8 percent of Detroit 8th graders are proficient
in reading.  Washington, D.C. spends more per student than most
schools in the US.  The results are a disaster.  The list could go
on.

     One study found statistical support for a claim that
schools that spend the least do the best jobs.  There is a vast
amount of information available supporting the idea that more
spending doesn't get better results.  Only the willfully ignorant
can miss seeing this elephant in the room.  Fools are willingly
deceived by demagogues who prey on the ignorant to achieve
the demagogues' own goals.

     School spending is far from our biggest problem. 
Medicare is the 600-pound gorilla.  Estimates of unfunded cost
for Medicare range from $70 trillion or so to $150 trillion and
beyond.

     If we stay on the present path, in a few years Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security and interest on debt will cost more
than all federal tax revenue.  There would be nothing left for the
military, education, highways, parks, research, farm subsidies, or
anything else.   The best part would be that the entire regulatory
arm of the federal government would have to close up shop.  
      Newsmax also reported that "Survey participants named
three areas they are willing see trimmed: foreign aid, funding for
the war in Afghanistan, and salaries and benefits for government
workers."  This is a pittance.  It doesn't come close to covering
the present deficit.  In a few years the present deficit will seem
small.

     Only the ignorant believe we can save the nation from
economic collapse and bankruptcy without drastically cutting
entitlement spending, including Medicare.  Even if Medicare is
the most wonderful and beneficial thing ever devised by humans,
it doesn't matter.

     "Senior entitlements" will be cut.  The only questions are,
How? and When?  In the long run it doesn't matter who is
elected.  The cuts will come.

     We might drastically cut spending soon while we still
have a chance to avoid economic collapse and national
bankruptcy.  Or, we can wait for the spending to end when there
is nothing left to spend.  That end will come long before the
close of the 21st century.

     For so long as the fools who choose our princes remain
in their dream world of ignorance and foolishness, their princes
will talk about balancing the budget, while continuing deficit
spending.  The cuts they talk about will always be next year. 
You may have noticed.  Next year never comes.

     With 70 percent of the voters committed to big spending,
What chance do we have?  Unless, and until, millions of voters
wake up to reality, elections don't matter.  Those elections will
change nothing, except the names of the princes.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

The Joy of Free Stuff

     Most people like free stuff.  "Free" is one of the most
alluring words in the English language.  Advertisers endlessly
troll with "free" to lure customers.  "Free" is usually a lie.

     In the strictest sense "free" is always a lie.  Nothing is
free.  Someone must pay with the effort it takes to produce "free
stuff."  Even the air you breathe isn't free.  Someone must
produce food to provide the energy to inhale the air.  Free at
most means that someone else pays.

     Most of the free stuff isn't even free for the person who
gets it.  Stores abound with bottles and boxes proclaiming "25
percent more FREE."  How free is that 25 percent?

     Take an empty bottle to the store.  Ask a clerk to pour
your free 25 percent into the bottle.  If the 25 percent is really
free, the clerk will at least let you pour out your free share.  Or,
tell the clerk that you don't want to buy five bottles with 25
percent free in each.   Instead say you prefer one free bottle. 
See how far you get.  The most that "25 percent free" means is
that the price was reduced.

     Some free stuff is really free to you.  Merchants and
others give free samples to introduce new products.  Of course,
if you start buying the product, you may be paying for your free
sample.

     Some of the most costly free stuff is that for which you
pay nothing at the time you get the free stuff.  How can that be?

     Christmas gifts you receive are free, if you don't consider
the social obligation to reciprocate.   How often does someone
get a present that they don't really want?  The golden rule strikes
again.  He who has the gold makes the rules.  He who provides
the gold to pay for the gift can select the gift.

     When we rely on free stuff, we give up control of our
lives.  We get what someone else wants us to have.  Ask
teenagers about that.  Many teens aren't pleased with getting
what their parents want them to have.  They can grow out of
that problem.

     When family and friends provide free stuff they
commonly try to provide things the recipient wants.  Even then
they may fail.

     Donors who use their own resources to provide free stuff
are likely to want that free stuff to be of value to the recipient. 
Second level donors who take from producers and give to
someone else are less concerned.  They operate on the principle
of easy come easy go.  Second level donors include common
thieves and government.

     The major source of "free stuff" is government. 
Individuals endlessly demand more, more and more.  Free
education, free medical services, free roads, free rides, free food,
free housing, free cell phones, etc., etc.

     Customers are kings.  When you buy you can exercise
the full power of your kingship.  The merchant provides what
you want at a price you are willing to pay, or you don't buy.

     Those who rely on free stuff lose their kingship.  They
must settle for what their donor is willing to provide.  Ask
families trapped in failing inner city schools how they like the
free schools?

     The more people rely on free stuff from government, the
more they surrender control over their own lives.  The idea that
laws can protect the recipients of government gifts from control
by government is bogus.

