Woods Workbench

We are Moving to ThinkerToThinker

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:29:28 GMT

In an effort to focus my blogging efforts, I am eliminating multiple blogs in favor of a single one on the ThinkerToThinker platform. Therefore, I am moving this blog as part of the consolidation.

The new platform is superior in features to the AOL Journals platform.

So, please go to Words by Woods and see what is available.

Remember What You Are Contending For

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:04:34 GMT

This is a relevant quote attributed to George Washington by D.S. Freeman's biography of him:

"Outwitted and outnumbered, the troops saw no alternative to destruction except immediate retreat. By early afternoon, most of the Continentals who had escaped the bayonets of the British had reached the Brooklyn defences, where Washington himself shared the work of rallying them. 'Remember what you are contending for,' he cried to some of them but he did not have at hand the leaders the men knew best. Stirling was missing, Sullivan had faild to fight his way out. Several promising officers were known to have been killed." (p. 286).

In the Battle of New York (1776), this occurred after the British using the Jamaica Road outflanked the American line over Flatbush and routed it.

This has similarities to defeatism today over Iraq. Now is the time for a leader to proclaim and explain "Remember what you are contending for!" The first one to hear such a speech should be the moderate President Bush.

Notes on Immigration Reform

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:53:33 GMT

While enjoying a tasty pizza, I took some notes regarding the recent failed attempt at immigration reform in Congress.

Illegal immigration is a symptom of two problems.

The first problem is that legal immigration is hundreds of thousand individuals too low. Twelve million illegal immigrants over twenty years would be 600 K; however, I expect the deficit is probably higher compared to an open system.

The second problem is a disequilibrium of Justice between America and other countries. Despite any complaints I have about the current state of America, it is without a doubt the most just country on the face of the Earth. As Justice is a requirement of human life, individuals will seek it when it is denied them.

The recent congressional effort focused on two issues (1) security of the border with no more future illegals, and (2) legalization for the current illegal aliens.

While conservatives focus on the illegality, the real issue is the undue burden of the law. Its compliance cost is not so much measured in dollars as it is in lives, as measured in years of delays.

A solution to truly fixing the problems with American immigration policy has two elements: (1) increase the amount of legal immigration, and (2) a new bilateral basis for foreign policy that increases the protection of individual rights in other countries. Not HUMAN rights, but INDIVIDUAL rights with a particular emphasis on property rights.

Other issues associated with illegal immigration: (1) migration from second and third to first world, (2) stumbling of globalization, (3) legal compliance costs, and (4) does loss of their productive shift the demographics so that we are losing the source countries to collectivism (see South America)?

These notes cover three broad issues (1) the correct identification of the problem, (2) a valid solution, and (3) the consequences of not solving the problem.

Solid Vox?

Sat, 08 Apr 2006 08:12:05 GMT

I just completed my online application to join Prodos' Solid Vox internet radio network.

One the the exercises was to do show prep for an interview about Barbies. Below is my thoughts on the subject:

The theme of this show will be Barbie as a tool; related to Lee Sandstead's lecture regarding on the "Use Value of Art."

Explore how Barbie is used to improve lives with focus on "a value to whom for what."

The link between the history of Barbie and life is how does Barbie add value to her real life friends.

How does this relate to me and my experiences? I have two daughters, so I have played with Barbie.

Some possible questions....

Barbie demonstrated that girls can be anything (Dr. Barbie, Army Barbie, etc.), how is that still Barbie's role and has Barbie moved beyond that?

Many women today played with Barbie, so how is Barbie relevant to her children today?

Just as my mother shared her dolls with my sisters, how is the Barbie experience relevant to the mother-child relationship today?

If Barbie' niche is role-playing, how does that enhance the development of today's kids?

Unfortunately, sometimes even a kid's life can be tough, as an icon, how can Barbie be used in therapic situations to help kids communicate and resolve psychological issues?

Barbie has not been immune to contravesy, particularly about her figure. How relevant is that today? Is there any real data about eat disorders and unrealistically proportioned Barbies? How does Barbie as a brand promote healthy living through diet and exercise?

The Barbie brand is about more than dolls today. How do other media such a books, videos, and computer games relate to advancing child development?

From a business perspective, the demographics in the US appear to have Barbie against the ropes on a downward slide. What is Barbie doing in potentially growing overseas markets from a financial perspective? How does this relate to advancing individual rights on a world stage? Will what Barbie did for women in the US translate to individual empowerment around the world?

