Another Overpaid 'Dick' and Asshole: Mark Halperin

Let me say off the bat, I can't stand Mark Halperin, the overpaid hack asshole who writes a weekly column for TIME and an MSNBC "senior political analyst". I think the guy is a smug, hyper-entitled, narcissistic little piece of sewage and a know-nothing twerp from the corporate echo chamber who has no business analyzing anything....except maybe doog poop specimens.

Be that as it may, my estimation of this putz reached even new lows this morning, while watching MSNBC's Morning Joe when the little dick said about President Obama (see also my previous blog applauding Obama's fiery stance yesterday):

"I thought he was a dick yesterday,"

So evidently this hack-dick didn't like what Obama said, in terms of his (for once) fiery demeanor to try to get the intransigent Repukes to cooperate in a debt ceiling solution. This, as opposed to letting the fuckers roll him, as they did with last year's tax cut extension deal.

But hey, what's new? Most of the corporate media axis including many in the alleged "liberal domains" of the WaPo and NY Times, like their Dem presidents mellow...usually too mellow...and never, ever acting or talking as fighters. For these collective dicks, populism of any kind is terrifying and brings images to mind of people with torches and pitchforks fighting the elites for a small piece of pie....like we now see in Greece and in England.

In this regard, the pusillanimous Halperin somewhat resembles one late alleged "dean of the Washington Press corps" by the name of David Broder who used to write for the Washington Post. He too brayed loudly whenever a Dem showed a minuscule bit of spunk and fight. But say one thing, say the next, at least Broder possessed an IQ above room temperature, unlike the smirky Halperin! At least Broder wrote with some flair and a modicum of gravitas when he issued his injunctions to moderation.

Meanwhile, we hear Halperin has apologized for his Obama slur, and has been "suspended indefinitely." Scarborough blamed a producer for not hitting the delay button, instead of ... blaming the person who actually said it. But then Scarborough is another overpaid dick and the only person worth watching on his show (or hearing) is his co-host Mika Brzezinski.

What Halperin ought to have done, if he was going to use any slur starting with d at all (as in dickheads) was to aim it at the disgusting Republicans who adamantly refuse to broker a deficit reduction deal that includes taxes. Thus, they are acting the part of sociopaths.

Hopefully, Halperin's juvenile outburst will impel Mr. Obama to even greater forcefulness in the coming weeks in his battles with Republicans.

A Stirring Press Conference, Mr. Obama! Now, stand strong!

I was finally elated to see some fire in the belly of Mr. Obama at his press conference. His eyes flared, and he aimed emotional daggers at the obstructing repukes - who remain foursquare against raising any revenues as part of deficit reduction. But as I've repeatedly shown, any sane person or group would know we can't get to $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction by cutting spending alone! As one British economist noted, quoted in The Economist: "Saying you can improve the economy by just cutting taxes is like saying you can run faster by cutting off a foot!"

So true! But why don't the Republicans get it, and cooperate for a true, beneficial deal for this country? Well, because they've all signed "pledges" (compliments of Grover Norquist) not to. If any ONE of them breaks from the pack, there'll be hell to pay and not only will Norquist go ballistic, but all the other Rs will lose it as well - probably even more than my bro over me denying him his "loan" some days ago. (At least in his mind, I actually didn't!)

This obstinacy and perverse obstructionism, refusal to genuinely cooperate, puts the Dems and Mr. Obama in a hellacious bind. As calamitous as a default would likely be, giving in to crazed, spending cut frenzied repukes would be much worse. Bank on it! If the Ds cave on this extortion, and give in to allow ALL spending cuts with few or no tax hikes, then as I showed a few blogs ago it will mean the implosion of the economy (due to 40-50% reduction in aggregate demand) and plausibly 18% unemployment by next summer. This will be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Democrats and Mr. Obama - especially with the general election only months away - but the Republicans will be in 7th heaven. They will have effectively gotten the Dems and the President to cooperate in the destruction of the economy to advance the Repukes' own partisan political agenda. It means that what transpired in November last year, that election debacle, will be like a 'tea party' compared to what will occur next November!

