You know the rules, don't you? Pick a person. If that person knows or knew someone that did something illegal, nefarious, or just down-right rotten at some point in their life, then that person is branded as being of the same character and talents. Remember, though, that if the same person knows or knew someone that was a fine, upstanding member of the community, well, that doesn't count.

Oh, wait, those are the rules for the “basic” game. I prefer a little more of a challenge, so let's try the rules for the “advanced” game.

Rules for the “advanced” game:

Step 1: Pick a person who did something illegal, nefarious, or just downright rotten at some point in their life. It doesn't matter when it was or whether or not they've changed their ways. You're going to attempt to link this person to other people who have had dealings of any kind with him or her.

Step 2: Choose the “degree of separation”. One degree of separation means that your only going to attempt to relate to the target person anyone who has had direct contact with him or her. Two degrees of separation means that your going to include persons who have had direct contact with persons in the one degree of separation group.

Step 3: Label these other people as having the same character and talents. Remember, though, that you must include anyone else who also shares the same “degree of separation”. Keep a running count of all the people in the resulting set.

Winning the Game:
The object of the game is to create the smallest group of people within a specific degree of separation.

Sounds pretty easy. Let's play! I'll go first. I choose William Ayers as my object person. He's been in the news lately so should all be fairly familiar with him – he is/was a “domestic terrorist”. I'm going to choose one degree of separation.

Here's my result set: Barack Obama.

Hey, I got a result set that contains only one person! I win!! What? You think there are more people who share one degree of separation. Like who? The other people who served on the Board of the Annenberg Foundation? The individual or individuals that selected Mr. Ayers to the Board? Other people he met with during the course of his duties on the board? Neighbors? Aw, come on, they don't count, do they? Students that have attended classes taught by Mr. Ayers?? His physician!? Oh, now you're just being silly! Good grief, that's a lot of domestic terrorists! You can come up with more??

Ah, heck! I quit! I knew this was a stupid game!

How 'bout a nice game of chess?

There's something that's been bothering me for quite a while and I need to get it off my chest.

I don't know who first used the sentence “Businesses create jobs” (or any of its variants). Did it first appear during the Reagan campaign? Earlier? Later? It doesn't really matter, I guess. What matters is that the sentence is - how can I put this delicately? - not true. It's a lie, a falsehood, a deception. It sounds good to those people who a) don't understand the relationship between supply, demand, and society and b) want to “spin” the issue for personal gain.

How did I come to this determination? For most of my life I didn't really pay much attention to economics. I think I was like most people – I went to work, got a paycheck, and got by the best I could. With the advent of the Internet I got the opportunity to read more than just the local paper(s) and I also got the opportunity to see what other folks were saying via blogs and “chats”. And it seemed that every time that economics was brought up, there would be a conservative that would put forth something like “you liberals don't understand economics”.

While it was true that I, personally, didn't understand economics to a high degree, I was sure that not all economists were conservatives. So, I set out to educate myself.

I started with the basics, supply and demand. And, wouldn't you know it, one of the first casualties of my education was the “businesses create jobs” canard. The whole concept of “jobs” and “businesses” turned out to be a “which came first?” question.

One of the problems with the English language is that works can have more than one meaning. The on-line dictionary that I normally reference1 has 23 entries under the word “job”. The most basic of the entries is “the execution or performance of a task”. That's the definition of “job” that I'm going to use. Just about anything a person does can be considered a “job”. Mow the lawn – that's a job. Prepare dinner – that's a job. Build a house – that, too, is a job. Lots of tasks are jobs. Some are small, some are big, some are incredibly huge. Some jobs are so big that they are collections of other, smaller jobs.

There are three things that everyone needs: food, shelter and clothing. It doesn't matter your age, or your gender, or your race, or color, or creed or anything else. We all need those three things – everything after that is “gravy”. Only in the most primitive of societies does any one person take care of all his individual needs for food, shelter and clothing, if then. I would say that the only time any one person would take care of all his or her individual needs is when there is no other choice – there's nobody else around (think “Castaway” with Tom Hanks). But I digress.

However, in human societies we tend to specialize as individuals. This is not a recent occurrence. As far back as the historical record extends there have been persons that specialize in a particular task. There were millers, carpenters, masons, weavers, etc. The community needed flour for bread, so the farmer devoted his time to growing the grain and the miller devoted his time and energy to grinding the grain. The community needed housing, so the carpenters and masons devoted their time to its construction. Weavers made the cloth for clothing. Each of these people did what they did because there was a demand for their goods and services. Each received some sort of payment for goods provided or services rendered. The first businesses. The people that owned those businesses did so because there was a demand for those services.

The population expanded. Soon, there was more demand for goods and services than a one-person operation could handle. So one of two things happened: 1) more businesses started to compete with the existing businesses or 2) the existing businesses hired people to help them. As the demand for goods and services went up, so did the demand for people to fulfill the demand. But the businesses didn't create the jobs, they provided employment. It was the demand for goods and services that created the jobs.

The same holds true today. Businesses would not exist if there were no demand for goods and services.

None of you reading this, whether employer or employee, would do whatever it is you do to make a living if there were no demand for your goods or services.

So can we find a way to retire the old "businesses create jobs" canard?

Last night I took my 74-year young mother out for dinner. The conversation meandered over several topics, but then she said "You know, if Hillary isn't our nominee I can't see myself voting for Obama, I'll vote for McCain."

I was a bit taken aback - my mother has, to the best of my knowledge, always voted Democrat. I just blurted out "Mom, I thought you raised me better than that!" She looked a bit puzzled, so my explained something along the lines of:

"Do you know how childish that sounds? You sound like the kid who, when he can't make all the rules, threatens to take is ball and go home. Not only that, but you're saying that if your candidate doesn't win the nomination, you'll vote for someone who promises to give us four more years of the same failed policies that Bush has given us. Where is the logic in that? You wouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face, so why would you vote for McCain? I'm an Edwards supporter and I'll vote for Obama. To do otherwise is insane."

Well, she took pause and then agreed that I was right. Mom's still pretty sharp.