     How much control do individuals have over free
government schools and roads?  Control over free government
medical services is rapidly slipping from those who receive the
free services.  The road to serfdom is paved with free stuff.

     Not only that, those who get the "free stuff" are paying
for it.  They are paying for their own enslavement.  Those who
rely on government free stuff are trapped forever to live the life
of a teenager with parents who don't know much about them, or
care.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

The Brits Are Back

     A recent article brought me to the realization that I have
been neglecting the Brits.  It has been ages (however long that
is) since I undertook to make fun of a British folly.  This doesn't
mean the Brits have given up the pursuit of the silly and
ridiculous.

     Their past antics simply set the bar so high that their
recent follies just don't stand out.  Requiring farmers to give toys
to their pigs and treating sandwich wrap as industrial waste are
hard to top.  Requiring small chested police women to wear
florescent vests was a cut above the ordinary too.

     I don't know if their latest act rises above, or falls below,
their prior achievements.  It is at least competitive.

     An Israeli company, SodaStream, produces a machine for
making carbonated drinks at home.  SodaStream's adds have
been banned from British Television.  How bad must something
be to earn a ban from British television?

     What horrors do these adds include?  Television
advertisements in Britain are regulated by something called
Clearcast.  Clearcast found the atrocity in the adds.  Supposedly
the adds denigrate the bottled drink industry.

     Can anyone even dream of anything more horrible and
dastardly than denigrating the competition?  Aren't we fortunate
that no advertiser in the USA would ever dream of suggesting
that the competition's products are inferior, or even dangerous?

     What did SodaStream try to inflict on innocent television
viewers?  According to Newsmax "SodaStream  . . .  promotes
itself as environmentally friendly because it reduces the use of
plastic bottles and aluminum cans.  The ad shows plastic bottles
disappearing as people at home use their SodaStream machines."

     Can you even imagine an advertiser in the USA daring to
suggest its product was more environmentally friendly than a
competing product?  Of course, New York mayor Blomberg
denigrated large sodas to the point of making them illegal in
New York City.  Perhaps he should be banned from television. 
Maybe he is banned from British television.

     I can imagine two possible explanations for the British ad
ban.  One is, the British bottled soda industry has a strong lobby. 
That is something we in the USA should understand.  The
makers of screw in florescent bulbs lobbied successfully for the
ban of incandescent light bulbs.  It is even reasonable to suggest
that they denigrated the incandescent light bulb industry.

     The other explanation lurks in the world of political
correctness.  Many monsters lurk in that world.  In this case two
cannons of political correctness clashed head on.  Which is the
most important?  Should one advocate for the environment or be
anti Israeli?

     SodaStream's plant is located in West Bank country
which some consider to be the domain of those people
commonly called Palestinians.  Never mind that the plant's
employees are Arabs.  To some the plant is still evil and must
not be allowed to promote its products in Britain.

     I wonder how much anguish the politically correct suffer
when forced to choose between two of their favorite children?  
Perhaps we should take a collection to provide grief counseling
for them.  On second though, not a good idea.  That would
probably be deemed politically incorrect and cause them more
grief.  On third thought, should we waste our time worrying
about the self torture experienced by those who propagate the
squirrelly ideas that flow from the world of political correctness?

     If the people supporting the ad ban were half clever they
would have banned the adds for promoting soda rather than for
encouraging the elimination of cans and bottles.  At least they
could have been at peace with themselves, assuming the
politically correct can ever be at peace with anyone.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

Flipping the Classroom

     A recent educational innovation is sometimes called
"flipping the classroom."  It has nothing to do with obscene
gestures.  The "it was good enough for grandpa, it is good
enough for me" crowd may consider it to be obscene.

     Schools have been decrepit and counter productive dating
back to at least the time I was confined in them.  I hated school. 
Though I have been out of the school loop for decades, I still
cringe whenever school begins a new session.

     I was well aware of many of the flaws in schools long
before I served out my sentence.  Most of what I have learned I
found outside of school.  Most of what I learned while in school
didn't come from the classroom.  It is a good thing.

     My final two years in engineering school I mostly kicked
the habit of attending classes.  Usually when I did attend, the
most I got was a good nap.  Most of what transpired in the
classroom didn't make a meaningful contribution to my
education.

     Once I made a ridiculous mistake on an exam.  It was the
product of half reading the question.  The instructor wrote a
comment on the exam paper:  "Are you sleeping during the
exams now too?"

     Flipping the classroom caught my attention partly because
it addresses one of my greatest annoyances with the school
system.  I despise lectures.  Before Gutenberg lectures may have
made sense.

     Knowledge was stored in the minds and notes of the
instructors.  The students were stenographers who adsorbed the
knowledge into their own minds and notes.  Invention of the
printing press made lecturing an obsolete waste of time.