In effect, what this means is that Mr. Obama (like Mr. Clinton also facing the repukes over a gov't shutdown 16 years ago) must choose the lesser of two evils. As incredible (or appalling) as it may sound, this means he must not merely use rhetoric - even charged rhetoric - but be fully prepared to take the Repukes to the wire, and - if it means allowing a default- then he must do it! He cannot allow himself to submit - or the nation to submit- to this vicious blackmail by the rethugs, to this fiscal "gun" to the nation's head. (To use blogger Andrew Sullivan's turn of phrase).

The polling figures are on Mr. Obama's side, as only 8% believe he's responsible for the debt impasse and problems. What people are thus looking for, is bold and unintimidated leadership such as Bill Clinton displayed when he stood up to similar Repug extortion threats (from Gingrich & Co.) on his watch. Then the government actually did shut down, at least temporarily. Clinton never blinked, Gingrich and the repukes did. The same must play out this time, no exceptions. Under NO circumstances must Obama blink, or he will look like a rook, a newbe, a callow former state Senator ...and an easy mark for all further dealings (including the extension of the horrific Bush tax cuts in 2012, an election year!)

The bottom line: Obama cannot and must not go along with the Republicans in their insane, economy-destroyng spending cut orgy! Any give-in here can only be a Pyrrhic victory, at unaceptable cost and far worse than any bond pirates might threaten! If it means default, so be it. We must also stop hearing ANYTHING, any mild words from the Ds circulating in the media, to the effect that even smacks of Repuglican-memes and narratives. Thus, Max Baucus must be made to shut up about "Medicare cuts" (which plays into the Repuke dynamic) just as Joe Lieberman in his courting of Tom Coburn to try and elicit $600b in such cuts. Obama needs to repeatedly remind these cheese eaters that his own Affordable Health Plan incorporates $500b in Medicare cuts and so this is already the solution.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama himself must cease his own tax cut pandering, especially after last December's extension of the Bush tax cuts. That means ceasing forthwith any more talk of another year of "payroll tax cuts". No, no, no and NO! As an article in MONEY magazine noted, the benefits from the existing payroll tax freeze have only been marginal and consumers continue to be defensive in their spending. One year of such a freeze was bad enough as it denied badly needed money to support Social Security and Medicare. TWO years would be a freaking catastrophe and play right into Repuke memes that both are approaching insolvency and lacking money! By adding an additional year of payroll tax freezing, Mr. Obama would abet this, so even if he wants it congress must turn it down. (At least the still D-held Senate).

We will wait to see what occurs, but I want to see not just strong rhetoric but action driven by spine...plain old-fashioned intestinal fortitude as opposed to another capitulation. That means taking the Republicans to the cliff and beyond, if need be, in order not to destroy this nation's economy! As I said...the lesser of two evils.

Latest Climate News: NOT Sanguine!

One of the claims often made by what I call the flat Earth or climate change denier brigade, is that volcanic emissions dwarf human fossil fuel or other related activity (e.g felling rain forests) in terms of producing CO2. This canard has now been fairly well shattered with the recent publication of a paper, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide in the journal Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union( Vol. 92, No. 24, June 14, 2011, p. 201).

The essential data of the paper is shown in the accompanying graph, for which the dots show a time series of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide CO2 multiplier (ACM) calculated from time series data on anthopogenic CO2 emission rates and Marty & Tolstikhin's (1998) study of preferred volcanic emission rates. In their paper appearing in Chemical Geology (Vol. 145, p. 233) the latter authors gave a preferred estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year for present day global volcanic emission rate and injection. Their study encompassed CO2 emissions from divergent tectonic plates, intraplates (plumes) and convergent plates - e.g. displaying volcanism.

Moreover as the current Eos paper observes, their computations "assessed the highest preferred minimum and maximum global estimates, making them appropriate high end volcanic limits for the comparisons with anthropenic CO2 emissions covered with in this article".

To that extent, the Eos author (Terry Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey)showed from his time series that the projected anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26 gigatons per year emission rate for volcanoes, plumes etc. This ratio of 135:1 (anthropogenic to volcanic CO2) is what defines the anthropogenic multiplier, an index of anthropogenic CO2's dominance over volcanic inputs.

