Thursday, December 8, 2022

Why Net is so Gross?

 

Starting off on a tangent; it will now be put forth that taxation is not theft, taxation is extortion plane and simple. Theft is simply the removal of a valued asset, while extortion is the removal of a valued asset coupled with an implied threat of, or an actual act of, violence.  
 
The proceeding paragraph was injected into this article for it is assumed that most of the readers pay taxes. This means that the concepts of gross-profit and net-profit should be well known to many. For the purpose of clarity; the term ‘gross’ is the sum of all things being counted, while the term ‘net’ is the end result of that counting after any offsets have been taken into account. Ergo, any climate initiative attempting to achieve Net-Zero carbon emissions has no bearing on the actual carbon emitted.
 
To place this thought train into perspective the reader is asked to consider the following two situations; a lone person does a single job and has a net return of $10,000 dollars, and then there is a business with 1,000 employees that also ends up with a net return of $10,000 dollars. These two businesses are at this point operating in a pre climate-panic, pre ‘Net-Zero’ point in history.
 
Eventually the bureaucratic cogs started to move, the valves opened and closed faster and the pistons applied torque to the shaft as the ‘save the planet’ machine quickly got up to full steam. For the purpose of this narrative, the number of players in the story will be kept to a minimum and the setting as simple as possible.
 
The lone person, Johnny, is the fifth generation to work the apple orchard that has been passed down in his family; with the help of his three sons and the legal migrant workers who show up for picking season.  Johnny saves some apples every year to maintain a supply of apple seed so he can replenish his trees as needed.
 
ACME Haulage and Processing, has five trucks and a factory that sorts produce and turns those not fit for sale into juice or cider. ACME, picks up the apples from the area farms and process them sale or cider and then delivers the goods to the regional food terminal. Acme also works with other produce locally grown.
 
NEWS FLASH – Government Announces Policy For Net-Zero Carbon Emissions – Plus New Carbon Tax.
 
Johnny saw the news, shrugged his shoulders and joined his family for dinner where he found out that his second son, who had been sweat on the girl next store for some time, had proposed to her and she accepted. The Bunyan family next door had two daughters and thought they might have to chop down their fur trees early, which they usually sell at Christmas, so they could get some money to move out, for they might have to sell their land to some developer. Later on it would be agreed upon that a small house would be built near the property line so the soon to be grandparents could easily visit their legacies.
 
Meanwhile over at ACME, a mild panic had set in. Management realizing that their costs were about to go up they knew that the current costs would have to be more strictly managed. The first round of decisions included a two year wage freeze for the workers and a 10% reduction for the inspection and maintenance for the trucks. ACME had been paying its workers 5% above the going wage rate as management knew that employee churn comes at a high cost and that higher wages reaped a higher UI benefit for staff.
 
Next ACME looked at their supply costs and concluded that the apples may have to be dropped as a product due to the need for more delicate handling. Fred, the owner of ACME, and Barney, the head of purchasing, went off to visit Johnny and the other apple farmers to see what can be done about the price of apples. Hoping the news wouldn’t be taken badly.
 
Everyone present knew the topic at hand having read the recent announcements from the government. The price at market, meaning the price to market, was understood to be the necessary goal. Johnny listened to Fred explain how the carbon tax was going impact his business. Johnny learned that ACME is going to be hit pretty hard due to the five trucks he runs picking up seasonal produce during the growing season. Three of the trucks, like the ones that Johnny sees get converted to plow/sanding trucks in the winter to provide snow removal from the driveways for the farmers; Fred explains how some of his prices will have to rise to cover his costs.
 
It is at this point that Johnny’s eldest son Pat says he learned about some things that might help everyone out. Pat goes on to explain that Net-Zero is a cap and trade system where strict rules outline how much carbon a person/company is allowed put into the environment. He continues explaining that if there is left over carbon that can be sold off as a carbon credit.  If we can all act more like a family and help Fred reduce his fuel costs we can all still stay in a good place; but we won’t have much chance of getting ahead.
 
Barney muttered a cuss word under his breath and everyone stopped talking; for it sounded as if he said ‘Yaba daba trucking doo.’ Barney! Exclaimed Fred, we have been neighbors for years now and I have never heard you use such language. Barney went on to explain how the government seems to keep making policies that didn’t really help what they claim they are helping, the policies just seem to be taking more and more of the money that good people earn. Meanwhile Johnny got up to make a phone call.
 
