Lately I've been thinking a lot about the following two quotes:


"Socialists ignore the side of man of the Spirit ; they can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans treat you when your ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave, they don’t understand that we also dream..."


and


"If you're not saved, you're not child of God, but merely one of His creations kind of like an apple, a bush or a skunk."


The first is from a story Ronald Reagan told back in the 60's (and which I posted a couple of days ago) and the second is from a radio add for a church somewhere here in Lexington.  Taken separately, they're each interesting and maybe even a little insightful.  However, when you pluck out the central idea of each and combine it with the fact that many of our current leaders are, at least at heart, secular humanists, you get at an incredibly interesting and enlightening idea.  


You see, if you don't believe in God, then you don't think any of us are the children of God or that we have any sort of a Divine spark that sets us apart from the apples, the trees or the skunks.  As a matter of fact, you might be prone to seeing humanity as just another group of animals sharing the planet.  And like any other animals, you don't want them going hungry naked or homeless.  However, in much the same way you wouldn't want your dog to go to college and become your boss, you wouldn't be overly inclined to encourage these animals to individual excellence.  


Heck, some folks might even see humanity as more akin to locusts, red bugs or some other parasite beleaguering a host.


You may have noticed that a large group of very powerful and whiny folks are gathered in Copenhagen to discuss the future of our planet's environment.  You may not have noticed that many of them espouse the above view, that humans are equivalent to a red-bug on the Mother Earth's Arse.  (In all fairness, not all humans-just the unenlightened ones who weren't invited to Copenhagen).  As a matter of fact, one delegate from Bolivia is pushing the idea of universal rights of Mother Earth which would trump the Universal Rights of Man or any other rights of people.  Now, in truth, this hard-core socialist is probably much more concerned with shifting human rights down a notch than he is with championing planet's rights.  However the fact that he's even taken seriously enough to get an invite to that shindig should be evidence that the folks in Copenhagen think a little differently than the rest of us.  Make no mistake, there are quite a few attendees who see the human individual as more parasite than pinnacle of Divine Creation.  The scary part is they're trying to shape laws and policies based entirely upon that premise.  Scary, huh?

Give Universal Healthcare a Chance?

As we all know, with legislation it is currently considering our federal government is seeking to extend healthcare benefits to all Americans while lowering direct healthcare costs for most us and the overall costs of the healthcare system. And why, many ask, shouldn't the government of the wealthiest, most advanced nation on the planet guarantee healthcare to its people? As Americans, we should all be entitled to adequate healthcare, regardless of our ability to pay, shouldn't we?

Ideally, the answer to the above questions is "well...yeah". The practicality of the idea is limited by the reality of basic economics, however.

In his book entitled (oddly enough) Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell tells us that an economy is simply a mechanism for distributing scarce resources. It's that little adjective right before "resources" that makes the idea of universal healthcare so difficult to realize. There's only so much healthcare to go around and dividing it up among several-hundred million people strewn across millions of square miles, making sure each person gets what he needs, is an incredibly difficult task.

The first clue that the idea of universal healthcare is fatally flawed is the fact that the stated goals of the legislation are contradictory, at least within a free-market system. Normally in a free-market, when demand outstrips supply, prices increase signalling the market that more resources are needed. When supply outstrips demand, prices drop, encouraging more folks to purchase the resource, consuming the excess and signalling the market to reduce production. In the case of the medical industry, an increase in number of patients results in higher costs for treatment which encourages more people to go to medical school, which increases the number of doctors to meet the needs of the patients. Prices stabilize as supply nears demand. If a city or region has too many doctors, prices drop causing fewer doctors to practice there and office visits cost less. This mechanism results in an amazingly efficient distribution of medical resources and drives competition and efficiency.

The legislation being proposed seeks to increase the number of potential patients and lower the direct cost of healthcare to most existing patients. If we believe our model above-and we have little reason not to-, this should result in increased demand, increased prices and, eventually more doctors. However, the other stated goal of the plan is to reduce the overall cost of healthcare. This must mean that the government, has found a way to sufficiently increase the efficiency of the system to handle the increased demand while reducing healthcare costs.