Supporting Gerlach's 2010 projection and ACM data, is the just announced word - from Thomas Karl of The National Climate Data Center (see: The Denver Post), June 29, p. 4) that in their 'Annual State of the Climate Report for 2010', that year was "tied with 2005 as the warmest on record". According to Director Karl: "The indicators show, unequivocally, that the world continues to warm."

Meanwhile, the Eos paper puts the final nails in the coffin of the "volcanoes did it" excuse! It is also worth mentioning how the ACM data show an astounding rise in the CO2 multiplier from about 18 in 1900, to roughly 38 in 1950, which parallels the vastly enhanced use of automobiles as a primary mode of personal transport - with the planet now saddled with nearly 600 million vehicles! Every manjack in a third world nation even seeks to own one!

Interestingly the only volcanic event which even came close to human emissions was the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1992. It generated CO2 emission rates roughly between 0.001 and 0.006 gigaton per hour, or closely approximating to the 0.004 gigaton anthropogenic per hour (e.g. based on 35 gigatons per year).Thus, as the Eos article observes:

For a few hours individual volcanoes may emit as much or more CO2 than human activities. But volcanic emissions are ephemeral while anthropogenic CO2 is emitted relentlessly from from ubiquitous sources..

Which means human activity is a vastly more significant source of CO2 and the major reason we are approaching a CO2 concentration (taken to be from 550- 600 ppm)that marks the threshold to the runaway greenhouse effect.

Let us hope humans are smart enough to get the message and act on it before it's too late!

Introducing Basic Physics (Series & Parallel Circuits)- Pt. 22

We now look at series and parallel circuits using the Wheatstone Bridge method. The same set up is used as shown in the photo for Part 21 and the circuit diagram (for the slide wire set up) is in Fig. 1. The separate circuit diagrams are shown in the accompanying diagrams (Fig. 2a and 2b)for the series and parallel cases.

Apparatus used:

i) Wheatstone Bridge

ii) d.c. voltmeter (0- 3 V)

iii) ammeter (0- 1A, 0- 10A)

iv) sensitive galvanometer

v) low voltage d.c. source (2V or under)

vi) wires for connections


Main Background points:

1. Series Circuits.

The general diagram is such as shown in Fig. 2(a). Here, separate components are connected in such a way the source of emf (battery) forces electric current through all components (e.g. resistors) in sequence. Once steady conditions are established the same current flows through all resistances. The total resistance is the sum of the individuals:

R = R1 + R2 + R3 + ........R_n

where R1, R2 are the resistances of the separate resistors.

The voltage in a series circuit is such that each component causes a drop in potential and the sum of all potential drops is equal to the emf applied to the total circuit:

E = V1 + V2 + V3 + ......V_n

Current in a series circuit is constant so the total is the same flowing through any given component:

I = I1 = I2 = I3 etc.

2. Parallel circuits

This set-up is such as shown in Fig. 2(b). In parallel circuits the current paths branch, hence are not sequential. Since several paths are available for current flow instead of just one, then the total resistance is less than the resistance of any ONE of the alternative paths, or resistors. The total is:

1/R = 1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/ R3 + .....1/R_n

Thus, the reciprocal of the total resistance of a parallel circuit is just the sum of the reciprocals of the separate resistances.

Special case:

This is for two in parallel, which makes easy computation for the total:

E.g.

1/R = 1/R1 + 1/R2 = R1 + R2 / (R1 R2)

Then: R = (R1 R2)/ (R1 + R2)

The voltage in a parallel circuit is the same across any component of the circuit, as it is across the circuit as a whole, so:

E = V1 = V2 = V3 etc.

The current in a parallel circuit is the sum of all the currents flowing in the separate components, i.e.

I = I1 + I2 + I3..+

Procedures for experiment

A) Series circuit.

Use the Wheatstone Briddge slide wire set up (Fig. 1) to determine the resistance of each resistor and use an emf no larger than 1.0 V. Connect all resistors in series and first measure the total resistance with Wheatstone Bridge (R_T). Connect ammeter and voltmeter across each as indicated (Fig. 2(a)) to obtain resistance based on Ohm's law, R= V/I)

B) Parallel circuit.

