I recently purchased a new “golf cart” (actually a low speed vehicle for transportation, not golf). It is kind of fun to drive around in, fun for us oldsters and grandchildren alike. However, the first thing that I noticed is that it comes with an absolutely obnoxious, and unnecessary, back up alarm like you hear on construction sites. It is really, really load – totally ruining the quiet riding experience for me and anyone in the neighborhood.

Because it is so obnoxious I decided to disable it. That sounds easy enough, it must have a couple of wires that can be disconnected – assuming you can find the speaker. So I went on a hunt for a very load speaker on a very small vehicle. This was far from easy because I could not determine where the noise was coming from, there was no directional cues whatsoever. I couldn’t tell which end of the cart it was coming from, couldn’t even tell if it was from the overhead canopy or perhaps under the vehicle.

I thought I must be getting really bad hearing, so I asked my wife to come listen to it and help me know which end of the cart I should be looking to find it. She had no clue either. Others tried to help, but nobody could just distance or direction. I finally looked it up on the internet and found that it was under the passenger seat. As I expected, it was simple to unplug it to shut it up.

However, as a safety engineer this made me really wonder about all of those backup alarms used on construction sites and elsewhere. It appears that the particular sound frequency and volume that they selected for this function makes many (perhaps all?) people unable to judge distance or direction, meaning while they can hear that there is a danger somewhere in the vicinity, they can’t judge whether or not THEY are in danger. Given that there are often many alarms going on at the same time, and that all of the alarms sound the same, I am pretty certain that they just get ignored. They irritate, but my guess is that they don’t do much good as “safety devices”. I suspect that they become just another annoyance to be ignored.

I have seen some advances where people ware warning devices that tell them when they are in a danger zone – specifically for them, and specifically when there is actually danger near by. This sounds much better, but I don’t know enough about the details to be able to judge. Mainly I was just surprised how difficult it was to track the direction of that alarm – clearly it has something to do with the way that the human ear works. Figuring out how to make jobs safer is MUCH more difficult than it seems like it would be because there are so many of these kinds of unexpected situations. Testing in laboratory and field use is key, and those tests have to actually test safety – not the functioning of device that is assumed to be safer.

Today’s Jan 06 hearing was rather terrifying in many ways and made me wonder what it is about people that cause them to blindly follow along with the group. Perhaps the scariest part to me was the short testimony by the guy that got wrapped up in the event and barged into the capital building. He said that he is a “normal” American citizen with a job and family doing normal things with family and friends, but that he had become a “social media” junky. He was comfortable with what he found there, and found no reason to disbelieve Trump’s statements – so when Trump asked him (along with millions of others) to “come on down” to the Jan 06 demonstration in support of patriotism and Trump, he got all fired up and headed out at the last minute with some friends.

When asked if he believed all of the lies at the time, he said he did and really hadn’t considered any other option. Asked if he still believes them, he said he no longer does because he had done a little independent research and realized that they were not only lies, but essentially impossible. In summary, he said that he had been living with blinders on and that he hopes that others will find it within themselves to take them off and look around – it isn’t what they are being told. Perhaps it should be that we should look around because it isn’t what we are being told. I think he represented a million or so people that either don’t want to, or don’t know that they can, remove their blinders and look around. This is extremely scary to me because we have many historical examples of what happens in that situation – very few of them good.

Letting that be for a minute — last night I watched the first episode of the documentary about Patagonia on CNN. It was pretty cool, nice photos, interesting discussion – but what caught my attention was the bit about the sea lions and their harems. The big boy sat in the middle of a circle of his “ladies”, just sort of luxuriating in his domain. All the ladies seemed quite content with the situation, perhaps being protected. Then a challenger came along and there was a big fight, which the challenger lost so he slunk away – leaving the family group as before. However, had the challenger won, the “girls” would have been just as content with the new guy. It wasn’t about the personality of the “boss”, loyalty or love – it was about something else, more about an inherited way of acting. Elk herds do a similar thing, with the possible exception that apparently few of the offspring from the harem are children of the main guy- there is a lot of “hanky panky” going on beyond the fringes of the group.

The juxtaposition of the documentary and the testimony at the hearing were striking. Is there something going on here that is “built in” to people through our millions of years of evolution? Is there something built into us that in certain situations forces us to put on our blinders and follow like a herd of sheep? Some relatively recent examples are of course Hitler, maybe Kennedy, and now Trump. Is it possible that there is something about these people that is almost irresistible to us?