In summary, if my niece's birthday is coming up, how can a Barbie gift be meaningful in her life?

Passionate Valuer Seeks Same

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:44:33 GMT

In January after almost 19 years of marriage, I separated. No condolences necessary as it was a lot of hard work to escape from Oz.

While I look forward to finalizing the divorce, I am concerned about getting into a work rut and not making the effort to meet someone new. Therefore, I opened a profile on Yahoo Personals, and the internet Russian prostitutes have been very impressed, but I had to throw those solicitations back.

I am thinking about rewriting the free form portion of the profile, because that is how it works, right? Not really, but it would be fun to try to describe myself a couple different ways if only for the challenge of it, since it can be difficult to do it once.

Below is the text that is there now. I'm saving it for myself here for future reference.

I am looking for an independent woman who understands and enjoys the power of her own mind. I seek a woman who loves the enjoyment of life, not in the hedonistic self-destructive sense, but in the rational value-based goal-achieving sense that enhances self and life.

My friends describe me as passionate, intelligent, hard working, competitive, inventive, devoted to my kids, easy going, a natural teacher, a leader, honest, dependable, and joyful.

According to my enemies, and any man of integrity should have enemies, I am selfish, opinionated, hard, a know-it-all, intellectual, and inconsiderate of others' feelings. Of course, these sour grapes are twisted versions of some of my virtues.

Please note that Christians will not be happy in a relationship with me, because I hold in reverence productive achievers in reality, my heroes and heroines.

Personally, I recognize myself as having a healthy self-esteem. I am a jack of all trades yet I have been the most knowledgeable person in the world in my specific field at times in my career. While my job description may be system developer, I am more of a businessman in the scope of my professional interests. I take ideas and life very seriously, and for me that leads to serious fun.

The literary character I personally identify with is Hank Rearden in _Atlas Shrugged_.

I am interested in government and foreign policy, yet my politics do not fit into any of the usual categories. In general, I advocate Justice based upon individual rights, which consequently leads to Freedom. IfI had to summarize my opinions in one word, it would be Capitalist; therefore, I am no Republican.

Regarding my body type, average may not quite cut it as I have been bodybuilding. I am somewhere between the before and the after picture. Although I will never become a Mike Mentzer, this effort highlights a few of my better personality attributes: 1) dedication to personal improvement, 2) recognition of the power of choice, and 3) a healthy satisfaction in using my mind to reshape not only the world but also myself.

If you have gotten this far, the fair question would be "What is it that sets Jim apart from all those other profiles?" I am virtuous, and those virtues that I practice are: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

I appear to be running out of writing space so in an effort to cover many topics I will list some of my favorites:

Philosopher: Ayn Rand
CD: DoubleLight's "Assembly of the Wondrous Head"
21st Century Novel: Bernstein's _Heart of a Pagan_
Business book: Collins' _Good to Great_
Football Team: Packers
Food: Pizza
Exercise: Incline Press
Movie: "In Harm's Way" (1965)
Children's book series: Little Critter
TV Show: Law and Order
Comic Book Hero: Mr. A
Painting: Larsen's "Just the Beginning"
Sculpture: Longman's "Genius of Electricity"
Flower: Iris
Band My Daughter Makes Me Listen To In The Car: The Faint

My favorite trips have been to Pike Lake (Wisconsin), Cancun, and Orlando. I love the water, and spending time with family and friends.

Looking at some of the conversation starters, I thought of a question related to those: "If you were on a deserted island, what book would you want with you?" My answer: _1001 Guaranteed Ways to Successfully Escape a Deserted Island_, because I define the terms of my life, which I will be happy to share as an equal partner with the right woman.

The Tyranny of Law

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:22:27 GMT

In the face of conservation objections to illegal immigration, I have become increasingly concerned about the Tyranny of Law.

Today, it is fashionable to talk about the Rule of Law, but is blind obedience to bad law a good thing?

A couple of points to bring together:

(1) Sparrowhawk Book 1 Jake Frake: Minority English response against economic regulation becomes the foundation for the American Revolution.

(2) Hernando de Soto's Mystery of Capitalism which documents how the rule of bad law has undermined democracy in the third world. Look at how almost every country in South America (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Equador, Peru, Chile) is tuning its back on capitalism in favor of more socialist poisin.

(3) Aristotle's Politics discusses the deviant forms of government as tyrannies. What about the law has created the deviant Tyranny of the Law?

