PFIITTA people factor in impedance to technological adoption

Sometimes the greatest blocks to achieving a technology-enabled goal, is not so much the technical details, but instead, the "people details." I have somewhat frivolously given this a name here: "people factor in impedance to technological adoption" or PFIITTA as its acronym.

Most of my efforts have been for solving the technical details, particularly related to space transportation within the Earth-Moon system, sometimes alluding to that also automatically helping access and utilize points further out in the solar system.

Occasionally, I have commented on the people-problems that I was encountering, but quickly dismissing them as obviously erratic and irresponsible and surely would go away in time, like the various bullies that occasionally harmed me as I grew up.

However, even though I at times completed an integrated technical design that ought to achieve a goal long stated by others, instead of thanks, I got snubbing, derision and outright hostility at times. But mostly there was the lack of helpfulness or appreciation on their part.

This greatly impeded the achievement of their stated goals, such as establishing a spacefaring society, with space access for every human being, in the near future.

So, this writing is an effort to identify the "people factors" that were involved, to bring it out into the open, so that those with goal achievement intent, can find ways to resolve those problems that otherwise apparently will impede the achievement of large scale mutual goals.

I will also strive to provide some suggestions as to solution of the problem, much as I have usually done re technical problems.

I experienced the "people problem" re adopting technical solutions to widespread needs, even in my career as a hands-on person in electronics development work. Co-workers advised me to not bother writing up my innovative ideas even when they were explicitly invited by an employer, because they would be ignored, and worse, if the boss did not round-file your idea, he would change the name of the originator to be his own name instead of yours; I was advised that management was that way. I went ahead and with great difficulty and on my own time I wrote up some of my innovative ideas for products that seemed in line with the company's field of interest, and eventually I found that the warnings by my co-worker were essentially correct.

The corollary to this kind of problem, is the saying that if one wants one's idea to be passed up the chain of command, up the org chart up to where people could take action on the idea, that one would have to convince one's boss that it was his idea, not yours. Only then would the idea have a chance of coming into physically-expressed reality.

Analyzing the possible causes of this phenomenon, might provide some insight about one's future "people problems" before they happen, and maybe find ways to solve them.

Such as the corollary's solution to the problem of the boss either trashing your idea right there or else erasing your name and putting his name on it, was to instead propose the idea to one's boss in a way to convince him that it was his idea, and thus he would strive to move it up the management chain to possible actualization.

This was not true for all bosses in my long career; but too often it was an invisible roadblock to consideration and adoption of one's ideas.

So, what causes this phenomenon? I will hypothesize some possible factors:

1. Managers tend to have the overarching goal of "climbing up the ladder" to higher level management levels, with correspondingly higher pay and rewards. To do that, he needs to show that he is better than others, so that when evaluations happen, or slots open up in the next higher level of the management chain, that oneself will have shown to be better than peers, and most definitely better than subordinates. There may even be a fear of managers at every level, of a subordinate looking better and therefore taking one's job. "Creativity" is a factor in evaluation sheets. So someone suggesting an idea to help the company in some way, scores higher in the "creativity" category. If a subordinate comes up with an idea, if it got passed up the management chain, that subordinate might get a higher "creativity " score than oneself, an intolerable thing to happen. Solution is to make the idea disappear. Or better yet, if it looks like an especially good idea, to delete the subordinate's name from the idea, putting one's own name on it, and pass it up to one's superior. (Who might do the same thing, by the way.)

2. Ideas, unless required as part of one's performance of one's duties, are a wild-card in the game of management. Perceived as an unexpected factor, appearing out of nowhere, seemingly. Management needs to constantly work to get all the ducks in a row, so they can get knocked down predictably, so as to get the management job done well. An idea for doing something different, could cause a big wrinkle in all that work that one has done, making life less predictable, more work to manage. Who wants that, wants more trouble to deal with? The common phrase for this is "don't rock the boat." A new idea thus is seen as something that could "rock the boat" causing havoc. To this mentality, all useful ideas only come from the very top management, anyway, and they appear in the form of instructions for doing one's management job. Anything else is not worth thinking about, and could even upset things.

3. Competing businesses often utilize specific technological territorial claims; thus there can be a phenomenon of a potential new technology design appearing on the scene, as competing with one's own bread-and-butter technology-based business success. It risks getting into the "whose is better" ring, forced to duke it out in the customer purchase arena if not done previously in other more controllable business games. So it is better to keep one's eye out for potential rival technologies which might interfere with the one on which you have staked your fame and fortune upon. And when spotted, set up ways to prevent its success. This might be called "the trolley salesman in the automobile showroom" effect, TSITAS.

One's advertising system can be used for this. Make the same claim as your potential rival makes, such as "establishing a highway to space" or "space travel for all people". Then put on the usual dog-and-pony show, carnival show, dazzling the public with what the established business have achieved, and people will forget the original attractive claims, or else just assume it will come up eventually; after all, look how competent these folks are. This can be done by establishing enthusiast groups based on these mottos like "highways to space" even though they only are only using rocket launch vehicles, and they are hiding potential access to space by structural means. Their bread and butter comes from rockets now and in the near future; one's fame and fortune depends on their popularity. That is the deciding factor, rather than the actual establishment of highways to space or space access for everybody. Related is creating a periodic big convention claiming those goals, but in all the dazzling hoopla, if anyone happens to wander in with the real technology for making a highway to space enabling all people to reach space, rapicly enabling a spacefaring society, the person is not treated well and definitely is not allowed to speak to the convention or otherwise communicate the innovative idea. The innovator is simply ignored out of existence, while he naively is thinking the organization really is for the purpose of establishing "highways to space" and "apace travel for everybody." If there is a lot of wealth available from established businesses based on doing things the old established, but can't do the full job, way, this is a working technique to block the potential competition until it starves to death. And when that has happened, one can then have already prepared "evidence" that one's own business has rights to the concept and exclusive control of it and therefore decides when it will be utilized: after one's current business has dried up. The customer then has no option but to buy into the business-as-usual produced wares. And all the investors, and managers, can rest easier, life is good.

The risk of some technological innovative idea being produced by the grunts down on the floor who are hands-on familiar with the real world, coming up with a better way of doing things, is usually dealt with by use of the "Employment Agreement" form needing signing as a pre-condition for getting a job. This form ostensibly is a declaration that the employee won't steal the company's technological ideas and go start his own company with them. (In my long career, I recall only one co-worker who actually sought to steal others' ideas, but that was just part of the person's mastery of deceit and he became the confidant of management through that trickery.) In practice, since the "Employment Agreement" declares that all of the employee's ideas on any subject, related to the performance of the job or not, are automatically property of the employer; and that the employer is under no obligation to acknowledge them or develop anything from those ideas, the ideas of the employees are essentially dead in the water from the start. Thus the practice of "Yankee ingenuity" is ruined. This saves the corporate much trouble dealing with new ideas that might make waves in their carefully laid plans for getting top management's goals done. Since the employee who came up with the idea has no way to put the idea into practice, why bother being innovative. This "Employee Agreement" ruse has been standard practice for many decades here in the US, even in states which have made laws against it; the employee would have to sue the employer per that law, and what chance can the employee, usually underpaid and no extra cash on hand, to afford a lawyer to combat the high paid lawyers of the company, and what chance does that employee have of retaining his job, either. Nope, it is a well-laid business security plan shared by most technological-based corporations, and it works.

It does, however, heavily undercut the potentials of the country to create innovative new products. As America is currently finding out, in the form of financial big problems.

Continuing this polite hindsight exploration of PFIITTA, the next level of PFIITTA occurs when the company has a Reduction-In-Force, laying off employees. (Quite possibly as a result of suppressing innovation in their ranks, thus falling behind in technological opportunities to expand their business base.) Or employees retire. After some time period up to a couple of years in the case of management folks, the former employee is no longer bound by the signing of the employment-agreement. Only a few folks tend to be innovative; they have been identified during their time of employment, so the next level of blockage of possibly schedule-upsetting or rival technologies from happening, is after awhile, to hire private investigators to covertly gain access to the residences of the targeted former employees, and remove all legal-level proof that they are coming up with innovative ideas; the PIs don't know which ideas might be claimed by their hiring folks, so they just grab everything. This usually takes the form of just stealing all copies, hard and soft, of the first page of all correspondence that has been done with others regarding the person's innovative new ideas. Thus the person cannot provide proof of originality and therefore cannot get patent protection, and without a patent, no one will invest in the idea's creation. Problem solved: no potential competition can get a start.

And, to further make it hard for the innovative type person to gain help in making his ideas come into reality, is to get folks to carry on a grass-roots level of character assassination against the targeted people. This can spread like wildfire in a gossipy community; driving the person to leave and finding somewhere else to live, he will find that all his neighbors and even churchgoers of his religion, have already been "warned" about the foul dangerous character of the newly arrived person in their community; they may even excitingly have been enlisted in "catching" the bad person doing something bad. Needless to say, this makes it very hard for the innovator to get new friends and support for creating innovations. "Character references" are hard to come by, too, even to get another job, of any kind, to pay the bills. It works.

PFIITTA happens.