When I was in college during the “hippy days” I took a “speech” course to meet my general education requirements. It turned out that the class was not a normal speech class but instead a class on interpersonal communications. This was much better than what I had expected because we didn’t have to write speeches and present them in front of people, we just had to talk to each other (while paying attention to what was going on). I excelled at this, so much so that I was allowed to assist the Dr. Dennis Winters in future interpersonal communication classes. I don’t recall any money for doing this, I guess it was just for fun. In retrospect, this arrangement was kind of odd for a physics major.

This particular teacher was the campus superstar, speaking at large “peace/anti-war” rallies and all kinds of things like that. He was always in demand for most anything that required a charismatic speaker, everyone that I knew was sort of in awe of him. All of a sudden I was connected to a widely popular guy – and made “important” because I was his aid. I never came under his influence, but it was interesting to be a tiny bit popular with the transferred adulation. It didn’t hurt that all of a sudden I was “something” with a lot of cute girls that would normally have ignored me.

The thing that I found most interesting was his teaching me how to be that kind of a charismatic speaker. I failed at picking up the skills, but remember the story about how he did it. He grew up in Butte Montana, making friends with Evel Knievel and Jesse Jackson. Dennis told me stories about the three of them hanging around together, discussing how to make a “big” hit in the world, especially how to be positive influences in the world In retrospect, I am not sure how it worked out for them but Evel and Jesse certainly made a name for themselves. I haven’t heard much about Dennis. According to Dennis, they spent a lot of time analyzing the details of what movements, facial expressions, voice modulations, etc makes a speaker irresistible. Basically, what do you have to do in order to become charismatic! If this is true, all three of them exceeded in doing so.

Dennis offered to share his findings with me, so that I too could become a charismatic public speaker. Being the independent type, I unfortunately declined the offer – assuming that if I were destined to be a charismatic “leader” it would happen naturally. Of course that never happened, so I continue to stumble along the best that I can when I am unable to weasel out of speaking to a group. What I found interesting was that he claimed that this is something that you can learn to do – and if his popularity is a result of that, he succeeded. Jesse Jackson also became an iconic, and important, liberal leader. He is an example of the good a person can do with the power of smarts, dedication, compassion and charisma.

So now back to my original thoughts – do people with this kind of “magnetic” charisma tie into something that is deeply embedded in us from millions of years of evolution? Can we put on faces, expressions, body movements and other physical attributes to “connect” with this hardwired instincts, sort of like a peacock spreading its splendid tail feathers? Is this something that we can learn to do? (Dennis Winters claimed that he had, and that I could too.) If that is the case, is there something here that we can take advantage of in the quest for making the world a better place, one that is not ruled by people such as Hitler, Trump, and a long list of other leaders that are followed blindly, everyone with their blinders on?

I wonder if perhaps if we clearly understand that we are responding to wired in instincts instead of “truth” perhaps we can learn to take off the blinders and look around. As usual, I offer no solutions here, just something that I find curious. Maybe if we can learn to identify the triggers we can also learn to look beyond them.

I came upon an interesting “fact” when reading the book “Wild Nights Out – The magic of Exploring the Outdoors after Dark” by Chris Salisbury. I don’t know if it is actually a scientific “fact”, but Mr. Salisbury made the following statement; “In the pre-industrial era, and across the world, it was the common habit to have ‘two sleeps’ during the night, interrupted by a brief passage of time in the middle, for all sorts of nocturnal activity. Our assumption of the need for a continuous night of sleep, it appears, is a more modern phenomenon.”

I found this idea to be interesting for a number of reason, not the least is that I have been doing that for many years. My nightly habit is to go to bed early sleep for a few hours, wake and do things until I am fully awake, then head back to bed for another few hours – getting up again in the pre-dawn hours. My wife does the same, usually “shifted” from my schedule by an hour or so. It is not unusual to get up and get a glass of milk and a bite to eat, perhaps read for awhile or possibly write things such as this blog. Sometimes I go outside to check out the weather and such. I am thinking that perhaps I should set up my small telescope so it is easy to do a bit of star gazing. After a half-hour to an hour I am sleepy again, ready to finish the night – waking early to start another day.