Use the same Wheatstone Bridge, but now connecting all the resistors in parallel using the resistance board (see, e.g. the left side of the photograph in Part 21 of the set up). Use the voltmeter and ammeter to take all necessary readings as per Part (A) but now with Rs in parallel. Take care in selection of meter readings so accurate readings will be obtained (preferably to three signficant figures).

Practical Problem:

A student at Harrison College uses the Wheatstone Bridge method to connect up resistors in parallel analogous to Fig. 2(b) He uses his ammeter and voltmeter (0- 1V) to obtain the following readings.

For R1: I1 = 0.50 A, V1 = 0.75 V

For R2: I2 = 0.25 A, V2 = 0.75 V

For R3: I3 = 0.75 A, V2 = 0.75V

a) Find the individual resistances based on his measurements.

b) Find the total resistance.

Solution:

a) Using Ohm's law, one obtains:

R1 = V1/ I1 = 0.75V/ 0.50A = 1.50 ohms

R2 = V2/ I2 = 0.75V/0.25A = 3.0 ohms

R3 = V3/I3 = 0.75V/ 0.75A = 1.0 ohms

b) The total for resistors in parallel:

1/R = 1/ R1 + 1/R2 + 1/ R3

1/R = 1/ 1.5 + 1/3 + 1/1

1/R = 1/(3/2) + 1/3 + 1 = 2/3 + 1/3 + 1 = 2

So: R = 1/2 = 0.5 ohms

Check: Is this smaller than any of the individual values? Yes!

Other Problems:

1)Two resistances of 20 ohms and 5 ohms are connected in parallel by a student. He then connects this combination in series with a 3 ohm resistance and a battery of 1 ohm resistance.

a) Draw a conventional diagram of the circuit (i.e. not in Wheatstone Bridge format).

b) Find the resistance of the resistors in parallel.

c) Find the total resistance of the circuit.

2) The photo shows a sketch of a Wheatstone Bridge Circuit at Harrison College, to be used to find the resistances of two resistors (R1 and R2) connected as shown, with two differing positions of the galvanometer. The total resistance R is also to be taken.

A student using the diagram finds his voltmeter reads 1.0 V and the total resistance is 4 ohms when the slide wire is at the end position noted.

If the balance for obtaining G = 0 (e.g. galvanometer reading zero) is the intermediate position, and the slide wire is then at 45 cm, find the values of R1 and R2.

3) A resistance R2 is connected in parallel with a resistance R1. What resistance R3 must be connected in series with the combination of R1 and R2 so that the equivalent resistance is equal to the resistance R1? Draw a circuit diagram of the arrangement.

4) Three equal resistors are connected in series. When a certain potential difference is applied across the combination, the total power dissipated is 10 watts. (Note: Power = V x I, voltage x current).

What power would be dissipated if the three resistors were connected in parallel across the same potential difference?

How the GOP Could Destroy the Economy by Massive Spending Cuts

As President Obama begins more negotiations with the GOP's stalwarts on the handling of the debt ceiling increase, he needs to bear in mind (and take to heart) Sen. Bernie Sanders recent exhortations to "stand tall" and refuse to make any quick and easy deals to avoid confrontation. Sanders then referred to the tax reform dealings back last fall, and how Obama got gamed by the repukes. He can't let that happen this time around, as his re-election may well hinge on him showing the determined leadership a President is supposed to have. Obama's no longer a lowly state senator, and he needs to act the part. Also, he can't be afraid to piss people off, even the Repuglicans!

The Rethuglicans' bad faith is the problem at heart. If they have all signed "pledges" not to raise taxes,,ever, then Obama's hands are putatively bound in the making of ANY deficit reduction deal! He simply cannot be seen to give in to one-sided demands, nor to lopsided demands! The burdens must be shared between higher revenue (taxes) and spending cuts, not all on the latter, or even four-fifths. (Some ideas circulating have increased taxes at $400b, but spending cuts more than $1.6 b. This is nonsense and insane! It must be at least HALF and HALF! Also why I refuse to give any more $$ to the DSCC or any other Dem organizations until I see some evidence of spine. So far I don't!)

Anyway, an essay to read carefully is the recent one entitled Our Greek Tragedy, appearing in TIME (July 4, p.. 26) by Rana Forhoohar. She writes in one segment that I advise all Repug followers to read:

"There's still a belief that the government can cut spending wholesale and expect consumers to pick up the slack. This is magical thinking!"