From a Former Democrat re: Iraq

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:14:29 GMT

As much as President Bush’s policies in Iraq have been weak and less than effective, Democrats can always be counted on by the White House to protect their right flank by offering an even weaker war policy.

The following Kerry points for disengagement from Iraq were emailed today before President Bush’s speech on Iraq. My comments are inserted:

The president must announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence or bases in Iraq.

Comment: Such a unilateral act by the Administration would violate Kerry’s stated principals of consultation with our allies in the region, and Congress. Further, it is totally out of context as Iraq borders two state sponsors of terrorism (Iran and Syria), which we will attack one day, either because we get a President committed to vigorously winning this war or in response to our enemies continuing attacks. Such counterproductive proposals by Kerry make me grateful for the fact that more Americans voted against John Kerry than any presidential candidate in history.

The United States must also insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the constitution and holding elections in December.

Comment: Perhaps Senator Kerry had is fingers in his ears during and after the recent election campaign as this point has been the Bush Administration’s policy since before the invasion. Further, President Bush’s worst judgments in post-war Iraq have been elevating such political concerns over military necessity. Further, the Iraqi political developments have substantially proceeded along the original Administration timeline. Even within his point, Kerry evades the Bush Administration as the genesis of existing deadlines for political developments in Iraq.

We need to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them.

Comment: Setting an arbitrary deadline without references to changing the facts on the ground and viewing more money as the solution to the problem has morphed from a caricature of Democrats into their siren song. The creation of a professional army to defend Iraq requires not only training, but also the correct recruits. To be useful, the Democrats should authorize the militarily necessary resources without creating political theater for no other purpose than bashing the Administration. Further, how about the Democrats providing some useful ideas about preventing terrorist infiltration of the Iraqi army recruits? Perhaps, John Kerry (USN, Ret. Lt.) could draw on this experience in Vietnam to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senator views his anti-war experiences as more relevant to the problem at hand.

The administration needs to work not just at security but at reconstruction -- Iraqis need to see the electricity working and the water flowing.

Comment: This is an area of particularly potent failure by our Administration, but Senator Kerry proscribes more poison has the cure. Instead of retaining public control over resources and infrastructure, the Bush Administration should have privatized them. This would have had many beneficial effects in Iraq: (1) replace Iraqis dependence on and sense of entitlement from the public sector, (2) focus governmental resources both American and Iraqi on security instead of socialist redistribution, (3) foster the economic engine that sustains civil society, and (4) increase private investment in Iraq consistent with rational risk management by securing property rights. Senator Kerry’s approach is the exact opposite, which will fail in Iraq even faster than such schemes do in the relatively more vibrant West.

The administration needs to get Iraq's neighbors off the sidelines -- they can't afford a failed Iraq on their doorstep, and Bush-style unilateralism needs to bend to getting these countries on board.

Comment: Who? Does Kerry want us to make nice with terrorist sponsors Syria and Iran? Is he suggesting opening Kurdistan up to Turkey so that it will erupt in flames? Kerry should name countries and desired actions instead of mouthing deadly platitudes. Each of Iraq’s neighbors have interests contrary to building a free and stable Iraq; therefore, they do not need to be “consulted” but told when to jump and how high. In the absence of dictating their own policies to them, which would destabilize those governments, the sideline is exactly where they belong. However, in the interest of naming names, Syrian and Iranian actions in support of terrorists that kill our troops should neither be ignored nor addressed only with words of concern as is done by the Bush Administration.

And the administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress.

Comment: Again, the Administration from the beginning has expressed clear milestones. As time has past and some of these milestones have been achieved, the proposed next steps have followed. Whether these have been executed with flawless precision, there is no doubt that they have not and responsibility for that lies with President Bush’s failure to aggressively kill the enemy. However, Kerry’s concern is that he wants date driven milestones instead of event driven milestones, as if a plan in an of itself can change the facts on the ground. As this would be utter foolishness, I have to interpret his request either as a complaint for complaint sake or a desire for Bush to act foolishly to appease critics only to fail when wishing does not make it so.

In Summary, my political recommendation to Democrats: in war, Kerry has demonstrated that he is the master of self-inflicted wounds so muzzle him before the party weakens itself further.

