The Bacman

The Unemployment Crisis

2011-12-18T08:25:00.001-08:00

We all know there is an unemployment crisis in America. People say that there are no jobs, Conservatives say companies are out of money so they can't afford new workers, and Liberals say it's simply greedy companies refusing to hire.

Regardless of why - the government feels it must do something about it. Now before I go on I must say I don't believe the Federal government has a place in such things - but so long as the continue to violate the Constitution and attempt to run our lives I say let them do something constructive for once.

The Federal Unemployment and Resume Database.

I forward that the Federal Government (the Fed) already has a database of the unemployed - but like everything the government does the system is half-assed. First, you are only in the system for the first couple months of unemployment and then (regardless of your employment status - you are removed). This leads to a false representation of the unemployment levels (see below) and hurts people when they need help the most. When do you think unemployment benefits are most important? The day you loose your job (and probably have $10 or $20 in your pocket)? Or a year later when you are completely flat broke, are having your things repossessed and home foreclosed upon?

I say, with a little intelligent work, and a little coordination (I know - in the Government this is completely impossible but let's dream) they can provide a service, collect a butt ton of money in revenues regardless of the outcome of the system and save a butt ton of money in one entitlement program.

I recommend that the Fed interlink all their unemployment databases via web technologies. They then add resume and Human Resource (HR) style fields to each record including interview, offer and status fields. All of this would be online and here is how it would work.

Are you unemployed? No problem. You go to the local unemployment office and register just like you do now. Once your information is online (to include a full and proper resume) you begin getting your unemployment checks.

Are you an employer? No problem. For only $1.00 per month you can have access to the Feds unemployment resume database. From here you can schedule interviews (through the Fed). The candidate employee will be notified electronically (automatically) that an interview is pending.

You go to the interview and at the end, the employer tenders you an offer (through the system) to include salary. This ensures that the salary offering is not below the minimum wage, is completely unreasonable etc. The offer is sent to you and you respond either accepting or declining the offer. Once you go into the system - you are in the system for ever. Of course we already have a number of systems which include such data: Unemployment, IRS, etc. But I get ahead of myself.

A complete record of your interviews, offers and acceptance (or declines) are kept in the system.

Now, here are the benefits:

If you fail to appear for an interview - your unemployment benefits are cut off. The government begins saving immediately on unemployment costs.
If you are offered a job and you turn it down - your unemployment benefits are cut off. The government begins saving immediately on unemployment costs.
If you are offered a job at an unreasonable salary (base salaries would be set at by each state) - your unemployment benefits continue. Employers are held to a standard so no one can scream that the greedy companies are trying to rip off employees (it's called verification and oversight).
If you are an employer who can prove you hired someone using the Fed system, your monthly access (for one month) is free. Companies get access to literally hundreds of thousands of state and nationwide talent. The Government either: (a) begins collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly from companies looking for talent or (b) is credited with swiftly lowering the unemployment level (which creates jobs, generates revenue, and increases spending)

Frankly, I can't think of a downside here. Ok, the government is intruding even further into our lives you will argue. But aren't they already doing this? The Congress is hauling companies before hearings to berate them on their hiring and salary practices. The Government already is entrenched in an unemployment aid process which costs us billions every year and is falsely used to tout the unemployment numbers every month. I say falsely because after a period of time you simply drop off the rolls and so the government claims unemployment has stopped increasing when in fact it has not, or worse that unemployment is on the decline when it has not.

What the monthly unemployment numbers really tell us is at what rate unemployment is CLIMBING not what the unemployment rate is. This solves that by providing a true number of who is still on the unemployment rolls. So long as you continue to seek employment, attend scheduled interviews and are not tendered a reasonable offer - you continue to collect benefits.

Ok, of course you say that there will be those who game the system. Those who work very very hard at not getting a job by:

Not bathing before an interview
Not combing their hair before an interview
Not washing their clothes before an interview
Wearing inappropriate clothing to an interview
Showing up at an interview late
Lying on their resume

Or any number of things that everyone knows is important in getting a job. I know. I can't fix everything but I think this system is a start. Plus, in response to your concerns it allows the government to grow a whole new agency which has oversight (i.e.: spies) on interview candidates by sneaking around to random interview locations in order to see how you show up. If you show up in your pajamas, looking like you just rolled out of bed then your copped - and your benefits are cut off.

These are the kinds of ideas that make me the genius that I am.

Signed

Wile E. Coyote

Super Genius

Oooh, Aaaahhhhhh - Drobo Pro

2011-12-13T12:14:00.000-08:00

Drobo. The greatest invention since disk storage.

In order to fully grasp how great this little gadget is you have to understand a little about disk storage, specifically RAID storage. Now you could hop on over to Wikipedia and read a pretty lengthy article, or just continue on here with my (somewhat) abbreviated version.

History of Storage

Back in the day we use to store computer data (stuff) on paper cards that had little holes in them called punch cards. But we improved that and began storing computer stuff on magnetic media. For the fairly well-off there were large tape recorders that spun very large tape reels around. For the moderately well-off there were floppy disks. Not the 3.5" floppy disks you all vaguely remember, but large 8" floppy disks. After that came the 5.25" floppy disks, then the 3.5" that some of you might recall. All but replaced by CDROM and DVDs. But I digress. Back in the day if you were extremely well-off you had a disk drive. It was about the size of a modern day washing machine and was pretty cumbersome to work with. The top lifted up (much like a washing machine) and a very large set of disk platters were on a spindle. You took one spindle out, and put another spindle in. In doing this, you had to hand crank a locking mechanism to secure, or unsecured (spin down and spin up) the disks. You put the top of the machine back down and turned it on and had access to a whopping 200Mb (little b) of data.

Companies began making smaller, more manageable disk drives that could fit on a desk, and then in a computer, and finally disks that had a very small form and could fit either internal or external to a desktop or laptop computer. Very small indeed.

Somewhere along the way someone figured out that what some folks needed was to store more data than could fit on one single disk drive, or even two or three. The problem though was that you were limited to how many disks could be represented on your computer - and some folks needed the capacity of many many disk drives.

Enter the concept of RAID.

Now many people have differing opinions as to what RAID stands for. Originally it was the Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Some, say it's the Redundant Array of Independent Disks. As prices fluctuate, I would argue that anyone who says a RAID solution has anything to do with the word "Inexpensive" is a few bits short of a full byte - if you get my meaning.

Anyway, RAID was a way of connecting more than one disk together in such a fashion that the computer thinks it's only a single disk (say the beloved D:\ drive) but the available capacity was greater than any one of the single disks.

RAID 0 and 1 were born.

RAID 0 is really a misnomer, because for something to be considered a true RAID solution, it must provide redundancy. RAID 0 has no redundancy. It is more appropriately known as a Single Large Expensive Disk (SLED). Essentially, the disks are attached (logically) to each other and data spans both disks. RAID level 0 only requires 2 disks in order to set it up.

RAID 1 is also known as Mirroring. It requires 2 disks. Data written to disk 1 is also written to disk 2.

RAID 3,4 and 5 each require at least 3 disks. Data is written across all the disks. The data is actually split up so that parts are written across each disk. The safety here is that no single file resides on any single disk. Safety protocols are in place so that if you loose a single disk, you can replace just that one disk and the RAID software is able to determine what is missing, and rebuild the data. Pretty cool.

Problems.

RAID isn't without it's issues. First is it's cost. In order to set up a RAID system you have to have hardware (a box for the disks) that can handle the number of disks you are using, and typically it requires special types of disks (SCSI etc). Each disk must be of the same size, speed, and connector type. This becomes a REAL issue as your RAID Array grows old and a disk needs to be replaced. You can't simply throw in a newer, larger, faster disk into the mix and have it work. Let's say you started with 3 100GB disks. You now need to replace one. Try finding a 100GB disk. Or even a 500GB disk. You can probably find a 1TB disk and put it in there - but 900GB of space on that disk won't be used. It's a drawback of RAID.

Enter Drobo.

Drobo is RAID without the restrictions of RAID. You can use disks of any speed, or any size. You can start with only 1 disk, and expand all the way up to 12. There is no upper limit on the storage capacity so as disk sizes increase, you can simply pull out one disk and replace it with one of a larger size - and Drobo will make all the combined space available to you.

I have been a huge fan of this technology since it initially was released.

The first Drobo (which I still have) had only 4 slots available for disks. I started with 2 500GB disks, and in short order added another 500GB and a 750GB. Then I began installing 1TB disks, and eventually 2TB disks. Mind you - installing new larger capacity disks as time and money allowed - and not having to replace 4 disks of common size at the same time. It is truly an incredible system.

I have been into personal computing since the 80's, and have lost my share of data. No matter what backup technology I used it always seemed to fail when it was needed most. However, I can happily state that I haven't lost a single file since I began using Drobo a number of years ago - it has been so incredibly rock solid that I have stopped executing backups all together.

In fact - at one point my Drobo started having issues. I called up Tech Support and they felt it might be due to the different drive speeds in my Drobo storage box. The tech support rep told me to shut down the computer, turn off the Drobo, pull out the disks, and re-order them with the fastest disk in the first slot, and the slowest in the last. When I asked about having to do a backup first so I could restore my data his response was - Nope, Drobo doesn't care what slot the disks are in. I was hesitant, but he was correct. I pulled the drives, re-ordered them, powered everything back on and there was all my data as if nothing had happened. Try that on a RAID system!

If you have the need for large capacity storage, get yourself a Drobo - do it now. There are a number of models to choose from, starting with 4 capacity units all the way up to 12 disk units. The only requirement is that you use SATA disk drives - which you can pick up at any computer store.

My christmas list includes the Drobo Pro. I like my 1st Generation Drobo - but the 4 2.5TB disks in the unit are at 70% capacity (9.0TB total available) so it's time for me to knuckle down and buy a larger unit. What the heck - I already have 4 1.5TB more SATA disks to put in it from when I expanded the unit I already have! So once I get it, I will move the 4 drives I am currently using into the 8 disk unit, then add the 4 older disks and bring myself up to 14.5TB of capacity.

The Cloud Continues to Unimpress

2011-11-23T11:59:00.000-08:00

As millions of computer users, I'm sorry, Apple users begin their migration to "The Cloud" they are about to begin realizing something that real computer professionals have known for many many years. Distributed computing doesn't work.

Sorry to burst your bubble. I know everyone is excited about having all their music available on the cloud, all your photos magically appear on all your devices (and get put in your stream) and the ability to do anything anywhere at anytime.

Here is the reality.

About 40 years ago such an approach to computing was known as "Master-Slave". The concept was that it was cheaper to put all your data and applications on one machine and then put (basically) dumb terminals on each of your users desks.

It wasn't too long before companies began to realize this was a COMPLETELY DISASTEROUS idea!

Sure, it looks good on paper - especially graduate thesis papers. But in reality here is what happens. You migrate 100 points of possible failure - as in "Hello tech support? I accidentally deleted my copy of Microsoft Word" - which when something goes awry only affects a single person - to a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE which affects hundreds. "Hello Tech Support? I just deleted the company's only copy of Microsoft Word". In the case of the former, one employee cannot work, in the case of the latter - hundreds, possibly thousands of employees cannot work.

To combat this, about 30 years ago, we went back to - you guessed it desktop systems. These systems worked well for many years until (about 20 years ago) someone came up with the bright idea of "Client-Server". In this configuration you store all your programs and data on one server, and your employees have a terminal at their desk. Gee how original.

Ten years ago we went back to desktop systems and within the last couple of years we moved to remote systems. A dumb client on the desk and ... well you get the idea.

The decisions to go to "Master-Slave", "Client-Server", "Remotes" whatever you want to call it, is typically made by some employee just out of college who is the latest rage of the company. The latest high-up muckity muck who hasn't really done much in the real world and has all the latest network certifications and degrees to prove it.

But, the cloud Bacman - my music will always be there. Yup. All the way up until you loose internet connection, or your neighbor cuts your phone line (cable line whatever), or until someone destroys (accidentally of course) a server in Cuppertino.

Whats worse is when the programmers who fail to take into consideration (as apparently Apple has done, or failed to do) that not all the material on your system comes from iTunes.