Deeper even than these business-protection games, is another factor, familiarly described in a song, that goes "anything you can do, I/we can do better." Is is part of the "whose better" factor. If someone's innovative technological idea looks like it will reduce the income from one's own lush abundant income, then potential helpers for that potential technology, can get pulled away to look at what seem to be similar but better ideas, well organized and more likely to be successful. Perhaps even saying they are the innovators of the ideas that were stolen by the PIs from former employee's residences and storage sites. For example, when the hoop-type highly efficient electrically powered transportation structure broke free and finally got formal publication, the old Earth Space Elevator concept was revived out of nowhere proclaiming that a tether material had been found and was in mass production in Japan, and Space elevators were ready to build, right no, put your money right here. It totally took attention away from the hoop-type transportation structure, which had its origins in figuring out how to get around the strength-to-density problem of the Earth Space Elevator structural access to space from the ground. Since no such material was in actual existence, after awhile it kind of faded away, but the hoop type transportation structure was still being silenced by all possible means, at the same time. That suggests that the real motives are not easily apparent; the intent may well be to block large scale near future use of earth orbital space, limited by the feeble means of using conventional launch vehicles - and that also protects the energy wealth baron's empires, by preventing near-future large scale energy supply by the long-proposed Solar Power Satellites in GEO, that are uneconomical if one only has rockets to put them in place and maintain them.

No one likes their income to get reduced.

There may even be pressure to resume the long inhibited nuclear powered launch vehicle technology, in a desperate effort to gain larger scale space access from the ground. The tether Space Elevator and the hoop Space Escalator are the only potential rivals to that technology; so pitting them against each other may block either one, until nukes are apparently acceptable. This is not to say that using the stockpile of nuclear weapon material up by using it as fuel for launch vehicles is a bad idea, mis-useable as it could become; it is merely pointing out possible factors in the blockage of access to orbital space in large scale commercial quantities in the near future by any other means.

One's motives need to be examined, for what one does. The proclaimed motives we make may not be the real ones; not necessarily deliberately, but simply as a response to the overall ongoing scenario. And "motives" is plural: there sometimes are several ongoing motives and some of them might clash. Can get complex. But determining one's own actual motives - plural - is a start at shaping up and getting effective. One does not necessarily tell others what these motives are, all the time, however. Some of them may well clash with motives of others: butting-horns from the start simply wastes time and effort and opportunity. So taking it a bit easy, if the scenario requires it, is wise. But losing sight of one's own motives in all the action, can be a step in the wrong direction, becoming part of the PFIITTA instead of the solution.

Stiction friction snapping

Stiction friction: That is the word I have been trying to remember: "stiction." In physics I learned that friction, the drag that happens when two surfaces slide along each other, has a higher starting value than the value when subsequently sliding along. It is a bit harder to get two surfaces sliding, than it is to keep them sliding along afterwards.

The reason that this has come to mind, is because of a very irritating phenomena has been happening at my house for, maybe, the past two or three years. It is a loud "snap!" sound that happens at the start of certain motions of certain objects in my house.

It first came to mind while using an exercise machine called a "gazelle glider" (which was something like a ski-machine I had used years earlier, except not prone to produce finely pulverized aluminum particles in my breathing space that were produced by the resistance drag in the ski-machine exerciser. The gazelle glider did not have that problem as it was just a free-swinging foot pedal thing, back and forth in the air.) It had bearing surfaces supporting front and back of each foot pedal, rotational surfaces. It worked fine for a long time - months - until one day it started producing a loud "snap!" sound as it began a particular resumption of motion each swing "Snap! Snap!" it went, and the sound seemed to go direct to the joints in my leg, as if battering them a bit, each movement.

Oiling the bearings with 3-in-1 oil, did not stop the phenomenon. Finally I took the exerciser out into the garage; it seemed more harmful than helpful.

Eventually I bought a low cost elliptical exercise machine. It worked fine for a couple months, then one day after coming home from shopping, it too started doing the same kind of "snap!" sound in its foot pedal bearing.

It sounded exactly like the Snap! that the gazelle-glider had made.

It was predictably happening at the exact same place of the movement of the feet each time, when the rotational joint shifted from rotating one direction to the other. It still does that, and I avoid using the exercise machine because of it. I can't afford to keep buying exercise machines.

Meantime, a year or so ago, the swivel chair I use at my computer here, started doing something similar. It produces the identical "snap!" sound whenever it starts to swivel, or when the seat back tilts slightly when leaning back or then leaning forward. It is a bit intermittent, not quite always doing it with an identical movement of the chair; but the hard snap-sound and jarring is always the same.

It not only vibrates hard into my hip joints and lower back joints, its sound operates against the hardwood floor as if a sounding board. The resulting snap! sound resembles the hitting of the floor with a hammer.

It is distracting every time it happens, interrupting what I was thinking about.

Yet this chair is my one luxury I treated myself to a few years ago, since I spend most of my time at the computer anymore.

Now, I don't recall ever hearing and feeling this loud hard "snap!" phenomenon before, and I have lived through some seven decades of life experiences at this point. And now it has happened to not one but three things I need to use at home. The two exercise machines and the swivel chair were bought at different stores. They all worked fine without doing the snap sound, for some time after buying them and putting them into use at home. The snap-sound is identical in all three different metal machine's joints. The snap sound does not start out weak in intensity and get worse with wear, it is full volume from the beginning, and stays that way.

So now I have recalled that there is a starting friction when something begins to slide along something else.

Oil or grease is commonly used to make both the stiction and friction be very low so as to reduce wear and energy loss in the machine, such as the pistons in an automobile engine, each time they change direction of motion, they would have the stiction happening; but the oil provides tiny slippery bearings so as to make it almost non-existent stiction. However, oiling the snapping joints on my exercise machines and swivel desk chair, does not prevent the stiction from happening.

And the intensity of the snap is very intense from the very first time it happens.

And as far as I can tell, it never quits; one has to discard the thing. They each did not start doing the snap-thing until I had had them in use for some time, months at least. And, to make it even stranger, like many odd things happening at my house, they were not that way when I left home to go do shopping - mostly at the local Walmart superstore - but were that way when I got back home. No one else is supposed to access my residence when I am gone, note; they do not have my permission, anyone. (I could rant on about that here lots more about specific happenings, but won't; just suffice to say that there may also be a deliberateness to the phenomenon's starting to happen, following my being away from control of access to the items at my home.)

The stiction snap! seems to have two effects on me: one is that it seems bone-jarring and likely to increase wear on my bone joints; and two, it interrupts my train of thought each time, greatly slowing down my mental efficiency. My RAS (Reticular Activating System) kicks in with its instinctual alert of possible danger, each Snap! and it takes a second or two for me to figure out what is going on, then I try to remember what I was trying to do just before then, to get back on track. The interruption is most intense on the computer desk swivel chair, since it uses the hardwood floor like a sounding board, racketing all over the room, like someone hitting the floor hard with a hammer, right under my seat; simultaneous with all the joints in my pelvis complaining about being hit. It is not always predictable; some movements do not make the snap in the chair, or they will move a little distance of rotation before suddenly snapping.

I have spent huge amounts of time and effort trying to cope with this weird stiction-related phenomenon, yet finding lubricant does not fix it - although it may sometimes let some movement start going before the snap is made, am not sure - and imagining some opposite to a lubricant being put on the sliding surface as mischief while I am known to be away from home. What could that substance be, I wonder.

All this was of little note, except I recently read - can't remember where - that some aircraft - I think it was an aircraft - that was having problems with something that reminded me of the stiction phenomenon magnified enormously, like I endure at home. The airplane's problem, however, was lots more dangerous, was my impression, as I try to remember more about that news item read - a month ago? This now also reminds me of an article I read long ago - maybe a decade ago, where there was a worry that saboteurs were possibly using hydrogen embedded in the ink of felt pen markers, to wipe a line across a metal surface, so the hydrogen would penetrate micro-cracks in the metal so as to increase its rate of fatigue and eventual failure. The article said there was the worry that saboteurs could casually get close enough to an airplane to wipe the modified felt pen marker on a critical spot on airplanes, so they would fail in use. Have the same mentality mischief makers come up with something that greatly increases the stiction in back-and-forth rotational bearings?

Stiction friction is not always harmful: for example, the bowing of a violin string depends on stiction to generate sound, and one applies rosin to the bow occasionally to make the stiction friction stronger.

Guns or butter or responsibility

Am struggling over decision to sign petition www.cutnukes.org

An unusually strong feeling inside is to not sign; but all rationality says do sign. I wonder, what is that all about.

A thought is that keep up the arms race thing, but also establish way to prevent the causes of need for such weaponry, and when that is established and used to block the need for such war preparations, then there would be voluntary automatic total elimination of all such weaponry, all over the world.

Still, rationality suggests the petition's recommended gradual cutback on nuclear weaponry expenses is the traditional way to do such things. Like the schoolground, be able to inflict a little damage to the bully if he assaults, rather than him getting away with doing injury and receiving none in return. Bullies tend to be cowards, I think. But they will plot and strike, if they are sure to not get hurt at all in return.

So this blog post is to help me figure out a bit about what my conflict is.

