Bicycles Would Cost Less

             
When the wheels of government and commerce come grinding to a halt, we will need some way to get around.  Bicycles will cost less than the current government bailouts.

Now, don't laugh.  Just hear me out for a sec.  Assume we have 80 million workers and 20 million teenage school children who could get to work and school by bicycle.  This is the heart and soul of our economy, and our future economy, isn't it?  That's 100 million bicycles needed.

Now like in any war, I'm quite certain bicycle producers could produce serviceable bicycles for $100 each (not these fancy things you see for $400 and more).

That's 100,000,000 x $100 = $10 billion.

Let's say that I'm off by a factor of 2 as to the number of people who could use a simple bicycle to get to work or school (which I may be), and I'm off by a factor of 2 as to price (which I am not).

That would be 200,000,000 x $200 = $40 billion.

The AIG bailout was $85 billion, by itself.  The Iraq War costs at least $10 billion per month.  The current Wall Street bailout plan (misnomer for sure) is $700 billion.  The cost to the economy will be staggering, even if no plan, or some alternate plan, is passed.  According to CNET the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout cost us $200 billion, the Bear Stearns financing took $29 billion, and, well, the list just gets longer.

So by comparison, I'm suggesting we stop all the bailouts, take our hit, say shame on you to all the bright executives and politicians who failed to avoid all this, and give ourselves all free bicycles.  With side baskets for groceries.

This will keep us moving, save the environment, avoid paying anything for gasoline, reduce our collective weight, reduce the occurrence of diabetes and the risk of heart attacks, lower future healthcare costs, and stop all car thiefs in their tracks.

Maybe, you think, a free bicycle program wouldn't work.  Thiefs would just steal them.  Good.  They are FREE.  So just go get another one.  Go to work.  Go to school.  For FREE.  This may not help keep enough people employed, or lower the cost of a safe home and decent living environment for all Americans, but it would be a start.

And if you think this is really off base, then I suggest it may at least get us thinking about what the right questions are.  Someone should actually try prioritizing our public spending decisions a little better, and a little more openly and truthfully.  The Presidential candidates could have actually answered Jim Lehrer's question about the financial crisis (rather than just deciding to slam each other for a few more votes).  And a whole bunch of people, respectfully, in Washingon and on Wall Street, should do the honorable thing, and simply resign.

And maybe someone in the national media could actually report on all this nightly in a thoughtful and intelligent, rather than headline grabbing, sound-bitey, sort of way.  Have you noticed how they like to say that a report which lasts more than 30 seconds is "in depth?" Are you kidding me?  You know, the last I checked, those public airwaves were supposed to be public, and not merely a vehicle for selling the latest prescription cure-all.  I think a few people in the national media should also do the honorable thing, and resign.

Unless the world collapses, I'm going to go back to philosophical issues.  Good.  Yah, I heard you.  Well, we'll see.  No, I mean it.  I really want to know what you think about the meaning of life.  Too big a topic?  Yah, probably.  Hey, I won't charge you anything if you want to guest author a piece or write a comment.  Luv'n it.


              

Posted: Keep Out of Washington

              
This is not a political blog.  It's only supposed to be a gamey philosophical one.  You know, for fun and to perk up the reader's intellectual curiosity about arcane and esoteric topics that may make our collective lives a bit richer and perhaps help us all focus on the long haul.  But really.  I mean.  Sorry, but ......... why exactly is it that both presidential nominees have been asked, encouraged, and just plain told to KEEP OUT OF WASHINGTON DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.  Cheez . . .

I almost missed this point, what with all the carefully developed clear and open explanations of the causes and fixes for the current economic crisis clogging up the television airwaves and internet lines, but it's there: the Washington paid politicians don't want the Presidential Nominees (of either party) in Washington while the real work of the people is in progress.