‘This is Johnny Pomoseme calling for Paul Bunyan’ everyone heard Johnny say into the phone; the rest of the phone call was downed out by the sound of Johnny’s wife Catarina bringing out a tray of sandwiches and coffee from the kitchen. Johnny returned shortly to say that Paul would also join in on this Net-Zero thing and that they both thought most of the other farmers in the area would join in too. Johnny started to get some ideas…
 
Johnny asked Fred, what he did with those drying machines from January to April. Fred explained he laid off most of his of his staff at that time of year as he little to nothing for them to do. Johnny thought for a moment and told everyone he had another phone call to make. Upon his return, Johnny announced that ‘Puff’ was in and he would send some product Fred’s way for drying.

Everyone knew Ali Ghulam, though everyone calls him ‘Puff’ as he is good at growing only two things, marijuana and poppies. Puff’s business was doing better ever since the government got in the drug distribution business, though some of his product was a little to strong for that. While many of the locals were surprised when the government legalized pot, Puff wasn’t surprised at all. He pointed out ‘the government has been in the drug business for years in the forms of nicotine and alcohol.’ Ali has a good sense of humor and often asked people where the nearest government gun store was; this left many people perplexed as they knew there was no such thing and pressed Ali on why he was asking such an odd question. Ali’s simply responded with – ‘How can the government “buy back” something it never sold?’
 
Johnny sat quietly, for a moment before asking Fred where he got his trucks maintained and fixed. Fred explained that he uses a place down in the city; this news caused Johnny to frown just a little though he started to smile once again when he saw Catarina going towards their garden to get some vegetables to make the dinner. Pushing out the fond memories from last night, Johnny brought his thoughts back to the task in hand.
 
Johnny looked at Fred and asked if he remembered his cousin Vincenzo, to which Fred replied, ‘Yeah he’s that lawyer fellow we went hunting with last fall.’ Johnny continued, and explained that Vinni’s wife runs a shop just one town over and that Johnny was sure that she and her crew can handle Fred’s repair needs for a better price. The story is that the garage had been in her family for years and the property is all paid for. Fred showed interest in learning more, promising to pay the place a visit. Johnny wrote down the name, Il Motore, and the address for Fred. Johnny asked Fred to him a call the night before he visits, so Johnny can meet him there as he might be able to help with a discount. Fred offered to pick Johnny up so they could talk more along the way. Johnny made a mental note to ask Vinni if he could help with all the government forms.
 
Johnny called over his youngest son Tat and whispered in his ear; the boy nodded and ran to the kitchen. A few moments latter, Tat returned with two 4 quart baskets and Catarina in tow behind him. Each basket had a bottle of wine, some apples, tomatoes and a cucumber. Fred and Barney stood up as Tat approached and accepted the baskets with thanks. Fred glanced at Barney as both reached for their wallets; Johnny shook his head and held up his hand explaining that the baskets were a gift. Fred and Barney both pulled a five dollar bill from their wallets, Fred went on to explain that the money was for Tat as he did the work and continued by telling Tat to never do anything for free unless it was for his family. Johnny nodded in approval signaling an OK to go ahead. Tat said thank you to the two men.
 
Fred looked at the boy and told him – ‘remember son, nothing in life is free and you must always ensure there is some tit for Tat.’ The not so youngster caught the innuendo and blushed, which added to his embarrassment; he glared at his father for naming him so.
 
Recovering himself, Tat looked at the men and said – ‘Just so I understand things, the government is going to squeeze people out of business with this; wait a minute, does anyone even make an electric truck yet?’ Johnny smiled knowing he hadn’t raised an idiot, next up for Johnny, the list of farmers willing to organize...

Sunday, November 13, 2022

Really, For the Greater Good?

 In recent conversations, yours truly tried to be kind while being inquisitive. Of course things didn’t work out as intended and resulted in disappointment for this author. The way this played out started with the setup question, ‘you know how some people claim that gender is a social construct?’ That was followed up by asking, ‘is morality also a social construct?’ The response to the first question, from the first responder, was an unabashed yes, coupled with a – well duh – look, and the second question was also provided an affirmative answer and that same – well duh – facial expression.
 
These two responses produced a hiccup in the left hemisphere of my brain. There is an old saying, which goes something like – ‘if you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a capitalist when you old, you have no brain.’ It seems to this writer that in the last few years, the age of being young has been creeping closer and closer to when people used to start their retirement.
 