Indeed, it is! The reason is that the Republicans in their grossly stubborn behavior, don't appreciate or understand the economic concept of aggregate demand. It is the index of aggregate demand that ultimately determines investment potential, and also unemployment and whether an economy is "paralyzed" - as ours seems to be (as disclosed by the constant references of pundits).

Aggregate demand is composed of two parts: 1) demand generated by consumers for goods and services, and 2) the demand for investment goods. When the level of aggregate demand is high, both these components are generally equally high, and the levels of production and employment are high. On the other hand, when aggregate demand is low - or even one of the components (e.g. (1)) is VERY low, then levels of production and employment plummet. Right now we are seeing a tabulated rate of 9% unemployment and more like 16% real unemployment which is signaling that the aggregate demand is low. In addition, we see almost no movement of corporate dollars (now nearing two trillion) to invest in labor or labor infrastructure - to enable more workers to be hired. Thus, also low demand for labor investment goods.

The two are clearly feeding on each other.

Now, the next thing, why is consumer demand still low, falling almost quarterly? It is because the wages that support it are low! The average workers' wages have remained static or gone down since the recession theoretically ended. Thus, consumers are buying less, and resorting to unusual savings devices (like extreme coupon clipping) when they do buy! Also, when people eat out now they're more likely to get meal coupons off Groupon.com then go to the cheapest place that takes them, and after eating ding the business by leaving zero tip.

In other words, the demand side of the landscape looks so poorly for consumers they are hunkering down...likely expecting another shoe to drop. That "shoe" - when they pay attention to the news, sounds like a severe cut in possible social services, thanks to the Republicans' rhetoric. If they foresee such cuts, say even for Medicaid for sick granny or Uncle Tim, then they will pull back on spending in case they will need the money to help care for them! Ditto with seniors on Medicare, if they suspect cuts are in the works (as Sen. Max Baucus has intimated). Thus, they also pull back on their spending, or even going out to eat, say at Bob Evans.

The total effect is to put more jobs (at those places, services) under pressure, and possibly engender more job loss. Thus, the mere mention of the GOP mammoth (~ $2 trillion)spending cuts puts consumers under such potential threat that they already psychologically act as if it's happening. Meanwhile, nothing is being said forcefully (even by the nominal opposition) to defend higher taxes and revenues that would save programs - Pell Grants, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental laws...or whatever.

The word is even leaking out that the Repukes want spending on water regulation cut, meaning an epidemic of cryptosporidium - such as struck Milwaukee in 1994- could easily occur again!

Meanwhile, investor demand for investment goods is largely hinging on their optimism or not. If investors are pessimistic (as many are now...because of the volatility of stocks) then they will withhold their investments.

Here's a numerical example of how this all works. Assume we have "full employment" (e.g. 4%) and it generates a total of $1,000 worth goods and services in a day. This is also the sum total of the profits and incomes the employees and employers share. Let households comprised of workers and employers use a large fraction (e.g. 90% or $900) of their income to purchase goods and services for consumption. The remaining 10% or $100 is saved but eventually purchased by investors as investment goods.

Now, say an agent or effect appears (e.g. states cutting pensions and benefits) which causes consumers to pull back on their spending such that the $1,000 becomes $900. Then, with an income of only $900, the consumption is also reduced, say to only $800. $200 in "savings" accrues but inveestors are so pessimistic and traumatized by the consumption decline that they only purchase $50 of the $200. In this case, the aggregate demand has shrunk 15% from $1000 ($900 consumption + $100 investment) to $850 ($800 consumption + $50 investment).

In this way, the stage is setting up for a major financial disaster, and a new recession or even depression.

Let's say at this point (as shown above) spending cuts -mammoth ones - are now imposed by a derelict government which thinks it can get a handle on deficits almost solely via cutting. Then, consumers will pull back even further and incomes will drop to the 50% level or $500. They will still spend $450 on necessities, and investors will not budge from their $50 investments. The total of aggregate demand is now $500 ($450 + $50) or 50% of the original. But because of the contraction there is no accumulation of inventory (unsold goods) even as services such as bars & restaurants go out of business for lack of clientele (after all, only 50% of the original income is now available!) We do see a kind of equilibrium restored, but because production is now at only 50% of the full employment level, unemployment is now 50%.