O.K. you can get up off the floor, stop laughing and clean the coffee off your keyboard. There is another option, of course. The government can accomplish its goals, at least in the short-term, by short-circuiting the supply/demand mechanism. It can do this by rationing services and imposing price caps on medical care and drugs. This only works in the short-term, of course, because capping prices means ultimately limiting supply, leading to more rationing leading to...well you get the picture. Ultimately, capping the amount of money companies can earn by developing and marketing drugs and equipment and that doctors can earn by practicing medicine results in fewer drugs, less equipment and fewer doctors. Pretty soon you have the kinds of waiting lists for medical treatment seen in other countries that have tried...universal...health...care. Hmmm. Interesting.

The truth of the matter is that universal healthcare is a nice ideal, but in practice, it just doesn't work. The best way to ensure the greatest number of Americans have access to the best healthcare is to allow the market to work.

Feed the Body, Starve the Soul.

During the run-up to the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan gave nearly 1000 radio addresses on a myriad of issues. Below is one which highlights the real danger in buying into the entitlement/nanny state ideas currently being offered up by our government:

"I guess all of us have had the experience of getting into a discussion in coming up with the right answer two hours later when we are all alone. My award for someone who thought of the right answer while the discussion was still going on there is a young man named Brad. A member of young Americans for freedom at Pennsylvania State University he has written in an encounter on a campus with a pretty young lady who believe socialism is the answer to are problems. His own philosophy was self-evident because he was wearing a button that proclaimed cut down big government.

With a cool breeze stirring her hair, she asked what Grant described as her ace up the sleeve question even you right wingers don’t want to starve. Wouldn’t you like a guarantee that you will never go hungry Brad knew that if he admitted that she would follow with, why not such a guarantee for shelter and medicine and all the rest he paused and then gave it a victory she was seeking. Or so she thought he said sure I’d like to lay my hands on everything I can get.

Oh she said that the state is the closest you can come to guarantee, Brad described her embrace for a counter attack involving the magic of the market mechanism. But he threw another curve surly he said I grant that there’s something more, I’d like a guarantee of shelter and medical treatment and even some recreation. She must’ve thought she had a convert a little shock she spoke at that’s what we support, why are you wearing that button she of course meant, that cut down big government button.

Brad wasn’t finished he said to her I would also like a yacht, somewhat defeated she answered with your not going to be serious about it. I am Brad said earnestly as he could I would really and truly like a yacht also a seaside villa. Look she said sternly you know what I’m talking about sharing I’m not interested in your greedy daydreams. I’m asking what everyone should have alright, Brad answered I understand let everyone have a yacht.

But how she asked lucidly with the first sign or rational thought, don’t bother me with that he said there be a way I’m sure. Just so everyone has a yaut, however there is one more thing I would like what she asked two yachts. Brad wrote that she looked rather unpleasant at that point and he feared for his safety and then she declared its people like you who keep socialism from working. Brad agreed yes quite right perhaps people like me were put away somewhere.

Socialism would have a chance by now she was really glaring she tried to think of an answer Brad continued, but they’re still one problem how many are there like me. But not as many as you’d think she said and walked away. an then Brad came up with a really appropriate last line, he wrote there she’s wrong and that’s why she’s a socialist, How right he is. Socialists ignore the side of man of the Spirit ; they can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans treat you when your ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave, they don’t understand that we also dream -yes even of sometime owning a yacht."

This is Ronald Reagan (1977)

An Apology and the New General Motors

I'm afraid I owe President Obama an apology.  Since he and his government started meddling with the auto industry I've said numerous times that the President is a fascist.  Recent events have made it very clear that the Obama is not a fascist.  He is most obviously a socialist.

It might not surprise you to know that the above fact doesn’t exactly give me the warm fuzzies.  I’m not a big fan of either fascism or socialism.  If I have my druthers I’ll stick to good, old-fashioned capitalism, thank you very much.

