HeeHaw the Baby Miniature Donkey Was Shot and Killed At His Own Home

 There's a story in the news, that changes slightly as I've read or heard about it over the last couple of days.  The story, as I understand it, is that Sunday morning, a little before 1:00, at a farm in Georgia, police had entered private property with the intentions of searching for a missing child.  My understanding is that they didn't notify the property owners ahead of the search or warn them, they were just on the property unannounced.  The 4 month old miniature donkey, named HeeHaw, ran out to the police, as he saw everyone as friends and wanted to play with them.  One of the officers "felt threatened" and shot and killed HeeHaw.

Understandably, the family is devastated.  As I understand it, the owner is denouncing people calling for violence against the police.  She just wants accountability.  Her beloved pet is dead, even though it never left it's fenced property.  At approximately 3 feet tall, how could any grown man feel threatened by a 4 month old miniature donkey?

I sympathize with the owner.  It could easily have been a family dog.  In fact, I've read cases of police killing family pets (dogs) several times over the past few years, including some in the Tulsa area.  In one case, the police went to the wrong address to serve a warrant, entered the property announced, and killed the family dog.  And then afterwards, they want the family and the public to accept that they were just doing their jobs and made a mistake on the address.

My personal opinion is that more care should be taken to verify addresses before entering property, and definitely before violence against a home owner or a pet.

I feel frustrated because I think about my dog.  She's a Rottweiler.  She's big, but she's playful and considered everyone to be a potential playmate.  If police entered our property and we weren't warned ahead of time, our dog could easily be outside and vulnerable to a trigger happy cop.  I just think that if you keep your property fenced, and if you take care to keep your pets inside the fence, it's frustrating to think that this is not enough to keep your pets safe.  They can still end up just like HeeHaw.

I read about a case of a dog being shot to death recently too; I think it was in one of the Carolinas.  And it was a similar case of the wrong address.

I read about another case where a woman called the police because she saw a neighbor with a gun.  When the police finally arrived, they couldn't find the man, so they went to the woman's addressed and treated her with hostility instead.  Her little pet dog ran out of the front door while the woman was talking with police, and one of the idiot cops shot the dog, despite the fact, that it was a reasonably small dog; a yelper.

Despite being shot, the dog was still alive, but the cops wouldn't let the woman leave to take her dog to a vet.  They blocked her car so that she couldn't leave, and she had to plead with them for about 10 minutes before she was finally able to take the dog in for treatment.  Luckily, that delay didn't cost the dog's life, and my understanding is that the dog will make a full recovery.

Geez.  These stories keep coming up, and each time, nothing is done to protect the public.  We should have a reasonable feeling of security for our own lives, the lives of our pets, and of our private property; especially if we are law abiding citizens and have done nothing wrong.  Yet, on and on similar stories occur.

I don't know what else can be said about this, but I hope the municipality that hired that cop are sued and have to pay a hefty sum.  I know that wont bring HeeHaw back, but maybe if these cases keep resulting in expensive lawsuits, eventually something will be done to minimize this sort of thing.  As it is, they still happen at an alarming rate. 

Was the United States Founded On Slavery?

 We often hear people who hate their own country, tell us that the United States was founded on slavery; that it was founded on racism.  Unfortunately, our public education system has done an abysmal job of teaching history.  In many cases, public education has actually perpetuated this idea of how the country was founded.  But it is not true; certainly not in the way that they are claiming.

It is true that racism has existed for centuries, but has existed this way everywhere and in every culture in the world.  It doesn't matter what color the people are, they all have racist views of the people of other colors throughout the world.

One of the first things that these people cite as reason for their belief is the "three-fifths compromise".  This has been taught in public school and has formed the opinion in the minds of millions of student, but it is a horrible misunderstanding (misstating) of what the three-fifths compromise was and what it really meant.  and the truth is, it meant exactly the opposite of what people think it meant.

First of all, the three-fifth compromise was not a statement of individual worth.  It was a compromise to deal with slave states that wanted to count their slave population in the census, and therefore have an advantage in power and representation in the House of Representatives.

