Pretzel Logic in Washington DC

It gets to the point where the pretzel logic of America's top leaders can no longer be ignored, despite the fact that it is a tiring, time consuming activity to refute their illogical ways.

Example 1: a top US national leader, after the attacks on the World Trade Center, said that because the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, which was a leading location for international trade, therefore anybody who is against free trade is a terrorist.

The statement in example 1 makes no sense. It's like saying: Yesterday a child abuser was murdered. Therefore you are a terrorist because you are against child abuse.

Example 2: a top US national leader, said that politicians such as him were not to blame for the fact that money intended to deal with the problem of money being lost on bad mortgages, was given to the banks instead, because they, the politicians, did not know that the money would be given to the banks instead.

The statement in example 2 makes no sense either. It's like saying, "I'm not to blame for the fact that I let a lion into the house and it ate my child. I did'nt know that the lion would eat my child". The politicians could have written a clause into the legislation, which would have served to prevent money from being given to people the politicans did not want it given to. But they did not. And then they turn around and say, "it's not our fault, we did'nt know that the money would be given to the banks".

Example 3: Another top US national leader, a pro-free-trade guy, said that free trade is good, because when some of America's most insignificant trading partners reduced restrictions on American exports, America's balance of trade with these trading partners improved.

The statement in example 3 also makes no sense. What America has been involved in, international trade with insignificant restrictions placed on imports, is what people in general and the pro-free-trade crowd call "free trade". The fact that when a few relatively tiny nations reduced restrictions on imports, America's balance of trade with these nations improved, does not even come close to proving that the current "free trade" situation is good for America. The fact is, that a nation's trade balance always improves when an exports recipient reduces restrictions on the nation's exports. At the same time undeniably, the facts are that: nations can damage themselves by reducing restrictions on imports; and, nations can benefit through governmental or private sector actions that reduce imports. Therefore, it is illogical to say that "free trade" is good for America simply because America's trade situation improved when a trading partner reduced restrictions on American exports.

The ivory-tower pro-free-trade theories ignore the fact that aside from government restrictions and tariffs on imports, nation X can take advantage of nation Y, by hating nation Y more than nation Y hates nation X. Nation X being more allergic to imports from nation Y compared to nation Y's attitude to imports from nation X can result in a flow of money away from nation X to nation Y.

Example 4: Over and over again, we hear from the pro-free-traders about Smoot-Hawley. As far as they are concerned, this proves that tariffs are bad and free trade is good.

The attitude expressed in example 4 is also illogical. Prior to the depression, almost 100 years ago, America raised its tariffs, by way of the Smoot-Hawley act. This was followed by the depression. Yet the fact that one event is followed by another event, does not mean the second event caused the first event. If it rains after the Red Sox win a baseball game, that does not mean that the rain was caused by the Red Sox winning the baseball game. When Smoot-Hawley raised American tariffs on imports, American tariffs were at a much higher level, compared to the level they are at now. Therefore, to say that what happened after Smoot Hawley increased American tariffs proves that America should not now increase tariffs on imports, is illogical. It's like saying that since a doctor killed a patient by prescribing too much of some medicine, therefore that medicine is bad. yet people can be killed even by drinking too much water. 100 years ago, America's net international investment position was much better than it is now. 100 years ago, America had not been running enormous trade and budget deficits year after year for dozens of years. Nobody says that since anti-cancer drugs accomplish nothing for those who do not have cancer, therefore they should not be used on people who do have cancer.
100 years ago, (taking into account inflation), it was more expensive to transport goods thousands of miles, and the wage differential between America and America's trading partners was less. The fact that something was bad 100 years ago, does not mean that it is bad today. You don't hear anybody saying that we should drop atomic bombs on Japan today because dropping an atomic bomb on Japan brought WW II to an end 65 years ago.