     Instructors could, and did, print out their knowledge and
distribute it to those interested  in it.  Still, most of those
instructors kept on lecturing.  Old habits die hard.  One of my
college instructors spent substantial parts of class reading the
text book to the students.

     I got an A in that class.  I also got an A in the next term
of the same subject.  My  former instructor wrote most of the
text book for that class.  I took the final exam without taking the
class.  I guess I could read the text as well as the instructor
could read it to me.  I also read much faster than he talked.

     Half of the flip in "flipping the classroom" is taking
lectures out of the classroom.  The instructor puts the lecture
material on disks, computers, the Internet, or some other place
where the students can access it anytime they want to.  They can
also pause to dwell on points they don't understand the first time
through.

     In a live lecture, if you miss it, it's gone.  If the rest of
the lecture builds on the point the student missed, he might as
well join me in a nap for the rest of the lecture.  The student can
also fast forward through material he has already learned.

     In the traditional classroom the students are treated to a
lecture, often a monologue.  Then the students are assigned
questions and problems to struggle with on their own.  In the
flipped classroom students work on the questions in class where
the teacher works with those who need help.

     As the saying goes "The proof of the pudding is in the
tasting."  How does the flipped classroom taste?

     According to an article from the Mackinac Center,
Clintondale High School had a problem.  An average of over 41
percent of freshmen were failing four basic subjects.  Clintondale
flipped.  The failure rate dropped to 15 percent the first year. 
For Clintondale students the pudding was delicious.

     There is still much more to explore in educational
innovations.  At least the wave of innovation is finally lapping at
the beach of traditional schools.  That wave will grow into a
tsunami.  The masters of the traditional schools must choose. 
They can either ride the wave to the future, or drown.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

How Should Public Sector Unions Be Reformed?

     Last time I considered the need to reform public sector
unions. I barely got into considering the possible reforms.  This
time I will dig a little deeper.

     I briefly mentioned the need to eliminate exclusive
bargaining rights.  Unions should not be allowed to force
representation on to anyone who doesn't want to be represented. 
Likewise, unions shouldn't be forced to represent non members.

     What might this accomplish?  I will use teachers' unions
as an example.  Most union contracts require the same pay scale
for all teachers.  Tax collectors and garbage collectors don't
perform the same job merely because they are both called
collectors.

     Teachers don't all perform the same job merely because
they are all called teachers.  There is little similarity in the skills
of phys. ed. teachers and science teachers.  They have different
training, different skills, and compete in different job markets. 
The same is true of history teachers, English teachers, and many
others.

     The one size fits all pay scale doesn't work well.  It has
created a shortage of science and math teachers for so long as I
can remember.  The unions didn't create the one size fits all pay
scale.  They do cling tenaciously to it.  One claim is that all
teachers put in the same effort, thus all should get the same pay. 
This is bogus.  Employers pay for production, not effort.

     With teachers able to opt out of union representation
those who have skills more valuable than average would have
the opportunity to negotiate higher pay. (Please note, right to
work doesn't allow employees to opt out of union representation. 
All employees are still represented by the union.)  Schools
would have the opportunity to employ teachers who would not
accept the lower pay.  This would also pressure unions to
negotiate contracts with higher pay for teachers with skills that
command higher wages in the market.

     Successful enterprises must be managed to efficiently
produce products.  Any enterprise whose main mission is the
short term benefit of its employees is headed for trouble. 
Teachers' unions, and most other unions, have far too much
power over dismissal of poorly performing employees.  This too
must change if government enterprises are to efficiently provide
quality services.

     Employers, government or otherwise, must balance many
interests.  Private employers must please the customers,
investors, employees and suppliers.  In the unfree markets we
now have, they must also put much effort into pleasing
government bureaucrats.

     Generally, public employers can be cavalier, for a while
at least, about pleasing the taxpayer-customers.  Government
enterprises are even more dominated by bureaucrats than are
most private enterprises.

     The point is that any enterprise that heavily favors
pleasing any one of the interests will end up being inefficient
and wasteful.  Under the thumb of unions most government
enterprises lean way too far toward pleasing the unions.  How
much this bias pleases the individual employees is far from
clear.

     Union control over government enterprises must be rolled
back.  How to do this without going too far is unclear.  The
simple answer is to end collective bargaining for government
employees.  That seems to be going too far in the other
direction.  We should at least try less drastic measures first.

     In an environment of liberty negotiations and contracts
are voluntary.  No one is forced to participate.  Negotiations take
place between individuals and groups that believe a mutually
advantageous relationship may be possible.  When they can't
reach agreement, they go their separate ways.

     Labor negotiations should be the same.  No forced
negotiations.  The employee's remedy is the same as anyone
else's remedy.  If he doesn't like the terms offered by the
employer, he can move on.  This is the relationship nearly 90
percent of employees have with their employers.  So, don't even
bother claiming it won't work.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284