Reading the above, first thought is that to solve the problem, eradicate bullies. Simple as that. Except, of course, bullies are genetically adept at not getting eradicated. And, tend to be wearing business suit and ruling the show. So it is a can't be done thing, that is maybe the only way to solve the problem. Can't get there from here.

So, it is back to the original decision option considerations, since the actual problem cannot be solved, re the eradication of all bullies. Exploring the considerations, maybe I can better resolve my inner conflict re this subject. Lots of things in the pile. And no matter what, is going to require I start it in the middle of the movie, somewhere. Some things are pro and others con, and some a bit of both, so I won't try to catagorize them at this point.

When I graduated from high school, a bit of a boy genius type, I entered college as a physics major, with thoughts of becoming a nuclear physicist and/or thin film phycisist; and I would work my way though colege by working at White Sands Missile Rnge. Rockets were a favorite subject for me, and technology being tested for military rockets conceivably be later used to build spacecraft carrying people; this was 1955, long before the space-race.

The military is a way to get around the technology-blocking machinations of the corporate business territory games. The military can say, the nation as a whole is involved, so cut the crap and lets get the job done, build the new whizbang thing despite it eventually being used to break through the technology stasis made by business-as-usual mega-giant corporation businesses. The jet airliner design was first made in the similar form of jet bombers like the B-47, for example. We might still be stuck with prop driven airliners right now, otherwise, to protect the easy business profits of prop-driven aircraft engine makers.

Much of my early employed years in teh private sector, was involved with creating things for military use, and involved having varios levels of security clearances. Military equipment development was a major focus of my getting a paycheck, back then.

I again think back to my college years. Eventually I became a dropout, note. Causes are complex, discussed elsewhere already. The one field of study that I did complete, was the full fours required semesters of ROTC; it was a State College attendance requirement. I recall recently seeing my momentos of that period, my Army brass insignia and my Sargent's stripes. And what I learned of the ways of conducting war in that training. Back then in the late 1950's, war and the threat of nuclear war was ever in the air, part of life. The "arms race" was largely a technological race, to make more and bigger weapons, to brandish at the enemy, in hopes it would scare him into not attacking; they were doing the same thing towards us at the same time.

It is said that when a policeman has to use his gun, it has lost its purpose for existing, that of cautioning against doing something to require the use of the gun by the policeman.

The nuclear arsenal is a lot like that policeman's gun in that context. If the Soviet Union and the United States pulled the trigger, threw all those nukes at one another in cascade retaliation, it was said it would destroy not only all mankind, but also most other life forms on the planet. So was their actual use ever a real option? Only for the irresponsible, the insane, I think. Yet it was a big race to make bigger and better nuclear weaponry, like baring one's teeth at a rival. A bigger snarl supposedly scares the most.

And we still have those nukes, and it is expensive upkeeping them including building better ones to replace the disintegrating ones. Their upkeep costs will cut into the education and well being of the youth who might otherwise figure out better ways of solving such problems. And thus the petition which is being pondered here in this blog post. "Guns or Butter" was often the theme during WWII, early years of my growing up. Still is, apparently. Can't have them both.

The Soviet Union feared rival, supposed cause of our nuclear arsenal big enough to destroy the world, has stood down,no longer sabre-rattling so much, and getting on with more wholesome things in life. Other countries have sprung up and created smaller nuclear arsenals, supposedly to threaten smaller rivals, such as Pakistan vs India. Numerous other nations have a small supply of nukes or are apparently struggling to make some, to get to be equals in the threat game. Dare any of them shoot a nuke at America, without knowing are arsenal wold immediately erase all life in their country in retaliation - or at least think so? So is America's huge arsenal a deterrent for small nuke use against us? Apparently not, the countries still strugggle putting scarce resources into making nukes and delivery systems, while their people starve to death.

Did I say that people acted rational, responsibly? I don't think I did.

And the existence of being the only super-power (at least military superpower) forms a very tempting prize for any who wold crave to rule the whole world. Bu hook or crook, trickery and deception galore, such clever power-crazies are likely to manipulate the electoral system, maybe stage some war excuse stuff, and get in the top positions to be able to push the red nuke button.

Why do some folks crave to rule the world? I don't recall the why of it being taught, but school history classes often focused on that having happened in the past, over and over again. I seemed a force of nature kind of thing, like the force of gravity causes an apple to fall out of the tree. Oftentimes it appears to be a religious-inspired thing, like the various groups over in Iraq etc are. Figuring out what forces are behind that could b make this blog post go on too long. Suffice it to say that more than some economic belief causing America to be used to kae over the world, some fundamentalist-type religious group might strive to do such a thing.

The presence of all those nukes and the big red button, conceivably lure the "legal" takeover of America, for the purpose of "ruling the world."

(Did I say that people acted rational, responsibly? I don't think I did.)

The Olympic Games were created as a means for letting folks show who was bigger and better, without those ego needs causing bloodshed. The town's high school football team would go over to the stadium in the neighbor town, to bash it out by the rules, to decide which town was better; and the onlooking spectators yelled and screamed while one line of oversize males would crash into another line of oversize males, as they fought for possession of a pigskin. Was it because the pigskin was worth fighting over? No, it was not, it was the ego thing, and the players knew that if they won the game, likely some of those women squeels of delight up in the spectator stands would turn into some pregnancies otherwise not happening, as they later sought to get in good favor with the winning team's players. An ego thing among the girls too, in its own way, able to brag amongst the girls about which great hero player got her pregnant.

How different is this from the historical army from one city-state going over to attack the neighbor city-state, to kill the men and take the women to breed?

Is this the root cause for most if not all such wars, for a few males to breed with more women, by preventing other men from breeding with the women? I'm talking root causes here. Mammalian bulls of many species do such things all over the world and in the seas too. And male people are male mammalians, too. Males fathered by a powerful patriarch often considered themselves the sole valuable breeding stock for humanity, and do their best to make it happen. When all the individuals are used up in a closed system, like Iraq, then it evermore is a contest between the surviving families; and it is no coincidence that each group is united by its own religion. (Exploring this is likely to arrive at even more basic roots to the subject at hand, but I already have stepped on too many toes here.)

The well armed groups in America, fondling their high powerred rifles and nervously glancing around, declaring they are patriots or at lest defenders of their religion, are not that different from teh groups in Iraq, it seems to me. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Lots of places. In India they still do "honor killings" which are horrid murders of those who step out of bounds of their "groups" to mate with some other religious group or caste. It probably was developed so as to keep one religious group from luring all the women of their neighbors to join up with them instead, leaving the men of the other group mateless and thus tending to vanish from the species.

Wanna-be rulers of the world - or of the neighborhood street gang - are said to believe that if they don't control others, then the others will control them.

It is a who-does-what-to-whom thing. Why does it matter? Because bottom line it is who reproduces and who is left out. Women seek to mate up with the guys who are in control, because that is the way for the women to share in the extra goodies the controlling guy grabs from others.

Bigger gangs usually can conquer smaller gangs. This grows until it is the conquering gang of the whole nation, prowling its borders. Well aware that the guys on the other side of that national border might make a raid over the border; each side has the same urges, or assume the others do too like themselves. Instinct says it is control or be controlled, and being controlled often means being kept from the women. Fortresses are built. Catapults go against the fortresses. Bows become crossbows become firearms and rockets, and nuke-tipped rockets.

Big stockpiles of nukes match up against the other's big pile of nukes. Whose biggest is bestest. Usually, that is; when the use of the bigger and better will kill all of both sides, will sanity start to take hold?

A way to end the=is blog post is to repeat:

Reading the above, first thought is that to solve the problem, eradicate bullies. Simple as that. Except, of course, bullies are genetically adept at not getting eradicated. And, tend to be wearing business suits and ruling the show. So it is a can't be done thing, that is maybe the only way to solve the problem. Can't get there from here.

Testosterone does not make bullies, note. Testosterone provides the git-er-done urge and energy, also needed to take on severe struggles in life. Bullies happen, just because of a warp in their neurological wiring that otherwise enables people to cooperatively work together for mutual benefit.

Will reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal a bit, reduce the urge of bullies to act out their control issues? I suspect not enough. The better approach is to deal with the control issues, then gradually weed out the bullies ... or more likely, continue to put up with the bullies' periodic fracas destructive antics and try to not get hurt as a bystander. Meanwhile do one's best to help civilization along best possible.

Working all one's life when there are no jobs to work at

"Many Americans say they will have to work until they're 80"

That was my thought too, through my career in electronics as a technician. The jobs back then according to an article, usually lasted on average two years, then the technician was out on the street looking for a new job. The pay was medium to low, and saving money was near impossible. I assumed I would have to work all my life.

That was not so bad a thing to me, as I usually liked my work. A few places, however, was too much stress or co-workers just too nasty. But generally it was OK work, and paid my bills so long as I lived simply. I would usually rise to the highest levels possible as a engineering technician, due to my unusual problem-solving skills in development work. One company even promoted me to a full electronics development engineer title. But too often it took a long time to find a new job when the old one ran out of work.