I noticed a similar behavior in a small Australian aboriginal village I visited a few years ago. The Natives Australians slept outside using their houses to store stuff – but not to live in, while the rest of us slept inside of our houses. The town would be abuzz with chatter and kids playing until around 9:00 pm, and then become quiet until around 1:00 am, at which point I could hear small groups of people chanting, singing, and drumming – it seemed to be a quiet “mystical/spiritual” time for some of the adults. I never got up to go see what was actually going on, but the singing and chanting was a nightly event. Soon all was quiet again until around sunrise when the town began to wake up with the usual daytime chatter and activities.

I am heartened to hear that my nighttime activities are perhaps “normal” for some cultures. Modern medicine keeps saying that I “should” get eight hours of uninterrupted sleep a night, or more. I haven’t done that since I was perhaps forty years old. I wonder if the “two sleep” approach isn’t perhaps hardwired into our genetics. A story I made up that I find amusing (and interesting) is that perhaps the two-sleeps pattern is an important element of our survival stemming from when a real and constant danger might be being eaten by a large predator. In that environment it would be most advantageous to make sure that someone is always on watch, keeping the fire going and being ready to sound the alarm if need be.

My fantasy about this is that young children go to bed early and sleep through the night because it isn’t safe for them to be roaming around after dark – far better that they are silent and asleep. Once children reach adolescence they seem to like to stay up late into the night, thus keeping an eye out for danger (or perhaps creating it themselves in the tradition of “kids will be kids”) while the older folks get their first sleep of the night. When the adolescents finally go to sleep it is time for the old folks to wake and begin their middle-of-the-night activities, perhaps solo or in groups – taking their shift at guarding the group. The oldsters, such as myself, awaken from their second sleep in the pre-dawn hours (I get up around 4:30 am) to quietly begin to do things to start the day – in my case I meditate, check out the weather and things outside, perhaps start the coffee and take a shower as the rest of the family slowly begin their day.

I like this story (even if it is mostly false) because it reminds me that we are just animals, and that as animals we have built-in actions and biological rhythms (such as the 24 hour circadian rhythm). It reminds me that perhaps it is best to pay attention to what our body wants to do “naturally” instead of trying to force it into a mode of operation based upon artificial needs such as when the factory shift begins or the bus arrives. Of course, this is all much easier to do now that I am retired and have few artificial time constraints. For example, one of my favorite things to do is to take a nap – especially one starting at around 9:00 am. A morning nap is a very delicious thing.

This blog discussion requires a rather long introduction to put the rest into perspective. Sorry about that. The part that I am most interested in has to do with how the news media is being misused to “brain wash” many of those on the “weird right” (believers in obviously fake news). I happened to chase the story of DEF down the rabbit hole, but the same approach to falsifying news without adding lies is being widely used for a great many topics. I hope that if you hang in there you will find this as interesting as I do.

A couple of nights ago I was having dinner at a Northern California bar and grill style restaurant when I got into a discussion with a guy who was complaining that the high price of diesel was putting him out of business. It turned out that he is in the tow truck business (he sounded like an owner of a tow truck business, but might have just been a driver). He said that his fuel costs when from about $600 a month to $1100 a month during the past few months because of the sharp increase in the cost of diesel. Similar stories are common, so I accepted his story as true and hoped he would continue – which he did. He told me that he friends that owned and operated logging trucks who already quit because of fuel costs, as that many long-haul truckers are going out of business as well.

That sounded true, and was a sad situation. Then he opened up and “explained” why the prices were increasing so dramatically – it is because the government forced the shippers to stop shipping sufficient DEF for their trucks. His idea is that this created a shortage of DEF, which resulted in truckers not being able to obtain this for their trucks, meaning they couldn’t purchase enough diesel, resulting in sky-high fuel prices. He said that there is actually plenty of diesel and DEF, but that Biden’s regulations on the shipment of DEF created an artificial shortage and hence the increase fuel prices. He pointed out that without DEF and without some specific chemicals used in engine oil the trucking industry would grind to a halt (as if there was some sort of concern that this might happen). He then pointed out that all of this is caused by unnecessary regulations to protect the environment. None of this made much sense to me, so I told him that it sounded like “fake news” to me, and that thanked him for the information, promising to “check it out” further. His parting comment was to not use “Google” to do my research because the truth can’t be found there.