The frames of the country wanted these states to join the union, but they all agreed that slavery would have to ultimately be eliminated, but if the slave states were counting their slave population, they would maintain power in Congress, and would never end slavery.  So a compromise had to be made.

At first, the framers stated that we could hardly count slaves in the census if they were not citizens and not allowed to vote.  The slave states countered that although the slaves are not slaves, they were like livestock and a part of the population.  The frames countered by stating that if that were the case, the union states would count their cattle.

This debate went back and fourth, and they finally settled on the three-fifths compromise.  And this compromise, I've still over-simplified since the ratio was different for female slaves.  But non-the-less, this was the compromise settled on.   It gave slave states extra seats in the House of Representatives and electoral votes.

The compromise had an affect of allowing the slave states to push for and elect pro-slavery presidents, but ultimately, this advantage didn't last.

After the Civil War, that compromise was nullified with the 14th Amendment.

But the three-fifth compromise is not the only reason the people that insist that the United States has always been a racist country, are wrong.  There's also the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", drafted into the Constitution by Thomas Jefferson.  The statement came from European philosophy and the current colonial discourse.

The original phase was "Life, Liberty, and Property".  The aspect of property was mentioned because of how things were in feudal Europe, where the lords, governors, kings, could take private property of the workers are any time they felt like it.   So the concept of private property being protected under this new government, was a primary concern.  However, the founders felt that this would allow the slave states to assume a Constitutional right to their property, which would include slaves.  The founders wanted to avoid anything that would ingrain slavery in the new country.

The word "property" was changed to "happiness" because they knew that not everyone owned property.  Poor people, indentured servants, slaves, couldn't claim property, but they needed to be included and have the aspirational right to happiness and for self determination.

In another case, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote to King George III, and condemned him for waging a "cruel war against human nature itself" and keeping an open market where "men were bought and sold".  This ultimately was dropped from the declaration in order to get a unanimous vote, which they wouldn't have gotten without the slave states.  But statement shows the intention of the frames from the very beginning of the country. 

Vermont abolished slavery in their state constitution in 1777.

In Massachusetts, it was determined that slavery was illegal in 1781.

Six states had abolished slavery by the time the US Constitution took affect.

There was a federal ban on slavery in the new western territories in 1787.

There are other examples of how the country was founded with a different mindset from what we are being told over and over. 

Is Our Society Really Male Dominated

 We hear it over and over.  I've heard it all my life, and I think we all have.  We've been conditioned to believe it, but is it true?  Is our society really male dominated?

The vast majority of wealth is owned by men.

Women do more unpaid labor. (ie. house wives, mothers, etc)

However, the wealth mentioned is a tiny proportion of men, whereas the vast majority of disaffected people are men.  The vast majority of people in prison are men.  The vast majority of the homeless are men.  Most victims of violent crime are men.  Most people who commit suicide are men.  Most people who die in wars are men.

People who do worse in school are men, and there are no programs encouraging them in math in sciences like there are for women.

When you look at the fuller picture, dominance isn't quite how we've been conditioned to feel about it.

It is true that in the past, men were the bosses of companies.  They were the majority of the political leaders.  There was a day and age where women were not allowed to own property.  But the property restriction went away.  The glass ceiling has been broken in management and in politics, with women being the CEOs of some of the biggest corporations in the United States, and in some cases, the world.

Looking at the subject with modern eyes, and stepping back for a moment, it becomes clear that we've been conditioned to look at a tiny sample of highly successful people (men) and drawing a conclusion that this is male domination.  But if this were true, why are there more homeless men than women?  Why are there more men in prison than women?  And why are so many more men killed in war than women?

The whole subject seems cloudy, but looking at the broader picture and ignoring what we've been conditioned to conclude, it calls into question how true the statement of male domination in our society really is. 

EPA Rules Do the Opposite of Their Intentions

 EPA rules, when it comes to car manufacturing, and specifically, truck manufacturing, for the most part, do the opposite of their intentions.  The standards encourage manufacturers to increase fuel economy, but the rules based on vehicle size unintentionally encourage larger vehicles.

