Monday, December 27, 2010

The Golden Goose is Dead

I thought you might be interested in reading a letter I just sent to an organization which I had been supporting, financially.  Unfortunately, I was put in a position such that I had to break the relationship quite suddenly. 

Respect is paramount, and gratitude matters.  Anyone involved in solicitation or promotion of any kind - Take note.

To: The Golden Goose Foundation

Please remove my name from your mailing list and send no more solicitations.

Why would I terminate our relationship, given that I just got involved with the Golden Goose Foundation a few months ago, and I still support your goals? 

It is because you sold or otherwise disseminated my personal information. 

A week after I sent my first contribution to the Golden Goose Foundation, I began to get solicitations from every similar action group imaginable, filling my mailbox, wasting paper and my time.

You could have gotten a lot more financial support from me.  Now you will not.  I hope what you got for selling my information makes up for it.  We both know that’s not very likely.

Please remove my name from your every list, and contact me no more.


A word to the wise is sufficient. 

Gryphem

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Christmas To All

On this wonderful Christmas morning, I wish you all the happiness your heart can hold.


We have been blessed to be alive, to experience beauty, to love one another, to be able to give.  The world can be a wonderful place, if we make it so.


Remember the story that is at the heart of this Christmas season, when the Creator of all chose to live among us and share our lives. 


To my family and friends, I love you.  To those of you I haven't met, God loves you.  To all, I wish you blessings.

Gryphem

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Gryphem Challenge: The Billiard Ball Puzzle


One of the goals of Gryphem is to get you thinking.  This particular post, rather than using real world observations to get you thinking, does so with a logic puzzle.  Welcome to the first Gryphem Challenge.


The Billiard Ball Puzzle

You are given twelve billiard balls identical in appearance.  Eleven of these are of the same weight, but one is of a different weight.  You are given a set of balancing scales.

The Challenge
Use the scales and your intelligence to identify the billiard ball that is of a different weight (the oddball), and tell whether it is heavier or lighter than the others.  Complete this process in the fewest possible number of steps (weighings).  You must be able to logically demonstrate that your process will work in every case.


Your Response
Discover and tell the minimum number of steps (weighings) required to meet the challenge.  Explain the process in order to demonstrate the accuracy of your response.

Checking Your Solution
One possible response is provided.  There may be others.  Your explanation does not have to be in the same format as the one provided.  Do make an effort yourself before you scroll down beyond the intelligent penguin below to see the solution provided.

You can do it.  You have the power.

Gryphem


And Heeere's the Solution...
(Click on the picture to make it larger.)

The objective can be accomplished in only 4 steps.  This diagram shows the first two steps.
This diagram shows the third and fourth steps.  I hope you did well...  Thanks for playing.


Monday, December 20, 2010

Complexity or Simplicity. You Decide.

  • Do you think most people make life too difficult?
  • Do you think most people tend to oversimplify complex issues?
  • Would you rather work in a complex or a simple environment?
  • How does YOUR world function?


Here is a paradox I’ve lived with for a long time: 
  • Too much complexity, of thought or technology or procedure, is a problem.  Simplicity is much preferable.
  • Overly simplistic attitudes and systems are the problem.  Complexity is unavoidable and embracing it is necessary.
Depending on the situation - and perhaps my disposition - I can find fault with overly-complex or overly-simplistic elements within our society, or on display in the persons around me. 

Recently it has occurred to me that this might not be a real paradox at all, but two complementary statements, both true, which arise from the same underlying principle.  If so, I might be able to get at the truth behind the words, and express the reality in a single statement.

Of course, maybe it really is a paradox.  No less valid, just more difficult to grasp and communicate.

Let’s think about it.  I’ll go first.

Point of View #1:  Complexity is the Problem.  Live Simply.

Life is simple, really.  Making situations too complicated gets in the way of living.  Making machines too complex makes them more prone to malfunction.  Making processes complex results in drudgery, wastes time and effort, and prevents desired results from being accomplished. 