As a comparison, the maximum unemployment in the Great Depression hit 35%. The above scenario played out on the national stage for next year, shows a projected net loss of aggregate demand in the neighborhood of 40-50% if the Repukes get their way before Aug. 2nd and $2 trillion in nothing but spending cuts is used to "solve" the deficit and enable the debt ceiling to be raised. This translates into an unemployment level of more than 18% this time next year (30% real unemployment) and a new recession bordering on depression. Think the repukes will be happy? Hell, they'll be having wet dreams at the prospect of such an abomination (which they deliberately created) within months of the general election.

THIS is what we face if the Republicans get their way, and no taxes are a significant part of a deficit reduction package. This is why Obama has to finally take off the kid gloves and put on the brass knuckles! He's fighting as much for his own 2nd term as he is for the nation! That means not taking any repuke shit, but rather dishing it out to them! Acting "Grownup"? Hell, grown-ups don't allow themselves to be pushed around by 2-bit punks with an attitude.

"Disowned” for denying a “loan”? So Be it!

Some ten months ago I blogged about my second brother “Donnie” (pseudonym) and his gambling problem – actually an addiction- and the serious problem of giving money away to him, when you know damned well it’s enabling his habits. I called this a moral hazard. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/of-brothers-and-moral-hazards.html

To recap briefly,I told him to find something constructive to do, or anything - that would keep his mind occupied and away from slots. I also told him that given his already known heart problems, he needed to knock off ALL smoking. I informed him that I certainly couldn’t or wouldn’t be subsidizing his ill health problems brought on by his bad habits, nor should he expect me to. He was now a “big boy” (62 years old)and needed to take charge of his life, as opposed to endlessly copping for handouts to support his smoking, gambling, or pure laziness. As I pointed out to him, he’s getting $2200 a month for doing absolutely nothing, and others are busting their humps across the nation, often working TWO scut jobs and not earning near as much as he receives gratis from the gov't. So, there was NO excuse to graft for money, especially from siblings who have their own financial issues and budgets to deal with.

At that time, after begging for $40 over the phone for something, and my refusal, he let loose a stream of expletives and asserted he “disowned” me. However, a couple of months later the relationship was tentatively repaired (at least nominally) and I sent him a Xmas gift of $20 (which in hindsight I perhaps ought not have done, but I’d hoped he’d see the difference between receiving a gift and a “loan”). I told him I no longer give loans because I never receive them back! A point reinforced in a recent issue of MONEY magazine, wherein their finance advisor said under no circumstances give out family loans unless specific conditions are met, including: setting a repayment deadline date, interest -if any- to be paid if deadline is missed. Since I knew none of this would wash with Donnie, I declined all loans to him period, but left the room open for gifts. Obviously, the latter would only occur at most twice a year: for his birthday and Xmas!

Sure enough, in late May he returned asking for a “loan” of $25. Again, I made it clear to him I no longer give loans, period. However, I would give him a $25 gift for his 63rd birthday (on June 9th). I figured this would be the end of it until Xmas but I was fooling myself. Anyway, soon thereafter he suffered an apparent heart attack and was told by the doctors to shape up (again stop smoking) and the best thing would be to have open heart surgery right there and then – as they suspected major blockage. Donnie declined, fearing such surgery and opting instead for an expensive Plavix regimen which also required catching taxicabs to purchase it at distant private pharmacies, at high cost (according to his version). I told him a more practical solution to his problems was simply to get the operation.

Now, rejecting the latter was a choice he made. A deliberate choice. Knowing he has limited finances, or so he claims(though he does have VA benefits!), and also trots out other reasons why he "must eat out and not cook", must take cabs everywhere - not buses, can't save money etc., WHY choose the most expensive heart health path? Just where the hell do you think you are going to get the money? DO you think you can endlessly tap family, brothers, forever?

