The Wisdom Of Solomon

The Illegal Alien Problem

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:35:39 -0400

I am a problem analyzer. I analyze problems and try to come up with possible operational scenarios which, if implemented, might solve the problem being considered. You will note that I do not state that the results of the analysis WILL solve the problem. Only the application of the method to solve the problem will give you the data which will allow you to draw the conclusion that the problem was solved or not. You should also note that I do not advocate a plethora of possible solutions for a particular problem. Frequently there are many solutions for a given problem and some are liked more than others. This preference may be based upon cost, time for implementation, and dozens of other possible measures of success. I don’t address that issue, either.

Why am I writing about this? It was triggered by a political advertisement in the great state of California. The problem focused on illegal immigration. Meg Whitman, a Republican candidate for Governor of California was criticized because her posture agreed with the President of the United States. Their approach offered a form of amnesty. This appears not to be to the liking of the people in the Steve Poizner campaign, another Republican candidate for the Governor of California who ran the advertisement.

Let’s talk a little about Illegal Immigration. First it might be nice to have some facts. There are roughly 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. No one knows for sure because the haven’t registered at some official place (police station, city hall, post office, etc) as an illegal alien. So our data is guesswork. The guess comes from people who have studied illegal immigration for years, even decades. While their numbers may not be exact, they are probably about the right order of magnitude.

Some, perhaps many, of these illegal aliens use our health system. They use our schools. They may or may not pay taxes. They don’t pay Social Security taxes, and they don’t pay income taxes. They don’t have a Social Security number. They probably do not have their deductions withdrawn from their paychecks. They are paid in cash, and only pay taxes that are imbedded in the cost of things they buy: groceries, clothes, etc.

The jobs that these illegal immigrants perform within the United States probably do not include serving as professors at our prestigious universities, nor as CEOs of our larger and more successful firms. No, they do the jobs that are the bottom of the employment ladder: menial labor. They clean our houses, they reap our crops, they fix our plumbing, they collect our garbage, and they perform other hard, menial labor. Their children, actually American citizens if born in the United States by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, use our educational facilities.

Now comes the question: what should be done about it? The president has suggested a feasible plan. It meets my criteria for a solution: it could work. He suggests that illegal aliens register, go through the a modified immigration process (modified for these millions of special cases), and become citizens. And, bear their fair share of the burden of keeping this country financially operating. Sounds like a good idea. Oh, there are some conditions. If they are found to be felons, either before entering the United States illegally, or after arriving here, they will be thrown out of the country. No chance to try again. All of the illegal immigrants will, upon registration and found to be allowed to stay, be issued biometric identity cards (can’t be counterfeited) and play a role in the society.

Is this amnesty? Well, in some sense, it is. Those who crossed the border illegally and have stayed in this country, illegally, for perhaps many years, will be rewarded for their tenacity and vision.

OK, you say. But what about not allowing this to happen? What other solutions are suggested? Tell all the illegals to report to the Border Patrol and be thrown out of the country? Hardly a likely scenario. And, if this could be done, which is highly doubtful, then who will do the work which these millions of people have done and continue to do for the past several decades? No more people to perform manual labor. The cost for manual labor will sky rocket, even if you can find some one to till our fields, clean our houses, and perform the other manual labors required which support the operation of our entire society.

For those who cry Amnesty! I pose the following question: What do you propose to do about the problem? How are you going to deal with the problem? What steps do you propose? I personally am very interested to hear about a possible operational methodology. If it is workable then I think it should be considered. But pointing a finger at someone, including the President of the United States, and saying that their solution is Amnesty begs the entire question. We need workable potential solutions. One solution can then be selected by the electorate or the political leaders and implemented.

Does this sound familiar? Have we ever done something like this before? We did. It was called the Volstead Act, implemented in 1919. It helped in the definition of some terms in the Eighteenth Amendment and created what we call Prohibition. The only thing that really resulted from this moral position (not supported by the entire population of the United States at that time) was to convince the criminal community to get organized. And, did it stop drinking? It did not. Not even close. So, it was NOT a solution to drunkenness among the population. I suggest that this might serve as an example on how not to do something.