However the Obama Administration’s recent manipulation of the auto industry makes me think I might not have that choice for much longer.  Obama has made it clear that he is going to use his new power over the auto industry to create the types of cars he thinks we should be driving.  Our current choices, he says, tend to be excessive of our needs and bad for the environment.  After all, who actually needs a Hummer or a Suburban?    

“Daniel, you’re nuts”, you say.  “I’ll just by my SUV from Ford, or Toyota or one of the many other companies that will still make the cars Americans want to buy. GM will eventually have to go back to making marketable cars to compete.” 

In a free-market, you’d be right.  However, the new American auto market will be anything but free.  You see, Ford’s, Toyota’s and the others’ biggest competitor will be owned by the Federal Government and the UAW.  The Government makes the rules under which the auto makers operate and the Union currently negotiates the labor contracts for all Ford’s employees and will soon do the same for all American employees of all the car companies.  Make no mistake, the Government and Unions will ensure that the new entity that was GM will survive and be competitive, not by making products Americans demand, but by making GM’s rivals less competitive. 

New regulations and CAFÉ standards already do not favor the cars Americans will want to by and other companies will want to sell.  The deal GM is getting with the Unions will ensure that Ford and the other, soon-to-be unionized auto companies won’t be able to competitively price their vehicles.  Additionally, while Ford and Toyota have to worry about the pesky problem of profitability, GM will not.  It will have Government funds available which will enable it to run at a loss-at least in the short term.  The government will soon impose tariffs which will make it difficult to sell cars not made in America-unless, of course, they are made by the new GM-probably in China.  Don’t believe me?  Look up the speech the UAW chief made when he announced that the Government and GM had reached an agreement with GM’s bondholders. 

Ford has a solid overseas market and as long as that remains profitable, it will be able to avoid bankruptcy and to avoid falling into the trap the Government has set and that GM and Chrysler have fallen into.  However, the cost of its unionized workforce and its inability to make the cars it sells in America overseas may eliminate Ford as a player in the American market.  It’s kind of ironic that the brand that began America’s love affair with the automobile may disappear from the American market because rival brands were unable to compete with it in a fair market.   Oh well, I guess that’s the price for success in Obama’s America. 

The bottom line is that over the next few years, many of the choices we, as individuals, have enjoyed on how to live our lives will disappear.  The Government’s takeover of the auto industry, is only the first in a series of moves in that will fundamentally change our economic and political system.  The energy and healthcare industries are next.  Free choice, the market forces that free choice generates, and the increase in quality and decrease in consumer prices market forces produce, may soon be things of the past.  And, sadly, most of America will not only sit by and let it happen, they’ll not even notice the changes until it’s too late.  Of course, if Government tries to take over American Idol in order to regulate the contestants’ song choices, folks will be taking to the streets in protest.

Until next time, be well, be free and be happy,

DW

A late Memorial Day Gift

I meant to post this on Monday, but I was busy visiting family.  Anyway, enjoy:

Ronald Reagan's Point du Hoc Speech

Democracy vs. Republic

Americans seem to be in love with the concept of Democracy.  Everywhere you look you see folks talking about preserving our Democracy, Democracy at work, etc.  These folks might be surprised to find out that, at least for now, we live in a Republic.  What with everyone talking up Democracy, most Americans couldn't tell you what a Republic is.  They certainly couldn't tell you why the Framers of our government despised the concept of Democracy.  

For some time, I've been meaning to write an essay detailing the difference between the two and why each step toward democracy is a step toward the end for the U.S.  However, while kicking around the web, I found a couple of sites that do a much better job of this than I could ever do.  

So:

Democracy vs. Republic

The Political Spectrum

And an interesting quote from Samuel Adams:

"If the liberties of America are ever compleatly ruined, of which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most destructive tendency for the sake of present ease. When designs are form'd to rase the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery-- They are alarmed at nothing so much, as attempts to awaken the people to jealousy and watchfulness; and it has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of the public liberty, as 'pretended patriots,' 'intemperate politicians,' rash, hotheaded men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already."