So two weeks ago he wrote and asked to borrow $50 for “cab fare” to go and have his blockage scan appointment. This is now $75 asked for in the span of about a month! For five days I deliberated over this, swinging back and forth between whether this was another load of codswallop (designed to provoke sympathy and get money to buy smokes or gamble) or whether it was for real. After two more days of thrashing it out, I opted to write him in a short letter: “You can have this $50, not as a loan, but outright – provided this is the last time you ask for any money”. I also asked him to put it in writing, then I'd send the money.

Two days after that, I received a letter from him, but not in reply to the one I sent (because that would have been too rapid). This letter automatically assumed there’d be no money coming and let loose a barrage of hate and vitriol that caught me by surprise, and had my wife shaking her head as she read it. My first reaction was, Who the bloody fuck does this little shit think he is? Does he believe he's entitled to my money? How dare the little fuck launch into a venomous tirade including 'burning forever in hell' merely because I declined to gratify his wishes (at that time, though as noted I did send a letter offering the $ but with strings). As for my wife, her immediate response was:

“THIS is your brother?”she asked. “All you did is turn him down for a loan!”

I replied that I didn’t even do that, since I offered him the money but with one major string attached, never to ask again! However, he decided to attack me and spit in my face, before even getting it! I posted two segments to show some of the hostility in the letter, which I will use to make a point (Note: most of his letter was omitted because I wouldn’t put the content on a public blog. I put these sections on because they're relevant to my arguments. Also, if anyone at anytime sends me anything, I consider it fair game for my blogging – especially if what they send has drastic negative connotations, displays an openly hateful or vitriolic attitude or whatever. Be sure you know what the hell you’re doing before sending me anything, especially material that can be scanned and published! I regard everything sent to me in my personal domain, for personal use - howsoever I see fit!)

As to his letter(any other names redacted to protect those he involves), note his first words are: ‘Hey X-Brother!’ (He doesn't even know the appropriate form is 'Ex-Brother')

But in truth and fact Donnie has never been a brother. Oh, he is by blood, but he lacks the emotional wiring to relate as anything other than a perpetual snake oil salesman, con artist, beggar and grafter. Looking back all through the years at about a dozen contacts he initiated (as opposed to me) at least ten of them were purely to graft for money, or beg. He begins letters cordially enough, but then doesn’t even waste one more paragraph before the money begging commences – and it’s always for a “loan” despite the fact he’s never paid them back. (I take that back. He did “pay one $150 loan back” from ten years or so ago, by giving me a set of laminated 19980s baseball and football cards). So obviously, loans have no meaning for him.

Note also from the letter the sense of absolute entitlement. He feels – by his words and attitude- he’s fucking entitled to MY money! Note the violent reaction is almost as if I was the one who had ROBBED HIM of $50, when all I did(in his mind) was decline to give it to him. (But again, I had written him to make arrangements to give it provided he agreed to no more asking at all in the future)

Thus, his whole reaction – including the ‘burn in Hell” bullshit at the end, is totally out of proportion to the stimulus of a perceived rejection!

Then, the accusations of being “cheap” are priceless, as is his woefully wrong perception that $50 is nothing much. In fact, some people almost kill themselves in tough manual jobs to earn that in one day! Think of Florida’s sugar cane cutters. So, what he is really assuming is that parting with $50 is nothing, no big deal for me.

“Cheap”? Only an purblind, half-monkey idiot would believe that judiciously managing one’s expenses, cash outflows is “cheap”. The sad thing is he isn’t capable of doing it himself. Money is “cheap” to him because he disrespects it (e.g. "you can't even give me a lousy fifty bucks" on p. 2), and uses it as if it has no value. He pisses it away senselessly on smokes, slots or whatever…then expects others to bail his sorry ass out when he exhausts the greenbacks. Then, when others who manage their money deny him the use of theirs to piss away, he loses his composure and unleashes a barrage of hate. Showing, of course, he was never a true brother to begin with, but a pathological hollow man or cipher: a pretender, user, manipulator and exploiter merely sharing the same surname.

His other bellyaching about his funeral and “advanced directives” is also choice. The sad fact is that Donnie’s choices are totally setting him up to die alone, by himself, and in a pauper’s grave. And with NO one there to see him off..