Typically it is those on the left who make attempts to win the argument by slowly shifting the meaning of words, thus confusing the rest of society into acquiescence. Taking a deeper dive in to the term in both of the questions, ‘social construct’ we will take the first step of looking up the words and then if available, a Google search will be done against the two words combined.
 
Social:             From Google Search
Adjective
1. Relating to society or its organization.
 "Alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem"
2. Needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities.
 "We are social beings as well as individuals"
Noun
1. An informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group.
"a church social" 

Construct:      From Google Search
Verb
1. Build or erect (something, typically a building, road, or machine).
"a company that constructs oil rigs"
Noun
1. An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.
"history is largely an ideological construct"

 

Social Construct:       From Merriam Webster

Formal 
Social Constructionism: is a theory in sociology, social ontology, and communication theory which proposes that certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of pure observation of said reality.
‘Class distinctions are a social construct.”
                                    From Wikipedia
An idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society
(Accessed 5 Nov. 2022)

 

The game is now set for the discussion on both of the questions above. It seems to this author that both questions hinge on the act of and those who are in support of putting forth the narrative of ‘construction’; with little importance being given to the word related to those things ‘social’.
 
There is some confusion, in this the current year, on how one determines what one’s society is. Above, Google tells us that ‘social’ as a noun is literally a collection of people with at least one commonality; the ‘construction’ is the noun in this exercise so the ‘social’ must be recognized as an adjective.
 
When one participates in the building of something, in whole or in part, that person is typically referred to as a part of the construction crew or the person who constructed that thing. Alternatively, the person who was part of the crew was labeled with what they did as their contribution to the result structure in the end e.g. Italo was one of the three electricians along with other workers who put up the crown in the center of St. George’s Square in Guelph back in November of 1960.  (https://vintageguelph.ca/2019/06/04/thecrownofdowntownguelph/)
 
With the building or construction of the things that can be seen, the tangible if one will, sorted out we now have to consider the intangible. The intangible has long been thought of as a domain reserved only for humans. This author doesn’t hold that to be true as both cats and dogs do appear to dream in their sleep; also parrots and raccoons seem to be able to figure out some things outside of say what snakes can do.
 
Moving on… when using Google’s definition of the word construct as a noun, it can be seen that a construct is all about the intangible, the imaginable and the fantastical. Some might say, poverty is tangible and it is definitely not fantastic, though it must be pointed out that being poor is both subjective and relative.
 
The phrase ‘social construct’ raises the ire of this author because it is a linguistic slight of hand. Ideas are exchanged by the words used to convey them and once words, or a combination of words, are accepted the idea will take root in the mind of many people.
 
The slight of hand being played by prefacing the word ‘construct’ while the word ‘social’ implies that at least a slim majority of society agree thus causing most people to go along with what ever the topic at hand the phrase is applied to. This is why the two questions where so carefully chosen. The gender related position is being used to allow people to make a non-empirical claim where they get to assert onto others something very personal; whereas the moral related question asserts that morality is a group effort where by people aren’t allowed personage. This forces the question upon the social-constructionist, which way do you want things to go: a) individual choice and the ability to assert that choice on others or do they want group-think, thus allowing them to abdicate responsibility?
 
NOTE:
Some people in this world live with the principle of; when I am weak and you are kind I’ll take from you for those are your rules and when I’m strong and you are weak, I’ll take from you for those are my rules.
 
At the end of the day, morality can’t be legislated. Legislation can only inform people of the consequences that can suffered when a law is broken. If morals can be defined by legislation then no punitive reference would be required. Even the Ten Commandments are not laws for they are simply a set of guidelines on how one should behave. For example, the 6th commandment declares that ‘thou shall not kill’ yet personal self defense and ‘social-defense’ via war is permitted. Someone picked up on this point and changed the verbiage carved in stone to ‘You shall not murder’ some years ago; I guess in their mind God was/is fallible.
 
This brings this writing to a discussion not on COVID-19, but the reactions to COVID-19.  COVID-19 brought out best the worst in so many people; for a while the reaction to COVID-19 became the number one global secular religion, temporarily pushing the climate activists, the ‘WOKE’ and Black Lives Matter people to the back of the bus.
 
Hubris, the abandonment of responsibility and a lack able to look forward in time are the three main factors that resulted in the gross mess that occurred with the handling of COVID-19 response. The effort of determining if the results of these assigned traits were accidental or purposeful may arise in a different writing.
 
