Oops, I think I'm in the wrong house...

On the way to work this morning I heard a story about a burglar in England who got more than he bargained for. Yep, Greg McCalium, a 23 year old burglar, burgled the house of 71 year old Frank Corti. Frank was laying in bed with his wife Margaret when he was woken by noises; Frank got up to check out the situation. Greg lunged at Frank with a knife after Frank stumbled upon him in the hall way. Frank simply ducked and then decked the burglar with two massive right hooks. Frank then made a citizen's arrest and watched Greg as he waited for the cops to show up. Here's what Greg looked like after he was taken in:



Here's a picture of Frank:



For all those who think Frank got lucky, think again. Frank is an ex-boxer. In fact, he boxed as a featherweight in the Royal Engineers, and also at the age of 16 won the National Association of Boys Clubs Championship.

Greg's lawyer said that Greg looked like he was the victim of a "car accident". Maybe Greg will think twice before resorting to burglary again!

Heres a link to the whole story as reported by "The Sun" (a UK newspaper).

The Pride Cycle In Our Day...

I came across an article written by David Galland through my free newsletter subscription from John Mauldin. John is a bit of an economist and investment advisor and I was referred to his site by a stock broker I am acquainted with. John has good tidbits now and again so I thought I'd share some information from this week's newsletter. The article is about David's 1997 interview with Neil Howe, a historian/Washington DC-based economist and demographer, concerning Howe's book "The Fourth Turning".

Howe has a theory that every 20 or 30 years our society goes through a turning. A turning comes with each new generation and there are four cyclical turnings that we go through as a society every 80 to 90 years. That's what made me think of the pride cycle that I was taught about in seminary; the pride cycle basically says that society goes through these periods where people are humble and then become prosperous so they then become pridefull and then get humbled through trials, and then it starts over again.

Here's what Howe's "turning" theory states:

1) Turning one - "High" - this period follows a crisis and there is a heightened sense of community and collective sense of optimism as society has just made it through a difficult and challenging time. The most recent "High" was roughly 1940 to 1960.

2) Turning two - "Awakening" - during this period there are signs of progress and prosperity everywhere. Major portions of society begins to chaff under conformity and gravitates to more individualistic pursuits. People begin to demand that their personal interests come first. There is a huge anti-establishment movement during these time periods. The most recent "Awakening" was roughly 1960 to 1980.

3) Turning three - "Unraveling" - individualism dominates this period; institutions are increasingly weak and discredited. It is a time of celebrity circuses and a tremendous amount of personal freedom and creativity. There is little sense of public purpose. The most recent "Unraveling" was roughly 1980 to 2000. (Examples include 1760's, 1850's and 1920's - can anyone say flapper?)

4) Turning four - "Crisis" - during this period seemingly insurmountable problems are addressed, society's basic institutions are torn down and rebuilt. The changes during this period involve a great deal of pain and a reduced standard of living for a large number of people, but by the time the "Crisis" subsides, society will have pretty much remade itself in ways that no one can predict at this point. According to Howe, we are in the beginning stages of this period. The last "Crisis" period was roughly 1920 to 1940. (Examples of "Crisis" times include the Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783, the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, and the Great Depression and World War II from 1929 to 1945; I noted that there seems to be some overlapped in some of the turnings - I'm not sure that this is reconcilable other than I don't think the 20 to 30 and 80 to 90 year time frames are necessarily set-in stone; I think it is more of a pattern).

According to Howe, individuals born between 1982 and 2004 belong to a Millennial generation that will become a "Hero" generation, just like the GI Generation that coped so well with the turmoil of the Great Depression and World War II. According to Howe, we as a society have seen dramatic improvements in youth behaviors since the Millennials have come along such as huge declines in violent crime, teenage pregnancy, and the most damaging forms of drug abuse, as well as higher rates of community service and volunteering.

Here's a closer look at the "Crisis" turning:

A) Government grows powerful, and sweeping legislation is enacted.

B) While public history speeds up, personal life slows down (i.e. families will spend more time together).

C) Innovation tends to stagnate, while a few technologies will be chosen to be adopted on a large scale.

D) New laws and regulations will do less to referee a free market and more to pursue one or another national priority.

E) The authority and obligations of community will strengthen at all levels, from local to national and possibly beyond.

F) In the past, the fourth turning always resulted in the nation redefining who we are in some essential way.

G) Baby Boomers will continue to be respected for their cultural achievements, but will be increasingly ignored in the political debate.

H) There will be a growing push to rebuild the middle class.

As I mentioned the interview with Howe was in 1997 when Howe's book "The Fourth Turning" was published. Below is an excerpt from David's article:

"... an excellent case can be made the US is approaching another time of secular crisis, a Fourth Turning, with an expected due date of 2005 - seven years from now - plus or minus a few years in either direction.

The Stamp Acts catalyzed the American Revolution, the election of Lincoln catalyzed the Civil War, the Crash of '29 catalyzed the Depression/WW II era. What might precipitate the elements now floating in solution? The answer is practically any random event that's sufficiently traumatic. Any of the theses of current disaster/action novels and movies will do nicely. Perhaps the accidental or intentional release of a super plague vector. The crashing of an airliner into the Capitol during a joint session. An all-out assault on the IRS computers by an armed group - or perhaps the computers just melting down due to the Year 2000 Problem. Perhaps a financial disaster that cascades into the Greater Depression. In any of these, or a hundred other scenarios, the federal government would almost certainly act precipitously and with a heavy hand, which would bring on a whole other set of consequences.

There's no way of telling where the Crisis will lead, or how it will end. That's going to depend not only on exactly who's in control, but what they do, who they're up against, and a hundred other variables we can't even anticipate.