But in the end, that will have been his choice, as it was his uncle David’s – another guy (my dad’s younger brother) who could never handle money, never use it properly and was hostage to alcohol and gambling addictions. I can still recall when he came around our home in Milwaukee in 1954 and stayed a few days, before he started begging for money "to find a job downtown", and came in drunk late one night. Dad asked him to leave the next morning, since there was no place for a drunkard with five young kids in the house. He never returned and died some years later, of alcohol poisoning.

"Donnie" in a similar way has already left whatever family he once had, and he did it by his own choice, as David actually did. As for those who say I ought not write about “family”, sorry! When they ask for it, and act in certain ways, there are no holds barred. If they don’t wish to be blogged about, then they shouldn’t send vitriolic letters through the mail. Especially when they ensure they can never see my replies (e.g. by sending my letter back without reading). "Family" is too often a cover to do whatever, use emotional extortion and get away with every and any thing (or invoke as a pretext to let others, fellow siblings etc. get away with anything!). To me, family means a constellation of people who can relate to you, who often have your back (and don't talk behind your back!) and may or may not be blood relations. I have a rather large extended family (over 255 people), thanks to my wife's huge clan, as well as a long time friend of 40 years. I know in a pinch I can count on any of them to have my back - and not stab me in the back! In the end, that's what real family is about! Not the extent to which selfish demands can be appeased at the drop of a hat - at the beck and call of an unreconstructed, overaged sibling brat!

Solutions to Part 21 (Electric circuits)

We now undertake the solutions for the problems in Part 21, Introducing Basic Physics: Simple electric circuits. The problem will be given then the solution.

1) A 12 V battery has an internal resistance of 2 ohms. If it is connected in series with a voltmeter and another resistance R = 4 ohms, what would the voltmeter read? What would an ammeter read placed in the same circuit?

The circuit set-up is shown for Problem (1). We first need to find the ammeter reading:

I = E/ (R + r) = 12V /(4 ohms + 2 ohms)= 12V/ 6 ohms = 2 A

Then the voltmeter (V) reading may be obtained from Ohm's law for the circuit:

V = I(R) = 2A (4 ohms) = 8V (at the position indicated)

This may also be validated by use of:

V = E - Ir = 12V - (2A)(2 ohms) = 12V - 4V = 8V

(e.g. 4V of total emf is lost through the source)


2) A Wheatstone Bridge circuit is connected as shown in Fig. 1(b). The galvanometer is found to read zero when point C is located exactly midway along a wire 1m in length (e.g. connecting A and B in the diagram). A known resistance coil R is used which is made of copper (rho = 1.72 x 10^-8 ohm-m) and is 50 m long, wound tightly in a coil.

a) If the cross sectional area A = πr^2 and r = 0.001m, find the value of R(x).


The experimental circuit is shown for Problem 2, with L1 and L2 denoting the respective lengths.

We first need to obtain the known resistance, but this must be done using the resistivity of the wire that's given (rho = 1.72 x 10^-8 ohm-m) in conjunction with the resistance as a function of resistivity eqn.

R = rho(L)/A = rho(L)/ πr^2

R = (rho = 1.72 x 10^-8 ohm-m)(50m)/(π x.001m^2) = 0.27 ohms


And, from the Wheatstone Bridge set up:

R(x)/ R = L1/L2

But since: L1 = L2 = 50 cm, then:

R(x) = R (L1/L2) = R (1) = 0.27 ohms



b) If a new resistor R made up of 100m length of the same copper wire is then used, then how must the lengths L1 and L2 change to achieve a galvanometer reading of zero?

We assume the only change made is to R, and R(x) is still 0.27 ohms. Then only the lengths L1, L2 will vary.

The new known resistance, call it R' = rho(2L)/A = 2R = 0.54 ohms

(since 100m = 2(50m))

Then:

R(x)/ R' = L1/ L2 = 0.27 ohms/ 0.54 ohms = 0.5

So: L1 = 0.5 (L2) or L2 = 2L1

The total length is 1m, so:

L1 + L2 = 100 cm

substituting for L2 (2L1):

L1 + 2L1 = 3L1 = 100 cm and L1 = 100cm/ 3 = 33.3 cm

So: L2 = 100 cm - L1 = 100cm - 33.3 cm = 66.7 cm