Complexity ties us up with procedural requirements, details which must be acknowledged or ignored at our own peril.  Complexity uses up mental and emotional resources which could be put to good use.  Complexity steals our spontaneity and our freedom. 

Complexity reduces efficiency.  Complexity exists in part to feed the self-importance of individuals by distinguishing the “expert” from the neophyte who hasn’t mastered complex concepts, processes, or terminology yet. 

Complexity robs persons of the freedom just to be.  Complexity diminishes intuitive understanding, inhibits spontaneous happiness, and disregards the simplicity of love.  Complexity kills people by taking their time and poisoning their mental and emotional processes, deadening them to the joys of life.

Point of View #2:  Simplicity is the Problem.  Embrace the Intricate Beauty of Life.

The world is big and expansive and full of wonders.  People are capable of anything, given time, commitment, and reasonable resources.  Creativity is boundless.  People who try to keep limit everything to the most basic level will miss the point of it all. 

Many who oversimplify claim to know everything worth knowing - but life is about learning and exploring.  The one who stresses simplicity is usually focused on results, an end product, a destination, but life is all about discovery, the process, the journey. 

A simple world in which every question has a right answer, every choice can be assessed as right or wrong, is a world in which every situation has a predetermined outcome, a world in which there is no real freedom to choose.  The world of black-and-white, of all-right or all-wrong, might be easier to understand than the “real” world, but it is a not world fit for free and creative people. 

Simplicity overdone takes away choice, reduces life to a set of rules or expectations, stifles creativity and happiness and love in favor of “correct” principles and behaviors.  It is a world for robots, without true thought, meant to exist only in a simple world of zeros and ones. 


The Conclusion

So which is it?  Do you believe our thoughts and constructs and procedures are too complex, or too simple?  Is one or the other of these comments right, and the other, wrong?  Could both be true?  Which do you believe… too simple or too complex? 

I know what I think.

Gryphem

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Discoveries About Life #4: SHARING

Giving food to a hungry child is participating in the work of God.
Giving another person something that he needs is an acknowledgement of his human value and of our oneness.
Charity is sharing life.

Your mother brought you forth, cared for you, taught you to make your way in the world.  How can you, recipient of such a great gift of love, not give to others?
The most powerful among us are not more worthy than the least.
Personal worth is not a financial matter.  Money is as irrelevant in assessing personal worth as hairstyle.  If you find yourself overly impressed by either, it might be time for a self-assessment.
Let the ethics of compassion rule your behavior.  Financial considerations are peripheral.
Sharing of your time and thoughts, which arise from your innermost self, is even more valuable than sharing of your possessions.
Bright colors make the world beautiful and interesting, like kind people.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Our Great Security

A quote which I discovered only today, and which has tremendous importance and applicability to our current social and political situation.

“A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.”   (Samuel Adams)


Now go forth, and practice VIRTUE.

Gryphem

Monday, December 13, 2010

Our Obligation to Future Generations

Are We Obliged to Consider the Welfare of Future Generations?
A comment about the impact of our actions on the future - in two parts.

PART ONE: A Comment for People who THINK

Below are two quotations.  Both suppose that the present generation has a responsibility to future generations.  Apart from that, they appear to be contradictory.  Thomas Jefferson seems to be telling us not to obligate future generations.  Reinhold Niebuhr seems to be saying that we must undertake multi-generational projects.

So must we include the welfare of future generations as a factor in all our planning and projects?  Should we, or should we not, undertake multi-generational projects?  May we, or may we not, force debt or obligation upon future generations?

At first, Niebuhr and Jefferson seem to be making opposite points.  But upon further consideration the two statements become less and less contradictory.