The beginning of the problems began at the beginning of what was called a pandemic. Blood samples collected in Italy and other countries were tested and found that SARS-COV-2 antibodies were to be found in blood samples taken from blood taken that predates the original recognized outbreak in Wuhan China.1 Additionally, the source of the virus was a focal point right from the officially recognized onset of the ‘pandemic’. 
 
The impotent attempt to determine the source of the virus occupied the news cycle in parallel with the publically noted incidents of people succumbing to the effects of contracting SARS-COV-2. Based on the concerted efforts by both the public and private sector bodies to squelch any questioning of the SARS-COV-2 source many people started to look over their left shoulder thus shifting their gaze away from the four lights of truth that were being purported to be five lights.
 
The next flaw in the anti-SARS-COV-2 action plan was the trust in the experts. The first unjustified trust was in those people who made the models that were handed out to governments and media outlets. These models, which described the number of deaths from contracting SAR-COV-2, provided for a worst case scenario; though those models were presented to the public as the expected outcome probably with the intent of avoiding the worst case. The problem with this was that those who claimed catastrophe had to maintain face in order to maintain the public trust in the moment and so a slight of hand was played and those people who died of other causes with COVID-19 antibodies were being counted as COVID-19 deaths. Think of it like this, a man just outside of a WWI trench missing an arm and half of one leg has the antibodies showing he was fighting pneumonia and the cause of death being listed as pneumonia.
 
I got a bit ahead of myself, and so I’ll backup just a bit. For those on the frontlines in the battle for public opinion, mainly politicians and media outlets had to gage their response to the news of COVID-19 sweeping across the planet. Some people may still remember that calls in Italy of a hug a Chinese person day, and how Nancy Pelosi encouraged people to visit Chinatown in San Francisco; additionally, many people accused then President Trump’s decision to block flights from China and other hot beds of COVID-19 infections claiming that he was being racist. The reader should be mindful of the fact that no-one batted an eye when countries around world followed the then President Donald Trump’s lead of closing airports and boarders.
 
Of course, international boarders were not the only boundaries that were shuttered by global Governments. Inter-state travel was closed, private businesses were forbidden to open and the schoolchildren were told to stay home. All of which was kicked off with the ever echoed phrase of ‘two weeks to flatten the curve.’ Approximately 720 hundred days later many of those tyrannical mandates were still being enforced in many places around the globe. The ‘safety measures’ previously described as tyrannical were so labeled as they contravened the human rights laws laid out at the national and international level.
 
Of course the politicians in power during this ‘pandemic’ were not stupid and proved this by frontloading an escape plan as they brought in their own experts, the most famous in the Western world being Dr. Anthony Fauci – the self proclaimed ‘Pope of Science’ and Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of the WHO. To avoid any responsibility the politicians avoided making any decisions and towards aiding those politicians in not having to be involved in the decision making process, any and all dissenting experts were publically silenced; thus leaving those named experts to be the fettered goat.
 
By the over subscribing to a threat of mass death with the use of worst case scenario models, coupled with overstated infection numbers and the perpetual guessing at the source all resulted in the masses forming a COVID-19 based moral code under the tutelage of those high atop the social ivory tower. Local neighborhoods were split into an US v. THEM position. The ‘othering’ of those who refused to drink the Kool-Aid reached as high as the Prime Minister of Canada along with movie stars or as some sort of celebrity by some other means. These purported shining lights of society demonstrated to the world those who were willing to wear the arm band, all the while demanding a tattoo be scribed on the arms of those ‘others’.
 
The public’s reactions to COVID-19 showed why Plato wrote The Republic as a foil to Socrates’ idea of pure democracy. The original question of ‘is morality a social construct?’ has been answered and that answer is a resounding NO!
 
That being said, based on the points that have been raised and covered here, it has been shown that while morality is a personal, the actual ‘social construct’ is the group-think of the masses. There is an old saying ‘the sum of the intelligence of any group can be measured by taking the lowest IQ and dividing it by the number of people present’, or put more simply, ‘people can be smart while crowds will always be stupid’.
 
The obvious next question is:
 ‘Is a request for amnesty an admission of guilt?’
 
 
 
Sources:
  1. Timeline of SARS-CoV2 spread in Italy: results from an independent serological retesting.                https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.14.21260491v1