The illogical pretzel logic coming out of Washington DC would be shocking were it not for the fact that we have been bombarded by so much mischief that we have gotten used to it. The media and the public's failure to notice the lack of logic in the illogical statements is disconcerting. Seems a factor in this is that throwing free market theory aside, academic credentials, the attainment of which requires abnormal ability in terms of rote memorization and brainspeed, have been empowered by way of goverment intervention. Yet the scientific fact is, even morons can memorize entire books. Thousands of poor kids in Pakistan memorize the entire Koran, even before they can understand the meaning of the Arabic words they are memorizing. Memorization and brainspeed are not the same thing as logic. Just as a fool in a fast car can get lost in a complicated city, so also fast brainspeed does not necessarily produce wise results. One cannot help but thinking, despite one's desire to be inoffensive in the eyes of the famous and powerful, that bribed, robotic men, do not need to think logically and so therefore become incompetent in the art of thinking logically. President Nixon said that the (tariff-protected) America of 1969, was the best time and place in history for a human to live. He also said, that the mind is a muscle--using the mind builds the strength of the mind just as using a muscle builds the strength of the muscle. But if people don't need to use their mind because they are a bribed robot, or a puppet with a gun to his head, or both, then their ability to think logically declines.

@2010 David Virgil Hobbs

Night of Feb 19 running shoes footwear experiment & rant re tactics vs strategy, Smoot-Hawley

Thursday night of Feb 19 was the first night since Feb 5 that I would say that I was not "under the weather". I did the six mile course around the block, jogging the first third and fifth miles, walking the second fourth and sixth miles, timing myself after the fifth mile.

Night of Thursday Feb 19 the time was either 72 minutes or 82 minutes. I thought the time was 72 minutes starting at 336 AM Feb 20 to be exact, but I think that I actually started at 326 AM so the time was 82 minutes. I ended at 449 AM Feb 20, subtracted one minute for tying my shoes twice.

I had earlier decided that I could remember the start time, and that writing the start time down on a card was unnecessary. This might be wrong. When you write down the start time you can forget about the start time, which is relaxing and frees the mind to think of other things.

Digression:

Reminds me of how emphasis on rote memorization can be harmful as the mind is un-freed to do things other than memorization.

Likewise with emphasis on solving problems extremely quickly compared to the average man, the emphasis on solving problems quickly leads to the mind not being available for something other than mental sprinting.

End digression.

The night of Thursday Feb 19 time of 82 minutes for the five miles around the block would be a new personal record, 4 minutes faster than the new 86 minutes personal record set Feb 17. The fast time was again evidence of the power of taking a day off (the previous day there was no running).

The Adistar Control 5 shoes again worn today, were adequate for the cold and snow. The temp was 21 degrees, thin layer of soft snow on the ground, certain areas for several yards featured unavoidable slippery ice. The Adistar Control 5 shoes breathe more than the Adidas Powerline crosstrainers, the foot gets colder in the Control 5s.

Weather during Feb 19 run link:

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/wxStationGraphAll?day=20&year=2009&month=2&ID=KMAWESTO6&type=3&width=500&showsolarradiation=1&showtemp=1&showpressure=1&showwind=1&showwinddir=1&showrain=1

Footwear today:

Left shoe:
foam/gel heel-to-toe insole +
'toe bed' (forefoot gel pad ball of foot and toes) +
CVS 'toe bandage' (toe tube) for big toe +
tube made of 2 layers Mueller M-wrap for index toe + tube made of 2 layers Mueller M-wrap for middle toe +
pad made of 16 layers Mueller m-wrap around sides and rear of heel.

Right shoe:
foam/gel heel-to-toe insole +
'toe bed' (forefoot gel pad ball of foot and toes) +
pad made of 8 layers Mueller M-wrap glued to area beneath big, index and middle toes in toe area of gel forefoot pad +
CVS 'toe bandage' (toe tube) for index toe +
CVS 'toe bandage' (toe tube) for middle toe +
pad made of 16 layers Mueller m-wrap around sides and rear of heel.

As has always been the case thus far, the removeable insole that comes pre-installed in the shoes were also worn.