Please take a look at these because understanding these ideas will be important to understanding the next few essays.

Until next time, 

Be safe, be free, and be happy,

DW

What I've been doing for the past couple of weeks

I've been neglecting my duties here in order to help put together a new website:

rationalcaveman.com

Our goal in starting this website is to provide a place where you can access information about what your government is doing, engage in rational debate on the issues and take action.  

If you have time, zip over and take a look.  

Where are all the Jobs?

During the media blitz immediately following his election, then President-elect Obama stated a goal of creating three-million new jobs.  Let's see how he's planning on doing it:

Policy:

Cut production of the F22 air superiority fighter:

Jobs created:

-25,000 direct jobs

-100,000 (est.) indirect jobs

Took over GM and Chrysler, allowing Congress to mandate the closing of 1000 dealerships:

Jobs created:

-100,000 to -200,000

Cap and Trade:

Jobs created:

-400,000 ot -900,000 PER YEAR

Now, it's true that these jobs are still around and we won't see these numbers for the military cuts and the cap and trade scheme for a while yet.  However, the impact of the closure of auto-dealerships will be pretty immediate.  Also, the above estimates don't take into account the jobs which will be lost in the retail and service industries which cater to the workers in the above industries.  Neither do they take into account the fact that the cap and trade scheme will create a contracting force on the economy.  This contraction will mean more lost jobs, most of which are in the service and retail sectors-the sectors which employee most of our poorer neighbors.  

Keep in mind also, that these job losses will be in addition to those which will have come about due  to the contracting economy alone.  Oh, well, I suppose misery loves company.

Anyway, the bottom line is that many of these disappearing jobs are the sorts of jobs-well-paying and/or high-tech- that Obama and the Democrats say they want to create.   It's odd how their policies don't reflect their statements, or vice-versa.

Read more about the impact of cap and trade here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/30/cap-and-tax-is-a-jobs-destroyer-part-1-in-a-10-part-series/

The auto-dealearship closings here:

http://article.feeds4all.nl/Auto-Dealership-Closings-Reverberate-Across/1718712263.aspx

The impact of the F-22 program here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123903026250593091.html  

Soft Drink Tax/Cheerios is a Drug

A couple of interesting things in the news today:

A watchdog group in Washington which has taken it upon itself to monitor what we, the People eat and drink is pushing Congress to impose a sin tax on many bottled beverages.  The targeted beverages include sodas, some juice drinks, energy drinks, and other stuff which the group says contributes to obesity and obesity related health problems.  These health problems, they say, drive up the cost of healthcare and, they say, the tax will help defray the costs of our government's new healthcare scam and will decrease consumption of the evil drinks.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/nyregion/17sugartax.html

The FDA is insisting that Cheerios  is a drug because General Mills advertises the cereal as a way  to reduce cholesterol.  

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/05/13/fool-blog-call-me-a-raging-drug-addict.aspx

  

Has our government lost it's ever-loving mind?  The Taliban is putting itself in a position to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Iran is developing its own nuclear weapons and is threatening Israel, and domestic unemployment is nearing double digits.  But somehow our all-powerful federal government has time to tax soda-pop and regulating Cheerios.   Geez!

How did we get to this point at which the Washington bureaucrats are involved in our lives to the level of directly influencing what food we choose to put put into our mouths?  Is there any aspect of our lives over which these people don't desire control?  Is there no decision they trust us members of the great unwashed to make for ourselves?  

Oh, and I finally found the text of the cap and trade bill:  

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1862

That website is a great resource, by the way.  

Well, it's late and I have to work tomorrow.  Afterall, somebody's got to pay for all this stuff.

DW

Beans and Designer Handbags

I'm afraid I must apologize.  I've been off working on another project for the last couple of weeks and have neglected my duties here.  I can't reveal exactly what I've been up to just yet, but I will say that it's well worth the sacrifice.  Also, it was brought to my attention that I got Bubba, Earl and their livestock a little confused.  In all fairness, Bubba and Earl are a little confused about a lot of things.  Sometimes it's hard to keep them straight. 