One thing that seems certain is that real crisis brings out strong leadership. Because of its age and size, it will come from the Boomer generation, and it will be in the mold of Roosevelt or Lincoln - both very dangerous precedents. The Boomers in elderhood will be dogmatic, harsh, puritanical, and quite willing to burn down the barn in order to destroy whatever rats they see. Admix that attitude to a time resembling the Revolution, the Civil War, or WWII, overlain with today's ethnic strife, urbanization, financial overextension, and powerful, compact new weaponry in the hands of foreign fanatics out to teach the Great Satan a lesson and it's a real witch's brew."

If what Howe said is true, then indeed we are in for more government involvement in everything and that it will be 40 or 50 years from now when we see the second turning come around again and we see a return to the celebration of individual rights.

What is the saying? Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it...

I was wondering why it was getting warmer as I typed

According to research from Harvard University, two searches on Google produce the same amount of carbon dioxide as that of a boiling kettle. Yep, it is believed that each Google search throws off 7 grams of carbon. The research bases this off the theory that the power used by both the user's computer and Google's data center and multiple servers used for each query.

I must admit, this is pretty heady research. I can see the Harvard student who gets his/her doctorate degree from doing this study when asked "So what was the thesis that put you over the top to getting your doctorate" - "Yeah, I computed how much carbon dioxide is generate per Google search." That's definitely something to be proud of; way to put that Harvard education to good use! Yeah, I know, I'm just being jealous because I didn't get into Harvard - I'm sure the researchers on this particular project will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when they graduate or working in the rain forest making $100 a month studying tree frogs.

Here's the article for all those that are interested.

Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Capitalist, Socialist, Libertarian, Marxist, Constitutionalism, and everything else

One of the people at my work gave me three hours of Glenn Beck to listen to (actually less than 3 hours, because there were no commercials.) I believe the 3 hours were from the show Glenn Beck did on June 9, 2009. Glenn's show pitted Progressives vs the Founding Fathers of the country. He indicated that there is a move toward a rejection of the Founding Fathers and a movement towards a Great Society. This Society is to be a soft dictatorship, much like the early days of the Mussolini. Glenn indicated that the Progressive philosophy has infiltrated both the Republican and Democrat parties, and that we are in the last stages of the Progressives' take-over of the United States government that first started in the 1920's. He also stated that those that don't support the Progressives' viewpoint are outnumbered as the the Progressives have controlled the writing of history and have led the United States down a slippery slope of tolerance and changeable values, and that the "rule of law" is being overturned in favor of the "rule of men". Glenn said that "law should be predictable" and that by Obama appointing "Czars" over various industries, the "rule of men" was usurping the "rule of law". Further, Glenn is of the opinion that Progressivism is a cancer that causes cultures that embrace it to become dead.

That sounded quite conspiratorial to me, so I decided to do some Wiki-ing to see if I could make heads or tails of all of this.

According to Wikipedia, the Progressive ideology favors or advocates changes or reforms usually in a statist or egalitarian (i.e. participants of society are equal standing and equal access to the economic resources of power, wealth, and contribution) direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism made great strides under Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Progressivists tend to support interventionist economics (income redistribution) and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives support organized labor and trade unions, introduce a living wage, and often support the creation of a universal health care system. They are concerned with environmentalism and are often skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are opposed to violent revolution. Some Progressives advocate a planned economy (similar to what Socialism advocates), some advocate both public and private ownership of companies, and others lean toward social democracy (reformation of capitalism through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism).

After reading all of this, I am of the opinion that "Yes", Obama is a Progressive. In listening to him speak, it is very apparent that he wants to remove social injustice and inefficiencies he sees in capitalism. He supports unions and a universal healthcare system. He has requested reform in government and he wants to redistribute wealth.

Is Obama the next Mussolini? I don't see think so; no more than Teddy, FDR, Taft, Wilson, or Johnson were. Is what Obama and the government doing right now the best thing for the United States? I'm not sure. Certainly the thinking is utilitarian as they are trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Many of the decisions that have been made over the course of the last year have been utilitarian as there would have been significant pain for a great number of people had the Federal Reserve and the United States government not interceded in the financial system. Is there a possibility that we could still see significant pain for a great number of people? Yes, unemployment is hovering close to 10% and if the steps that have been taken don't work, this number will be much higher. Would we have been better-off by not doing anything? Did we just delay the inevitable collapse with a bandaid? Only time will tell.

Save the Bloggers & The Clock Tower!

In my quest to find the ultimate in web-site monetization solutions, I came across Contenture.com today. If you visit the site, it boldly says, "Welcome to the Micropayment Revolution". Normally, web content providers utilize ads and links that people click on to produce revenue. According to Contenture, "The internet as we know it is unsustainable. Sites and services are closing left and right because ads often don't even cover the cost of the servers that are delivering the content."

What is Contenture's solution? Charge web-surfers $5.99 a month, take 20% off the top to cover its costs (versus the normal 50% Pay Per Click providers take), and then allocate the remaining monthly amount of $4.79 to the network of Contenture web-sites visited by the web-surfer during the month (thereby rewarding the web-sites most frequented by Contenture users). So Contenture users seem to pay out of the goodness of their hearts to keep their regularly frequented content providers in business. Scoonie and I thought about this for a minute and then said, "No"; so do we need to be more giving? Does it make sense to pay for something that is normally free?

Looking closer at the arrangement, I note that Contenture does have some features that may provide incentives for people to become a Contenture user. These features include giving paying members: (1) priority access to new articles, (2) exclusive access to their archives, (3) special commenting abilities, (4) an ad free experience on their network of web-sites, etc. Contenture calls these "premium level" features and/or "microservices".

Well, now that I think of it, the ad free experience may be worth the $5.99 a month to Scoonie if web-sites go to audio ads!