 NIEBUHR
“Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime.” 
(Reinhold Niebuhr)

Niebuhr expresses his opinion of the need to engage in grand plans, schemes that are bigger than any of the participants, undertakings that are bold and ambitious, so important that we must begin even though we personally will not live long enough to see the objective attained.  This position is undergirded by the belief that we and our descendants and successors are connected, and that we must do our part to make their world better.

Without commitment like Niebuhr describes, most of the great accomplishments of humanity would never have been undertaken, much less completed.  Consider all the accomplishments that would not have been undertaken if those who began them were not subjugating their own welfare to that of subsequent generations.  The great cathedrals of Europe would not have been built.  The American Revolution would not have happened.  Vincent Van Gogh would not have created his paintings.  Voyager I would not have been launched.

Of course, an undertaking may have immediate value as well as value to future generations.  Witness the advances of science over the past few centuries.  As Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."  The scientific advancements of Newton and his contemporaries benefited from the incremental advancements of previous generations, and at the same time, established a new framework for even greater advancements.


 JEFFERSON

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes… The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." 
(Thomas Jefferson)

It is irrational to expect someone else to pay one’s own bills.  You might think this would be obvious, but history shows that it is not.  If one attempted to balance his own accounts by obligating his neighbor, he might be called a leech, or a fool, or a thief.  Yet governments routinely obligate future generations to pay for current expenditures.  Every time the government pays for any thing with borrowed funds, they are passing the cost to future taxpayers.  This is a form of theft, theft from descendants. 

According to Jefferson, no project should be undertaken unless those who initiate the activity, from the original generation, are able and willing to pay their fair portion, and unless there is consensus that future generations will inherit more value than debt.

The emphasis of both of these commentators is that we the current generation should put the wellbeing of our descendants above our own welfare.  We should not burden them for our own benefit.  Neither should we neglect to undertake projects or advancements which promise to improve their world and increase their wellbeing.

Wouldn’t any good parent put the wellbeing of the child ahead of the comfort of the parent?  What would you think of a mother who failed to plan for the welfare of her children, who neglected to educate them or provide what they need for survival?  She has violated Niebuhr’s advice.  What would you think of a father who impoverished his children in order to acquire comforts for himself?  He has violated Jefferson’s advice.

Reinhold Niebuhr tells us that we MUST undertake multi-generational projects for the betterment of humanity.  Thomas Jefferson tells us that we MUST NOT obligate future generations for our own benefit.  They are both right.


PART TWO: A Comment for People who FEEL

       They are our children.
 
     They need us to love them enough.


CONCLUSION 

Your reason and your heart both tell you the same thing.  Our children are going to inherit the world we build for them.  Consider them.  Honor them.  Do the right thing.  Love them. 


Gryphem


Wednesday, December 8, 2010

John Lennon. Imagine.

John Lennon.  A legend in his own time.  His voice was more than the voice of an entertainer.  He saw the world as it was and envisioned it as it might be.  His manner was sometimes aloof, but underneath was an abiding love for humanity that was expressed in the music he wrote and sang.  He was a voice for peace, for love.  He was, in a time of hypocrisy and violence, a voice for hope and humanity.  John Lennon was the voice of a time and place, and a generation, whose message is nevertheless universal.   
Is it strange for someone like me to find inspiration in someone like John Lennon?  Probably… but I do, even so.  John Lennon wrote and sang truth.  His truth and mine are not exactly the same as they have found expression, but there is more to truth than words. 
I believe in a God of love; John sang about God as “a concept by which we can measure our pain.”  Yet he did believe in a higher power; it’s just that John envisioned that higher power in quite different ways than I do.  No matter.  We see the world from different angles, John and I, but we are seeing two different aspects of the same great reality.  We are seeing from two divergent points of view, a vision of a better world that could be, a world where “all you need is love.”
That’s why I can listen to the line, “Imagine there’s no Heaven” and feel the same thing John Lennon did, hope with him that people might really focus their effort to make this world a better place.
Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the religious authorities of his time.   John Lennon continues to be accused of the same.  Both envisioned and spoke of greater possibilities of which most people were unaware.  John Lennon was no messiah; he was purely a man, and he had his own problems and shortcomings as all of us do.  But John Lennon was a voice crying in the wilderness, inspired, idealistic, urging us to better things.  He saw visions of a better world, and tried to share those visions.  His songs did make the world a better place.  His words and voice and music will still be heard centuries from now, the voice of one who did his best to create beauty, inspire hope, and share peace and love.
Lennon’s words seem incomplete without his music.  The lyrics and the melodies he created, and the expression he invested, are all of one essence.  He was more than a musician, and more than a poet.  His words should be heard together with the music that provides emotional context and is an integral part of the whole message.
With that in mind, here’s a link for you to follow.  I copy the lyrics below for you to contemplate as you listen, or to help you as you sing along.  www.john-lennon.com/imagine.ra