Anyway, it's time we got back to our little island.  When last we checked in on our infant economy, Slash had just planted his beans and Bubba and Earl had invested in bean futures and were working on getting their livestock ventures off the ground.  Well while we were away, Slash brought in a bumper crop of beans, giving Bubba and Earl a pretty good return on their investment.  Bubba and Earl streamlined their livestock operations in order to increase production to meet new demand.  Oh, yes, the new demand.  During our absence, a small ship wrecked near the island and a few more people washed up on shore.  While none of the newcomers brought any new products to trade, they all possess a specialized job skill. Frank is logger who immediately began harvesting the island's trees to provide Betty the carpenter with lumber. Two friends, Gary and Steve have joined forces to produce sweaters and leather goods from the by-products of Earl's sheep farm.  Gary is the creative force behind the enterprise and Steve is a whiz with leather goods and knits a mean sweater.  Britney, is a twenty-something former teen pop-star who possesses certain skills essential to a society consisting of a bunch of men and Betty.  

Betty built Bubba a new chicken house in exchange for some eggs, Earl a new barn in exchange for some leather, and Gary and Steve a design studio in exchange for some leather pants and a new handbag, which she traded to Frank for the wood to build the buildings.   Anyway, now everyone is busily trading with their neighbors, and enjoying a cornucopia of goods and services; the variety and quality of which none of our islanders could have hoped to produce individually.  

The increase in islanders and in goods and services, however, is causing more than a few problems. For example, Britney is really fond of eggs.  However, Bubba has no interest in Britney's services, but he does fancy a new designer handbag and a pair of tight leather pants.  Neither Gary nor Steve has much use for Britney's services, either but they do need a new showroom and they are both terribly fond of beans.  In direct contradiction to the island's founding charter, Slash has recently become a vegetarian and has decided to save himself for marriage.  Frank, Slash, Betty and Earl all like Britney well enough, but Frank, and Betty have no use for handbags or leather pants, and Earl is betting government will soon be invented and thinks he'd best not risk ruining his chances of being elected by being seen doing business with Bubba or Britney or seen wearing leather pants.   

Britney is trying really hard to figure out a way to get her eggs, but she may end up having to steal them.   Our little island doesn't yet have a police force, after all.  However, it also doesn't have a court system and its citizens are therefore subject to vigilante justice.  

Will Britney get her eggs?  Will Earl realize his political ambitions?  Will Frank be voted off the island for his vegetarianism?  Stop by next when these and many more questions might just be answered.

On the Wonders of Computers, Chicken, and Sheep

The computer is an amazing machine. With the exception of the airplane, the grilled cheese sandwich, and possibly the wheel, it’s man’s greatest invention. Computers allow us to communicate almost instantly with anyone on the planet; they’ve increased productivity in almost every industry while creating new, high-paying jobs. Oh yeah, and they offer us nearly unlimited access to mindless entertainment.

With all that computers can do, the most amazing thing is how they do it. You see, at the most basic level, computers can really only do one thing; they can add. Not only are they limited to addition, they only get to use two digits, 1 and 0, to do so. Actually, if you want to be picky, it’s just two electrical states, on and off. If you think about it, though, the principle’s not much different than that of a light switch. Programmers and computer engineers use this basic principle to make computers do all of the cool stuff computers do-computer aided design, complex structural analysis, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

If something as powerful and complex as a modern computer can be reduced to such a simple idea, maybe other complex things can be as well. Perhaps the key to understanding things like government and the economy is to ferret out these simple, first principles and understand them.

Let’s start with the economy. We’ll create our own little, imaginary economy and use it to try to understand the big economy which our government seems Hell-bent on screwing up.