There is quite a bit of clambering going on in the ether world about the apparent loss of audio books. Within the last week or so everyone's audio books have disappeared from iTunes. In some cases this is just iTunes no longer displaying them in the "Books" master folder where they use to be held. If you are lucky, they are still arranged in your home directory under ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media/Audiobooks.

If you are unlucky and have decided to migrate to "The Cloud", apparently for a number of users Apple programmers have some flag set somewhere that appears to move all your "purchases" to the cloud and then remove them from your disk.

Exactly what I wanted you exclaim. Well, sure - so long as you bought all those books from Apples iTunes store. But what if, lets say, you have a couple years worth of subscription paid audio books from ... Audible? Those books are not on the cloud, iTunes thinks they are purchases (and therefore available on "The Cloud") and so it looks like iTunes deletes them. Hope you had copies.

Now about those photos you took of your family on your last getaway. The next time you log into a WiFi enabled hotspot (you did read the fine print that says photos only transfer when you are connected to a WiFi hotspot right?) that photo will get published to "The Cloud". Hmm. Sounds ok. But what if mixed in there you had a couple private shots of your honey? Or, what about just regular photos of your kids. Everyone on the internet is on the up-and-up, right? No one would ever hack into "The Cloud" to surf for, say, photos of kids, or perhaps those "private" pics you took thinking no one would see?

Listen, lets be real here. People, like it or not, are taking those "private" pics with their phones every day. The difference here is that you can take your phone home, sync it on your computer and remove them from your phone. Now you only have to worry about someone hacking into your own computer which, you probably turn off during the day and only have on a couple hours per night. You also have it password protected and all that as well right? But now those pics are automatically sent up to the cloud. Depending on your settings they are also added to your photo stream and this - is another bad bad bad idea.

Then, there is just the plain ole problems that occur on the cloud. Every time Apple decides to do something with the cloud I have issues with syncing. Typically, the (many) machines I keep online all day every day are fine. They sync on schedule no problem. But, my phone has issues. Every phone. From the first iPhone up through the latest and greatest. What issues? Well, think of an address book with hundreds of contacts that for no reason anyone can explain - replicates a couple contacts every time it talks to the cloud. Soon you have two, three, and four copies of all your contacts. Which, the phone dutifully passes back to the cloud as "new contacts" and the cloud then distributes to each of your computers. The return trip then happens and even more "new" contacts are added to the address book on the phone.

What is apples response to this issue? Reboot your phone, then try to reset the sync by turning it off and back on and selecting merge (doesn't work) and then - oh joy - deleting your mobile me account from the phone and reading it. I fell for this trick with the 3GS phone and it resulted in telling the cloud I had no contacts, or calendars, or email. Luckily I had backups.

Apple really needs to address these concerns. Sure, I would love to be able to take a photo on my 4G phone and have it immediately appear on my 1st Gen iPad. But I don't want to wait until I hit a WiFi spot for that to happen. Also, I would really like to control which pictures do and do not go to the cloud for further distribution. Photo of grandma and grandpa? Check - send it. Photo of this pretty flower? Check - send it. Photo of my kids at the beach ... hmm... maybe not. Photo of the wife in her latest slinky bikini. Nah - definitely not. Ill keep that one to myself. As to the rest, by the time I hit a WiFi I am probably already home and direct connect is SO SO SO much faster!

Yes I would love to have all my music consuming space on the cloud rather than on my computer. But lets face facts - our internet here drops every time a drunk up the road stops for a drink then uses a telephone pole for a toilet. So that isn't such a good idea either.

Will I switch to the cloud? I'd like to. There are definitely benefits and regardless of what I WANT to do I will be FORCED to switch over next summer. Would I switch over today if the Apple Marketing department made it clear on their website what options I had instead of just saying everything happened automagically? Depends on what my options are.

One thing is for sure - if they can't get my phone contacts which don't change to work properly during a cloud sync, I'm not sure if I want to trust them with full control of my music and photos of the wife and kids.

American Exceptionalism

2011-09-29T17:15:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk about American Exceptionalism during President Obama's administration. In discussions amongst friends and colleagues there is a great deal of concern over this, and a great differing of opinions as to what it means. There are two camps and I think it deserves some scrutiny.

With respect to the term itself - I think we need to come to a common understanding of the use of the term. Webster of course defines exceptional as better than average, deviating from the norm, and rare.

My liberal friends define it differently - mostly using terms like "stuff, wealth, arrogance".

I don't think it has anything to do with how much stuff we have. To be sure that, at some level, having "stuff" comes as a part of being exceptional but it isn't our stuff that makes us exceptional.

When I speak of, or hear of, American exceptionalism - I draw on the history of our country and indeed my own upbringing.

America is exceptional!
We are a nation built from people who either left or were kicked out of just about every other nation in the world. We (at least once) believed in the concept of a melting pot in which all cultures provided input and brought their own ideas to better the nation as a whole. We built this country from nothing, and with nothing but hard work and ingenuity.

Perfect?
Is America perfect? No, we sure aren't. But then again no one is. But there is a vast difference between being perfect and trying to be great. No one can be perfect - but from the trying to be great aspect I think we were well on our way.

We invented all of the modern marvels of the world. We harnessed nuclear power. We sent men to the moon. We developed nearly every single modern convenience known today. We integrated people of different backgrounds, languages, beliefs, and religions better than any other nation in the world - bar none!

We provided freedoms practically unheard of to all citizens regardless of social standing. Sure there were bumps in the road. But we were not alone there. Our sin of slavery is the most common example. But, we abolished slavery, and at no small cost, while other nations continued the practice - some still to this day. Women's Suffrage, the right to own your own land without being royalty, the ability for anyone to raise themselves from the lowest social position to the ruler of this great nation. I can go on and on.

What Changed?
Somewhere along the line we were told to NOT be a melting pot. To keep our individualism and keep apart from others. We were told that, literally, no one in another group could understand the particular group we were in because we were so vastly different. Men couldn't understand women, whites could not understand blacks, and even parents could not understand their own children. We began believing in a concept of cultural and personal pride above that of national pride. Everyone began saying I'm [insert nationality here]-American - which is about the most divisive idea I can think of. (There is a great recording of John Wayne explaining just how divisive the hyphen is with regard to nationality. Thankfully someone has posted it to YouTube.)

Self Segregation
After years of struggle for equality, after a civil war to end slavery, after countless injuries to end segregation we began segregating ourselves from each other by choice - keeping only to those who believed, looked, and acted as we (individually) do, and we called it "diversity". We shut down discourse with screams and pleas for a kinder nation in which people didn't have their feelings hurt through ideas, thoughts and language - calling this movement "Political Correctness". We identified, divided and demonized those who think differently from us (individually). Then, instead of taking personal responsibility for our own shortcomings - we looked at others and blamed them. Then, we began to blame the entirety of our ills on others as well.

We Lost the Dream
We no longer believe that a hard earned education was the path to freedom. That generational wealth was the road to prosperity, and through this prosperity can we help others. Now, we (nationally) believe that education isn't worth the effort. That calculators are the answer to actually learning mathematical theory, that instead of learning a concept we learn how to Google the answer, and that the way out of poverty is either the entertainment industry, the lottery, sports, or dealing drugs.

The Modern Path to Wealth
For those who become wealthy through those paths - they believe their money was hard earned, but that the money earned by everyone is simply the result of being "lucky" or having it "given" to them by a nation which now demands they "give it back" through taxation and wealth redistribution.

Those who failed to recognize the value of a decent education, didn't make it to college on a sports scholarship, lack the ability to entertain or can't afford to start their own drug cartel, well they will just take by force what they want - never having learned the value of a thing -- thus failing to recognize its worth or benefit to the actual person who did work hard for it.

My Vision
The former is what I see. My first job was obtained at the age of 7. I remember the long arduous hours my parents worked in order that I would have a better life than they did. I remember the stories of the generations who came here before me and started as farmers, progressed to miners, then to policemen, to teachers and now my generation is known in the family circles as "the professionals". (professional what is what I want to know!)

The Liberal Vision
It's the latter that people like our President and his supporters see. Wealth is a matter of luck, a matter of simply being in the right place at the right time, nothing more than a gift, and it is a gift that they demand you give back.

What is the Difference?
Where does the latter leave us? After nearly a generation of politically correct, neo-socialist Democratic rule - and, I say this in all honesty being a manager looking at today's youth who are seeking a paycheck - very few of our youth today understand what a job is.

What is a Job?
A job isn't simply showing up at my place of business and BS'ing all week so you can get your check on Friday, it is a task I pay you to perform. It means having a professional appearance, not being covered in tattoos and piercings. It means dressing professionally so that our business is respected, instead of having your pants half-way down to your knees and your chest barely covered by a torn up wife-beater. It means running a comb through your hair in the morning after you wash it so that you are presentable - and not just showing up to work looking like you just rolled out of your prison cell without a care as to how you look or smell.

But, Unemployment!
It's no wonder so many are unemployed. I have seen people show up for interviews wearing clothes I wouldn't be seen wearing while I was mowing my own lawn. (Ok, reality check - my wife mows our yard but you get the picture.)

I see salaried individuals who openly declare they won't put in more than 8 hours a day for any reason - apparently they are unaware that they can be replaced by people who actually want jobs and are willing to work hard in order to earn. I see people who complain about every minute detail of corporate policy which is in place to insure fairness and a positive and professional appearance in the face of the general public that the company serves. I see cashiers who cannot perform the simple task of counting back change when the cash register exhibits some form of error. I see employee's who don't know enough about their own business to know how to help the customers they are there to help.

Two Sides, Same Coin
So yes, I see both sides of the coin here. In my youth America was exceptional. Very much so. We had an exceptional nation, filled with exceptional people and an exceptionally bright future. Not perfect, but well on our way to greatness. However, a generation of socialist policies has ruined us, it has allowed us to believe that we can have what ever we want without having to earn it - simply because we want it.

Expect exceptional performance from those around you, and you will usually get it. Allow others to slovenly trod through life and, well - one need look no further than where we are today to understand what the outcome is.

Epson Printers = Fail

2011-09-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I have been an Epson fan for many years. I have had 3 Epson Stylus Photo (13x19 capable) printers and one smaller printer (8x10). Why three pro printers you ask? Because each of them has lived a short life and died a painful death of a thousand cuts. I am not really sure whom to blame at this point - Epson or those communist global warming turds that are pushing green technology on us.

You see - after a couple of minutes of non-printing my Epson Stylus Photo 1400 go "Offline". A check of the printer utility returns the oh-so-helpful "Communication Error".

Once this happens it typically takes me about 2 hours of futsing to get them back "Online".

Yes - I have the latest drivers (they haven't changed in 2 years, but I download them weekly anyway).

Yes - I have moved my cable around on my USB Hub

Yes - I have tried moving my cable to a USB port on the computer directly .... which begs the question if I have to connect a USB device to my (very limited) USB port on the computer for it to work - why the fuck don't we just go back to SCSI?

Yes - I have disconnected both ends of the USB and cycled power on both the Mac and the Printer

Yes - I have downloaded the latest drivers (that haven't changed in 2 years) from Epson and installed them.

No - I am not using a USB cable that is over 6' long

Yes - I have tried a different USB cable

Yes - I have executed a file system check

No - I haven't installed any new software lately

Yes - I have executed a Mac Software Update (no new software)

All of this has be more than a bit frustrated as you can tell. Listen, I have my doubts that it isn't Epson that it is the whole green initiative. It's just too coincidental that once I start printing the printer chugs away just fine - that is until it sits and doesn't do anything for about 15 minutes then it goes offline. Sounds like a sleep problem to me - Goddamn green products!

I can't begin to add up all the hours I have spent on this issue. But one thing is for sure, my wife's $150 8x10 printer never does this. It simply prints, or tells me "I am out of ink". Now if I could just somehow get it to print 11x19 I'd be happy. But alas, its format restricted to 8x10.

This will be my last Epson printer, I guess I will have to move over to Cannon. I bought this unit only a couple months ago and have already far exceeded the initial purchase price in the costs of my own labors continually (daily) executing the routine of:

Moving the USB to another port

Moving the USB to a port on my computer

Disconnecting both ends of the USB and restarting both printer and computer

Downloading (AGAIN) the same drivers that haven't changed in 2 years

Executing a file system check

Executing a Mac Software Update

Once the printer gets back online (it happens somewhere through the multiple executions of this same routine), it needs to be calibrated again. One mac will work just fine, another will print offset by 95% of every image it sends to the printer.