Imagine there’s no heaven.
It’s easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people
Living for today.

Imagine there’s no countries.
It isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no religion, too.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

Imagine no possessions.
I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.

You may say I’m a dreamer.
But I’m not the only one.
I hope someday you’ll join us,
And the world will live as one.

I end with a few of John’s lyrics that seem particularly appropriate on this anniversary of his death.  John sang of his own departure, his own rebirth, his own humanity.
I just believe in me, Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over, what can I say?
The dream is over, yesterday,
I was Dreamweaver, but now I'm reborn.
I was the walrus, but now I'm John,
And so dear friends, you just have to carry on.
The dream is over.

John & Yoko, November 26, 1980
John is gone, but the visions he created and shared with us remain.  His song still will resonate as long as we continue to remember, and hear, and sing.
Thank you, John Lennon, wherever you are.

Gryphem

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Congress Fails to Make Economic Sense

Our American heritage is noble, inspired, a source of pride for Americans throughout our history.  Our system of government is the model for others around the world because it is so good at preserving the liberty we hold in such high esteem.  The Founding Fathers created a masterpiece.  Leaving aside the obvious flaws that were corrected in the 1860s, we have done quite well as a nation. 

So well, in fact, that many people mistakenly assume that we must always be successful, that we will always be a great nation no matter what we do.  That is wrong.  Our future greatness and prosperity are not guaranteed.  There is no law written in Heaven that says the United States of America will always be a superpower and a beacon of freedom in a troubled world.  No.  What becomes of America depends upon what Americans do.  Do right, and good things will continue to happen.  Abandon our principles or our responsibilities, and we may join the rest of those troubled nations as just one more.

Our troubles today stem from many problems, including intolerance, political correctness, overseas adventurism, arrogance, a two-party system which has placed loyalty to the party higher than loyalty to the country (and which is not a part of our constitution, by the way).  But the issue in evidence today is financial irresponsibility.

 We didn't actually overspend our budget. The allocation simply fell short of our expenditure.
(Keith Davis)

Many people think spending by the government is not such an important issue.  They think the government has bank vaults full of money and the main issue is deciding what to spend it on.  Wrong.  The government has no money other than what it collects from the people in the form of taxes.  Every dollar the government spends comes from some American person, usually in the form of taxes on personal or business income or property.  When the government spends, the government is spending money earned by real individual people.

Now think about this.  In less than 30 years the United States has gone from the world’s greatest creditor nation to the world’s greatest debtor nation.  That means we used to have so much money that we were able to lend it to others, but now we do not have enough to cover the spending of our own government.

How did we get in this situation?  Did our total national income go down?  No, it did not.  We have simply spent more than we have taken in, consistently, year after year.  Even our huge economy, the world’s largest, has not generated enough money for our insatiable government budget.  Congress approves spending plans, appropriates funds, without any sense of where the money will come from.   Congress is spending us into bankruptcy.

