Group Thinking Clouds Clear Decision-Making

I believe this study is essentially true. If you think about most revolutionary inventions and scientific ideas come not from groups but from individuals. From Albert Einstein's theory of relativity to the invention of the light bulb to the airplane (okay, here there were two people--but that is still not a group)--all came from individual people. There are not many committees that come up with cutting-edge ideas.

The article did not go into why groups cannot come up with alternative solutions but I have a theory about that. I think the reason why is because people in groups are afraid of their ideas being criticized or ridiculed. You have to be a brave person to go against the grain. By the way there is nothing wrong in criticizing an idea or theory--as long as you don't attack the person himself. That is what makes democracy great--each person expressing his/her opinion. Groups have a hard time coming up with creative ideas if there is no-one in the group that is not a leader or at least a catalyst.

Congress' Symbolic Non-Binding Resolution

Glenn Beck on his television show has a brilliant comment about supporting the troops but not the mission. As he put it "hating the game, but not the players." When the troops are killing in your name you cannot say you don't support the mission when that is part of the mission. He said that you are either in full support of the war and the mission or your not and you have to withdrawal the troops from Iraq if you are not. You cannot have it both ways. Try to win the war or cut-and-run. That's the two options you have.

This Congressional symbolic non-binding resolution is really stupid and does not help the troops over in Iraq at all. All it does is bolster the spirits of the enemy. They see America's rulers not agreeing about winning the war. How does cutting funding of the war help the troops? It does not help. This action is the equivalent of taking their ammunition away from them. Leave them in Iraq and give them the military and moral support they need or completely withdraw them from Iraq. Period. You don't play stupid games with our military when their lives are in danger.

All this symbolic resolution is political pure and simple. If Iraq stabilizes that puts President Bush in a positive light. The Democrats in Congress cannot have that when there is a presidential election coming up. That increases Republicans chances of winning the Presidential race the Dems think. But the Democrats are not realizing (or maybe do not care) that if Iraq stabilizes then not only does that help President Bush but America and the whole region over there. As Bill O'Reilly would say the people behind this non-binding resolution are not looking out for America. So, why doesn't the Democrats want America to win in Iraq? One, they think they got elected by anti-war voters. Possibly. But there is another possibility. It could be that they got elected because the American public wanted to win the war and did not think the Republicans that got voted out were not doing a good job of running the war. Two, is the Dems are trying to appease the far-left anti-war cook groups. But these groups want the troops out of Iraq period. They are not going to settle for anything less. Those are the two basic reasons why the Democrats are trying to straddle the middle of the line. They don't want to appear against the troops while they want to appear against the war. Like I said make a choice. At least during the Vietnam war the Dems back then were against the war and the troops (who by the way were drafted). They were at least consistent.

I should say that criticizing the execution of the mission is not being unpatriotic. You can make the argument that President Bush should have put more troops in early, etc. But if you don't want America and her allies to win in Iraq then you are unpatriotic and border-line treasonous. That is almost like a fan not rooting for his hometown to win in a sport. It does not make any sense. Maybe every presidential candidate should be asked "do you want America to win in Iraq?" Hopefully a reporter will ask that question and the candidate will have the guts to answer the question. If the answer is no or the candidate dodges the question--do not vote for him/her.

Black History Month

In honor of Black History Month I would like to share the non-fiction books I've read by black authors.

         Thomas Sowell:
            The Vision of The Anointed. (1996)
            Basic Economics. (2003)
            Applied Economics. (2003)
            Black Rednecks and White Liberals. (2006)

        The Ten Things You Can't Say in America by Larry Elder (2000)

        They Think You're Stupid by Herman Cain (2005)

        White Guilt by Shelby Steele (2006)

        Time Traveler by Dr. Ronald L. Mallett (2006)

I've probably read more books by black authors but these are the ones I remember. Then again, I only pay attention to the content of the book not the race of the author.

The reader might want to check out the Black Inventor Online Museum, and Black Enterpreneurship Hall of Fame.

By the way Barack Obama is not the first black presidential candidate. Ever heard of Alan Keyes?

Self-Erasing Paper

Xerox is developing cool technology. What they are doing is inventing self-erasing paper that erases itself within 24 hours. That is really neat.

I hope when this comes out in the market place that Xerox distinguishes this paper from normal paper. Otherwise you might have someone write something down on this self-erasing paper accidently that (s)he wants to keep permanently. Oops!

Congress Capping CEO Salaries

The Congress is thinking about putting caps on CEO salaries. They think that CEOs do not earn what they are worth. That might be true. But what right does Congress have to determine what maximum anyone earns? The free market should determine this. In this case the salary of CEOs is a agreement between the board of the corporation and the CEO. Indirectly the stockholders of the company influence CEO pay electing the board members. So, what if the CEO is not earning his/her pay. If the business is not making profits then that only affects the stockholders and employees. No-one else. I don't think Congress is earning their pay either but their cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) keeps going up annually automatically unless the Congress votes not to accept the COLA (like they would do that). Know any businesses where the salary keeps going up automatically? I don't think so. But I digress.

To get a perspective of CEO salaries let's look at other people's salaries from Forbes.com.

Steven Spielberg	$ 332.00 mil.
Capital One CEO Richard D. Fairbank	$ 249.42 mil. total compensation
Yahoo! Ceo Terry S. Semel	$ 230.55 mil.
Oprah Winfrey	$ 225.00 mil.
Tiger Woods	$ 90.00 mil.
Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray R Irani	$ 80.73 mil.
Tom Cruise	$ 67.00 mil
Bruce Springsteen	$ 55.00 mil
50 Cent	$ 41.00 mil
David Letterman	$ 40.00 mil
Genzyme CEO Henri A. Termeer	$ 36.38 mil. (A pharmaceutical company).
Kobe Bryant	$ 31.00 mil
Walmart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr.	$ 10.46 mil
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer	$ 1.03 mil.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt	$ 0.03 mil.

If you look at the list above you will see that director/producer Steven Spielberg yearly salary is more than the top CEO. Do you think Congress is going to put a cap on his salary? I doubt it. Oprah Winfrey makes more than Occidental Petroleum's CEO and Walmart's CEO put together. Is Congress going to put a cap on her salary? Again, I doubt it. And I would not want Congress to put a cap on their salaries either. Let them make as much money as they want. As long as their are making it legally and not giving money to terrorist organizations, it is not of Congress or anyone else's concern. I read some of the lyrics of 50 cents. I think they are stupid and even insulting. I personally don't think he is worth 41 million dollars, but his fans do. They keep buying his music. Would it be right for me to tell him he can't make anymore money? Evidently, Congress thinks it has a right to do that on certain segment of the population.

Everyone's salary is dependent on their talent and skills on the job. Not just CEOs. That is why I included non-CEOs in the list.

What this really is just another example of punishing the successful. Or as liberals call it "economic justice." That is another name for socialism. Liberals in the Congress want the poor to believe if they cap the salaries of CEOs that this will somehow make the poor feel satisfied or happy in someway. Getting some kind of revenge on the rich. But that revenge feeling is a false feeling and does not last. It definitely does not help the poor. Being wealthy is not of itself evil. Just as being intelligent does not make one self necessarily good. It is what you do with those powers that determines your moral worth.

Talking about Congress here is their salaries:

Speaker of the House	$212,100
Congressional Leadership of the House or Senate	$183,500
Congressman	$165,200

Do you think they are worth that much money? Do you think they would ever consider capping their own salaries?