Franklin's Concern on Presidential Vetos

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:07:20 GMT

From Madison's Notes at the Constitution Convention debates (June 4, 1787), the following comment by Frankin is about Presidential vote power:

DOCr. FRANKLIN, said he was sorry to differ from his colleague for whom he had a very great respect, on any occasion, but he could not help it on this. He had had some experience of this check in the Executive on the Legislature, under the proprietary Government of Pena. The negative of the Governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of his salary, or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last it became the regular practice, to have orders in his favor on the Treasury, presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the Governor in the means of self-defence could not be got, till it was agreed that his Estate should be exempted from taxation: so that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to bear no share of the burden. This was a mischievous sort of check. If the Executive was to have a Council, such a power would be less objectionable. It was true the King of G. B. had not, as was said, exerted his negative since the Revolution; but that matter was easily explained. The bribes and emoluments now given to the members of parliament rendered it unnecessary, every thing being done according to the will of the Ministers. He was afraid, if a negative should be given as proposed, that more power and money would be demanded, till at last eno' would be gotten 10 to influence & bribe the Legislature into a compleat subjection to the will of the Executive.

Interesting....it does not really relate to Bush's veto history or lack thereof; however, what about in divided government such as Clinton and the Republican Congress? Not so much in term of personal enrichment, but the featherbedding of programs for supporters.

Update 6/5/2005: In the context of of Bush's veto threat against expanded federal support for stem cell research, is this a non-monetary demand for compensation, a validation of religious irrationality? Does the continuation of human suffering from disease give support to religion (it's ideology, it's funding, it's recruiting)?

Middle East Elections?

Sat, 28 May 2005 15:24:18 GMT

The principle benefit of elections as such is the long-term stability achieved via the creation of a non-violent method for political change independent of the continuing virtue of a single individual, family, or party. In addition to the potential for a positive change, elections can bring a change toward evil, or from one form of evil to another.

In considering the prospects for elections in the Middle East, the condition of elections in South America should be examined as it has been a poster-child for moving from authoritarian regimes toward elections. Polls that I saw a couple years ago indicted growing popular disfavor with “democracy” and nostalgia for authoritarianism across the region.

Rioting has replaced the ballot box as the method for expelling Presidents in Ecuador. Demonstrations have brought down Presidents in Peru and Argentina. The Colombian electoral processes have included assassinations. In Venezuela, official violence during elections has become the rule for a government that maintains gangs of thugs to deploy against its political opponents. Further, elections have installed socialists in Chile and Brazil, which has led to additional decay in their civil society.

Based upon my current reading of Hernando de Soto’s Mystery of Capitalism: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, one core problem is that the change to elections do not necessarily translate into creating the economic freedom necessary for human life.

In the third world and former communist states, because of the onerous bureaucratic processes consuming years in order to get legal permission to start a business or build a house, extra-legality has become the norm for economic activity and prevents these assets from becoming capital in legally enforceable contracts. Jack Frake and the gang would find ominous parallels between Peru today and England in Sparrowhawk’s Book I.

While President Bush has advocated elections as a path to Freedom, he had failed to recognize that Reason and Justice are Freedom’s necessary precursors, and these are in short supply in the Middle East.

The Television Effect

Sat, 07 May 2005 03:30:15 GMT

While browsing through The Ayn Rand Letter, I found this interesting observation by Ayn Rand about the televised Senate Watergate hearings:

Whatever other truth the televised Senate hearings on Watergate may disclose or obfuscate, there is one truth which they have resoundingly succeeded in disclosing: the characters of men representing a good cross section of both political parties. We had a chance to see, under the luminous microscope of a television camera, the kind of men who run this country’s government. “Government,” to most people, is a big, vague, floating abstraction; the hearings concretized it. The question I would like to ask the viewers who stuck it out to the end of the first phase, is: Do you feel respect for the men on either side of the long committee table? [“The Principals…,“ ARL, Vol. II, No. 19, p 209 in bound edition].

Despite our media-savvy pols of today, this observation still hold true. It is not as evident in sound-bites and commercials; however, if they are left to speak uninterrupted in front of a camera, then they inevitably show themselves.

Negative examples of this television effect are easy to find such as Senator Boxer during the Rice confirmation hearings, and Rep. Delay’s attacks on the judiciary regarding the Schiavo case. On television, the pragmatic President Bush alternates between inspired rhetoric and debilitating altruistic bromides like a metronome within the same speech. As examples of television displaying politicians in a generally good light, I would cite Secretary of War Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney.

Meanwhile, despite the television effect, the unfavorable characteristics of individuals depicted in Ayn Rand’s description of the Watergate hearing, which she had cited as paralleled in the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, are still prominent in politics today; the names have changes but the vices remain the same.