A bit of background might help here. DEF (sometimes sold under the name of AdBlue) is a mixture of 1/3 urea and 2/3 water (with a bit of blue coloring) that creates a catalytic reactions when sprayed into the exhaust diesel engines. It reduces the amount of nitrogen oxides (NO_x) in emitted by the vehicle – resulting in less air pollution. In 2007 the EPA required a significant reduction in emissions from diesel engines. Many diesel engine manufacturers met the new regulations by adding a requirement for the use of DEF in the exhaust system. Prior to the introduction of DEF they met the EPA requirements by adjusting the fuel-air mixtures to the engines, which lowered fuel mileage. The use of DEF allowed them to re-adjust the engines, getting even better fuel mileage than before the introduction of the EPA requirements.

In order to meet the EPA requirements, truck manufacturers added “features” that limit the speed of the truck to 5 MPH when the DEF tank is empty, and shut off the engine entirely after a short distance. Basically, while the trucks run fine without DEF (because it is just added to the exhaust), they don’t run at all without it. (I don’t know what keeps truckers from adding water to their DEF tanks and heading down the road – perhaps nothing except “good will” keeps them from doing that?)

It takes about 2 gallons of DEF to treat 100 gallons of diesel, and costs about $10.00 per gallon, thus adding about $0.20 per gallon for diesel fuel – but saves more than that in increased mileage. The resent increase in the price of DEF has increased the price from about $9/gallon to about $13/gallon adding an additional $0.08 to the price of fuel. This is a long ways from the tow truck driver’s claim of doubling the price of diesel – and probably isn’t putting anyone out of business.

It turns out that the tow truck driver was correct, there is no shortage of DEF at the supply end (sort of), but there is a restriction to shipping urea from the manufacturing plant to the plants that turn the urea into fertilizer and DEF (along with a few other products). However, the restriction isn’t caused by the government, it was created by Union Pacific (railroad) limiting the number of privately owned rail cars they are willing to haul because they found themselves under staffed and short of locomotives due to the impacts of covid. In order to meet their contracts they decided to limit the number of private rails cars they would haul – a reduction to 80% of what they were doing. The urea companies use their own rail tankers, so found themselves with a 20% reduction in supply. This did not result in a reduction in the production of DEF, but did result in a reduction in the production of fertilizer – impacting farmers across the the country. So yes, there is a short term reduction in urea availability while the rail situation gets straightened out, and no there is not a shortage of DEF resulting in anyone not being able to run their trucks.

So now I can finally get to what I consider the interesting part of the story.

I searched online for topics about DEF shortages and found an interesting selection of items. I first found a lot about diesel engines, the EPA requirements, and urea sources and uses. Just standard “facts” with nothing specific about shortages. An item that I didn’t mention above is that Russia is the world’s biggest exporter of urea, followed closely by China. The USA is a big importer of urea. It is main component of fertilizer, many explosives, DEF, and is a feedstock for wide variety of chemicals.

I then found a lot of interesting articles concerning the shipping induced shortages of urea in the United States (the main subject of the tow truck driver’s discussion). I found many articles that contained the same quoted materials, but with many different spins. I think I found the original source in a New York Times article that discussed the importance of urea for the agricultural and trucking industries, noting that urea in the form of DEF is used to control pollution and that a shortages of this or other chemicals used in diesel engine oil could cripple the users of diesel powered trucks. The article discussed the fact that Union Pacific put a limit on the number of private cars that is would haul, limiting the availability of urea to many industries, particularly the fertilizer manufactures. It didn’t say that there is a shortage for use as DEF, just pointed out that they are critical to keeping things moving. This article then went on to talk about the causes of the shortage, noting that there was an on-going union dispute that is resulting in worker shortages, short staffing because of covid, an increase in shipping demand in part caused by covid, and the fact that a reduction in train transportation during the past decade had caused them to reduce their rolling stock. All of that combined at the same time resulted in delays, bottle necks and many shipping problems. In an attempt to straighten that out Union Pacific brought 50 more locomotives on line, hired a bunch of new employees, and managed the flow of business on their lines – including limiting the number of privately owned rail cars that they accepted.

This long and seemingly true story was reproduced in part by a number of other publications, including Newsweek. However, these other publications didn’t reprint the entire article, just the part about DEF (and other chemicals) being critical for transportation, and that Union Pacific is limited shipping of urea (it is the company doing this, not the government). Some of these derivative articles included a discussion pointing out that the cost of DEF has risen by close to 150% during the past few months (without indicating that this amounts to an increase of less than 2% <about $0.10 per gallon> in the increased cost of diesel fuel).