For those who fail to see the urgency, bankruptcy is a serious matter.  National bankruptcy would spell the end of most of our prosperity and many of our freedoms.  If we do not regain our fiscal sense, we risk (1) default and economic collapse, with danger of tyranny, (2) war and economic collapse, with danger of tyranny, or (3) nationalization of private assets to preserve a semblance of solvency, with the accompanying loss of rights.

“A government can’t control the economy without controlling people… When a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.  So we have come to a time for choosing.”
(Ronald Reagan)

Like most individuals and families with debt problems, the root cause is not a lack of income, but too much out-go.  Fact:  families which experience a large and sudden increase in income frequently find themselves in financial trouble soon after due to great increases in spending.  Fact:  a large number of lottery winners declare bankruptcy within a few years due to overspending.  In most cases, a family or individual with debt troubles would be better advised to manage their spending than to seek more income.

The federal government runs deficits not because of too little income.  The federal government runs deficits because of too much out-go.  Unless spending by Congress is controlled, no amount of “revenue enhancement” (that’s a euphemism for tax increases) will balance the budget.

This is not only the fault of the political left with their entitlement programs, nor of the political right, with their military spending.  This is the fault of the entire federal government.  Politicians from all political persuasions continue to authorize deficit spending.

"The budget is like a mythical bean bag. Congress votes mythical beans into it, then reaches in and tries to pull real ones out."
(Will Rodgers)

Question:  When the U.S. government spends more than it takes in, where does the extra money come from?   Answer:  It is borrowed.  A large percentage is borrowed from foreign sources.  A basic fact to remember:  What is borrowed must be repaid.  The question is, when will we repay what we are borrowing?  No one knows.  Very few people, politician or ordinary citizen, even think about repayment. 

One of the scarier observations I have made recently about federal spending is that even the more fiscally responsible persons talk only about “reducing the deficit.”  Almost no one talks about “eliminating the deficit.”  They should.  A balanced budget, in which the government is able to pay all its bills without borrowing more money, means no deficit. 

Here’s an even scarier thought.  When is the last time you heard anyone talk about reducing not the deficit, but the national debt?  The deficit is our financial shortfall this year.  The national debt is the accumulated balance due from all past years and generations.  The last time the national debt was paid in full, Andrew Jackson was president.  (That’s the 1830s for those of you who should have paid more attention in History class.)

The current national debt is approaching $14 trillion.  That is nearly $45,000 per U.S. citizen.  $45,000 for every single man, woman, and child in the United States.  $180,000 for a typical family of four.  How would your family pay their debt, if called upon to do so? 


"There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer money."
(William Weld)

The national debt is growing larger and larger, faster and faster.  Meanwhile, politicians continue to advocate more spending on health care programs, military actions and aid, grants of all kinds, entitlement programs, “stimulus” programs, unconstitutional federal involvement in education, and more.  For a very compelling visual demonstration of the U.S. national debt and how it is growing, see www.usdebtclock.org. 

In addition to rampant spending by Congress on a host of programs, undertakings, entitlements, and other “good ideas,” the government itself continues to grow larger and larger.  As an example, President Washington’s Executive Branch of government included three federal departments (State, Treasury, and War).  Today’s Executive Branch includes 15 Cabinet-level Department and 7 additional cabinet-level agencies.  The larger government continues to consume larger and larger portions of our national income.

"A billion here, a billion there—sooner or later it adds up to real money."
(Senator Everett Dirksen)

I suppose, at the end of this treatise about out of control government spending, that I should explain the title.  This entire outflow of frustration was inspired by an item in today’s news.  In recent days, Democrats in Congress have spoken out strongly against extending tax cuts to wealthy Americans, arguing that to do so would increase the deficit.  (Both sides had already agreed to extend tax cuts for low and middle income Americans.)  At the same time, Republicans in Congress have spoken out strongly against extending unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs due to the recession, arguing that to do so would increase the deficit.  (Unemployment benefits had been extended previously.)  Both sides seemed to be saying that the deficit should be decreased, but that increasing the deficit for tax cuts (R) or unemployment benefits (D) was still a good idea.  Despite the similar-sounding arguments, the two sides were at an impasse.  Well, no more.  They reached a compromise.  The Democrats agreed to go along with the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, if the Republicans would go along with an extension of unemployment benefits.  They agreed.  While talking about cutting the deficit, both sides came to the dubious conclusion that the most workable solution is… to increase deficit spending. 