 Footprint Standards: The EPA measures fuel economy targets based on a vehicles "footprint" (the area between its wheels).  Larger vehicles are given a lower, easier-to-reach fuel efficiency, while smaller vehicles face stricter (harder to reach) fuel efficiency standards.

Since it is easier meet compliance standards with bigger vehicles, manufacturers build bigger trucks, rather than spending more money in the effort to squeeze more efficiency from smaller vehicles.

Large vehicles such as trucks and SUVs yield higher profits for manufacturers, making it easier to justify the investment of the bigger frames that satisfy the more lenient standards.

Emissions v Fuel Economy: While the EPA regulates air pollutants and greenhouse gases, heavy-duty commercial trucks have different measurement exemptions and classifications compared to cars. and this shifts manufacturer priorities when it comes to emissions and fuel economy. 

Why Do Bad Ideas Come From Academia as Well As Other Elites?

 Over the course of time, it seems that some of the worst ideas imaginable for society, have come from academia and/or other elists.  Why is this?

In short, it is because certain fields lack the immediate, self-correcting feedback of physical or economic reality.  Those ideas are developed in a vacuum immune from reality; absent of reality.

Fields in business or in engineering, on the other hand, face harsh feedback, in the form of testing, of bad ideas.  These fields have to operate in reality.  They can't exist in a vacuum.  A bridge built with faulty engineering will collapse.  An economic model based on false (or limited) assumptions fails in the market.

And the truth is, the fields that escape reality, have an endless list of ideas they think ought to be tried, and there's zero accountability if they turn out to be wrong.  Those who promote those ideas write academic papers, and get published, and many support theses; but there is never any accountability for being wrong.  No one loses their PhD for having bad ideas.  No professor loses his job for being wrong.

Whereas, in fields such as engineering, people are expected to base their statements on testing to prove their assertions.  In in the real world, anyone that consistently steers a company down a path with disastrous ideas, loses their job.  However, this is not true in government or in academia.  So bad ideas abound, and bad ideas continue.  There is no connection to reality.

 Academic careerism incentivizes high-volume output over practical use.  This rewards sensationalism and/or conformity over truth.   It pushes publishing of papers, regardless or the usefulness of the ideas or the truth in content.

Complex jargon and ideological frameworks sometimes become internal credentialing mechanisms in academia, where challenging those ideas risks professional ostracization rather intellectual correction based on facts.

Currently, it is built into the academic systems to avoid intellectual correction of ideas.  So bad ideas are perpetuated.  Challenging those ideas is strongly discouraged.

Likewise, in other fields, such as news media, challenging these promoted ideas can cost someone their job.  So for the most part, people tow the party line and avoid deviation from anything other than the approved language. 

Book Smart / Street Dumb

 I continually see people that I know are book smart, but they seem incredibly dumb at times.  And it seems that the times when they are dumb, it's often the simplest of practical, everyday, things that most people would know.

I know someone that was an A student in mathematics and physics, but as far as I can tell, is functionally a moron when it comes to common sense.

There was the case of a screw that came loose on his storm door.  He claimed that the screw was stripped out and that the whole storm door or at least the handle would need to be replaced.  And I knew that the handle on that storm door was less than two years old, and I also knew that storm doors are not screwed into from the handle.  The screw for the door handle goes from a plate on the inside of the door, through the door to the plate on the outside of the door.

So I checked the door.  I held the plate on the outside of the door flash against the door, and then from the inside, easily screwed into the handle and into the outer plate.  I tightened it.  The issue was resolved in two minutes or less.

This is a mechanical thing that anyone over 25 years old should already know.

There was another case where this same guy had to chain a mower to a car port post, to secure it so that no one could easily steal the mower.  the thing is, he looped the chain onto the mower and then back onto a lock.  The lock was secured to the chain and the mower, but he wasn't smart enough to also loop it all around the post.  So any thief could just grab the mower and roll it away, dragging the chain with the lock on behind.

How could any adult miss something so simple.