In his book Basic Economics, economist Thomas Sowell defines an economy as a means for distributing scarce resources, so we’ll need some scarce resources and a distribution network. We’ll start out using chickens and sheep as our scarce resources, and our distribution network will consist of a couple of farmers, Bubba and Earl. In this sort of exercise, most folks would probably call their farmers Farmer A and Farmer B or some such. I’d like our economy to have a little more color, though, and I don’t know any farmers named A and B, so we’ll stick with Bubba and Earl. We will follow standard convention in not naming our sheep or chickens, however. We won’t even bother to give the animals letters as they’re really just extras in our little exercise and we don’t want to grow too attached to them just in case our farmers get hungry. We’ll have no vegetarians in our economy. It’s unnatural. If God didn’t want us to eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.

Anyway-our economy. We’ll let Earl raise the chickens and Bubba can raise the sheep because, as we all know, you can’t trust a guy named Bubba around a bunch of sheep. It’d be like Temptation Island. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that our economy takes place on an island. This will be important later on. Right now let’s concentrate on livestock.

Earl raises sheep and Bubba raises chickens. But Earl likes eggs for breakfast and fried chicken for dinner (our economy doesn’t have any doctors, so cholesterol hasn’t been invented yet), and, as we mentioned above, Bubba is particularly fond of sheep. Bubba can’t raise sheep, though because he has no place for them to graze, and Earl can’t raise chickens because…well, he just can’t.

If Earl wants fried eggs and chickens, and Bubba wants companionship-I mean mutton, our two farmers must work out a deal. After much haggling, our heroes decide that one of Earl’s sheep is worth two of Bubba’s chickens and a dozen eggs. All is well in our little world. Earl has his eggs and yard pimp, and Bubba…well, let’s move on.

By and by, another farmer, we’ll call him Slash, washes up on our island. Now Slash doesn’t have a clue about raising sheep or chickens. Even if he did, it wouldn’t do him any good because the only thing he has to trade for the livestock is a small bag of dried beans that he managed to hang onto when he was thrown overboard (while Slash’s story prior to his washing up on our beach is full of adventure, romance and intrigue, it has little bearing on our current subject and so the telling of it must wait for another time). Even though Slash doesn’t know beans about raising livestock, he knows quite a lot about raising beans. And honestly, after years of eating nothing but chicken, eggs, and mutton, Earl and Bubba really need some fiber in their diets.

Since Slash’s beans aren’t magic, and our economy really can’t develop much farther until Slash gets his first bean harvest, we’ll have to leave off here for now. Don’t worry, though. Our farmers got together and invented credit so that Slash won’t starve before his beans come in. Bubba and Earl will trade Slash some chickens, eggs and sheep for bean futures.

Until next time, be well, be free, and be happy,
DW

A Balancing Act

Balance is key to so many things in life. A balanced diet will keep us young, healthy and regular our doctors tell us. Psychologists say balance between work and family life leads to more productivity at work, more harmony and happiness at home and less stress all around. Balance is what keeps your airplane in the air and your car on the road. According to Plato, balance is even the very definition of Justice.

Plato says that society is driven by three complimentary and often competing natures; Basic Drive, Honor, and Reason. Each of these natures is essential to a functioning society and must be satisfied and in balance in order for Justice to exist within that society. Plato also suggests that this is not only true of society as a whole but it is true of the individual as well. As a lack of balance among these natures makes for an unjust and unhappy society, a lack of balance in a person makes for an unjust and unhappy person. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Happiness is strongly linked to Justice-there's a possiblility they may actually be the same thing.

Over the next few weeks, I'll take a closer look at each of these Natures. I'll try to explain Plato's definition of each of them and I'll try to draw some conclusions as to why each is important to us as individuals and as a society. Then we'll be able to take a look at current situations within ourselves and within our society and try to understand how a lack of balance may have lead to these situations. I won't promise that this will be a completely linear process, however. There are many other things I'd like to explore and to write about. No matter how far I stray, however, I'll always get back around to this topic. Heck, understanding these ideas may be the key to understanding many of the other topics I'll be ranting on about.