In 2000 I was working in my highest paid job, although oddly it did not use my skills as much as most jobs had done. Also the working conditions and fellow workers was a bit nutty; there were lots of people who made a show of working behind heavily locked doors, no mention of doing what; and management would not communicate with me at all. A few times it was clear they put me into situations where the slightest slip could be lethal, working with high voltage, in full view of lots of people. And worst of all, they did not use or appreciate my special problem solving skills best used in the past. But, it paid money, and I was way above the usual age for electronic technicians, very hard to get a job. I turned 65. Management people who turned 65 there celebrated and retired immediately. But not me, I would have to work all my life.

Then there was the 2001 fracas, and the company was bought by another company. I heard that much of the new parent company was losing business due to the aircraft industry changes after 2001 fracas. And then a big layoff, dozens of people had to go; and I was over 65, easy pick.

The job market in electronics proved as difficult as expected. No demand for my kind of skills. I was freshly getting Social Security retirement, but it did not cover minimum expenses living in the Los Angeles area even in the worst rat-holes.

I finally got a chance to live in my own home, a tiny place in a far distant desolate area, down payment paid for by my kids; my social security would cover the interest payments but not the principle of the house. Nonetheless, it was a way to survive on social security.

I would have preferred to continue working, although at a job better fitting to my skills. I was a good worker. But the jobs were not there. All I could get were volunteer jobs; a couple times they turned into brief part time paid jobs, but not in my career field. The money helped pay rent in the tiny miserable apartments.

I would still like to work. Paid work, that is; I still do long distance volunteer work, via computer. I surely could be productive at lots of kinds of jobs. But, nobody is providing opportunity for any of those kinds of jobs. Or any jobs; I keep looking in the local free paper; if I was a semi-truck driver I could get a job, or at least apply for one. Otherwise, the paper says there are houses for sale for a couple hundred thousand dollars, but no jobs available with which to pay for it.

Big corporate business contrives to rule America, yet it has not worked to make sure all Americans are employed, adding to the GDP. And employment needs to be compatible to the skills, location, stress level compatible to all employees. Pay level so they can live reasonably comfortably.

Business supposedly is who supplies all jobs. But they are not doing that job well at all.

Another aspect is the subject of job-shops, otherwise called contracting. There were businesses who ran small ads in the paper saying they were looking for certain kinds of skilled employees. One then went and filled out an employment form at their little office. Then one got a call for an interview at some real company; one then was hired, but by the job-shop, not the company one worked at. Typically, if I got paid ten dollars an hour, they paid the job shop twenty dollars an hour for my work; I would put in a hard 40 hours work per week to get my $400, while the job-shop also got $400 but only worked a half hour to get the money, long enough to do the clerical work of taking the money and giving me half of it; although they did cover federal social security and state unemployment insurance payments. So the job shop got effectively $800 per hour doing clerical work, while for the same time period I worked 40 hours doing very complex hard technical work and getting paid $10 an hour. No benefits were paid to me: no sick leave, health insurance. I had to do that several times in my career, which sometimes turned into a real job with the actual company I was working at.

Evicting the occupying 99% from America

The "Occupy America by the 99%" activities have puzzled me to some extent. It seems to be an effort to get lawmakers to tax the ultra-well-to-do corporations to proportionally pay for supporting the country, instead of just taxing the 99% non-wealthy. Yet the voting system says that things get decided by whom you put into office, and the only way to get things done differently is by voting them out of office and putting someone in there who can do the job. Meanwhile the incumbents are free to rule, including supporting the wealthy 1% who trickily got them into office so as to increase their hoarded wealth.

The Occupier's mass demonstrations might seem a bit like that which has gone on in places like Libya and Syria lately, the masses fed up with the pompous rule by the ultra wealthy who are not sharing the windfall wealth, but instead just using it to live high while scuttling any who oppose, through killing, prison, torture of the few who are so rash as to flip the rulers off. It seems to me to be same basics ongoing between the two.

What is clear is that the intent of Democracy, which we so proclaim is the answer to the world's woes, has simply become no better than the ruling of Syria and Libya. The voting in and out of lawmakers in a democracy, has mysteriously lost the intent of choosing those who can enable America to thrive and prosper among all. we are solidly setting the example this millennium so far, of having lost the path to support of every citizen and enabling all of them to be as productive as they individually can be, enabling the good life for all of them. Instead, it has become the "1% controlling the 99%, without regard to the well-being of the 99%" We as the shining example of Democracy, have fallen on our face, and apparently can't get back up.

I agree that "mere handouts" are not the answer. But, there is a need to give a person a fish so as to keep alive while the person is being taught to fish to feed for a lifetime. And the Social Security retirement system is necessary so the worker can focus on industriously thriving during the working years, while assured of at least a basic survival income in retirement years.

Playing the investment game is not for everybody, no more than is, say, monopoly, chess, kickboxing or football playing is for everyone. Especially for people many of whom struggle to get a basic income tax form done and sent in on time, once a year. Also, investment ideals just soon degrades into putting money into what is likely to get most interest income back, instead of supporting the development of that which will make all of their lives better. And just what are those indications of what will make life better as a nation of people, is not always clear even to those in the know, let alone the grunt who is slogging away at some employer's assigned job, like the proverbial being treated like a mushroom, kept in the dark.

Now, as a socially-dimwitted Aspey, am still aware that the situation is vastly more complex than just the above. People, their needs and motives and fleeting moments are lots more complicated than that. Yet, there are some fairly consistent patterns that seem to exist.

One is that America, declared to be led by self rule for the people and by the people, per that definition, does not exist anymore. Everybody would have a reasonably good job all the time, for one thing, if it was for the people and by the people. They don't, per "Occupy America," among other huge examples ongoing.

Another is that if the wealthy corporations provide jobs if not taxed, they have not been doing so. Look how many unemployed or underemployed exist. And wealth by its very definition means there is plenty extra available to share with that which provided the wealth.

Some of those localized ultra-wealth sources are from oil wells, oil that freely comes from the earth, after a bit of technology applied to drill and then to process and distribute. If the Earth were appropriately compensated for her part of providing that oil, what would the situation be, I wonder. Instead, Mother Earth is just totally ripped off without even a kiss and thanks, by those who grow fabulously wealthy from that ripped-off oil. Sure, the games of who owns what property adn thus gets a share of the takings, is ongoing and supposedly gives all their fare share. But part of the reason that the extra profit is getting hoarded by the "owners" is that the real owner, Mother Earth, is not getting paid.

Who would serve as the administrator for Mother Earth, I ponder in this fantasy that seems correct but would be totally ridiculed by those who like business as usual. Not just oil, but coal, metals, minerals, even drinking water and water of rivers in which to fish for sport, all come from Mother earth. And God the Father, to be complete. But does religion take on the responsibility for this? Not that I have seen, not at all. Not their job.

This fantasy of a proper factor is not about to happen, any more than the schoolyard bully is going to suddenly turn into a benign and caring helper for all the others on the schoolyard.

Who is going to take responsibility for America? Clearly such responsibility involves every American and guest of America. All need to thrive and share in the joy of life, not just those who have figured out how to grab most of the goodies and keep them from all the others, as played by the rules.

Much like the oil is freely ripped off from its source, so also the other wealthy have utilized the infrastructure and employee base of educated and skilled American workers, to gain their horde of wealth. Taxes traditionally are what enables this payback and sustenance of that which enabled the prosperity. If the highly successful profitable corporations could perform the responsibility of supporting that which provides their opportunity for wealth, surely they would have done so, be doing so. But it is not happening. Instead, the patters is similar to little kids, grabbing as many toys as they can possible hold at once, and declare that those are their toys an no one else can play with them, glaring around aggressively, not noticing that he/she is not having fun with them either.

Now, wealth accumulation is supposed to be a result of providing that which is needed and wanted by the customer base. Without the corporation having done the work, taking the risks involved, and producing welcomed goods and services, those goods and services might never have happened. They provide a valuable service for America.

The problem comes in when they forget that it was done for the people of America; instead of for gaining delirious windfall profits to hoard for status. Are such folks being responsible for America; do they deserve to effectively rule America; are they even capable of responsibly ruling America?

Part of the cause of this all is the principles of pricing set by what the market will bear. Thus we gladly pay a small fortune for a new iPod considering it worth it, but the profit is thus such a hue part of the price paid, that the makers of the iPod (and I thank them for that great product, don't get me wrong) reap and hoard great profit, wealth, instead of setting the price to achieve just a nice profit to live well and be able to afford R&D for next products. Yet I wonder, wouldn't it have been better for that extra $75 (or whatever amount it was) of the price I paid extra for the iPod over and above the cost of making it and providing the inventor and manufacturers and retailers a nice living, had instead gone back into supporting the overall system that enabled that product to exist, including way down the line increasing the skill sets of upcoming Steve-Jobs types?

Another part of it all is failure to fully take on the principle of "price-added equaling value-added." Instead, lots of other factors rule, such as scarcity, business territory, and especially the aforementioned "what the market will bear" parameter.

Am an expert at painting myself into corners, so I can easily recognize that phenomenon happening widely in America nowadays. Some it seems likely done deliberately by ruthless manipulators setting up for their future takeover of more "toys." But much of it seems a result of lack of farsightedness for our ruling ourselves wisely, the blind leading the blind into the ditch, thing. Maybe not blind, only tunnel-visioned instead; same result.

