It was a terrible day, the Ides of March 2020, when the Donald realized three things.
First, the pandemic is real and history changing. Second, the United States could lead the world with its resources in solving the challenge. Third, it would probably mean the Nobel Prize from Donald if he could pull it off. Fourth, Donald realized he didn’t have what it took to manage the challenge. It would have been a game changer. Rats!
1 Comment
We now have a once-in-a-life-time opportunity to step back and consider the intellectual development of our population. The matters bringing this opportunity to us are:
To cut straight to the recommendation of this blog: Colleges and Universities should be able to issue certificates regarding course completion. Organizations which ultimately hire an individual should confer the title of accomplishment and qualification based on real life accomplishments. Yes, this is suggesting that an apprenticeship program and levels of expertise based on demonstrable experience should be what makes a doctor, a lawyer, a mechanic or a sanitation worker. An apprenticeship approach automatically joins institutions of education with commerce, a win-win-win for citizen, education, and commerce. Wow, that a big change, right? Yes it is. But if we consider the situation we are in, we starting from scratch anyway. Let's make it the best way possible. That way will include;
Stay tuned. Schools。This is the time to rethink education.
• “Grades” defined by age are a false grouping • Skill sets are tracks of experiences • Four year colleges are a income generating scam. How could so many disciplines each take 4 years to attain a certification/diploma? Do you remember in January when,,,,
"U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he aborted a military strike to retaliate for Iran’s downing of an unmanned U.S. drone because it could have killed 150 people, and signaled he was open to talks with Tehran." So the president can value lives. What was the project death count for forcing meat packing plants to open. There must have been a number so he could decide to force the opening or not. What was the number that was small enough for the president to use his power to make them go back to work. I have a recollection of my grade school days. Probably around second and third grade when the sister would have us stand up next to our desk and read. I was decent, liked reading, and I had no problem demonstrating my reading.
On the other hand, I recall well a couple of classmates that weren’t really strong in the reading thing. They really didn’t like the whole idea and wished they were asked a science question, or anything but stand up and read. These students would read in a slow monotone as they figured out the words. I had no problem with the kids and just hoped they would move it along. This is exactly the feeling I get when President Trump reads a speech. Boring. I think that he must have one or more of the popular learning disabilities of our day. Listening to the president read surely explains why he doesn’t’ read his morning briefing. There are some really hard words in those briefings. Could we get the presidential debates staged as a reading comprehension contest? Can you imaging Washington staff personnel thinking..
"OMG, I can't stand it much longer. I know things that are so earth shaking that I can't sleep for fear that I might blurt out some secret in my sleep." Who is this talking? The staff of the Mueller investigation? Sure. The staff at the White House? Even more. The poor worker bees in both camps share this dilemma. The Mueller staff takes great pride in keeping the secrets as hard as it may be. The White House staff must go from fear of loosing their jobs to overwhelming shame for keeping the secrets. It's a complicated world. OMG. I really hate it when I think of something that is obvious and some people don't agree. I'm speaking of the Secretary of Education.
Of the money spent on the education of our county's children, what percentage of that money should go to corporate profit? NONE! That would be even worse than outsourcing our military. But I guess that's something also in the Secretary's family. We have teachers buying supplies for their classes out of their own pocket for classes that are too big to provide the best education. And the secretary says there is room for profit. Would that be like skimming money from the treasury. I could go on, but if you aren't outraged by the mere thought of for-profit public education, more rhetoric won't wake you up. The wall and who is going to pay for it - this was great theater during the run up to the election. It got great press and had a really cool ring to it. But that's in the past, now is time for some reality.
Mr. President, would you give me the $1.8 billion to work on the problem? First, the boarder is 1,954 miles long. That would mean that you gave me $921,187 per mile to secure the boarder. This kind of jibes with what someone told me that the cost of a highway starts at about a million dollars per mile. And of course I am ignoring an important matter, and that would terrain. And that's why the estimates for a full wall are much more than the budget you gave me Mr. President. The definition of a wall is that no one can get over. A wall stops people and their belongings. So then before we talk about solutions, we should start at the problem. Then the budget to solve. The Border Patrol has more than 19,000 sworn agents but not all are assigned to the southern boarder. Let's just say 10,000 are. So that's 10,000 divided by 2,000 (1,954 rounded up) or 5 men for every mile. These men are already paid for. Envision a drone with the power to simple lift a couple of cameras, one normal, one perhaps heat sensitive or night vision capable. These cameras are capable of sending motion pictures to a control site. At the control site we have software that is analyzing the camera data for movement or any other indication that something nefarious might be happening. Drones would have the software capability to fly a mission, perhaps a few miles, and then go to a charging station and connect automatically. All common software/hardware capabilities. The drones would typically fly at an altitude that would allow for a nice range of view and sufficiently high to be silent from the ground. If we had 1,000 drones active at a given time, there would be a drone for every two miles. There patterns of flight and timing would make it difficult to anticipate when a drown would be watching any given point, but that point could expect to be in sight every minute or two. Drones would be able to leave their patrol pattern and follow border crossers until human patrols could get to a point for arresting border crossers. The drone software that would balance patrols and tracking operations for 1,000 units would be an achievable task for American coders. At these quantities, the drone described would cost about $1,000. 1,000 would be active at any time; 2,000 would be purchased for the fleet for 2,000,000. Charging units could be built for (make it easy) $1,000 each. One every two miles. 1,000 units plus 500 for maintenance rotation, 1,500 charging units purchased for $1,500,000. These purchases would be open market purchases based on RFP's. If SpaceX and the like are examples of American ingenuity, this is the obvious answer. So let's consider some overruns and budget the $3.5 million job a $10 million. This is a rounding error in even the current allotment for the wall. Let's do it! Status report, April, 2018:
I've been thinking, "What's next?". What shall I do with myself from here. For some reason, this morning listening to yet another political commentator describing the state of the union, I realized that what-is-next should be a big deal. Let's think big. Going on 74 and full of energy it's time for expanded thinking. Stay tuned. There has been considerable effort put into trying to really understand our founding fathers when the condense amendment was written. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I believe that there are only two interpretations. First, that the founding fathers were interested in a well regulated militia. They had just gone through the revolutionary war, and the founding fathers did not want there to a chance that the government could forbid guns and take over the population by force. I do understand their fears because the King of England could have done such a thing. I think this aspect of the amendment is out of date. To test the extreme, I believe that if every person capable of carrying a gun did carry a gun, the government could still take over if said government really wanted to do that. The second possible interpretation of the amendment would be that a "well regulated militia" is a historical concept no longer possible. If that is the interpretation, the amendment is out of date and silent. This one should be a simple matter for the supreme court.
From 1youngvote.com ...
Listening to the Sunday morning shows and I hear, "And here is Republican governor Bill, then we'll talk to Democrat Joe". What if there were no parties? And there was not Hastert rule? I think that's what the founding fathers would like. |
Archives
August 2020
Categories
All
|