Screw all of you green product producers, you create more problems in the computer industry than you solve. And don't even get me started on what Green hard drives (try finding one that isn't green) do to website that isn't constantly accessing those drives.

There is no green solution

2011-04-20T12:01:00.000-07:00

All forms of energy have costs. Whether you want to count the cost of eco damage or fiscal damage. The problem that I have is that we (the US) are hiding the cost of renewable energy from everyone while at the same time touting how efficient it is.

The simple fact is that by hiding the real costs of these energy programs (in an unfair, biased tax program) we end up robbing from one group to subsidize another. So if you think your energy costs are already high – just add your tax bracket to the equation because the tax revenues paid by you to the government are funding these programs. If you are in the 10% bracket, you are paying less than someone, say, in the 25% tax bracket. Get it? Your energy costs are now tied directly to your annual income levels.

I was raised in an area that for a very long time had the lowest energy costs in the US. Thanks to Nuclear and Hydropower.

Nuclear (and Fast Flux Test Facilities or FFTFs) provide a MASSIVE amount of power at very little risk and cost. But - people grew fearful of nuclear energy regardless of the years of safety record. So we steered away from nuclear power – developing it – harnessing it and making it safer. Now the French have picked up where we left off and are doing just that. Even Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, has now come out and publicly stated he was wrong – that nuclear power represents our last best hope for safe, clean, renewable energy.

The Pacific Northwest also long ago harnessed the power of water and built a number of hydroelectric dams.

It wasn’t long however before people began to complain that these dams made it impossible for the fish to swim upstream and spawn. The solution? Build fish ladders that allowed the fish to continue their route up stream. (An effort, which was not free to the taxpayer by the way.) But this was not sufficient.

Soon people began to complain that the ladders themselves caused the little fishies undo physical and mental (if you can believe that one) stress - so the hydro projects were eventually stopped.

Many of these dams are still in use - and they aid tremendously in keeping electrical costs down by providing safe, renewable energy to the community. In fact, the single state of Washington produced enough Hydro and Nuclear power to not only provides for her residents, but also ALL of her neighboring states. Using only 1 nuclear facility and a smattering of hydroelectric facilities down the Columbia river the state of Washington was able to provide power for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and northern California

In time all these power producers will be shut down – ceasing to provide the much-needed electricity. This will leave all the existing customers with no option but to turn back to coal and oil.

Do I really need to discuss coal and oil? Perhaps. A recent scientist reported on one of the talk show circuits that the fact is one ounce of raw crude contains enough energy to propel 1 ton 1 mile. Nothing else comes close. Nothing. But we are continually told that we need to move on to another source.

Solar power is now all the rage.

The facts here are that we rob (literally) from the hard working earners in this country in order to hide the cost of solar power - which is at best an ineffective method of converting sunlight to electricity. So ineffective, that at best, you can spend tens of thousands to cut a few hundreds off your annual electric bill. Most people simply don't have the real estate it would take (physically) to convert to solar. You have to have batteries as well to store the power until needed, as well as a power inverter, which changes the current from DC to AC for use in your home. Then again what happens in places like the Pacific Northwest that are pretty much cloud covered year round? Solar won't work very well for them at all.

And in this article on the direct cost of renewable energy we see some unintended consequences. What happens when your neighbors’ trees block your source of power? Should you be able to sue? Even according to the article your savings don’t offset your costs (break even point) for 20-30 years. So (a) do you plan to stay in your current house for 30 years and (b) are you willing to wait that long to see any savings what so ever?

Well at least there is wind.

Wind farms are a solution that we are beginning to invest in, but we are already hearing from the conservationists who shout that wind farms are in fact killing birds - a virtual shredder of wildlife. Wind farms in Europe also have a high injury and death rate amongst the human workers that maintain them. An article not too long ago detailed the number of injury and death from these workers and rates it amongst the highest of all forms of energy production. You don't hear about it however because 100 turbine operators don't get shredded all at once. As of 2009 the numbers were up over 100 accidents per year. To date nearly 1,000 accidents have occurred. These numbers are pretty outrageous when you think of the limited number of wind farms these people are maintaining. And this doesn't even bring into account that recent studies show that these turbines are very prone to excessive breakdown / structural failures, and highly prone to fire. And lets not even discuss these things are made in China. You here that sucking noise? It’s your tax dollars going overseas.

Thank god we have batteries.

Battery power has gotten quite a lot of play in recent years. We now have the battery car, which can go all of about 50 miles between charges. Very nice.

It will cost you 2-4 times the cost of a gas car but at least it uses that renewable electricity that magically comes out of the electrical sockets and is produced not from nuclear or hydro plants in the northwest, not from the coal or oil factories of the east - but literally out of thin air. Now in about 5 years or so when all these batteries begin to loose their ability to store electricity that we pull from the air - what will we do with them? I don't really guess that will be a concern - we have thousands and thousands of miles of deep ocean we can just dump them into.

Yes yes I know all the studies that "prove" the cost of renewable energy is pennies on the kilowatt such as this one. But those studies remove the associated costs and the billions upon billions of dollars of federal tax dollars that are taken out of your pocket and paid to those companies to subsidize the costs and give the public the "appearance" of a low cost solution.

These studies also don't take into account the production of materials necessary to build the solar panels; the maintenance of the panels; the resulting reflected heat generated by the panels (compared to that collected) and on and on. And while we are talking about solar panels - how do you think all that glass gets made for those panels? What method of energy is utilized there? For those yelling that we are destroying the earth by digging out the coal – how much of the earth do you think we will ravage in order to build hundreds of thousands of miles of additional glass and photovoltaic materials necessary to produce these solar panels? Ever see how glass is made? You start by melting piles of sand, soda ash, and lime … melting – you know with heat (fire).

So while I am all for renewable energy, I have no compunction in saying that there simply isn't a viable solution right now.

Further that I refuse to be part of a solution through which the public feels it appropriate to charge me thousands of extra dollars per year in order to keep down the cost of a service which they feel appropriate to force me to provide, at my expense, and as a result of my labor. Charity is one thing - theft is another.

The problem with socialism, I mean wealth redistribution, is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

I am the result of my social environment - and the looters are turning me into John Galt.

We won, You want to kill women and Why do you hate children?

2011-04-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest problems in America today isn't the ideology of the left, or the right, or the tea-part for that matter - it's how one political party is using pressure to shut down the voices of all others.

To be sure politics is a nasty business. Once the art of compromise, it has become a battle of words promulgated by 30 second sound bytes of bias news organizations to sell a story on one side or the other of the political middle. Both sides of the political line are guilty but the Democratic party has made a business of using symbology to inflame the public against the Republican and Tea parties. It's become pretty disgusting in recent years.

I'm not talking about your average party members on both sides who properly use rhetorical argument to get their point across. No, that is simply a part of standard debate. What I am talking about are the improper use (one could say lies) by the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Harry Reid (D-Nevada). These "leaders" of the Democratic caucus use tactics of fear and hatred against all those who oppose them. The scary part of all this is they have a following. If you oppose their political and social beliefs, you are a Nazi, a Racist, a Homophobe, a Sexist, an extremist bent on starving the old, and killing women.

The problem with such name calling is that it is pretty effective. What reasonable person seeking solutions to political opposites wants to be seen as one of these? It is so effective that it has, for the most part, shut down all discussion across this nation amongst the average citizen. In fact, the mere mention of a label can be enough to ruin a career and easily destroy a life. So, most reasonable people sit in silence, angry over what is happening in this nation. Trillions of dollars literally flushed down the drain on programs such as Sesame Street for Pakistan. I'm not here to argue whether or not this is a noble cause - but in a time when our financial situation is on the very edge of the abyss - we probably need to be thinking about issues closer to home and not how we can use 20 billion dollars to produce a' television show for a foreign nation.

One person put it succinctly when he said "Politics is the battlefield of words combined with the art of compromise. What the left has done is to effectively shut down the discussion through the use of labels. Once you take away the discussion, the battlefield of words, all you are left with is the battlefield of guns".

No political or media opponent of health care, put a hand-gun in a whack-jobs hands and pulled the trigger in Arizona a few months ago. It wasn't Rush Limbaugh, it wasn't Glenn Beck. It was the act of a deranged mind which had lost grip on all reality and lost the ability to talk out differences and concerns. So, is anyone at fault for such actions? I say yes. Everyone who attempts to shut down the discourse is at fault.

I find the use of Beck, Limbaugh and the like pretty humorous actually. When you try to nail the side spouting those individuals you really do find that they haven't actually ever watched the show.

In one particular case I was involved in a discussion in which the individual cited Rush Limbaugh calling President Obama Hitler. I was shocked. I had never heard of a case in which a vocal party of the right (and yes Mr. Limbaugh is quite a vocal party) had used such rhetoric. My friend informed me that I needed to research the point and we would then continue our discussion. I agreed.

So, I looked it up. I found the original uncut (lengthy) audio/video file of the incident online. (Gosh I love the net). What actually happened was that Mr. Limbaugh was responding to a charge by the left, that the right was acting like a bunch of Nazis. Ok, now that charge I have heard quite frequently. During the response, Rush described the Nazi party, the 29 points of light, and what the point of National Socialism actually was (which few in this country understand). He then opined - that if you wanted to compare current US political parties with national socialism who was closer? It was clear that Barrack Obama was closer to the Nazi party then anyone else. However, all of the clip, all of it except the last bit were edited out of every liberal blog and news site. So what you were left with was this clip where Rush Limbaugh is equating Barrack Obama with the Nazi Party.

I detailed this in an e-mail to my friend and I included all the links to associated web pages, you tube videos and the original full length clip. In the e-mail I pointed out on each clip how it had been edited and thus discredited (including a link to The Young Turks).

When we returned to discuss the issue in person, all my friend could do is point to the edited version from The Young Turks and say - there is your proof right there. When I tried to explain to him that he needed to view the entire video in context, that I had discredited The Young Turks as a biased and edited clip my friend became angry and began to accuse me of being bias, unwilling to see the truth, a follower of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly bent on political ideology and unwilling to compromise.

The debate was over. Despite my attempts to discuss the issues calmly and bring facts into the matter - my friend was unwilling to see any point of reason what-so-ever. He was unwilling to listen to my concerns, unwilling to hear my arguments, unwilling to review my points of view or my facts and data.

You see, you may disagree with my point of view. You may even loathe my opinions. But when you and I sit down and discuss the issue calmly and politely like adults, we begin to work towards a common solution. When we present facts, and data - we begin to see the other point of view. Once we understand each other we start down the long road of finding that common ground. It may take a while. It may take a lifetime. But so long as we continue to talk - we continue to make progress. Eventually, you will see what concerns me and I will understand what concerns you and we work towards a goal that solves both our concerns equitably.

When you start telling people to shut up and sit down - or withdraw your self from the discussion on accusations toward your opponent - or worse on threat or use of labels which are quite literally destructive in their use - then you leave a person frustrated with no method of resolving those frustrations. You leave them no outlet. You begin to warp an already troubled mind and for some - those who are already on the brink for whatever the reason (lost job, lost loved one, whatever) you may quite literally be the reason they are pushed over the edge of sanity to an act of insanity.

Think I am being unreasonable? I recently read a Facebook thread which began with a political cartoon that did it's job - sparked political debate. The cartoon was a depiction of our President holding a gun to the head of a military soldier and taunting the Republicans to "Make my day". Shocking to be true - but it sparked discussion. One person chimed in that the cartoon offended him. Ok, came the response, lets talk about why. (See? Adult discourse). The offended person replied that Democrats would never use handgun violence to get their point across. That it was an inappropriate use of our President, hand-gun violence and the military to depict a false choice rhetorical position regarding HR1 in which the military was actually being placed at risk as a result of non-budgetary riders in the bill.

Ok. One response replied that, having read HR1 there were no non-budgetary riders to be found and if the offended individual could find them please post them so that we could discuss the issues. No response. Others posted that political parties very well did use such rhetorical positions to argue the passing (or not) of legislation. The poison bill rider was discussed in which regardless of the political vote, one party could blame the other for either voting for or against the same bill (catch-22). One poster went so far as to state that after reading HR1 the only substantiated charge of the Democratic party was that Planned Parenthood was being defunded and, whether you agree with PP or not, the defunding of an agency is a budgetary issue.