Now, why is that?  Isn't the real work of Washington relevant to the national election process?  I guess not.  Neither candidate bothered to actually answer Jim Lehrer's question about the financial crisis facing the nation.  I suspect they actually agreed to this ahead of time.  It will be much safer making talking points about it after the fix is in.  And clearly nobody in Washington wants them speaking up about the details of the crisis or the details of the possible fixes.  "It just makes things harder for them to be here," to paraphrase the various statements being made.  Why is that?  Aren't both of these guys actually United States Senators?

Oh, I know.  If they are around, the United States Public might actually hear too much about the people's business and how it gets conducted.  So ... back to the show ... Make-up!!


* * *
          
P.S.  If you disagree, please comment.  Incidently, I'm trying to figure out how to show all comments all of the time.  If I can just figure out Blogger's software settings.  If I can't, then just click the 'comment' line below each posting and make your comment.   Remember, you can use any 'moniker' you want for your comment by selecting 'Name / URL' in the menu area below your comment (your URL is completely optional), or just click the 'anonymous' line.  To see all the comments, click on the Title of any posting and then scroll down.  Do it.  Luv'n it.  It's about our future.
 
               
                

$700B ... Maybe It's Just 'Dark Flow'

                             
Sorry, I wasn't listening . . . what was that again?

Did I hear you right, did you jez say $700 billion . . .  for a lil' biddy bailout?  Shor, why not.  Pocket change, I'll jez take it out of my next week's bonus.

Greed, you say, did that?  I doubt that very much.  Now how could a lil' biddy bit of wallstrutting greed do that?  Maybe it's jez som'a that 'dark flow' stuff.  Not snuff ... stuff!

What?  You did'n hear 'bout that one earlier today ... about those scientists who jez discovered that "patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe."  At least that's according to Clara Moskowitz at Space.com, in an article entitled Mysterious 'Dark Flow' Found in Space.

No, no, no ... Clara's not writing about Greed, dummy, she's writing about what they discovered far out in space ... what researchers think must show that sumthin is out there past the observable edge of our 'universe.'  Don't you member?  I told you 'bout stuff like that, stuff that hurt's my head jez thinking 'bout it.  In my lil' piece entitled Things That Make Your Head Hurt.   Yah, a couple of weeks ago.

Yah, 2nd and 3rd items on my list.  Yah, and below there, too.  No, no, not the part about the lil' boy in the ghetto.  That part's about Elvis.  No, not the part about the beer in the refer.  That part's about ... well, now you made me thirsty.  Thar ya go.  Further down.  That's it, the part about wondering what gravity really is, and what it might be like at or beyond the edge of the universe.  Now ya got it.  Right.  What?  DynaSoar at Slashdot got a lil' sumthin 'bout 'dark flow', too?  Slashdot, that's the news for nerds.stuff that matters place, right?

Yah, I like that place, shor.

No, dark flow is not the same as dark matter and it's not the same as dark energy.  Dark matter is dark cuz we can't see it, dummy.  And dark energy, well, that's the stuff Einstein talked about, which causes galaxies to shove each other apart at ever-increasing speeds.  Yah, I agree, you are not a dummy for not understanding sumthin it took an Einstein to talk about.  But you are still a dummy for not knowing that dark matter is dark cuz you can't see it even when you shine a light on it.  I don't know why it doesn't reflect light.  But it's the most common stuff in the universe.  That's why you should know about it.  It's what keeps the galaxies from blowing apart at the seams.  Yah, now you got it.  No dark stuff, no galaxy.  And no galaxy, no dummy, dummy.

What do you mean you want a picture of it?

But dark flow, now that's new, I think.  It says sumthin really, really big is out past the edge of the observable universe and its pulling stuff towards it.  No, I don't know what's out there.  I just said it's out past the edge of the observable universe.  But the stuff that is moving towards it is moving towards it at a speed of some 2 million miles per hour.  Yah, that's pretty fast.  And the 'stuff' being pulled is, like, a cluster of a thousand galaxies.  That's right, that's a lot of dummies on the move.

Maybe $700 billion worth.