I believe that there is no possible solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens in this country except to recognize their existence, the role they play in the United States, and solve the problem as it currently exists. It is not possible to turn the clock back.

I am sorry that we have the problem. But the key point is: we do. And we need a methodology that will solve the problem as it actually exists.

The Future of Mankind

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:29:46 -0400

A friend of mine sent me a document the other day. It was a report by the Maldon Institute entitled Proliferation and the Nuclear Industry with the sub-title: “We will all go together when we go…” The report, which is written in a laconic, straight forward fashion is perhaps one of the most sobering documents that I have ever read.

The sub-title of the report is very unusual. It is based upon the song written and performed by Tom Lehrer from the 1950s. His lyrics were perhaps prophetic: “And we will all go together when we go. What a comforting fact that is to know. Universal bereavement, An inspiring achievement, Yes, we all will go together when we go.”

The focus of the report is the continuing spread of the nuclear industry throughout the world. Human beings are encountering unpleasant facts about our planet: there are limits which are non-political. For example, the world population is growing with amazing speed. The population of the world wants, demands and expects more energy. There is a finite amount of oil on the planet, and the use of oil allows us to produce energy with by products. This is not a discussion of whether Global Warming, which is unquestionably happening, is due to the growth of carbon dioxide in out upper atmosphere or not. The reasons why Global Warming is occurring are under some considerable discussion. We are not sure why the atmosphere seems to be getting warmer (over long periods of time), but it certainly is.

As a species we have a demand for energy that can only be met by nuclear energy. The current method is to use fission reactors, which use Uranium for fuel. This process has some unpleasant drawbacks. It is possible to imagine fusion reactors. They haven’t been built yet, but they are conceptually feasible. The fuel is sea water, and the by product is fresh water. This seems like a good idea, and we are, as a species, short of fresh water.

But I was commenting on the Future of Mankind. The growth of the nuclear industry has resulted (from the Maldon Institute report) in nuclear reactors existing in many countries throughout the world. And, the security of these plants is not perfect. Countries like China and North Korea are building nuclear plants and selling their expertise and the output of their plants to other countries. The spread of nuclear fissionable material is not coming in the future: it is here, now.

What does this mean? I think that man’s political hatreds and insistence on the truth of one belief over another means that we shall have nuclear events. In less elegant language, it means that the political extremists will have their hands on bombs and will happily detonate them at a time and place of their choosing for political reasons.

What will the United States do when (say) Butte Montana disappears in a mushroom cloud? There will be some furious reaction and soon there will be many places in the world (and their inhabitants) which will cease to exist. You can pick your country and its response.

I consider this not probable, but certain. The world, as we know it, will be coming to an end shortly. It is just a matter of time.

I will have more to observe and comment on in future observations and musings.

Postulates, Axioms, Theorems and Assumptions

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:49:25 -0500

I have suggested a method of dealing with problems in an earlier post. In a short reprise there are three steps: define the problem, develop possible solutions to the defined problem, and then select your favorite possible operational solution.

The crux of the approach is really based upon the problem definition. In doing so there are several types of information and data that will have to be considered.

The concept of axioms was probably first encountered in Plane Geometry. An axiom is a

claim which could be seen to be true without any need for proof. A postulate is an axiom, and so is an assumption. A theorem is something that can be proven by using previous theorems (which have been proven) and axioms. Much of this is mathematical jargon but it still is highly useful in considering problems of all types.