Instead of bringing his concerns back to the group for a continued adult discussion and explaining his point - the offended person dropped off from the list and posted on his own blog, associating all the other posters with the Glenn Beck following, hate-filled racist tea-party.

So once again the left is shutting down political discourse, in this case through the use of both withdraw and ad-hominem attack. The result now is that the thread will only hear one side of the point and gain no further insight into the concerns of the other. Nothing will be gained - everything risks being lost.

From what I have seen and heard, many on the right feel a loss when such actions are taken. They are frustrated, as are a few on the left, over the loss of not the point - but the discussion. Those on the right seem to understand the points that I have made here - that no solution can be found when only one side is represented. But to those on the left, they remain firm in their stance that it will be our way or no way at all for they will withdraw and begin that hate speech that they have become so accustomed to in recent years.

It really is time for the extremists on both sides to bow out of politics and let new, young, moderate voices of the parties to take the reigns of this nation and steer here back to a time of prosperity when we can once again be a beacon of light to the world. But to the discussion re HR1 and for the here and now, we are in deep, deep, deep financial troubles. It's time to stop worrying about what grandma will be eating next year, and begin to wonder if anyone will be eating grandma next year.

If the Congress cannot come to terms with the fact that we have no more money for pet programs, for social programs, for earmarked programs, then we are doomed to the fate of other great nations of the past. We will not be eating dog food - it will simply be out of the financial reach of many in this country. We need to stop spending on television programs for foreign nations, and redundant agencies which have no purpose for governmental sponsorship on the backs of taxpayers who can't afford their own mortgages. We cannot afford to continue to raise the tax bracket on those who provide jobs while at the same time cutting the tax liability AND providing even further benefits to the lower 50% of this nation who have never paid "their fair share".

So what do we do?

It is an easy matter to simply say 'raise the taxes on the rich'. But that only works for so long. As Churchill once said 'the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other peoples money'. The upper 1% of income earners in our country currently pay 40% of the tax burden. The lower 50% of the income earners in our country pay nothing. Those numbers alone should shock and horrify you. Where are the screams of 'fair share' for the lower 50?

We can start the road to recovery by putting an end to US involvement overseas. Involvement in countries in which we have no business pushing our national agenda. We can cut the spending on useless programs which failed to solve the issues they were tasked with. Programs such as Planned Parenthood, Education, and yes National Public Radio. If there truly is a need for such programs the community will take them up and advertising can support them.

None of these will be easy. They will be very very difficult tasks. They will be fought vigorously on both sides of the isle. Regardless of outcome, the will most definitely end many political careers.

The closure of national social programs will cause a degree of pain for those who use them. But if we are to have any future at all in this nation we need to once again become self reliant, executing individual responsibility and begin again to rely on community while we back away from relying on big government as the solution to all our ills.

If we fail to take these actions one need only watch what is happening in countries like Greece to see what our future will be. This future isn't far off for us at all, regardless of what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would have you believe.

The Logical Fallacies of the Left

2011-01-20T13:01:00.000-08:00

Recently in the debates over healthcare Sheila Jackson Lee took to the floor to point out that the Republicans attempt to overturn government sponsored healthcare would violate a number Constitutional Amendments and personal rights.

Specifically she claimed that:

"The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process ... that is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it."

She continued "what's more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?"

At the onset this appears to be a cogent and valid argument worthy of debate. Of course the problem with modern debate are the limitations placed on what is broadcast in the news in sound bytes.

Let us first re-consider the full extent of the Amendments in question.

Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It becomes abundantly clear upon examination that this Amendment has to do with the outcome of court, trail or other legal action in the United States as a form of redress for a crime by a person suspect to have committed said crime. This being examined we now ask the question as to whether a person presented for medical treatment and whom has no insurance for said treatment is lacking, or denied, said insurance by a recognized legal authority and as the result of being suspect of criminal activity. The answer is quite obviously no - thus the Amendment does not apply.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee then raises the issue (or in this case the Specter of Race - Race Bating) of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (14A). This Amendment has multiple parts (which I will address in order) and which reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- Regarding section 1 the State (capital S) is not denying treatment, nor is the state denying insurance. The State is in discourse as to whether or not it is constitutional to require a person to carry medical insurance. Should they decide that the State has no right to require an individual to obtain insurance, and an individual then does not obtain insurance - whether by inability or through a denial of a private insurance company, then the State has not deprived anyone of their right to life, liberty or property. In fact that have returned the choice to the citizen. If on the other hand the State decides that the individual must obtain insurance - the State has then removed the decision (Liberty) from the individual and has violated Section 1 of 14A.

- To the charge that the State has denied equal protection under the law. This is so far from having any bearing on the case it is laughable. Whatever the law is, or becomes, the State will uphold the law and the equal protection thereof. Overturning a law which removes choice from an individual has nothing to do with equal protection.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

- Section 2 has no bearing on the argument.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

- Section 3 has no bearing on the argument.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

- Section 4 has no bearing on the case.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So we see here a failing by Sheila Jackson Lee to understand the Amendments at best, or at worst using them to Race Bait by raising the specter of a violation of Equal Protection which most citizens equate with racially based laws to prohibit race bias. We further see the logical fallacies in her argument in that raising the issue of the Fifth Amendment quickly becomes one in support of the opposition to government healthcare in that it removes the choice (liberty) of the citizenry to choose to have, or not to have, insurance.

The Question of Sex Offenders

2010-04-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting blurb today regarding Facebook and registered sex offenders. Apparently there is a movement afoot to keep sex offenders off Facebook, using the same ol' battle-cry - "for the children."

So before you all turn me off, lets talk about this for a minute.

My first thought was, that is a pretty good idea. After all, Facebook is a private company and without government intervention no persons free speech rights are being violated under the Constitution.

But then I thought for a moment about a couple of other (not so low hanging fruit) issues. For example, if my company can decide what I can and can't do in my off time without violating my free speech rights (as a private entity versus a federal law) - then can a company decide who it's patrons are? Does a company have the right to refuse me their services because of something I did in the past once I have paid for my crimes?

We have all heard by now how this country has gone completely off the deep end on this issue. More than one story has been made public about some poor kid who, for one reason or another, executed (what we use to call) youthful indiscretion and is now forever labeled a sex offender. Perhaps it was pulling the car over on some deserted road to take a leak and had the misfortune to be seen by the local constabulary. Or, perhaps without thinking mooned a fellow traveler on the highway and again was incarcerated.

Regardless of the situation, these individuals are forever labeled as sex offenders. Now, I am not saying that sex offenders should get off lightly. But certainly there is some area here where common sense has been overshadowed by an overzealous society.

The next thing that comes to mind is this:

Why is it that sex offenders are treated differently than any other criminal?

We do not require that murderers register, nor robbers, nor those who commit assault - and yet commit this one manner of offense and you are forever required to let everyone know where it is exactly that you live. Further, you are in fact barred from living in certain areas, within such and such a distance of a school etc.

Are we in fact then saying that a sex offender is the one criminal who cannot pay his due to society? As Sam Harnett writes in his article "Turning Sex Offenders Into Homeless Wonderers" (et all) - these laws leave no room for the offender to better themselves. Yes yes I hear you bemoaning the children and my gut feeling is the same, but stop for a moment and just think about what we as a society are saying.

Are we truly saying that this one kind of criminal can never be free of the crime? That the criminal can never atone, and never be forgiven?

If this is the case, and certainly if the current recidivism rates are any example he is not, then why for the love of God are these people EVER allowed out of jail in the first place? Then if we accept that this IS the case, that they can never be rehabilitated, why do we even both incarcerating them at all?

I began to think about capital punishment, and how it might apply to such cases. At first I thought that taking a persons life for crimes committed could actually violate the Constitution in that it removes from them their inalienable right to life. But since the 8th Amendment to the Constitution allows for punishment so long as it is not cruel and unusual (an important conjunction there which I will shortly address), we certainly can take their lives.

Which is more cruel after-all? To take their lives and to quickly put an end to the problem (theirs and ours)? Or, to incarcerate them (removing their liberty) for 20 years, then: continually removing their liberty by controlling where they can live, how they can be employed, and posting all their information online so that anyone with a grudge can ridicule, harass and otherwise mistreat them at will? Not to mention how many of these laws are in fact Ex Post Facto meaning that we change the punishment after the fact. How "fair" is that? How cruel to spend the rest of your life knowing that no matter what you have done to atone, at any time someone can convince a legislature to change the law so that now you cannot work here, or live there because of something stupid you did 40 years ago when you were 15.

So let us assume that we are going to do the latter. Incarceration. Why should a society so ill over the crime committed, and a family so distraught over the pain already suffered, continue to pay the cost of incarceration for who knows how long - and then suffer the realization that this malcontent whom "every reasonable person" agrees is "incapable of rehabilitation" is going to be released again into society? While statistics vary wildly, the recidivism among sex offenders if 4 times that of other criminals according to Steve Thompsons article "Recidivism Among Sex Offenders"

What is the cost of such insanity?

So then let us assume that we are going to do the former and exercise our right to exert capital punishment against the offender.

There will be some that argue that taking the life of a criminal does not deter crime. This may be true, no one can know or prove one way or the other. However, the one true fact that is completely irrefutable is that a criminal, regardless of crime, who has been incarcerated has a fairly high chance of returning to his life of crime once released. I do not have the exact statistics on me, but the last time I looked into this it was well over 30%. Thats 1 in 3 criminals who do their time committing those same crimes again. However, the criminal who (once caught and duly convicted) is killed - will never, I repeat NEVER commit another crime again. This fact cannot be argued. Anyone who tries lacks the ability to reason.

Now, we should have agreed by this point that as a society we believe sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated.

We should understand that it is cruel to the criminal to effectively remove their liberty for the rest of their natural lives through current laws which restrict their (non-jailed) freedoms which is then compounded by the constant threat of new ex post factos law.

We should also be in agreement that society should not bear the cost of this - and that leaves us with the only one option.

The death penalty.

Many people are confused with regard to both the English language and the phraseology of the Constitutional Amendment which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The key word in that phrase is the conjunction "and". You see, this is what is called a test.

The actual test reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, or cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

The importance here is the use of the terms NOR, OR and AND. Taking these words into account the test is broken down into three segments:

- Excessive bail cannot be exerted

- Excessive fines cannot be imposed

- Cruel and unusual punishments cannot be inflicted

As capital punishment does not exercise bail or fines the first two parts of the test do not apply. We are left with only the final part involving the actual punishment itself.

The test is that if the selected punishment is BOTH cruel, and unusual then it fails the test and thus cannot be applied.

However, if the punishment is:

- cruel but not unusual; or

- unusual but not cruel; or

- is neither cruel nor unusual

then it can be applied without violating the protection afforded by the Amendment.

Ok, so how is this supposed to be applied then to methods of execution and where have we gone wrong in our understanding of the law?

Well, let us look at a couple methods of punishment used both past and present and see if they fail, or pass the test.

Drawn and Quartered. There are a number of variations to this. In one, criminal has each appendage tied to a beast of burden (say an Oxen or Horse). The animals are pointed to the for winds and with a quick slap on their buttocks - the event ends fairly quickly. Now to my knowledge (not having experienced it) this would be fairly painful for the subject. Thus it is cruel. Also, this method of punishment has not been used in some time (since the 1800s) so it is quite unusual by todays standard. So, it passes the test. It is both cruel and unusual so it may not be applied. In another, the convict is dragged on a wooden frame to the place of execution (drawn), hanged until dead (or almost dead), beheaded and then the head cut into 4 pieces (quartered). Needless to say, this method passes the test also.

Hanging. Hanging if done properly is fairly quick. If done poorly it can last for quite a while. So it could be quite painful. However, as there is at least one state which still applies the practice (Washington) and has at least in recent past applied it - this method while possibly cruel is NOT unusual. Therefor, being only cruel and NOT unusual - it fails the test and can be applied.

Electrocution. Same thing here. A number of states still kill the convicted criminal using electrocution - so not unusual and therefore not a violation.

Drowning or Burning. Certainly cruel. To my knowledge not practiced here since the witch trails so certainly unusual. Cannot be used.

Lethal injection. Painless (unless you have an aversion to needles) and not unusual. Does not violate the Amendment.