No, that doesn't mean I think we should bail out the financial dummies, dummy.  I mean that the rest of us, not counting them, are worth at least that much.  Well, the book is still open on you.  And I suppose on them, too.

No, I'm sure they don't have $700 billion to pay us back if we bail 'em out.  Yah, I do think Greed did it, or at least a lot of it.  Not telling the Truth has a lot to do with it, too, I suspect. 

No, I don't know if they are Hawks or Doves ... What?  Women?  Now, cut that out ... a lot of them are women, but probably far less than half of the Wall Street dummies are women at this point.  Some people say women would never have gotten us into this mess, but what's either of those points got to do with 'dark flow'?

Why are we worth so much?  Well, so we, or our grandkids, can figure out what's out there, don'cha think?  Yes, we need a telescope.


       

Why Men Like Women

    
Duh.

Show me a curve, a round area, a soft spot, a leg, the nape of the neck, hair, some cleavage (any amount is fine), an up skirt angle, high heels, make-up, a panty line, the lack of a panty line, an empire waist, a tight waist, a loose flowing look, no waist line, a smiling female face, a pouty female face, okay, any female face, and I'll show you a place my eyes will focus, no matter what "I" do to avoid it.

It cannot be avoided.  Men like the way women look.

Duh.

Do we like women for their brains?  You must be kidding.  Of course we do.  (Didn't expect that, did you!)  But it's not a woman's brains that attracts our wandering eyes.  No, lawdy, it's our brains (not that other part) that "see" a woman and cause us to react to what we see, automatically, instanteously, without hesitation or excuse.  Bingo.  Later we will apologize for the wandering "I" and like Jimmie Carter, may even admit to some lusty stuff there in our heart, but in the short run it's all about our mind's eye.  And if we happen to be blind, we can smell a woman.  Hooah.

Why do I report this?  I have daughters, you might say, and incredibly, when I see my daughters, it is pride I feel not that other stuff, yet I report on this anyway.  Why?  O, why, take up your time with these trivial observations?  Because, in my humble opinion, it goes to the heart of how human life works, and needs to be truly accounted for, along with that predator/dove stuff.  Stop kidding yourselves, it's pretty primal out there, and maybe getting primalier - urr . . . more primal.  As rw says, in a world of hawks, doves are not going to survive.  Or are they?

Since I'm not a woman, only a woman can say why women like men.

What say ye, women?  Speak up.  Are ye all just pretty doves?


         

Unavoidable

        
Been thinking a lot about game theory.  Nothing new about that, I play quite a bit of poker.  Game theory is all there is to fall back on sometimes in a tough game, and I tend to view poker as a microcosm of life, another tough game.

I started applying game theory to the rise of humanity.  Using the Hawk/Dove scenario it seems reasonable to me that predators (hawks) and prey (doves) have always existed.  I will use the labels Predator/Prey because the Hawk/Dove labels carry political connotations that may have a place, but would cloud my point.

Predators by definition are less likely to form co-operative social structures than prey for the simple reason that they can't truly be trusted to cooperate.  Predators improve their position solely by defeating opponents.  Prey, on the other hand, form complex social structures of interdependency in order to secure their position and provide incremental improvement to all prey equally.

The meteoric rise of humanity to become, I have read, the most populous vertebrate species on the planet is a result of the success of the cooperative strategies designed by prey to create a system where cooperative strategies are sufficiently beneficial to marginalize the all or nothing strategies employed by predators.

At some point though, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head and the benefits of co-operation fall to the point of little or no value.  In poker this break point is clearest when you and another have eliminated all the other players, and now you must decide if heads up play with its inherent difficulties is worth the risk of losing your stack, against the gain of winning their stack.  What may be less obvious is when you initially sit down to the table you face the same decision which will lead to the same end game scenario throughout the game.  There is always, always a point where co-operative strategies are no longer of benefit.

As a species, I think we are very near that branch in the logic tree where all players become hawks, and in a game of hawks only, doves don't survive.