America needs to be governed to provide America's well being. Obama & Co seems to be making a fairly good effort at doing that, considering a limited knowledge set evident. Hemming him in and nipping at his heals while he does this, are those who crave ultra wealth and power, and devote their lives to such games, and are being quite successful at doing so.

And, it may be, that part of all the drama is that the public likes drama; to watch a knock down drag out fight ongoing. Winners are the righteous leaders, right? ... but are they there because they are experts in enabling all America to thrive; or are they there instead because they are best at knock-down-drag-out-drama? The Roman Empire provided occasional "bread and circus" to keep the masses happy, under their rule.

If it is truly the 99% who are trying to re-take America, so as for it to be a 100% America, and if "occupying" an area that is not fully their own, I wonder, do the "1%" consider evicting the occupying 99% from America?

Raccoons siblings and fighting

Since I lacked siblings, and had no peers that went along with me through school years, I missed out on the why and how to squabble over possession of things or doing things. At least I hypothesize that is so. The Asperger's thing probably factors in it too.

As I recall the past experiences of learning from others' squabbling, I now recall a particular kind of phenomenon about conflict. It happened in my last half year living in Old Topanga Canyon, alone, family gone, wife had finally fully dumped me. Yet I also had an interesting contractor job, job-shopper, job at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, helping to develop a spacecraft camera system, in the early 1970's. But the loss of mate and family just really got me down, and eventually I no longer had a chance to get a non-contractor job at JPL as a result.

But this post is not so much about that. It is about the phenomenon of fighting over something.

It was quiet there in the canyon, living alone. There got to be a little game played, where I would hear some little noises out on the front porch; opening the door, I would find a group of raccoons, all in an arc around the doorway, nearly all of them sitting up on their hind legs, looking so cute. It was obvious: give us some goodies to eat.

I kept a sack of dry cat food there by the front door, which I fed to the cats outside. So I would reach in and take a handfull of this dry cat food, and toss it into the midst of the group of raccoons. Immediately they were down on all fours and wolfing down the goodies, very quiet and busy, nobody noticing anybody else. But then, as part of the ritual, when each could not find another easy morsel, there was always one piece of cat food left, right in the middle of them all. Then they all would erupt into a ferocious fight, huge fangs barred and making snarling growls and whistle sounds, like they were about to kill each other. All over that last little piece of food.

This went on awhile, a frenzy of violence in which nobody actually got hurt; then one of them would have gotten that last little piece of cat food. And suddenly they all were up on their hind legs in an arc around me, looking so peaceful and cute, waiting for me to toss in another bunch of pieces of dry cat food. It was an instant changeover, from melee of frenzied battle, to suddenly again sitting up so cute and peaceful begging for another handout from me.

It worked. I would reach in the bag of cat food, bring out another handfull of food and toss it into the their midst, scattering it. The busy finding and wolfing the morsels down then went on until just one piece was left. Somehow they always left the one piece, so as to put on the enormous show of ferocious battle amongst themselves, to determine who got it. Then that last piece was gone; and they were suddenly again sitting up on their hind legs looking so peaceful and cute, expectantly waiting for another handfull of food from me.

Apparently they had learned the trick long before, and taught next generations how to do it, by bringing the little ones along to watch.

When I would tire of it, I would toss a last handfull out and close the door. Soon I would hear them headed across the front porch and away, no doubt to do the same show at the next house.

The point here is that fighting, even the fighting of very large-fanged creatures emitting fearful noises, in a frenzied whirl of furry bodies too fast to keep track of, can be done just for the show, the attention; and, it got them all an easy meal, most every evening.

Fight lets fight to prove who is better

Something long puzzling me finally seems to be getting a bit clear.

The background info would take long boring pages to describe, so I will just pick out some parts of it.

The phenomenon that never made any sense to me, yet happened at times usually "out of nowhere" always happened in a complex context of what was going on at the time. Different scenarios ongoing, different contexts, all very confusing to me.

Eventually it sifted out like something about some boys just wanted to fight. they made endless excuses to fight. "Picking a fight" was a term I heard somewhere and it fit what I was experiencing from some other boys occasionally. The thousands of specifics all could be given a lowest common denominator of they just wanted to fight me.

Never made any sense to me. The boys who did it looked like the other boys, so there was no way for me to tell which were the obnoxious ones in advance. Sometimes he would gather a bunch of other kids on the schoolyard to watch while he made words at me and then began to hit me; the other kids seemed to enjoy watching that.

Although sometimes there was no big show. I recall in San Francisco - circa 1945 - when I was nine years old and had my first pair of glasses, which my parents could barely afford, on the schoolyard I noticed a large boy quite a ways away, suddenly start running very fast in my general direction, cause unknown; but then he rammed hard into me, knocking me out and when I awoke on the pavement I found my new glasses had been smashed. I don't recall seeing that boy before or afterwards. The significant thing to me was that he was lots bigger and heavier than I was and that for unknown reason had deliberately rammed into me very hard. And my new expensive glasses, which made an amazing difference in what I could see at a distance, were shattered. Fortunately, the broken glass had not injured my eyes.

That I was always the smallest boy in the class might have had something to do with it. I suffered from asthma, and so I had to restrict my physical activities, part of it. I was ever the new kid on the block, as my father sought to find some place where my mother and I could live; both of us had severe asthma and doctors could not fix it, and the rumor was that out West there were places where asthmatics could live well. The epinephrine spray had not been invented yet, and it had not been figured out yet that the kapok in bedding, used during the war, was a cause of severe asthma; and that kapok mattresses and pillows followed us wherever we went, but not knowing that, it only seemed to mean the area was not the right area for asthmatics. So we would move elsewhere as soon as dad could get a job there. I was in and out of school after school, new friends suddenly lost forever again, over and over again. And also there ever were the strange boys who for no reason i could figure out, just had to assault me.

Near as I could figure out, they just liked to fight. And of course win, thus picking on me, the smallest boy in the class and who had no idea what fighting was about, having no siblings to learn from. And friends were not into fighting me, of course. So it was just this thing, out of the blue, some boy would suddenly pounce on me and start hitting me. Sometimes there were words just before that, some excuse for hitting me, apparently said to me but seemed more to impress the other boys and girls who gathered around.

Eventually it seemed that the purposes for picking a fight with me involved their gaining attention from their peers that way and perhaps making them afraid of him, which apparently was an advantage to him. Sometimes I noticed such boys had a cluster of boys and girls that followed him around, and was something he apparently craved.

In later years of school, I noticed that this enabled them to have intimate relations with the girls, too. Eventually I figured this provided a reproductive advantage to them; even in high school, the girls attracted to the tough boys were clearly pregnant. If the urge to assault people like me is a genetic thing, that would clearly be making more of them in the world.

Meanwhile the girls in school did not seem to notice that I existed. There were some really attractive young women in high school, that I enjoyed watching their beauty, but I did not know how to get a date with any of them. Besides, the pregnant ones clearly were involved with the tough boys. I had learned to be the automatically meek one, so the tough boys did not need to beat up on me physically any more to prove something.

I craved to interact with my peers, as they seemed to be having so much fun and I wanted some of that too; but from the beginning of schooling, I had also found out that I had no idea how to play the games they all were having fun playing. I could not "get it" about wanting to be a bit physically violent to others' bodies, nor the wanting to out-do them at something. And there were apparently complexities of invisible rules to each game, by which the others played, but at best I could only abstractly figure them out, and that part seemed useless to me.

Over the years, I learned that there was apparently a standard treatment of boys like I was. It involved getting them to take the blame for capers the boys did, sometimes "scapegoating" or "getting left holding the bag." I was trying to learn how to be friends with the others and be involved to have fun with all of them, especially with the girls; but the result over and over again was some variation of getting beat up, or cleverly getting framed for mischief they were doing. It did not prevent me from desperately wanting to be involved with them; but I learned that there was something different about me that kept me from comprehending what it was all about.

I had become adept at learning things on my own. All I had to do usually was to dig in and I would figure it out. That worked in my school classes, but not for socializing, though I assumed all I needed was more experience learning about socializing by getting involved with whatever was going on. It seemed to me that in later years the boys of the type that would for no reason assault me, were now trying to trick me, having fun at that. It was apparently their game of "outsmarting" me. Why that was important to them, was incomprehensible to me. Meanwhile, I was quite smart in schoolwork; having been in and out of so many schools as I was growing up, often in the middle of a school year, where some states were a year behind or a year in advance of the school I had just been pulled out of.

So I had lots of practice at figuring out schoolwork stuff on my own; and became called a "brain" at times. I did not understand the ego factor, the who-is-better-than-whom stuff that drove the behavior of the boys that had beat up on me over the years. I did not feel smarter than anybody else, nor want to appear that way to others; but I did like to learn things, especially science. In high school, I was tested at 750 words per minute reading with comprehension; and the day the IQ exam was given, I was sick at home with severe flu, but I dragged myself in to school to take the test, muddling my way through it despite the misery, and got a score of 120. I graduated with four majors: English, Social Studies, Science, and Math. It was not my intention to do so, it just happened that way. I was reading a book a day in addition to my school studies; most of the extra reading was in science, philosophy or science fiction, or an occasional western novel. I got elected President of the newly formed Science Club in High School, even though I had no idea as to how to lead a group. Yet still there was this occasional mischief of "trying to outsmart me" in social doings; that was easy to do because I did not understand social doings but I craved to be involved with others anyway. Thus it was easy to set up a demonstration of how some boy was "smarter" than me. This was mostly a nuisance to me; it also later seemed associated with why it was so hard for me to get a girlfriend, since the girls wanted the guys who could beat up or outsmart other boys.