Gas. Probably one of the most painful methods still in use in this country - but as it is not unusual it fails the test so it can be used.

We could continue with such methods as beheading, firing squad et all but I believe by now you get the picture.

So we need to really come to grips with this whole sex thing and put an end to it - because we are certainly being cruel in our treatment of these offenders and to the public. I am not advocating letting these people off - but we can't go off the deep end either.

We need to decide:

1) Is the crime so heinous that the CONVICTED criminal can never be freed of what he did. Then, if so

2) Do we as a society continue to pay (in perpetuity) the price of the criminals crime - OR

3) Do we execute them by whatever means fail the test of "cruel AND unusual" punishment thereby ending the whole problem.

Whatever we do, I do not believe that we can - as a morally advanced culture - continue to deprive these individuals of their rights to liberty if our position is that they can never obtain it in jail or out.

Note:

I am not a lawyer, nor have any legal training. However, I understand that our founding fathers desired laws which were simple to understand by the common man. Our constant attempt to re-write the meanings of the Constitution is what is placing us in position of not being able to understand the legal mumbo-jumbo that so many use to commit heinous crimes and "get off scott free". No clearer statement could be made with regard to punishment then was made in the 8th Amendment - in my legally untrained mind.

Partisan Politics - They Can't Help Themselves

2010-03-25T16:19:00.000-07:00

I have been watching the media these past few weeks paying attention to the health care debate - who hasn't? What I find interesting is the lack of memory that liberals have displayed.

First we have Republicans physically locked out of the health care discussions - and the Democrats claim it's a bi-partisan bill. Then today, all 43 proposed mods to the bill are voted down by Democrats - yup sounds bi-partisan to me.

More recently and of greater concern is of course the response of the whack jobs out there who believe that violence is a proper response to the outcome of this bill. Despite numerous statements by Republican representatives - the left continues to claim that no appology has been forthcoming.

Further, today on the Chris Matthews cleverly edited a press release by Eric Cantor (R) Virginia stating that it was unconscionable that the Democrats are using these events as political leverage. Matthews then continued his show detailing recent epithets, attacks and harassment against members of the Democratic party. What Matthews failed to include, was that Mr. Cantor was speaking about recent attacks he himself had been the subject of including A GUNSHOT THROUGH WINDOWS AT ONE OF HIS OFFICES! Instead of discussing this (in a bi-partisan way) Mr. Matthews stated that Democrats have never acted like this - that they acknowledge and respect the political process. Really?

It took me less than a minute to find the following.

When these pictures were taken (during the Bush administration) dissent from the Governement was described by Hillary Clinton as "patriotic".

Throughout all of this - I can't remember a single apology or statement against these actions from anyone on the left. Not one.

Your right Mr. Matthews - liberals get it. Say, and do anything you want to or about a politician - so long as it's a Republican and the left including their media shills like yourself will remain silent. Say one thing about a Democrat - and they scream of tops of Mount Olympus forever demanding unending apologies - often over the apologies themselves.

It is what it is

2010-01-16T16:33:00.000-08:00

There are a number of things in life that really set me off and lately I have noticed how one of these things, a phrase, has all but passed into our modern vernacular. Well, it is what it is.

Think about all the rude, hate-filled, spiteful crud that people say to each other and trust me when I tell you that very few rise to the level of all out rudeness and dismissiveness of the phrase "it is what it is".

The problem with this phrase is multi-fold, lets discover why.

When this phrase is uttered, it is almost always uttered by a person (or persons) to whom you have raised an issue. What many don't consider is this - you have a concern and you value the person (or persons) to whom you raise your concern. Furthermore you respect them enough to voice this concern typically with they knowledge that they have some influence over the issue. Instead of taking your concern seriously, and giving it due consideration - they respond with "well, it is what it is". What they are really saying is two things:

First, they are dismissing your concern out of hat. This is in fact telling you - listen I really don't care if you are bothered or concerned, in fact you matter so little to me that I am not even going to try to consider alternatives or even give the matter a second thought. And now comes the kicker.

Secondly, they are saying that they believe you to be so utterly stupid that you don't (or will not) understand item 1 above. So not only are they dismissing you as inconsequential, they are in fact also stating you don't have the mental capacity to understand you have just been dismissed.

Little speech can rise to this level of insult. Consider even modern race-based hate speech. At least these morons in their hate filled rhetoric extend you the base courtesy of honesty - regardless of how out of date, idiotic and pathetic their views may be.

That's Double-Plus Ungood

2009-12-14T14:51:00.000-08:00

The thing I really like about history is not that it is so incredibly interesting - which it is - but it is so flexible.

It is a known fact that history is written by the winners, but typically this is allowed because the losers are, well, gone and aren't there to dispute the "facts".

The second instance in which history changes is when it becomes convenient and what is being discussed is so far in the past that again, no one with first hand knowledge remains to dispute the "facts".

Unfortunately what we are seeing now is the third instance in which history is changed and that is when those with first hand experience of reality just don't care enough to remember what really happened.

Following a meeting with banking executives today, and during yet another photo op - President Obama stated

"... one year ago, when many of these institutions were on the verge of collapse - in a predicament largely of their own making largely of their own making often times because they failed to manage risk properly. We took difficult and frankly unpopular steps to pull them back from the brink. Steps that were necessary not just to save our financial system but to save our economy as a whole. Today, due to the timely loans from the American people, our financial system is stabilized, the stock market has sprung to life and our banks are reporting profits."

First I will state that it is more than a bit disingenuous that a sitting President - so fast to blame the previous President for our countries ills, here fails to even mention that it was President Bush and a Democratic Congress who set the bailouts into motion.

Bailouts which I (and many others) were opposed to. But wait, there's more.

You see, President Obama is leaving out a very very VERY important part of the story. It is a story which involves yet another President, a Democratic Congress, and the plot (er, I mean plan) which brought us to the brink of destruction.

That story begins with President Clinton - who was deeply concerned about the inability of minorities and the poor in America to purchase their own homes. So he and his cabinet took action with a bit of legislation commonly known as the CRA. Here is that story.

In the 1990s President Clinton proposed a plan to allow poor families in America to purchase homes. It was called the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA. This required banks to provide loans to poor families and business which banks up until this point would not consider because of their inability to pay off the loans. In banking speak - they were high risk. None the less - the legislation was passed and banks had to begin making these risky loans.

On 5 June 1995 President Clinton discussed the success of his homeownership policy program by stating: "Now we have begun to expand it again. Since 1993, nearly 2.8 million new households have joined the ranks of America's homeowners, nearly twice as many as the previous two years. But we have to do a lot better. The goal of this strategy is to boost home ownership to 67.5 percent by the year 2000. This would take us to an all time high, helping as many as 8 million American families across that threshold. We'll make homeownership more accessible. As the Vice President and I said in a book we put out in the election campaign in 1992, our economic strategy includes a commitment to work to provide decent, safe, affordable homes to all Americans and to do it with an alliance of the public and private sector. I want to say this one more time, and I want to thank again all the people here from the private sector who worked with Secretary Cisneros on this: Our homeownership strategy will not cost the tax payers one extra cent."

Then, in his 1996 State of the Union Address he stated:

"Since 1993 we have begun to see the benefits of deficit reduction. Lower interest rates have made it easier for business to borrow and to invest and create new jobs. Lower interest rates have brought down the cost of home mortgages, car payments to ordinary citizens."

In 1998 in the State of the Union:

"we have the highest homeownership in history"

And again in 1999 State of the Union:

"... the highest homeownership in history"

Now in April 2000 in a report titled "Unequal Burden: Income and Racial Disparities in Subprime Lending in America" we discover that from 1993 to 1998 (under President Clinton) the number of subprime loans increased ten fold. They are three times more likely in low income neighborhoods, five times more likely in black neighborhoods than white, and that high-income black areas are twice as likely as homeowners in low-income neighborhoods to have subprime loans.

This is the very program pushed on us by President Clinton.

What did the President Bush do? Well in April 2001 his administration released a report that problems with the program were about to lead to strong repercussions in financial markets. The Bush administraiton then urged on 30 May 2002 (according to the New York Times) for financial disclosures by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

In February 2003 (NYT) President Bush appointed Brickell to replace Falcon as chief regulator of Freddie and Fannie, then outlined a proposal to replace the FHA oversight with the Treasury Department. Ranking member Barney Frank stated "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis" and further stated that the Government should be doing even MORE to help low income families get into homes. "The more people in my judgment exaggerate the threat of safety and soundness the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury which I do not see I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios and even if there were a problem the government doesn't bail them out, but the more pressure there is there then the less I think we see in affordable housing"

Wow - how much more wrong could he have been? Well, he was having a relationship with one of the agency directors ... but that's another story.

2003 The Bush administration warning is upgraded to "systemic that could expand beyond the housing market".

Fall 2003 The Bush administration pushes for regulation over Feddie and Fannie. Barney Frank again leads the opposition to this.

September 2003 (NYT) the Bush Administration recommends the most significant overhaul in the house finance industry since the savings and loan crisis of over a decade ago.

17 October 2003 (NYT) Secretary of the Treasure Snow urges Congress to give the Treasury the authority to disapprove block loan programs like Freddie and Fannie that plan to allow borrowers to skip paymens. Fannie Maes chief (and friend of Barney Frank ) Franklin Raines tells the committee that "Congress should not open the door for the regulator to prescribe how the enterprises should conduct their business."

21 November 2003 (NYT) The Bush Administration continues pressuring for the Treasury to regulate Fannie and Freddie along with a network of federal home loan banks.

12 May 2004 (NYT) The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed forcing Freddie and Fannie to purchase EVEN MORE mortgages from low income households. The companies must now buy half of their loans from people making less than the median income in the region.

On 17 February 2005 Alan Greenspan states "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgement passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk". Then a few weeks later in April he states "If we fail to regulate, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis". But, Democrat Charles Schumer replies: "I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world...if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job."

Then later that month the NYT accuses Bush of meddling with the mortgage issue in order to "pay lip service while undermining the very programs which keep poor people from ending up in the streets."

It goes on and on and on. Republicans warning of impending doom over the concept of making loans to people who can't possibly repay them - and them being demonized by Democrats for their lack of concern over the plight of the poor.

Now - fast forward to the current administration. This isn't the story being told today. NO - the story today is that greedy bankers preyed on the innocent poor and tricked them into taking loans which the bankers knew the poor couldn't afford. This problem, wasn't cause by Democratic legislation and pressure on the banks to make risky loans - nope it was all greed.

Well, at least part of it is right. Greed was certainly involved. But it wasn't greed on the part of bankers who were legislated into making these loans. No, it was the greed of Democratic (and supporting Republican) politicians who wanted to use the housing program to buy votes, in order to stay in power and keep their cushy high paying government jobs while all of financial America burned around them. After all - they knew they could just keep blaming those greedy capitalists and many of you who forgot what happened yesterday, would believe them today.

Shame on you CNN!

2009-11-18T16:58:00.000-08:00

I watched today in abject horror as CNN aired this report, over and over and over Oath Keepers. Following the segment correspondent Rick Sanchez stated that they immediately began receiving mails and tweets from across the nation including this one (he begins to read) "... this is nothing but racism straight up". Of course it is (sarcasm) - and that is exactly what CNN wants you to think.

In fact - there isn't a single bit of racism in the article. If CNN were a real news agency - they would have informed you (the viewer) that this oat is EXACTLY THE SAME oath as every enlisted member of the military takes upon enlistment.

"I (state your name) do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the officers and non-commissioned officers appointed over me - so help me God".

No where in that oath does it say you will obey the orders of the President - only that you will defend the Constitution. It does say you will obey the orders of your superiors - BUT (and this is a big BUT) the military members are constantly trained to DISOBEY illegal orders.

Now - what possibly could be considered an illegal order? Well, anything that violates the Constitution. So, yes ordering you to disarm a US Citizen would be a violation on any number of levels. First, it violates the citizens Second Amendment right to have weapons. A little history here folks, that right was added SPECIFICALLY to protect you FROM the military and an abusive Government.

Further, since there is a little thing in this country called Posse Comitatus - it would be illegal for ANY member of the military to jail, imprison, or act as a member of the police within the United States.

So in fact - the Oath Keepers are acting in concert with the same guidelines of the military. But this isn't how you reported it.