And then the magic happened! These basically true, but incomplete, articles were picked up and reprinted by many “fact challenged” publications. While most of them accurately reprinted the entire NewsWeek version, they added a few things such as introductions implying that the “shortage” of DEF has caused the increase in fuel costs to the present $7/gallon (not true), or that the “shortage” has stopped trucks from operating (not true), or that the reduction in shipping was ordered by Biden (not true), and many more. These are introduced as just comments along the lines of “perhaps these things are happening”, not “facts.” In addition to distracting introductions, they break up the original story into many small parts interspersed with Tweets on various topics about how horrible Biden is, how wonderful Trump is, how all kinds of things spouting hate and lies – but they are clearly not part of “the article” – they are just things that perhaps somebody somewhere might have said. The real article is there, but it is quite difficult to find because you have to keep skipping over all of the injected material.

It is clear that these inserts are read by many as part of, and of the same value, as the main body of the article. I say that because the tow truck driver was very good and accurate about telling me many of these false and nasty claims, giving them as much value and “truth” as the other parts. There is no “filter” operating for these folks – nothing to sort out what they would like to hear (but is false) from what they might not like to hear (but is true). They don’t seem to know how to step back and realize that there are various sources of various quality at work in the things that they use to “study” a problem.

I heard a discussion on the radio this morning suggesting that humanity isn’t in all that much trouble because we can always save ourselves by creating a “life raft” to colonize distant planets once we have truly and totally destroyed this one. The idea completely floored me, but it isn’t the first time I have heard it. Being able to do this means that we don’t have to do anything about global warming, or excessive pollution, or over population, over fishing, … etc, etc. Many people seem to believe that while those things might end up making the earth uninhabitable to humans we are clever animals and can always start over again somewhere else.

Ignoring the huge problems associated with finding a suitable planet close enough for people to survive the trip in enough generations to prevent those travelers from transform into some other species through mutations happening along the way – what makes anyone think that we could be more successful in creating a new world, populated by a civilization that is any better than the one we have? Currently, we live on a pretty nice planet that has everything we could ever need already here. We have literally evolved together with the planet and therefore are as close to a perfect match that you could image – but we don’t seem to understand the value of what is here. We just trash it as if it is an old beer can that can just be discarded along the roadside while we reach for another.

If we can’t find the means to maintain what is already here, how could we possibly do better with a new one that DOES NOT meet our needs because we did not evolve together. The new one might be populated with plants and animals (and perhaps other things), but they won’t suit us. We will have to change that planet using our great wisdom and “smarts”. We don’t seem to be able to do it now, and won’t be able to accomplish the MUCH more difficult task of starting from scratch.

I know this is just a silly idea, but unfortunately there are many people that use these types of crazy concepts as an excuse for continuing to foster our “God given right” to destroy whatever it is that we feel like destroying in the name of short term, selfish desires. “Not to worry, we are capable of doing anything” (except manage what we already have). Having dominion over every living thing does not mean destroy it all, it means taking care to keep it healthy. Because of some unfortunate accidents of nature, we are in a place where we can destroy or protect. I think the Bible is referring to our ability to protect.

I have been watching the hearings on the January 6 insurrection with great interest. I find it amazing how so many people in high places just stepped aside and let what appears to be insanity reign. It appears that our government has so many “traditions” about relationships and power that it is practically impossible to step in when things are obviously going off the rails. It is astounding how much a person can get away with just by doing it.

When I heard about the small donations ($250,000,000 and still growing) going to a non-existent organization to stop a non-existent fraud that is not stealing an election I immediately thought about the old grifters (sometimes referred to as swindlers or snake-oil salesmen) that used to ply the wild west in the late 1800’s. Many stories (and movies) talk about these folks (usually men, but not always) that would ride or roll into town, set up a stage or business front and go to work bilking the population of the town our of their money and their land. These swindles usually required four parties to be successful. The first of course is the grifter (swindler)- telling tall tales, spinning all manner of lies, and working up the emotions of the audience. As part of the scam, there were usually shills within the audience that looked and acted like the rest of the audience (line “normal” or “important” people), who were in on the deal. They were important accomplices to the grifter because without their insistence that the lies were “facts” nobody would believe the lies and the shady deal would not go forward.