The glue used was 'CVS 'non-toxic' 'School Glue gel' ( http://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/catalog/shop_product_detail.jsp?filterBy=&skuId=886499&productId=886499&navAction=jump&navCount=3 ), just $1 for a 5 oz bottle. This glue was able to hold layers of m-wrap together but the pad made of m-wrap affixed to the gel forefoot pad with the glue, was just very slightly stuck to the gel forefoot pad at the end of the run (though it had not moved out of place). This despite the fact that I used a 25 pound weight to press the m-wrap pad I was trying to glue to the gel pad. Seems the glue can get absorbed into the Muller brand m-wrap as a result of which it is not able to glue the m-wrap to the gel. When this glue hardens it becomes literally hard, it does not turn into a soft padding type gel like best I can recall certain other glues I know of (whose names I cannot now recall).

The foot-wear padding setup used today produced basically good results in terms of comfort except: the left heel was loose; at times there was a sense of unevenness beneath the left toe; at time slight numbness and tingliness were felt in the left foot.

Logical next steps:

1

Use 4 layers of mueller m-wrap as pad under big, index, and middle toes of left foot, glued to left gel forefoot 'toe bed' instead of m-wrap made from 2 layers of Mueller M-wrap on left middle and index toes. This will produce experimental contrast between 4 layers under the toes on the left foot and 8 layers under the toes on the right.

2

Call or visit the 'green' 'organic' 'natural' stores and try to find some glue that is non-toxic, becomes soft and gel-pad-like when it dries instead of hard, and has more sticking power than the CVS 'School Glue Gel'.

Having become aware of how foot pads can be used to detox the body, and how substances can toxify the body entering the body through the skin, I was interested in using a non-toxic glue.

Heck the blue CVS 'non-toxic School Glue Gel' looks and sounds so nice you could drink it up, it gives you fantasies that when it dries it is like the expensive blue gel pads, and it only costs a dollar, but it lacks sticking power, even when you press the glued substances together 'until dry' like the instructions say. That's alot to ask--to 'press together until dry'. I am not a carpenter equipped with all the tools of a carpentry shop.

During the Thursday night Feb 19 run, The left and the right shoes seemed almost equal during the run in terms of comfort. However 45 minutes after the run concluded, pressure heat and itchiness around the left big toe and left index toe began to be felt. This was not the case with the right foot.

Running Tactics

I've noticed that in the first and second miles I tend to go too slowly (I don't use a warmup, the first mile IS my warmup), and that by nature I go fast in the fourth and fifth miles. Thus I reminded myself not to slack off in the first and second miles; and I reminded myself to take advantage of the fact that by nature I am energetic in the fourth and fifth miles.

I heard some political candidate (McCain) boast that he knew the difference between tactics and strategy whereas his opponent did not know the difference. I scoff at this. Fact is, you could know the difference between tactics and strategy, and still be completely inadequate as a military officer.

Words have flexible meanings, exactly what a word means changes over time, this is a fact of life you can ask any linguist.

Tactics refer to for example the tactics of a particular battle, whereas strategy technically speaking refers to a strategy used for more than one battle but who cares?

A sign of incompetence is failing to realize the similarity between tactics and strategy, and how one blends into the other in terms of linguistics.

A strategy could be composed of a set of tactics applied to several different situations. Therefore to see a radical difference between strategy and tactics when in fact no such radical difference exists, could be a symptom of incompetence and/or a cause of incompetence.

Along this line, it is IMHO as of now nutty (a la Senator McCain) to talk about how in the depression of the 1930s a government action carried out was a 'mistake' and so therefore should not be carried out now, when the situation now is completely different from the situation in the 1930s 80 years ago.

Aside from the fact that the alleged mistake was not actually a mistake.

I re-iterate that the idea that we can now succeed by now doing what should have been done but was not done way back in the 1930s,is foolish, because this is 80 years after the 1930s.

Comparing the 1930s to 2009 is like comparing 1950 to 1870. Think of how different the world was in 1950 compared to 1870. Think of a civil war battlefield with its muskets, cannon and horses compared to a 1950s type battlefield with nuclear weapons, tanks, machine guns, and jet planes.


@2009 David Virgil Hobbs