These are facts that don't spin the news like CNN wants to spin it - and that is that we live in a racist country bent on hating President Obama because he is ... are you ready ... African American! Further, CNN wants you to believe that anyone who loves this nation is really a terrorist, or at the least an extremist.

Look at it this way - what if CNN did a report on marriage in America and spoke about the marriage vows themselves?

People in America are taking an oat to "love, honor and cherish" eachother. Cue video interview:

Interviewer: Are you planning on cheating?

Betrothed: Well, no

Interviewer: And yet you are promising not to cheat -

Betrothed: So I can't make a promise?

Interviewer: Is there any proof of your partner thinking about cheating?

Betrothed: I don't have any proof of that, no.

This series of reports, which has run all week, bears the logo "Patriot or Extremist". Funny - no where in any of these stories was the phrase "Muslim Extremist" mentioned. No where did CNN tell how 13 law abiding citizens well trained in the use of firearms, who were kept from those firearms, died at the hands of a "Muslim Extremist" when they could have saved themselves - if only they had access to their personally owned weapons. No, CNN wants you to believe this was simply a troubled soul who had been tortured by his fellow soldiers because he was different.

Listen folks - only those in the military can tell you this and if you believe nothing believe this. There is no greater organization of political correctness in American than the Armed Forces. They have long been the proving ground of the lefts extreme agenda. Much of it has been good. Integration certainly was badly needed in our country - but today the military is wrought with so much correctness that soldiers are literally dying because of it.

It is a fact, that vast numbers of military members get carried on throughout their careers simply out of fear that should their supervisor give them a bad evaluation - there will be professional reprisals so sever as to end a career. Everyone, when it comes down to it can claim some "special" group and state that this is why my superior gave me a bad fitness report (annual performance evaluation). So, instead, everyone gets passed along - and this is just another example.

Major Hasan was not silent about his position - there were numerous warning signs throughout the years and still the Army carried him - probably out of fear - instead of cutting him loose.

Unfortunately, it is organizations like CNN who push such an agenda and get rules, regulations and laws passed which, quite frankly (and literally) are now killing us.

Shame on you CNN. You have a duty to act in a responsible manner and not to push such claptrap in a very clear effort to rile up the few who still watch.

You are an insult to the industry and to the giants of broadcast news who have gone on before you. You are at the very heart of what is wrong with this nation. Instead of reporting the truth - you are simply slanting news to push us further apart from one another.

The Peaceful Transition of Power

2009-01-20T08:35:00.000-08:00

DRAFT

The President appears and Hail to the Chief plays. President Bush navigates down the stairs to his seat while greeting dignitaries including Michelle Obama. Images of the new Vice President making his way to the podium are cut in between the images of President Bush at his position, Michelle Obama working the crowd and a wheelchair bound Dick Cheney.

The Vice President Elect Appears, and we now see the first images of President Elect Obama, walking solemnly, with a look of calm that must be concealing that moment of both joy and terror as he walks closer and closer to becoming arguably the most powerful man in the world. What weight must be falling upon his shoulders at this moment. A look of pride across his face, the camera pulls back and we see Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. President Elect Obama gives a courteous smile and a nod to one of the many photographers capturing this moment in time ...

Scenes of a sea of people, flags waving, chants continuing, and as the camera pulls back one begins to get lost in the absolute multitude who have come to watch the peaceful transition of power.

The last groups of officials is announced and the walk down to the dais.

The President Elect is announced. He hugs Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Representative Jesse Jackson Junior (D-IL).

11:45 US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) speaks of the "sweet victory of this hour" stating that future generations will mark this point in history as the changing point that the dream finally reached the walls of the White-house.

11:48 Dr. Rick Warren provides the invocation and ending with the Lords Prayer.

11:53 Aretha Franklin sings My Country 'tis of Thee

11:56 Robert Bennet Introduces John Paul Stevens

11:57 "I Joseph Robinette Biden Junrio do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God. Thank you Mr. Justice."

11:58 Marine Band plays Flourishes

11:59 Itzak Perlman, Anthony McGill, Gabriela Montero and Yoyo Ma play

12:04 John G. Roberts Jr. introduced

12:05 President Elect Obama approaches the dais, smiling, overjoyed and stumbling through the oath of office states "I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will execute the Office of President of the United States fully, and will to the best of my ability preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States So help me God"

Gun Salute while the band plays Hail to the Chief

President Obama waves to the crowd.

12:07 Dianne Feinstein presents the 44th President of the United States

President Obama takes the dais and begins what will be possibly the most historic speech in our history.

Can anyone deny his oratory? He continues to move everyone who not just hears, but listens.

Coverage Thoughts

2009-01-20T08:26:00.001-08:00

As I watch the coverage of inauguration day, I have ability to view it on multiple feeds nearly simultaneously. CNN, ABC and Fox are my choices for the day. I have to say that of the three FOX has had the best coverage but NOT on their television channel - no, the best coverage is on their live streaming website.

What makes this coverage the best? No talking heads. Listen, I don't need anyone's political agenda, I am an adult and I don't need anyone to tell me how important today is.

This feed has none of that. It is simply a live feed of the events - no talking head, no voice over, just the feed a few seconds before the networks use it. I can see everything the media won't show you from the tender moments between the outgoing Bushs and the incoming Obamas to the extremely inappropriate use of an American flag as an Ascot by US Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) who obviously knows nothing of the law regarding flag etiquette.

Want to see the transition of power as it truly happens? Don't want to have the events marred by some idiot reciting over and over the same thoughts from last week, or last month? head over to www.foxnews.com and watch the live feed!

And now begins the fanatical chanting ...

Tuesday 20 January 2009 - The New Era Begins

2009-01-20T07:59:00.000-08:00

As the mornings events unfold, I can't help but watch with wonder. As I write this Senator Ted Kennedy has walked out, the procession of vehicles continues and the crowds continue to pour into our nations capital as people flock to be a part of this historic event. An event which every keeps saying isn't based on race, yet is filled with racial references.

All morning there has been talk about Lincoln, and how America is now free, how Dr. Martin Luther King has been vindicated, and how his dream has now come true. I don't argue that this is an historic occasion in the history of our great nation - but as Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama now enter into the presidential limousine I have to opine that America is quite frankly loosing it's mind.

It is one thing to be in awe of the moment. It is quite another to be enthused to the point of religious chanting, crying, feinting and in at least one case experiencing a heart attack. The last time I recall seeing such a fervor was during replaying of videos on the Beatles, or Elvis Presley and the mentality of the American public is starting to scare me.

Again, this is an extremely difficult topic because of its historic position.

Dick Cheney has just been wheeled out. The Marine Guards stand holding a slute as the former and future President of our great nation exit the building and enter their limousine. Surely these will be images that will be replayed throughout our future. A time that children will learn about while reading history and tales of "I was there when" will be told down through the ages. I don't want to distract from that. Far from it, I wish that I too could be there. That I could feel the charge that must be in the air down in the seat of our government as the parade of vehicles begin. But, that is a far cry from saying that I want to be a part of, or participate in what has clearly crossed the line from excitement and jubilation into mob mentality.

America seems to have completely lost it's mind regarding this inauguration. Never before have I seen such coverage, or such a cashing in on any single event. It strikes me as completely odd that so many individuals and companies are profiting from this event - an event which at it's heart is about change from just that very thing - the capitalizing and preying upon the poor. Hotel fees have gone completely astronomical, vendors are selling hats, shirts, buttons, pins, postcards, pictures, sweaters, hats, keyrings, yes even broken watches - anything and everything they can put a picture or attach President Elect Obamas name too and I suspect, without his consent. Does no one else see the irony?

And now elected, President Elect Obama is stepping back from his message of immediate change, and is trying to control the message. Well, where was that control during the election process? Listen, I know that politicians lie. I know that they will say anything or do anything to get elected. But to so openly change your message before you are even in office is nothing short of ringing the bell of danger to me. What will happen when he fails to save us all from all our troubles? Do you think that America will give him a pass? Of course they will. The country, and every politician in it will lay the blame of every failure at someone elses feet. The only real question is "at who's feet shall it lie?". If not the politicians, and not the minority class - then who?

I still stand convinced that we need a President who can bring this country together and I hope that President Obama is that man. Certainly he has proven his oratory skills - but being a President takes more than that. It takes the ability to lead, and we are already seeing that he cannot control even his very own Speaker of the House.

No, we have a very tough road ahead of us, and I am starting to fear it. I was hopeful until, as the election grew closer and closer I saw Americans loose their minds. I do not fear retribution based in racial hatred. Unlike the far left I believe that we are beyond that. I fear a long and difficult road to recovery from a difficult but required tasks brought to us by circumstance beyond our control. I fear unbridled spending by the very same group of people who got us so deeply in debt that no generation in my lifetime shall recover. I fear that Americans have lost the ability to knuckle under, to work hard, and yes to even go without. I see it every day in those I work with - who believe that simply showing up to the office should be sufficient to get paid. By those who care less about learning about the product or service they provide and more about when their next break is, or when the next holiday is coming, or how soon 5PM will be here so they can leave.

I only hope that in the years to come, as we tread the long road back uphill to prosperity - Americans don't also loose their patience or worse, their control. After-all, if we burn city blocks over a basketball game, what shall we do when the most popular President in history fails to immediately provide us with free health care, bring all our troops home and make us all wealthy - as he promised during his 2 years of campaigning.

A Gay Military? Yes, As Soon As I See A Pedophile Teacher!

2009-01-15T10:31:00.000-08:00

Second Draft

Exordium

We are about to participate in a momentous occasion, the first African American President nominated by free Americans will take office in literally hours. It is with great pride that I and millions of other Americans will be able to witness this event in our lifetime. It is unfortunate however that this event will be overshadowed by numerous decisions by this President that at best are ill-informed. Among those decisions which will make it past the current congress in their post-coitus joy will be the elimination of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy which currently allows homosexuals to serve in our military as long as they do not out themselves and which prohibits their commanders from asking them their sexual preference.

The following discussion will contain some material of an adult and frank nature dealing with human sexuality. If such a discussion offends you, then you are advised not to continue.

Narratio

In America, human sexuality has historically been a very private thing. However, in recent years a sub-culture has decided to take their sexuality out into the open. At the onset, the argument was that these individuals were living a lie and not being true to either themselves, their families or their friends. They felt that this deceit was wrong and needed to be corrected. Who could argue with such a position? No one enjoys a lier, or wants one in their company.

While there are those among us, even in the modern age, who dislike or even hate these individuals for “coming out”, few modern, civilized or educated persons could argue that such a move was the wrong move. In fact, announcing that your sexual preference went against the norm of society must take an immense amount of nerve. Who knows how others will take your announcement? Will they accept you for who you are? Will they condemn you on religious grounds? Will they excommunicate you from their circle?

Such changes in society are not without precedence. In the 1960s another movement was afoot in the states to stop social injustice - this one based on race. Yet it has taken us another 40 years to consider the concepts of equality regarding sexual preference.

And now, as 2009 begins we have a new President who not only will be closing the chapter on racial equality in America by assuming the highest office of the nation and finally putting to an end the concept that there is a wall keeping non-whites out of anything; but at the same time he has vowed to put an end to the segregation in our military based on sexual preference. He has vowed to allow admitted homosexuals to serve in our military both openly and with pride. This is a mistake of the grandest proportions.

Partitio

America has a problem with sex. There should be no shock to any reader there. However, the problem with sex is not the same as our problem with race. Our history with race was one of ignorance, and a lack of understanding, or education, or exposure to others of various races be they the proverbial black, brown, red, yellow or even yes - white. But sex is a completely different beast all together. Americans should not expect members of the military to be forced into intimate situations of a sexual nature which is exactly what this law will do.

In order to continue we must come to common agreement on some of the terminology I will use here even if we disagree on the conclusion of the writer regarding the topic.

Adultery is the sexual union between two people when at least one of them is married to someone else.
Gender is defines as the physical sex of a person (male, female)
Heterophilia is defined as the preference of a person for a partner of the opposite gender
Homophilia is defined as an attraction for the same gender
Homophobia is defined as the fear of homophilia
Pedophilia refers to an adult being sexually aroused by a child
Rape is defined as the coercion of a person to engage in nonconsensual sex.
Sex is defined (in military terms) as penetration, however slight.