The shills do this because of shared profits from the scam, and possible future profits once the grifter has moved on. They know the grifter is telling lies, they know what will happen to those that buy into the scam, but they don’t care because they are getting easy money and fame. They share in the spoils but don’t have to look like the bad guy when the scam is over and the town is poorer.

There were also the “marks” – those that believed the story and put their hard earned cash on the barrel head, purchasing the bogus product. The marks buy in because of their greed, or fear. They see a deal that is “too good to be true” that will solve their problems, even though the deep down recognize the high risks involved. They usually know that it really is too good to be true, but what if it is true? They don’t want to miss such an opportunity. They are giddy and excited that they are filling going to get what they want, they are finally going to “get away” with something. Once they bought into the lie, they then picked up the role of informal (unpaid) shill because they can’t admit that they had been duped. At that point their honor (or helping their family, friends and neighbors) becomes more important than truth because don’t want to “lose face”.

And then, of course, there is the rest of the population of the town that saw through the scam, but didn’t take action to stop it. They were innocent bystanders standing by, the wives and mothers and little children, gossiping about how obviously the big lies are, laughing at the stupidity of the marks, but standing by – even when the marks were their spouses and were spending family money.

All four of these players are required for the success of the grifter. We seem to have this playing out on a very big stage in America (and much of the world). The swindler of the moment is obviously Donald Trump. He is standing up in front of the crowds, working their emotions, working their fears, working their greed – telling them anything whatsoever to further the goal of bilking the marks out of their livelihoods and more. There seems to be no lie big enough, no story false enough or harmful enough to prevent the telling. The shills are obvious and vocal. They are excited because they are heading for fame and fortune that they didn’t work for, don’t deserve and wouldn’t get without the presence of the grifter. All they have to do is echo the lies for money and power to come their way. The shills are in the form of senators and congressmen, supreme court lawyers, lower court lawyers, newscasters, ministers, policemen and teachers. They wear the trappings of “important” people, but are shills nevertheless. They know recognize the scam, but are in on it for their own greed.

The marks are obvious. They have felt downtrodden, ignored, oppressed by society. The swindler is telling them that it can all change, they can get back to a “Great America” (the point of MAGA) (as if there was ever a time like their fantasies). It isn’t that America will be great again, it is that THEY will be great – not AGAIN (because it and they were never great like in their imaginations), but they think they will FINALLY be great. They will have money, power, no taxes, no giving to anyone, high paying jobs, free gasoline, free roads and services, respect from everyone, their women will think of them as macho-men, they will be strong, and smart and successful – and all the rest will finally be squashed under their shoe. The marks are hoping to get what they never could dream of having, all for little or nothing – as the grifter takes their money and runs.

I was reading some posts on Quora this morning and came upon this question; ” Are people who graduated college with non-professional degrees and can’t get a job really shocked that they can’t get a decent paying job with their degree?” My first thought is that anyone who uses the phrase “graduated college” instead of “graduated from college” is suspect from the get go. Lack of fundamental language skills is going to be a problem. My second thought is wondering what is meant by a “non-professional degree”. As I think through my college catalogue I can’t think of any non-professional degrees – as far as I know they all can lead to a profession, even if that profession is primarily teaching. There are no “non-professional” degrees.

However, while the question doesn’t seem to make much sense, I think it is getting at an interesting question of whether or not a degree is about getting a job in a particular field, or about something else more fundamental (and valuable) than that. My understanding is that “non-professional” jobs are probably trade related jobs. There are trade schools for the purpose of learning a trade with the intention of getting a job in that trade. Many Community Colleges and apprenticeship programs specialize in training for a specific job or specific trade. Of course many universities also focus on future jobs, but that is in addition to gaining a general education. For example, medical schools are in the business of creating doctors, forestry departments are creating foresters etc. However, most departments are doing something a little different – they are in the business of providing knowledge and skills useful for learning more. It is more about learning a way of thinking than it is about a specific body of knowledge.

My degree in physics certainly didn’t provide an education sufficient to get me a job as a physicist – it helped me gain knowledge that is indispensable for a physicist, but while that is necessary – it is not sufficient. There is still a lot of “experience” required to get a professional job as a physicist. With my degree in physics I have a background that when coupled with appropriate experience (scientific and life experiences), enthusiasm and personality helped open many doors – most of which have nothing to do with physics. The same seems to be true of all college degrees. It is just like with high school – it provides a necessary background but only allows opportunities to step onto a path forward, it is not sufficient on its own.