This solution was disingenuous, politically opportunistic, and demonstrated either ignorance or moral cowardice.  We are deceiving ourselves if we think this kind of irresponsible government is going to continue to work.

We have a great country.  Our system is working, still.  But we must learn fiscal responsibility fast, and demand it of our leadership now, or we will risk the loss not only of prosperity but of our freedom.

Gryphem

“We could say they [Congress] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors… because the sailors are spending their own money.”
(Ronald Reagan)

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Discoveries About Life #3: Eternity

"Eternal” is a quality, not a measurement of duration.
Whatever has existed once exists forever.  Whatever has been loved, or feared, or endured, or created, is everlasting.  Nothing is ever truly gone away.  Each instant, each event is a crossroads within the greater reality of eternity.
If you have loved someone, and been loved by them, truly and perfectly, then you have already lived forever.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Word Problems: ROBUST

Introduction

You may remember my assertion in a previous post that using good words in inappropriate ways for the sake of novelty or to appear clever is detrimental to the process of communication.

The English language is a wonderful means of conveying knowledge and understanding, but only when the language is respected and used appropriately.  Users of the language who change the meaning of words to suit their fancy or to meet their need for attention disfigure the language, obstruct clarity, and do an injustice to others who simply want to communicate without confusion.   When the meaning of a word is altered in illogical ways, or without rationale or justification – then we have a word problem.

Today’s Word Problem: “ROBUST”

 “Robust” is an evocative synonym for healthy.  Health is a characteristic of living things.  The word “robust” has nothing to do with machines or networks of any kind.  Calling a system ‘robust’ is a linguistic abomination.

You’ve probably heard how this perfectly good word has been misused in recent years.  Many good literate people have succumbed, under the influence of relentless repetition by the advertising community and geeks of all kinds, to a new, manufactured definition.  But I refuse to accept the misappropriation of this word by technophiles with no appreciation for any language beyond DOS or Cobol or HTML. 

The image conjured in my mind by the phrase “a robust computer network” is amusing.  I envision a computer-robot thing standing in an Alpine meadow, beside a pink-cheeked little girl named Heidi and a goat, on a mountainside in Switzerland.  Yodeling.  A “robust” statistic conjures a similar image, except that the image features some life-size numerals in place of the computer-robot thing.

The word “robust” actually has nothing to do with technology, or machines of any kind, or data points or sample sizes or definitions or probability.  The actual meaning of the word, according  to Merriam-Webster.com, is “exhibiting strength or vigorous health.”   Hence the healthy child in my image.

According to some dictionaries, ‘robust’ can also mean ‘full-bodied,’ as with a muscular or stout physique.  This meaning is very similar to the original.  Sometimes the word is used to characterize a flavor or aroma, as with coffee or wine.  This culinary appropriation of ‘robust’ is a modest twisting of the original meaning, but is etymologically defensible - not the egregious perversion of the word practiced by the technology community.

Very recent online dictionaries add a newly-refined alternative definition of robust, with reference to computer software, as “capable of performing without failure.”   This definition attempts to associate the concept of health (“performing without failure”) with a technological item.  This attempt to bridge the gap between true meaning and the meaning as misunderstood by the techie community does not convey the meaning of either, and makes no one happy.  It is in reality an attempt to appease those who misused the word in the first place, because they refuse to stop misusing it. 

As Prime Minister and author Winston Churchill could tell you, appeasement never works.  Not in politics, and not in etymology.

Gryphem