"Picking a fight" seemed to be the common denominator of all these problems. The boys who "picked a fight" and then won the fight - and they usually did, because the victim rarely had an interest in fighting - got lots of attention, were very popular with their peers and especially the girls. It had advantages, for sure. But I had no capacity for such behavior. It was important for me to figure out the phenomenon, so as to hopefully be able to cope with it.

It was not until a decade or so ago, that I learned of a psychological condition called "Asperger's" that described my condition perfectly; I then realized that all my struggles of throwing myself into intensively social situations, so as to learn how to be social, would never work; I simply did not have the neurological wiring to make it work, ever. In a way, that understanding was freeing to me; I no longer had to try to "learn" to be social like all the others. I was to be a fringe person, yet always interested in what others were doing; and I was seeking other ways to demonstrate my value to others, mostly hoping to find a compatible girlfriend as a result.

So the decades of life experiences of large variation, had identified a pattern of behavior demonstrated by some of my peers, that involved "picking a fight" and then making some big show of stuff, generally harming someone else as a result. Made no sense to me, other than ultimately it got the initiators to be intimately involved with the cute girls. Eventually it trickled into my consciousness that there needed to be no other reason for it to go on, since it enabled those kind of boys to reproduce themselves, while others like me did not have the opportunity.

Simple as that. Lowest common denominator.

My seeking understanding of what was going on in the world around me, had derived that pattern, that was identifiable in a wide variety of scenarios. Including politics, I have noticed in recent decades. The identifying characteristic was always the "wanting to fight." They would find all kinds of reasons to pick a fight. "Knocking the block off of one's shoulder" was one term of it, apparently a means of declaration for such shenanigans. Even the ramming of planes into the Twin Towers seemed like "knocking the block off of the shoulder', a call of "let's fight, fight" to prove who was "better."

It still makes little sense to me, why it is so important for people to sometimes do that kind of stuff.

It was often portrayed in the comic book as I grew up; but that was obviously intended to be goofy behavior to be spectacular, keeping the reader's attention.

Anyway, the current politics here in America, off and on for many decades and even more so at the start of this millennium, seems to have a lowest common denominator of people wanting to fight. Some people are trying to get things done for the country; others are ever trying to pick a fight. Striving to interfere with what others were trying to do, is a way to instigate a "fight."

Although I know that the urge to do this "fight" instead of constructively working together to achieve mutual benefits, has no true political affiliations, currently the "GOP" seems to be almost exclusively doing this kind of activity, apparently just wanting to fight. For no apparent reason; they just want to fight. And are very practiced at fomenting irritation to others trying to get the job done, and embroiling them in a fight of some kind, thus distracting away from the task at hand - the task of helping America - and grabbing attention to themselves. They seemed to have been somehow hired by some of the super wealthy, to take over government so as to reduce the taxes on the profits of the super-wealthy corporations; simple as that. Thus the present GOP seems to be merely hired mercenaries brought in to fight. And the Democrats who are trying to help America per those who elected them to do the job, are too often caught up in this fighting thing instead of being able to get the job done for America. The GOP has not always been that way; in the past, they have been able to do a good job of guiding America. But nowadays, it seems to me that they are just sunk into this "picking a fight" thing.

In other words, they like to fight. they don't like to build or learn about nature to help restore nature or advance civilization; they only want to fight, to tear down.

And like the kids on the schoolyards, all that fighting stuff gets lots of other people to gather around and admire the ones picking on and doing the abuse of someone. And in later years, the assaulters usually would first work to spread rumors that their intended victim was an abuser, and therefore the proclaimer would be a hero by beating up on the victim. Quite a clever technique, to keep people from realizing who were the actual abusive ones.

Part of such groups under the control of those who crave fighting, is that their members do not dare think on their own, or at least dare not vote any other way other than the way demanded by their fighting leaders. Thus they vote as a block, no matter the cause. And nowadays it seems to generally be with the intent to tear down the Democrats, so as to then take the helm of the country, like they did from 2000 to 2008. And look what they did then; what actually happened, nevermind the fluff and show. Always with excuses, of course. Got to have two major unwinnable wars with those who could not attack us in return, for example. Wars are apparently great fun for those who crave to fight. Although those in Congress are not those who have to go slog in the dust and dodge bullets; but they like to get lots of attention thereby. Fabricate cause for widespread fear, then go spend the nation's money to go bash somewhere, shifting huge moneys to war corporations and it all going with little financial accountability - who dares interfere with the nation's security by investigating where the money goes? Easy setup for endless scams.

So the bottom line is the identifying of those who have the motto of "fight lets fight to prove who is better" instead of "let's build together that which will help all of us."

It is a phenomenon where a few folks are striving to rip off the others, for the exclusive benefit of those few; thus gathering around lots of admirers hoping to get some of the fallout from the action. And it goes on without restraint, due to the craving of large parts of the population, to watch the drama of others fighting, taught such as in assaultive sports games.

The key to the understanding of it all, may well be, instead of the apparent obvious, actually instead is the unseen unidentified third party: those to whom are being proved who is better-than whom.

Although in the earlier background, fighting was about bushwhacking someone to rob them and take their mate away, long ago; nowadays such as in Congress, "fighting" is really about proving who is "better," to those who are watching. Generally, that has the same overall result as in the earlier reason for "fighting:" to rob them and take their mate away, so as to out-reproduce them to take over the next generation.

Walruses do it, whales do it, wolves do it, cattle do it, elephants do it, some monkeys do it too. "So," as it is said, "what's new?"

Re surprise inspection in a prison in Mexico

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15630892 "Prostitutes found in Mexico jail ... A surprise inspection in a prison in Mexico has revealed the presence of 19 prostitutes, 100 plasma televisions, two sacks of marijuana, and 100 cockerels for cock fighting...."

I can't resist posting on my blog about this, despite my opinion likely to irritate lots of kinds of people.

Over the years I have heard about the notoriously bad prison conditions in Mexico, but even they are not inhumane enough to not let wives of inmates to occasionally visit their husbands intimately. Unlike here in America: we are even more inhumane than that; or maybe a bit sexually insane in general, with all the clever suppression by bullies who think that all women righteously belong to them because they are influentially stronger and more aggressive.

Anyway, the items listed in the news article are amusing. Other than the cock fighting stuff; that seems not so nice; although, perhaps watching the example of two roosters' total ferocity in slashing at each other so as to gain exclusive mating rights to the hens, might remind human men they are not quite that violent; who knows. As for the prostitutes there, I say good for all the men and women, yay. Less suffering in the world thereby, assuming all the men there were equally comforted by the women. And as for the televisions, we Americans know well the addiction to the boob tube, improving the quality of life a bit... usually. And the marijuana, it also would probably reduce the suffering of the inmates while they serve their time in prison; as far as I recall, marijuana only made people more peaceful and at ease socially, and caused no harm to anybody as a result of smoking it; might even have made them a bit more humane or at least better aware of nature's beauty. So it would also have contributed to a better environment for the inmates there, I would think, a small amount.

(I could grouse again at the idioticy of making hemp unlawful in America - because it is associated with marijuana's smoking by a few. Hemp has always been an important agricultural crop in America; nothing could match the strength, light weight and utility of hemp rope, stronger than steel for its weight; the only problem being it is scratchy to the hands. It's light weight and super strength made it used to tie up battleships to the dock in WWII, for example. No need to have huge expensive industrial factories to turn petrochemicals into rope; just plant seeds and it grew, and needed far less poisonous pesticides put into the ground than did comparable and less strong cotton crops. As far as I know, the only harm from hemp was when vigilantes would use hemp rope to lynch their victims.

Follow the money: who is it that benefits greatly by making hemp unlawful in America?

Yet also, I must say that my viewpoint is from an earlier generation, where smoking part of the hemp plant was unheard of. Tobacco is what people smoked. Was only decades later I heard of people smoking marijuana; some of my friends provided examples, and I did not see where they were made dangerous to others, except in their occasional antics to avoid getting caught smoking it. Their often uncanny awareness sometimes astonished me at times, however; so maybe all people ought to have the same advantage. All strange behavior to me.

But to banish the native hemp plant's growth from America as a result - are they really the same plant or is it that enforcers cannot tell the difference, I wonder - really needs some unbiased research and analysis. I wonder if the fear of turning all those imprisoned marijuana smokers, "guilty" of that victimless crime, out on the street, having them angry at the associated "law-enforcers;" and paying them full compensation for wrongful imprisonment, is why the anti-hemp-anti-marijuana laws are not revoked instantly.

Even nowadays, returning hemp as an important agricultural crop in America, as it was throughout all but the most recent history, would especially enable the processed hempseed as a much needed outstanding protein profile food, for better health of Americans. Instead of having to totally import that potentially important nourishing food, reducing the need for environmentally resource-expensive meat as partially comparable protein source. Especially for people like me, whose intestines are damaged by eating wheat gluten, and find it hard to absorb enough protein to be properly nourished. Corn and rice are not quite adequate substitutes.)