I wonder if perhaps the main value of a college degree is providing a background and approach to problem solving that allows a person to be accepted into a social group (network) of people that act as “gatekeepers” to a profession. If this is the case, then perhaps the “fluff” courses (English, math, basic science, history, music, theater, philosophy, etc) are as important, or often more important, than the core courses in a major field. These courses result in a much more “rounded” knowledge forming the basis of commonality, and community, with those in a chosen field. Not only can we talk about physics, but perhaps we can talk about music, history, world politics, psychology, etc. as well. (Physics might be a bad example considering the rather high percentage of physics geniuses that are pretty far into the “nerd” syndrome).

From the point of view of a society, such as America, a educated populace is the country’s most valuable asset. Almost all aspects of the world have become so complicated, complex and technical that they cannot be managed without a broad and deep understanding of many topics. I was almost going to say that a college education makes it easier, and more likely, to separate truth from fiction – but the last decade of two in America seems to disprove that contention. The willingness to accept and spread “fake news” (false information) seems to be based upon something other than “school learning.” I know several PhD’s and MD’s that seem to have trouble sorting fact from fiction. Maybe a good education doesn’t help with that, but it certainly helps do many technical, and not so technical, jobs.

The bottom line is that while a college degree is necessary for many jobs, it is not sufficient. In addition, while many jobs requiring a college degree don’t actually depend upon that knowledge, it sure makes the world a more interesting place. Obviously there are no jobs that depend upon a college background, self-learners have always been able to learn what is needed on their own. It is harder that way, but possible for those that are bright and dedicated enough to do it.

I do have a concern about the cost of a college education these days. Is it really worth it? If the reason for college from the government’s point of view is to have an educated population in order to function and be competitive, then the government should pick up much (or most) of the tab. If the purpose for a college education is to provide an educated workforce for industry, then industry should pick up the tab. If the purpose of a college education is personal interest, then perhaps the students should pick up the tab and the number of students reduced by a factor of 10,000 or so. As it is, students do all of the work, students pay all of the expenses, and the government/industry complex reaps the benefits. I think students should get paid for their efforts (“work”) in gaining an education. After-all, the main point is to enhance society – not enhance job skills for individuals.

We have recently discovered that since the last election Trump has accepted over $250,000,000 in small donations to fund his false claims of election fraud. He accepted the funds under the name of a non-existent organization, so it basically seems to have gone to him personally. Since there is no organization to accept the funds, he generously accepted the money as tax free gifts to himself. However, since I have no facts on the subject, perhaps that money went to his re-election campaign funds. In any case, what happens to the money?

If he accepted the money as a tax free political contribution, he has a wide range of options to use donated money (except for his “personal” use such as household items, rent of personal homes … things like that). Anything else is fair game. He can donate it to charitable organizations, keep it for possible future political activities, donate it to other politicians – basically use it for anything that is vaguely “political” in nature – including just keeping it. He can donate unlimited funds to other politicians for their almost unlimited use for their “political” needs. In effect, it is money that can be used for leveraging his political goals as well as paying for the services of others, including lawyers fees for any future legal actions against him (civil or criminal).

We are also told that he spent some of the money for highly questionable gifts to others of around $10 million, as if that is very important when compared with the $250 million that he received. What about the other $240+ millions?

I find this to be pretty interesting because it seems to clarify the apparent “insanity” of Trumps actions. They aren’t insane, they are very effective ways to bilk millions of Americans who believe his “big lie” into giving him vast amounts of money that he can use for whatever he wants. It seems clear that he isn’t claiming election fraud because there was any election fraud, he is making that claim because he knows that it will cause millions of people to send him hundreds of millions of dollars. It is pretty simple logic. His thinking appears to be along the lines of; “I can make completely fabricated lies and people will send me truck loads of money.” The more outrageous the lies, the more money he will get. He has created a fantasy story telling business, one that seems to have almost unlimited “value.” Sure he is causing chaos and massive destruction worldwide by his story telling, but it sure is effective in bringing in the bucks.

I am envious. I tell my stories and all I get is a small bill to pay for the web service to host my blogs (true stories by the way). It would be more fun a few hundred million folks would send me a few dollars each just in case I found something interesting to do with it. I promise to not buy my cloths with it. Perhaps my problem is that my stories are attempts at telling the truth.