Confirmatio

There are many arguments supporting this proposed legislation. Supporters would argue that within a civilized society we expect our citizens to grow beyond the sexism that has its foundations in homophobia just as we expect them to grow beyond racism. We expect men and women to work together all the time in a civilized society without giving into their sexual urges and we should expect nothing less from our military. Supporters also point to other nations exclaiming that Israel, Germany, France, Switzerland - all these countries have moved beyond this problem and so can we. Finally, they will argue that the argument against is based on the unfounded fear that every homosexual finds every heterosexual attractive.

Each of these arguments appear to be valid arguments, until they are examined against the reality of modern America.

Refutatio

It is true that within a civilized society people should be able to grow beyond their fears and accept people of other races, religions, belief systems and sexual orientation. This is without argument. But, this is also not the same as saying that we are going to place those people in intimate situations, what is known as forced intimacy. Why is it that if we take a suspected terrorist and place him in a room naked with a female interrogator, the act of being nude with a women being known to be offensive to his religion, suddenly becomes an act of torture (1) and yet we are about to take our entire military and place them in the same situation? The fact of the matter is that in this country we do not look at sex as do other nations. We look upon sex and sexuality as a private thing. So much so that even discussing such topics in the work place are grounds for dismissal. In fact, in all my years, at all my places of employment, across all the thousands and thousands of people with whom I have been affiliated - I am only sure about the sexuality of a handful. Some of whom I have been to social events with, some of whom I am related to - but none of them ever because of discussions of their sexuality in the workplace. Except, for the outed homophilias I have known. For some reason these individuals are untouchable. While those of us who are heterophilias are consigned to silence, outed homophilias are offensively open not only about their sexuality but occasionally about their activities and in detail. We find this acceptable only because by complaining about the onslaught of homophiliac humor, and stories, and movies, results in our being labeled as homophobic followed by an immediate trip to the Human Resources department to participate first in the proverbial emasculation of our future employment followed immediately by the sensitivity training if not the unemployment line. Luckily, and on rare occasion, such inappropriately out homophilias are the ones let go from the organization - unfortunately the organization frequently finds itself in litigation for firing the individual “just because I was gay”.

But lets move beyond that because such inappropriately out homophilias are rare and more commonly we find ourselves with members of our organization who are quietly gay. This is how society would have it. Not because you are gay, no, but for the same reason that I cannot come to the office and proclaim that I participated in 15 viewings of Deep Throat at the local trash theatre down the street following which I went home to have my wife practice her abilities ad nauseam. No, this behavior is not acceptable in the modern office. Nor should it be regardless of your sexual preference. Lets discuss the real problem - the problem of forced intimacy.

What is forced intimacy? Described simply, the U.S. military is not designed for any amount of privacy. There were fewer occasions of privacy for me during my 14 years of service in the military than there were not. Quite frequently, for example, I slept in a room with nearly 120 other men and every morning I showered with about 30 at a time. So, put quite bluntly, would America - or this President - be in such a rush if the issue were forcing cohabitation between men and women? Would he rush to put pen to paper if he realized that naked women and naked men would be showering in the same room together at the same time in our military? I think not. No, taking into consideration what America currently thinks of men (pigs, dogs, unable to control their base urges) I find it difficult to think that I could find many in this country who would think such a situation would be acceptable. Or, put another way, is the President as swift to overturn laws which keep Pedophiles away from schools let alone acting as teachers? Why isn’t the NAMBLA all over this? After all, just because someone is an avowed pedophile doesn’t mean that they are actually abusing children - and what if they just really want to be a teacher - can’t they can control their urges just like everyone else? Especially since they won’t be showering and sleeping with little Johnny why should they be treated any differently?

I want to be very clear here because I know that the screechers in my audience now have boiling blood over the fact that I said homosexuals are child molesters. Read it again - that isn't what I said. What I said was that pedophilia, like homophilia is a sexual preference and as such are philosophically the same. We are talking about what arouses a person - whether or not you find either preference acceptable or disgusting neither is illegal.

Next, supporters of such legislation argue that other nations such as Italy, France, Germany and Sweden have moved beyond this why can’t we? To them I say that I agree. But those nations are thousands of years older than are we. They have had longer to loosen their morals and widen their acceptance.

Just as valid an argument - there are many countries which do prohibit homophilia in the military including: Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, North Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela and Yemen (2). In Russia, they are allowed to be drafted only during wartime (ibid), and in Germany there is a completely civilized approach - not only are homophiliacs allowed to serve, but their off-duty sexual activities regardless of rank are irrelevant unless deemed harassment (ibid).

Frankly, I can’t wait until we are more like some of these nations because they require weapons training for all of their youth, allow you to purchase marijuana for personal use, provide alcohol to their youth as part of the meal, allow nudity in public and play pornography on television after 9pm at night. Other nations also put women to death for adultery, or shoot drunk drivers to death on the spot, they allow the slave trade to exist, and prostitution is legal and I say bring it! But until all those benefits come across the ocean to the great ‘ole US of A - if you want that kind of society it does exist ... over there.

Finally comes the argument of attractiveness. Do you find me attractive? Do I find you attractive? This argument is flawed on both sides of the coin. There is no doubt that, had I been forced to shower openly with persons of all genders during my time in the military I would have not been aroused by very many of them. Sorry folks, I just didn’t find you that attractive. But guess what - in every command there was at least one. I think it’s a military requirement. One hottie per command. In fact, if you think about your current employment situation you can probably say the same thing. In any case, showering with those persons would have been quite hard, if you will pardon the pun. The minute that happens, you will find yourself in court.

Do you really want hundreds, or thousands or legitimate and illegitimate cases in court every year of perceived sexual harassment? Or, are you going to redefine the term? It’s acceptable to become aroused, so long as rape isn’t involved. After all I cannot control my gender or preference. Becoming aroused at the sight of an attractive person of my preference is a natural thing. In fact, taking the German approach it might have been a great way to meet some of those attractive female officers I had served under for a little off-duty service. Who knows?

What about a public display of affection? What if two members of the unit are attracted to each other? What if they showered together every day? Is that acceptable? Could they “help” each other out while bathing? Perhaps a back rub, or maybe something more intimate? Perhaps nothing at all. Perhaps it’s simply two men who enjoy each others company showering together and getting aroused. But the problem is why should any of us have to deal with that at all?

You see, we begin to get into deep problems very very quickly.

Peroratio

Americans have a problem with sex pure and simple. We are simply a young nation founded by puritans and we are making our way through history loosening our proverbial collars with every generation - but you cannot force change before the population is ready.

The military has frequently been the proving ground for social change because it’s easy. A young man or woman has signed a contract which they cannot get out of without going to jail and you pretty much can legislate their every waking moment. However, forcing heterophilias to co-habitate with homophilias in an intimate nature is a bad idea and is wrought with flaws. This simply is not the same as exposing African Americans and Euro Americans in the hopes that they can work out their differences after seeing that we are all the same. It is in fact, the same as allowing an avowed group of heterosexual men shower with a group of avowed heterosexual women regardless of their attraction towards one another; or allowing the local pedophile into your school as a teacher.

My father use to always tell me that a gentleman is never seen entering a ladies house before sunrise, and he is never seen leaving after sunset - it calls both of you into too much question. I thought his advice was old fashioned. Then, one day I realized how easy it was to be the target of an accusation and it was such advise that saved me. Call it old fashioned if you want, and I am sure that many of the screechers will retaliate with screams of homophobia, but when you expose a person of a particular sexual preference to a situation of intimacy with the target of their affection, trouble will eventually ensue.

References:

1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/01/14/official-guantanamo-detainee-tortured/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

Post Coitus

2008-11-05T17:57:00.000-08:00

It's over - thank... wait... what? It continues? The news is still going on and on and on? OMG Please STOP!

Ok, so as I predicted in 2007 it is a win for President Elect Barack "Give-Aways" Obama. The public has spoken, democracy has won and we have a new president elect. Once I can find a site, and once I have the time, I will begin to tell you about all the problems I have with his acceptance speech. Things like - President Elect Obama was never going to have any faith in this country until he was elected President. Don't believe me? Wait for the text or just go look it up for yourself. Yup - that is what he said.

As for me - I need to spend some time in serious thought regarding whether or not I can continue to work under a Government who wants to tax me for, frankly what is beginning to sound like, more than I make.

First it was everyone above $250,000 per year was going to get an increase, then $200k, then 125k and finally it was down in the $40,000 range. Christ on a crutch who is in charge of this new government? President Elect Obama, Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi? Will someone please tell me who is in charge?

My prediction is that from now until January we will continually evaluate why Barack won, how Barack won and whether or not Barack can keep his promises. Then, over the next four years we will continually hear that this is "one of those promises we warned that we might not be able to keep because [of the satanic evils] of the prior administration".

I found it very interesting today about all the nations celebrating President Elect Obamas win. Nations like Kenya - where the people believe "that President Obama is going to help Africa out of poverty" - what?

Anyway - a few years of broken promises and President Obama will go from Savior, to our hope who just couldn't fight the Bush legacy and finally to an Uncle Tom for Big Business (as Ralph Nader would say). And for those of you who don't recognize that reference I would recommend that you cerf the Fox News videos - I found especially enjoyable the abject look of horror on the Fox News Correspondants face as he repeatedly asked Nader "Really?".

You could just go here: Video

In any case, I congratulate President Elect Obama and wish him well as he takes over the most difficult job in the free world. Well done sir. Where do I go to get my mortgage paid?

Socialism in America

2008-10-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

DRAFT

I am sorry to have been away for so long but my brain has simply been overloaded with the complete assenine foolishness being perpetuated by the Democratic glitterati in the guise of Barney "Fife" Frank, Nancy "Nazi" Pelosi, et all.

I can't even begin to explain the complete saliva drooling deer-in-the-headlights brain freeze that becomes my locked figure each time I see that Barney Frank is still serving as a government employee despite being caught running a male prostitution ring out of his home in the 90s.

Nor is it that the majority of this current housing problem rests firmly on his shoulders. And if I have to explain to you, dear reader, the concept of conflict of interest ..... you see he was sleeping with an exec from Fannie Mae, by the name of Herb Moses, from 1991 to 2008 when that institution gave Barney Frank's re-election committee tens of thousands of dollars in donations. In what appears to be an out of the bedroom quid pro quo Frank then provided glowing reports on how the GSE was excelling. During these years, while sleeping with the exec, receiving contributions from and overseeing the GSE - Frank fought all of the George Bush Administrations claims that the GSEs were in significant trouble. Just conduct a search over at the New York Times for GSE and or Freddie Mac Fannie Mae etc. You will get a nice timeline of the problem going all the way back to the early days of the Bush Administration when from day 1 they identified the problem and warned of an impending collapse because of programs instituted by Carter, re-instated and ballooned by Clinton with the sole purpose of getting housing into the hands of those who could not afford it. THIS, nothing else, is the base of the problem.

Barney Frank appeared on the O'Reilly Factor trying to defend his lies and deception. All you have to do is head over to YouTube. He tries to diminish the fact that he said that Fannie and Freddie would not go under - that they were very sound. In defending himself he states that they tried to pass a bill in 2006 to regulate the GSEs but leaves out that the Bush Administration had been warning about this problem since 2001 and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY had been blocking every attempt. But, if you doubt the New York Times you can always watch the Fox video on it.

And what has my ire up now? Frank reveals that he believes the US Government should INCREASE spending and approve the additional $300 billion should be passed. He said "there are a lot of rich people we can tax down the road and recover some of this money". Listen folks - anytime a politician has so much hubris as to tell you in advance he is coming for your wallet, then you need to get your guns out (Figuratively) because he won't stop there. They will take and take and take.

I keep hearing Democrats screech that we cannot afford another 8 years of Bush's failed policies. Well - we aren't even yet into the expected filibuster and veto proof Democratic government and they are already telling us that they intend on their old policy of spend spend spend, tax tax tax. And quite frankly - who can afford that?

Think about it. Our government was set up to have checks and balances. And while many of us disagree about this party or that - we are dangerously close to an unstoppable force - a complete Democratically run country. We see now before they even are given that power their desire to just reach into our pockets.

But only the rich I hear you reply? It's time that they pay their fair share - you say. Really? Who are these rich? And how do you define fair? Because the dictionary defines fair as: "even, free from biased, without excess, neither excellent nor poor, moderate and tolerable."