In defining a problem you must first consider what you know about the issue. What is fact? What do you know, absolutely know without any possible error about the problem? If you encounter a probable fact, but open to possible question, then that is equivalent to a theorem. It must be proven (in the mathematical sense) and rigidly defined in the world of humans. Is a fact true all the time? Then it is an axiom, or a postulate, or even an assumption. If a fact is true some of the time then what are the constraints which must be specified? Under what conditions is it true? You must know when something is true in order to build a problem definition. For a given set of circumstances a problem will have one set of facts; for a slightly different set of circumstances a problem will have another set of facts which may, or may not, be closely related to the first set of facts.

A simple example will illustrate. You build a system that allows you to see your enemy coming over a hill. Your system can see for 10 miles with clarity and precision. The hill is only 4 miles away. Will your system always work? The answer is no. If you are using your eyes, that will be true if it is a bright sunny day. But what if you are in a deep, opaque fog? The system will not let you see your enemy. So, the system works perfectly except for fog.

The problem is figuring out a system that will allow you to see your enemy when they come over the hill. It is not well defined. You have to also say under what weather conditions, day or night, etc. Once you have defined the problem (which I glossed over deliberately for the sake of the example) then your postulates (axioms and assumptions) will be understood.

This is not easy. It is not done in a blink of an eye. Yet grappling with the problem definition is critical for success in all fields of human endeavor. And failure to define the problem you are addressing with clarity and precision will almost certainly have unforeseen and potentially very unpleasant consequences.

A Tipping Point

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:10:36 -0500

I am just starting to be involved in Blogging, so I had thought I would address certain issues which were not highly emotional or perhaps even controversial. But the events of the past few days have forced me to reconsider this posture.

A tipping point is the point beyond which you can no longer recover. From the Internet, “The tipping point is the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development. The term is said to have originated in the field of epidemiology when an infectious disease reaches a point beyond any local ability to control it from spreading more widely. A tipping point is often considered to be a turning point.”

I am addressing the issue of our political representatives. I am an old man, with substantial experience in many fields. For many years I have watched our political leaders insist that they will solve our problems, or at least address them. I have listened to these speeches for a long time and when I was younger I was enthusiastic and supportive. With time I have judged the efficacy of the leaders by comparing their campaign promises with their actions.

I am not a starry-eyed idealist. I recognize that politics of all kinds require a give-and-take effort on all sides. No one group or individual has the total answer for all people on any subject. In all types of human interactions when decisions have to be made for the good of any group with different constituencies it is necessary for all to recognize that half-a-loaf is better than no loaf. And, the brighter leaders will recognize and even publicly agree that a combination of different approaches, melded into a complex action might be the best solution. It is recognized that sometimes their joint decision leads does not lead to a good solution and therefore they must change what they agreed upon. This is the sort of political process that you recognize at the national level down to the local club decisions on any subject from gardening to street decoration at the holidays.

My observations, made over years, led me to believe that experience and understanding was a good thing to have in our elected representatives. After all, they were working for us, and as such, will at least be mildly responsive to our desires and will work the political give and take, as required, to get us half-a-loaf.

I have gone past my tipping point and now believe that I am wrong. I believe that the group of our elected representatives are worse than useless: they are a danger to the operation of the nation. I have reluctantly decided that the only action that might have an effect is to send a message to ALL the national Congressman (Senators and Representatives) by voting for and electing only non-incumbents.

To this sweeping statement many will object. I am not so happy myself. Perhaps there are Congressmen who are trying to solve the nation’s problems: Jobs, energy, economy, infrastructure, education, healthcare, two wars,etc. But I can’t find them. Here is the measure I use: Has there been ANY success in obtaining a solution in ANY of these areas? I think not. And the number of Congressmen who have actually helped in any solution are few and far between. I think it is time to send a message to all sitting office holders and future office seekers: we, the American voting populace have finally lost our patience. The penalty for their collective failure is for all of them, individually, to lose their seats. The good (hypothetically there are some) and the bad (inept where there are demonstrably many): all go down.

It is true that the new group who comes in will be less experienced than those they replace. But, look at this way: could they possibly be less effective than our current leaders? I am not talking about what they say: I am talking about what is actually done.