And then there was a young man that I knew that used to carry all of his video games, CDs, DVDs, DVD player and game console(s) in the back seat of his car.  I told him that thieves would see that stuff in his backseat and break into the car and steal it.  He didn't believe me at first.  He asked "how will they know I have this stuff?"
I had to answer, "all they have to do is walk by the car in a parking lot, or while it is parked at the curb, and look in the back seat.

He still didn't believe me.  He said, "Why would they do that?"

I said, "Because that's what thieves do.  They look for things to steal and opportunities to do it.  And you are putting that stuff on display."

So the next time I saw him, he explained that he solved the problem.  I looked in the back seat, and he had shopping bags and a box full of stuff.  You couldn't tell what was in them, but you could tell that they were packaged with something.

I had to then explain to him that he'd have been better off just leaving the stuff out in view, because now he's made it easier for the thieves to carry his stuff off; because now it's all in bags and a box.

He didn't seem to understand the problem.

"The thief walks by ten cars in the parking lot, and looks in each one for something to steal", I said.

"If nine cars have nothing visible, but he comes by your car, he might not know what it is you have, but he knows you have something that might possibly be worth something.", I said, "and he's looking for something that he can sell for a quick buck."

I kept telling him that it was okay to have that stuff package up like he had it, but that he needed to put it away in his trunk where it couldn't been seen, and to not put it there in front of witnesses (his friends' neighbors).  I told him to pack up at his home, and then when he returns, take that stuff back into his house.

Well, I followed my advise for a while, but got lazy and just left it in the back seat.  

He was robbed soon after that.  He lost everything, but it costed him several hundred dollars to replace the window that the thieves broke to get into his car.

I didn't say "I told you so."  I just shook my head in disbelief that I even had to explain this stuff to him over and over and he still didn't get it.

 And then there's another guy that I know that has an advanced degree, and is a teacher.  When the Covid-19 pandemic first hit, businesses were shutting down.  I knew a lot of people that were losing their jobs and trying to figure out how to survive.  I knew business owners that were losing their customers (because their customers were out of work), and they were trying to figure out how to keep their businesses open.

So my first concern was my friend, so I asked him if he knew what he was going to do.  His response floored me.

"I don't have to worry about it, because I have my own business."  He said, "I'm not like everyone working in the corporate world."

I asked him, "what do your customers do for a living?"

He was stunned and didn't answer me.  It had finally hit him that the pandemic was going to affect him, just like it was affecting everyone else.  I was just amazed that someone with an advanced education couldn't figure this out on his own.

I could go on with other people that I know that have advanced education, including one person with a Ph.D, that had views that didn't match with reality at all.

In the end, I just said, "Book Smart, Street Dumb".  Someone might come up with a better way to paraphrase it, but that's what I see.  There are a lot of people that we typically think of as smart individuals, but when it comes to real life situations, they are complete morons. 

Data Centers

 I have always felt that having a data center built was a good thing for the local economy.  It would mean jobs.  There would be advantages in having them.  Plus, in the global AI race, it would be good to be on top, rather than fall behind enemy countries like China, who are not developing AI to benefit the rest of the world.

Regardless of what you think of AI, or the AI race, data centers bring jobs to the area.

But, so many people are against them.  Every time there is a hint of a data center being built somewhere, the locals come out in droves to protest it, and urge their representatives to prohibit them from being built.

Part of this is just hysteria.  There are people that know nothing about what data centers are, and they are afraid of what they don't know.

There is the legitimate concern for their water usage.  According to what I've read, some of these data centers use a tremendous amount of water each day for cooling.  This water usage would definitely impact what usage for people and businesses in the area.

Then there's the power concerns.  The data centers use a huge amount of electricity to operate, and this puts a definite strain on the local power grid.

But there are data centers that do not have these impacts on water and power.  There are data centers being built right now that use different cooling technology, and use much less water, or no water at all, for cooling.  And on top of that, they generate their own power.  So a data center of this type has benefits to the local community, with few, if any, drawbacks.

I'm hoping that the newer ways of building and operating data centers will take hold, and lessen the local resistance to change.