Until next time, be safe, be free and be happy.
DW

The Three Meter Rule

This blog has been a long time coming. For years I've bored friends and family with my endless pontification on politics, religion, sociology and foot fungus. For some reason (many would say my incredible gift for doing nothing), I've never gotten around to putting any of this stuff in writing. Today that changes. So here goes:

I love to observe people in their natural habitat. I'm fascinated with how they interact with each other and what they think of themselves. That's why I watch judge shows. Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, the People's Court-I love 'em all. Judge Mathis is my favorite, though. He always has some of the most interesting people with some of the most interesting problems. And they're always themselves. For the most part these folks are childish, petty and selfish. In short, they're human.

Watching the judge shows didn't teach me what has become one of the more interesting of human traits, though-one which I've since observed so often that I'm convinced it's more the rule than the exception. In fact I've given it a name-the three-foot rule with the three-meter corollary. I first learned of this phenomenon in the hallowed halls of Auburn University. Not, as you might expect, in a psychology or sociology class, but literally in the halls-of Haley Center-between classes.

For those of you not familiar with that fine educational institution on the plains of east Alabama, Haley Center is where the liberal arts department is housed and where most of the liberal arts classes are taught. Because Auburn's core curriculum requires a minimum number of liberal arts classes, this building is always packed to the rafters with underclassmen. It was often the only chance we engineering students had to rub elbows with mere mortals-and there was a lot of elbow rubbing. Navigating the hallways between classes was somewhat akin to pushing your way through a standing-room only crowd at a Pink Floyd concert, only without the cool music and pot-smoke in the air. Anyway, as this mass of humanity would squeeze through the too-small halls of academia, occasionally two young ladies who new each other would pass in opposite directions. When this happened, they would stop in the middle of the crowded hall, and hold up traffic to talk about important matters like how drunk they'd gotten at the lake over the past weekend or how drunk they were planning to get at the frat party this weekend, or whatever-heady stuff. Upon seeing each other they immediately became oblivious to everything outside the little three-foot sphere that encircled them. Thus the three foot rule.

After that I started to observe this tendency all over the place-people using push-to-talk cell phones in restaurants, groups of people, three abreast, strolling leisurely down the aisles of grocery stores, and people with small, screaming children in sit-down restaurants.

It was actually these parents who caused me to add the three meter corollary to the three foot rule (yes, I know the units don't match-sue me). For parents with small children, their bubble world extended out to encompass their children. Beyond that distance, they, like the Auburn co-eds, were oblivious to the rest of the world. Later I noticed a tendency for parents to let their small children run all over public places like grocery stores and restaurants getting in the way of and irritating the socially responsible among us. I should have modified the name of the rule to cover this, but the name sounded good as it was and, as I hinted at above, I'm kind of lazy.

I'll end tonight with a story which vividly illustrates the three-meter corollary. I decided to go to college somewhat later in life. By my final semester at Auburn I had somehow acquired a matching set of dependents consisting of a wife and an eight-year-old son. My wife had taken a job near Birmingham and was staying with her parents while I finished up my education. We only saw each other on the weekends, and then not every weekend. On this particular Friday night I had driven up from Auburn and we had decided to have a nice, and what we thought would be a quiet, dinner at a new restaurant in town. Alas, it was not to be. We were seated near a couple of three-meter types with a small son somewhere between the ages of two and Satan. The kid had decided to use the booster seat he should have been sitting in as a ram in his own little demolition derby. My wife's chair turned out to be his biggest competition. After about ten minutes of watching this kid play peekaboo with the ladies room door and bang his booster seat into my wife's chair I asked the parents of the child, who were attentively nursing their after-dinner cocktails, to please get their child under control. By the mother's reaction, you'd have thought I'd slapped her and called her a sodomite. The father, however, made the child sit down, and shortly they left, but not before speculating with each other, not so quietly, about my paternity. Had I not had the satisfaction of having the three-meter corollary of my three-foot rule proven, it would have been a very bad night indeed. My wife wasn't quite as excited to have my rule validated.

Until next time keep an eye out for the three-footers and have fun.
DW