I will vote for ALL non-incumbents in the coming elections. I suggest that if we throw out (defeat for reelection) 50% (or so) of the current incumbents the message will be clear: we, the American electorate have had it.

Logic and Emotion in Problem Solving

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:37:45 -0500

I am frequently criticized as being too unemotional. In general people think that you should feel about things. Contrary to popular opinion, I do feel emotional about many things. But not about solving problems. My methodology in dealing with problems in the world around me is rank ordered and always works.

There are three steps that are required to address any problem which becomes part of your life. First, you have to define the problem. Second you have to consider all possible solutions to your problem. Third you have to pick one solution to implement. These are simple (in concept).

The definition of the problem is the first step. There are more errors made here than in any other part of the process. You put the problem into words, and frequently, not very carefully. All the people who are working with you nod, smile, and you assume that all of your colleagues (buddies, friends, etc) understand the words that you have used in the same way that you meant them to be understood. This assumption is frequently wrong. In order to be successful the problem definition must be understood in the same way by all the participants. They may use the same words, or not, but they must all understand the problem definition in precisely the same way. If not, disaster is just a step away.

Once the problem is defined you can proceed to the second step: possible solutions. These solutions should be based upon physics, administrative constraints, financial requirements, etc. It doesn’t matter what the constraints are, but the solutions must fit within a defined world which is feasible. So far we have not mentioned emotion. There is none. You may, or may not, like the possible solutions to the problem. But that issue comes later. The question you must address and answer is: is this particular proposed set of actions a solution to the well defined problem?

Now the rest is easy. Consider the set of allowable, feasible solutions. Some will be liked by you and not others. Some will be like by others but not you. Note the verb here defines an emotional response. There is really no method of selecting one solution over another except emotion. This is where your emotions come into play.

Now you have a proposed course of action. You have defined the problem. You have considered a set of possible solutions. And, you have selected one of the solutions for implementation. This approach, while considered by some to be a little cold-blooded, always works. It works for all problems: physical, managerial, and even emotional. I commend it to all of you.

Introduction of Louis P. Solomon

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:16:57 -0500

My name is Louis P. Solomon. I am beginning this blog at the suggestion of my family. They are all inveterate bloggers with large followings. They know that I have written on many different subjects for many years and have strongly encouraged me to express myself in a way that essentially did not exist 10 years ago. I accept their challenge. Social networking is a new method of establishing networks for professional and social contacts and, while retired from previous career, I still am deeply involved in a large variety of different areas of interest to me.

My writings have focused for many years in several different areas. I wrote technical reports and technical articles which appeared in refereed technical journals. At the instigation of my Mother I began to write books. It was an amazing request, essentially a bolt-from-the-blue. With her usual tenacity she forced me to write my first novel (The Third Legacy). More books followed. These books are non-fiction and fiction. I was approached by the publisher of an Ezine who requested that I write a monthly column on different topics. I accepted her offer and have been writing columns for the past 5 years. These columns (called Viewpoints) are on (www.maryland20878.com).

While I write and enjoy it, I also run several different businesses. I am the founder of a very unusual consulting company (www.lpscolg.com) which focuses on solving unusual, non-standard problems using out-of-the-box approaches. My colleagues and I believe that there is no problem in the management, technical, economic, and administrative arenas which we cannot solve.

In addition to consulting, I also have founded a publishing company (www.pearlriverpublishing.net), give speeches to interested groups (www.lpsseminars.com) build web sites for special purposes (www.chelseatcondo.com), and operate ham radio (N3EXW): a hobby that I have engaged in since 1957. I use digital modes exclusively (operate mainly on 20 meters) using PSK31. This is an amazing technology which allows me to connect to people over most of the world, digitally, using roughly 30 watts of power. Think about that!

I will be posting comments on this blog frequently. I look forward to discussions on subjects which are of interest to me as well as responding to those of you who will make comments. Let me hear from you as the mood strikes you.