Anyway, back to the ranch, if prisons are meant to cause pain and discomfort to wrongdoers, then why not hook them up to some shock machine, making them jump around for a few seconds each day as "punishment," or maybe give them a couple lashes each week in revenge. Or each in turn have to sit in isolation while they are barraged by audio recordings of how awful and nasty they are and giving threats of fearful physical harm, for 15 minutes each day. Then for the rest of the day, let them live in their imprisonment served time humanely, including having a normal lovelife - whether from their wives or from prostitutes - and TV, and marijuana to ease their stress.

But it is well known that people learn by example, and having them spend time in great deprivation and abusive conditions on and on, like is standard here in the US, simply teaches them to do that to others, somehow, when they get out - just be more clever about it, obeying the letter of the law if not the intent of the law.

To experience the suffering of their victims, they need to have empathy so as to be able to feel the other's pain - unless of course the person is a psychotic person craving to feel others in pain - the empathic experience ought to be the way to get the wrongdoer's attention; then, teach them by example the proper way to treat others. Show them the difference, through rapid comparison, to get their attention. That might work.

But those who are inherently bullies and who have wound up in prison, of course, probably need a bit of different conditioning; and although I doubt that bullies can really be taught better intrinsic manners, they can be taught through rewards to serve as law enforcement, or working in certain types of supervision in companies, using their nature of stalk-&-assault to gain obedience of others, sort of constructively, by getting their needs to have others fear them that way, and yet under supervision and behavior rules, to not usually harm others. A salary would be cheaper than imprisonment, and possibly could get them to sometimes do something constructively, I would hope.

But, I know despite such ranting's making sense, that things will go on business as usual. Prisons are a huge source of income for those businesses. Possibly part of the incentive to have marijuana use imprisonable is to keep that money rolling in to the prison business and their investors.

As often happens, what people actually "do do" seems astonishing to me.

But the stalk-and-assault musclemen bullies do rule here, even in business suits. Even as prison guards, most likely; who else could tolerate watching such misery? Only those who had been abused as they grew up, I suspect; their subconscious fantasizing righteous abuse for wrongful abuse. And imprisonment's forcing of obeying, certainly is abuse. Although, I understand the need to restrain the rare violent nutso bulllies from insanely rampaging around as bullies too aggressively. Most of them do the bullying by the rules; but sometimes apparently they don't restrain themselves, and so freak out and cause "unlawful" harm to others. Stuffing them into a prison might seem all that can be done, to get them off the streets, out of other people's hair. But it ought to be temporary. And teach civilized manners to them there. What actual deterrent the threat of prison has on keeping stalk-&-assault natured bully people from doing their thing, is not so certain in my mind, as implied by the law-and-prison system.

Mexico's prison condition discovery per the news article, seems to be indicative of potentials of other ways to treat people.

And our reactions to that, ought to tell us something about ourselves, if we stop to look. But we might find that too uncomfortable to our egos.

Anger and alternative-health and conventional-medicine and Steve Jobs

(Ref http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/04/steve-jobs-and-the-lure-of-alternative-healin/ )
I normally do not comment on others' writings; freedom of speech and all that. All people can have their own say; and it is not my place to refute some things that others have written.

But in this case, an article pushes too many of my buttons and the article is likely to really mislead some folks. The article is titled "Steve Jobs and the Lure of Alternative Healing"

The article starts out with "Steve Jobs’ decision to treat his pancreatic cancer with a vegan diet, herbs, juices and acupuncture rather than the surgery his doctors urged..." and ends with "... questions we should now be asking in the wake of Steve Jobs’ untimely death."

In between she claims her own father died because he took fish oil capsules instead of submitting to major chest surgery.

I think she had some bones to pick, blinding her to some things. (I have the same kind of problem myself, as a writer, at times.)

My reaction is a bit complex, as also was the many themes of the referenced article.

One is that the loss of Steve Jobs is a major loss to the world, and to myself.

Another is that I had never heard that Steve Jobs was at all into any sort of alternative health protocols.

What I do know, and was amazingly not mentioned in the article, was that Steve Jobs had long suffered from pancreatic cancer, and had been away from Apple for a long time because of it, on a previous occasion. During that time, he had a liver transplant, a major surgery, which he clearly submitted to; no fruit and veggies thing. And in itself the doctors overall did amazing things; several people I have heard about recently also died of pancreatic cancer, and invariably it is quick, very painful and unstoppable by anything. So that he survived at all to go back and do more great things at Apple and elsewhere for years, is a major credit to conventional medicine, one of their few successes in the field.

How the author of the article missed that major point, seems hard to understand, unless she was blinded by something, or simply did not do the research for the article ... which is written as if authoritative.

In a liver transplant, an organ transplant normally involves having to severely compromise the immune system, so the body does not quickly reject the transplant. But poor immune function leaves the body at risk from all kinds of problems. He lasted for years after the liver transplant, amazing, and very welcome. But for the contention of the article that we lost Steve Jobs because he did not submit to doctors' advise and their surgery, and instead tried a fruits and veggies diet "instead of submitting to surgery the doctors wanted" seems to have missed some major data; and is very misleading to the reader.

Now, I realize a common misconception of "alternative health" is to eat fruits and veggies instead of Super Sizers, and to workout in the gym. This does not know what it is about, at all.

And, could be that similarly Steve Jobs did not know any more about it either. Alternative health protocol knowledge is highly suppressed by the conventional medical business system; and it takes many years of trying things to learn first hand, for a person to begin to have really relevant knowledge. I doubt he had time for that, busy as he was, a high accomplisher. That he at last minute tried a cleaner diet to help the body have its best chance, considering his medically-destroyed immune system due to avoiding the liver transplant rejection, sounds like could be helpful.

But surely not full use of the Alternative Wellbeing full knowledge set. For example, alternative holistic wellbeing would first deal with suppressed anger issues, known to overstress the liver areas. For someone dedicated to enabling personal computers all his life, and dealing with doing that in the brutal business world, surely caused him lots of anger that he apparently had no means for relieving. Thus, little wonder it blew out his pancreas and liver, per that knowledge set. Deal with causes, and the body function failures are not so likely to happen, and not surgeries, immune destruction etc, needed (and thus less money for those folks, note. Follow the money.)

But that was not his followed path, despite the article's author's contention. He went full bore to get the high tech stuff done, "d__mn the torpedoes" in the harsh business rival world, probably having no idea about needing to be responsible for his own physical well being. If something breaks, take the body, like the car, to a fixer-upper shop; then get back on the road pedal-to-the-metal again.

I particularly have my buttons pushed about this, because his was the electronics world, and there were relevant electro-herbalism technologies developed in time to maybe have saved his life, but the heavy-handed suppression of them here in America probably kept him from learning about them. Even if he did, he, as an engineering-minded person in electronics - like I am - would have probably been too skeptical to even consider it even if he had managed to hear about it. It has taken me many years of testing of the technology personally, for me to grudgingly say that for sure, it can do some incredible things to help maintain a person's health. I would even say that it is likely that if doctors and hospitals had proper use of the same electro-herbalism technology, that thousands, maybe millions of people would remain alive and well that instead die each year. Responsibility? Do no harm? Or is it make highest income, instead? I too can get grumpy and off the edge, just like the article's writer, blaming this and that. And I have direct personal research knowledge of it all, not just hearsay.

I'm not a medical doctor. Am only an amateur scientist, in several fields of science, as hobbies. (Well, I also do formal scientific work in a field of biology as a volunteer, even currently.) The point here is that if it is science - instead of solely what one was taught and accepted without question - it is mandatory that one test, evaluate, the device or protocol, to see what it actually does in your own experience, before one can declare something works or does not work. That is the essence of the Scientific Method: do the unbiased testing in a completely capable mode, and find out what actually happens in reality. Happened that time, anyway. Repeat the test, get the data. See the trends, repeatability. Get others to do the identical test elsewhere, if possible, and compare notes. The general term is to "measure efficacy."

In electro-herbalism experimentation, one gets to test efficacy using the instrument one knows best: their own being, their own body. Evaluate before and after, and the fully described protocol in between. This is so easily done by an individual; it does not need hundreds of millions of dollars of FDA-required formal double-blind testing, to see if it achieved anything for oneself in a given test. there are many thousands of individuals who have already done such testing and generally find it is a working thing. Well worth formal research and inclusion in conventional medical practice.

Problem is, it appears to work too well.

Even the mere basic original Clark-30KHz-zapper does. Works much too well. As a personally owned and used low cost home instrument, in correct usage, my experience is that it would cut down on income in the conventional medical system an enormous amount. A wild guess is that it could cut down on doctor visits by ... 90% ... who knows. Much higher hospital recovery rate and less time in hospital, I would project.

And nobody wants to lose a good job. Medicine nowadays has the responsibility to be a very profitable business; instead of the responsibility to provide low cost consistent long term good heath for all Americans, using all means possible... including electro-herbalism and other alternative protocols that are found to work effectively, an efficacy-based system.

I wonder, what it would be like if the whole medical system's directive was of the latter type, instead of the former.

Quite a dilemma.

A way to break loose from the present expensive patent-and-sue system of idea territory control

To get around the problem of patents and lawsuits effectively strangling new creative technological ideas for new American products, instead of the patent-and-sue system we now have for combat between individuals and companies, how about making it like the interstate highway system, a governmental and unbiased system for rewarding originators of the ideas and products based on those ideas, so that all technological patentable ideas are freely useful by all Americans in their products.

The compensation to the originators - and which could be secondary inventors too, anyone independently coming up with an idea even if already someone else had previously done that somewhere - according to a share of the amount of application of the idea in American technology products.

It would be paid for by a general tax as a fraction of the sale price of all technology products, without regard to which technological ideas or patents were involved in their creation and manufacture.

This is justified because probably all but the latest bit of an idea for technological innovation, is actually built on all the technological, scientific, engineering ideas developed and made available throughout civilization's growth, probably going back to the Greek scholars and even to the stone hatchet or even the invention of tamed fire for cooking.

The benefit of such a system is expected to be the unfettering of idea makers and manufacturers and technological product developers, so they can rapidly proceed with the implementation of their products and ideas for products. No need for a massive expensive legal department to root in the patent stuff to find which ideas can be pursued in a new product, which is something important for the backyard lone inventor, especially.

For example, let's say that Apple comes up with a new patentable idea. The idea is disclosed in the patent and registered with the patent office. From then on, everybody can freely use that idea in their inventions and products. Apple would get compensated for their invention by an appropriate portion of the taxes collected during the sale of technological products.

This would enable rapid building upon new ideas of others; more importantly, it would enable creation and development of new ideas and innovative products, without the hassle of wondering if someone else had thought of parts of it before, and would act to block the new product. It would also stop the technology-strangling business practice of patenting some key part of a technology, with no intent of using it in a product, but simply to prevent it from being used by a rival business; thus, more kinds of products would become available to the customers, expanding the functionality of the nation.

Opponents to this concept, I fantasize, would be those who derive fame&fortune off of the existing patent-and-sue system; those who consider their patent base as a means of control rather than just financial gain; those who would find it disturbing because it is not the way they are familiar with doing things or thinking about things; and the conservative political group who want less governmental influence and fewer taxes; this makes sense insofar as the risk of some political group getting itself into office who are in it for power and control by a mere few Americans, for their own exclusive benefit. Liberal politicals would question how could privateering such a system be made unbiased and unrestrictive by whoever was controlling it all. Then the costs of paying for it out of detailed tracking of which patent, which idea and in which proportion of each new product, would be overwhelmingly costly and time consuming, almost as bad as the present system and probably even more expensive. So it seems best to me to have it as stated above, paid for by a general tax on all technological based products, from toothpaste to jet aircraft. Even agricultural products depend a lot of technology for their products, such as tractors and fertilizers.

Such a system would be of great benefit in teh upcoming expansion of civilization into nearby space. Although much of teh technology being utilized by upcoming corporations, such as launch vehicle technology, was developed by NASA and therefore paid by American taxes and therefore free to use, newer space access & utilization technologies could be hamstrung by trickery use of the patent-and-sue system by those who patent some key part of a new upcoming technology, with no intent tu use it for goods or services, but merely to prevent rival ways of accomplishing needed things, from being utilized. Much of the space industries are solely based on gaining profit and have little intrinsic interest in the unbiased expansion of civilization into the resources of nearby space, and thus are likely to prevent American best approaches to space, if that is the way they gain most power and wealth.

This proposed system would also wipe out purpose from the often abusive corporate practice of the unrighteous application of the so-called "employment agreement" ceding all ideas by the prospective employee in the future to the employer, regardless of the employer having any intent to utilize the ideas of the employees. This has been blocking the nation's utilization of the vast majority of technologically-interested workers, people who are hands-on in technology and often get new ideas simply by the stimulation thereby of the technological creative part of the mind not involved with the performance of the job for which they are hired to do, which insight can inspire any time of day or night, on or off the job, and most of the time have nothing to do with their fulfillment of their hired-for job accomplishments.

By adopting the system proposed here, technological product advancement could be gotten out of the virtual exclusive control by wealthy companies, and back into the hands of the independent inventors and developers, including small businesses and backyard inventors, where currently most ideas have to die in the present expensive patent-and-sue system of idea control. All would ultimately benefit, from the huge wealthy corporations to the backyard lone innovators, insofar as contributing to the technological capability of the nation.

(Nonetheless I expect this concept to be deep-sixed, because "it is not how we do things, and we are the ones in control here, not you." The place is crawling with bullies.)

Avoiding the use of a war to unite a country

Am wondering if some of the changes in the nature of the news articles online, is due to an ancient phenomenon.

Uniting a nation by having them work together to fight an external threat, is much like getting siblings to cooperate to fend off an external threat. But when the external threat is gone, then the siblings bickering among themselves resumes.

Historically, leaders have united their countries by creating wars, to utilize this effect.

Now we are winding down a pair of wars well designed to be unwinnable and therefore long drawn out. But now ending. That means the probable phenomenon of bickering among ourselves will make up more and more news, in our seemingly insatiable thirst for drama of winners and losers.

There is so very much that needs accomplishing, that requires our working together to accomplish them. Sure, we can survive, limp along in the same old way, without those achievements. But why would we choose that? Yet it seems we have chosen it, per the daily news announcements.

Surely there is a better way than having a nasty war ongoing, to unite us to work together instead of doing the bickering mischief. But leaders throughout history have used the war card to win the game of internal cooperation, instead of something else.

We might be at a turning point, in this phenomenon. But we need some new ideas about it, fast. Else we will destroy ourselves in the bickering, or else another war or two will get concocted again, to solve the problem.

Maybe it is suppression of technological advancement

Interesting phenomenon chatting with someone who has some idea about some of my space concepts, who can understand, yet clearly has business interests that constrain conversation. The subject matter is not involved in this post, but are the interesting thoughts developed in myself, apparently as a result.

One is the contrast between the two old sayings: "A bell cannot be un-rung," vs "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound."

The other is that, on revisiting my experiences writing files and posting them on the GEnie network - before the internet - and the equivalent of chat threads, the interesting thing now twenty years later, is the fact that responders chose to respond to my writings and chat threads with antagonism instead of happiness that they now had new opportunity for creating fine new things, with the ideas now existing because I had made them and made them freely available there.

That puzzled me back then, as well as was frustrating to me then; but now, there is a bit of different thought coming up about it. It was their choice, to work constructively with me; or to tear my creative concept constructions down or hide them from others' view. The overwhelming response was to go the destructive interference path. That is the thing I am noticing now.

Something about their psychology, or their situation, most likely caused that to happen. What could it be?

Supposedly everyone in that group had the same goal, to advance into space as fast and as well as possible. The concepts I had created and wrote about on my dozens of files on the GEnie Space and Science Library, would help achieve those mutual goals.

It still does not make sense to me.

There has got to be more to it all.

Maybe it is simply suppression of technological advancement; but then, again, why? It ought to benefit everybody, so why assault it?

I could push my self-protective paranoid-button, and say it was not my concepts under attack, all varieties of them, but instead it was me under attack.

Well, that again ends up in another door to nowhere: why? Or even, why bother doing it? ... maybe it has something to do with why there are bullies. Might be the same answer to both questions.

Being stalked in stores and contract killing

Re the referenced article, it appears to be a contract killing. And such a thing is quite commonly set up, in my experience. Very frequently I have had men stalking me in WalMart - and Safeway and Radio Shack too. Sometimes just one man; sometimes a group of four, and at least one of them carrying a sealed soft drink bottle held by the neck as if ready to use it as a club.

Oftentimes the club-carrying man shows up right behind me in the checkout line, if no one else is there. Typically he has no cart being pushed; just has the beverage bottle being swung suggestively by its neck, instead of being held the normal way of holding such a container.

Interestingly, whenever I bicycle to Walmart and wear my helmet while in the store, the bottle-club carrying guy phenomenon does not happen. I wear my bicycle helmet in the store because oftentimes the personnel seemed to think I was stealing it from the store, so by wearing it while walking into the store, hopefully security personnel will notice that. I did not correlate the wearing of the helmet and the lack of a stalker in the store isles or behind me carrying a beverage bottle held like a club, until many trips there; apparently the intent was to strike me in the head with the bottle-club, and the helmet would possibly protect me from such an assault.

Part of the weird phenomenon is that apparently the guys arrive there just before I do, as if somehow they had figured out where I was going a bit in advance. Seems impossible; but fairly consistent.

Pondering the possible who and why of it, has produced only possibilities, some going back to the 1960's militant nuts; most of the possibilities from later times such as by those who have stolen my technological concepts for their businesses, probably related to the very expert robberies of my residences over the years; and also what apparently is carefully contrived bad-mouthing about me to ruin my reputation, done by some widespread influential group. Mixed in at times has been mere "crazy-making" mischief, too, to confuse things.

And I wonder, when is the "boss" going to give the go-ahead for a killing, like the article describes. Unfortunately I have no other way to get food and supplies, so I have to endure this.