So, if I am paying taxes at a rate of 5% and you are paying taxes at a rate of 35% - is that fair? No it is not. Your fair share would be 5%. Or, my fair share would be 35%. Period. There is not a sole in the world who can argue that our current scaled tax system is "fair". It isn't.

Now, if you want to take the word "fair" out of it and say that the wealthy have a responsibility to the community at as a whole then you have an argument. If you want to continue by stating that this responsibility, because life has been good to them, is paid back to the community by a higher percentage of taxation so that schools can flourish, medicines can be dispensed etc then you have an argument and we can continue. But if you want to reply that a wealthy person makes money off the backs of those who work for him or her - then the argument cannot continue. Because you fail to understand that this business person has provided those employees with a very important thing called a job. Now those people, the employees, are earning money, feeding families, buying homes and hopefully paying taxes at a fair and just rate.

The next step is to define what makes a person rich. In 1994 when I left the military a person could quite literally buy a mansion in North Carolina for forty thousand dollars but for that same money could not afford to live around Baltimore or DC. My wife and I moved up to DC and we both got jobs. Between the two of us we could pay the rent, and we ate a lot of beans and potatoes. We were lucky. To the people in North Carolina we were rich. Friends with whom we maintained ties were in awe of our enormous income - yet to our neighbors we were (literally) poor, and lowering the standards of the community. So my question is - should I have been taxed at the 5% rate or the 35% rate? See from the Federal point of view they don't care where I live.

So lets say that the Democrats win and they decide that there are plenty of rich people they can tax. Based on the current statistics over at Wikipedia, the largest single segment in America earns about $25k per year. Anyone earning more than that must be rich right? So anyone making more than twenty-five thousand dollars a year will be taxed at the highest tax tier of nearly 40%. Those making less than $25k per year are taxed at the lowest tier which is 0% and under the Obama plan will receive payments from the US Treasury for their suffering.

Has anyone, anyone at all taken the time to read Atlas Shrugged? Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the Obama Plan?

Granted, Obama says he will tax only those making $250k per year or more. But that's now. And folks - I hate to break this to you but the President doesn't pass laws Congress does that. And we have some really tax and spenders in Congress in Barney Frank, who - read it again, is already saying that there are even more people we can tax down the road.

So my friends if you are having a hard time making ends meet now I really fear for you.

Some of you may read this and think that I am against the redistribution of wealth. I am not. I am for it. Completely and whole heartedly. What I am against is the Government taking my wealthy and then redistributing it. Why? Because I believe that all politics are local politics. I believe that I am - to some extent - my brothers keeper. I have in the past done good works, donated food, clothing, money. I have visited sick and jailed, fed the hungry, sheltered the poor. But at rate I am being taxed I can no longer afford to do these things.

I do not believe that the Federal Government has better insight to my community than I do. In fact, I believe the Federal Government takes money and squanders it on many useless projects filled with graft as demonstrated above with Barney Frank and the GSE. I believe that the question of helping ones neighbor is a moral issue that the government has no place in deciding for us. It is simply a question of freedoms, and yes that may even mean the freedom to fail, to suffer, and to be a mean and horrible person. So be it.

You see, to bring government oversight into the forcing of moral issues upon the population is to beg problems. What happens when someone becomes so overburdened with taxation that it becomes more financially reasonable for them to quit working and live on the arm? Not only have you lost a tax paying citizen, but you now have increased the cost of supporting that person. It is the magic of money. You have lost one dollar - you have lost five. You don't believe such situations exist?

I explained to you previously that I live in Maryland, and that both my wife and I work. We have no children. We are taxed at such a high rate that computing our combined salaries and tax liability - that if my wife quits her job today - our disposable income will not change. The sum of her entire salary is paid to the IRS every year. Try and think of one single reason that any of you would work at a salaried job (that means no compensation for overtime) in excess of 50 hours every week, 52 weeks a year, for NO MONEY because the government takes it all.

In the recent weeks, as the Obama plan has become more and more clear we have become increasingly afraid of what lies before us. I still hold that our next President will most likely be Barack Obama - and that should he loose the election this country will go completely insane. We are already hearing reports in the Northeast of crimes of violence being committed against GOP volunteers. We are hearing about how their cars are being keyed, and about bomb threats. This is inanity. But it is our modern nation. A nation of people stretched to the edge willing to do anything to ensure that they get, what they want. So, my wife and I have already discussed the possibility of having to quit our jobs because we won't be able to afford to live. We have discussed moving in with our parents back west. We have discussed the possibilities of having to hunt and fish for our food, while attempting to hold down some semblance of a job which provides enough income to survive on.

These comments really should scare the poor. Because while I am by no means at the top of the ladder financially - I have already decided that it is simply too much work to continue to take care of all of you. Too many of you lack the personal responsibility and pride to lift yourselves up. I am not talking about all of you. Many of you have fallen on hard times. In my community - I wish I could help those who are in such circumstances. But I simply cannot anymore. The government already takes too much, and they are about to take even more.

Sep 9, 2008 6:27:50 PM I hate it when companies blame me for their mistakes

2008-09-09T12:27:00.000-07:00

Today I received a nice notice from my mortgage holder notifying me that one of their employees may have sold my personal information (including name, address, SSN, loan number and “various other loan and application information”) to a third party. And, while the company deeply regrets the concern it may cause me, they provide me with helpful hints on how to protect myself from identity theft including:

- Shredding my documents before I throw them away
- Be careful about who I give my information to over the phone
- Never give out a personal identification number (PIN) or password
- Report lost or stolen credit cards, checks or identification
- Never write my SSN on my checks
- Never leave my mail in an unsecured mailbox.

So I find myself asking-- just how the fuck would this have protected me against a friggin company like yours - that allowed an employee access to information that could potentially destroy my friggin life? They continue in the little helpful pamphlet to inform me that if I have been the victim of of identity theft then what I need to do is:

- File a police report
- File a complaint with the FTC

Well, I will go ahead and sign up for the free fraud check that they provide. I will also send a letter back to them asking them: why this fuck-wad has not been drawn, quartered, jailed and had balls removed so he cannot continue to populate the world with his stupidity?

“Who the fuck cares? I'll dig the fuckin' hole. I don't give a fuck. What is it, the first hole I dug? Not the first time I dug a hole. I'll fuckin' dig a hole. Where are the shovels?“
- Tommy DeVito; Goodfellas (1990)

I didn’t ask to do business with this particular company, who is widely known across the country. No, I had my mortgage sold to them. And even if I had done business with them, there is certain information I must provide in order to get a mortgage. As a consumer who is required to provide that information, I should be provided (in return) certain assurances that my information will be protected against ass-hats such as this.

”I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance tomorrow morning ill get up nice and early, take a walk down over to the bank and... walk in and see and uh... if you don't have my money for me, I'll... crack your fuckin' head wide-open in front of everybody in the bank. And just about the time that I'm comin' out of jail, hopefully, you'll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I'll split your fuckin' head open again. 'Cause I'm fuckin' stupid. I don't give a fuck about jail. That's my business. That's what I do.“
- Nicky Santor; Casino (1995)

If, the mortgage company is not going to provide me these assurances, they should at least provide me with the name, address, phone number, date of birth, social security number and first born child of this motherfuckingcocksuckingsonofacuntlovingcumsplatteredfuckwhore!

Then, those of us who had our information sold, could stop by this dick-lickers house ... just to say hello.

“I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES”
- Al Capone; The Untouchables (1987)

Or, perhaps for a little dinner.

“A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.”
- Hannibal Lecter; Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Mabey, to talk a bit about religion...

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”
- Jules; Pulp Fiction (1994)

or just to talk sports.

“A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms. Enthusiams... What are mine? What draws my admiration? What is that which gives me joy? Baseball! A man stands alone at the plate. This is the time for what? For individual achievement. There he stands alone. But in the field, what? Part of a team. Teamwork... Looks, throws, catches, hustles.Part of one big team. Bats himself the live-long day, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and so on. If his team don't field... what is he? You follow me? No one. Sunny day, the stands are full of fans. What does he have to say? I'm goin' out there for myself. But... I get nowhere unless the team wins.”
- Al Capone; The Untouchables (1987)

In this election year, one thing that the presidential candidates can do is tell us how they are going to protect our privacy? I mean what good is redefined energy if someone has found a way to swipe my identity and take everything I worked my whole life for? I find it simply incredible that people are up in arms that the government MIGHT find out something about them, when literally millions of peoples records are being sold on what seems a daily basis by employees of companies with whom consumers are practically forced to do business. The government isn’t the problem here. Business is the problem here. If we start holding these business accountable, then the government will follow. How? Through legal presidence.

So start writing your representatives and tell them you want stiff penalties and PERSONAL compensation when a company holding your information has released it without your consent! Demand it!

Aug 29, 2008 8:50:03 AM Fires that burn twice as bright

2008-08-29T05:50:00.000-07:00

What a night it was. All Barack, all night. We might as well start calling MSNBC the Microsoft Needs Barack Channel. But, it is definitely hard to argue with the man. What a speaker!

The night was filled with anticipation and accolades. I hadn’t seen so many men happy to see another man since George Michael played in San Francisco. I mean common, a news/commentary line-up that contained the likes of President Clintons’ lead strategist James “Skeletor” Carville, pro-Hillary supporter Andrea Mitchell, and President Jimmy Carter’s speechwriter Chris Matthews? (And the left complains about FOX?) Could there be anyone more pro Obama in the media than those? “The Dan” has left, so I suspect not. James Carville was absolutely giddy as a schoolgirl and frankly it was embarrassing to watch him drool over the candidate.

All that not-withstanding, it is hard to argue against their enthusiasms. The man is charismatic, and as I stated here in these blogs months ago - charisma is what this country needs right now. We need someone who can rally our split nation to unity, someone who can persuade our enemies to become our friends and someone who has an out-of-the-box approach to many of our nations ongoing problems.

In his speech (which played on an endless loop all night on MSNBC) Barack evoked the spirit of Kennedy’s can do attitude, Kings hope for the future, and Johnson’s belief in The Great Society. He promised, among other things: to seek alternative energy sources in order to minimize our dependance on foreign oil; to uphold the Second Amendment while “keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals”; of bettering our children’s education; of providing much needed healthcare to the poor ailing. Yes, he struck many chords in Americans last night, and I dare say that there wasn’t something that every American could agree with in his speech. And that makes me afraid.

You simply cannot be all things to all people. People are simply too diverse and in this current country of ours where diversity is paramount among everything else - you cannot please us all. I want deeply to believe in the man, and, I most probably will vote for him. But if I have learned anything in life I have learned that a candle which burns twice as bright, also burns twice as hot. And we have been burned many many times by politicians who have promised us the world, and given us a trip to hell in a hand-basket. I want to believe that Barack is being open and honest with us.

I have learned that politicians lie constantly. I am reminded of our last Democratic president who looked me in the eye and with all earnestly swore the allegations against him were false Republican rhetoric. I watched that same politician this week claim that health care coverage was at an all time low, while the press is reporting the opposite. I watched the as other Democratic candidate read from an obviously prepared speech to place herself at the center of this historic event. I recall the previous Democratic President and the nations problems that resulted from his inadequacies, American captives held for hundreds of days and the deaths of our military members in a flawed rescue attempt more focused on spreading success stories among all military services than on achieving the goal of returning our citizens to our shores. I recall gas lines and gas restrictions allowing you to purchased only on certain days based on your license plate numbers. Of his Democratic predecessor spoke of a great nation while getting us involved in a war which was ultimately blamed on the Republicans, and even of his predecessor who - like many politicians, couldn’t keep his pants up but who is remembered fondly amongst the citizenry. I am soured by Democratic politics, but revived by hope. Hope which I pray is not misplaced, because while this candle certainly burns twice as bright as all others, we simply cannot afford for it to burn us with the brilliance of its heat. As a nation, we wouldn’t survive.

Aug 23, 2008 5:24:26 PM More Psycobable From and For Women

2008-08-23T14:24:00.000-07:00

I admit that I live a pretty busy life. I work a (more than) full time job, I have hobbies, and I partake in the single addiction which is both socially and legally allowed for while males to participate in - W.O.W. So it shouldn’t be very surprising that I am behind a little on my television viewing. Thankfully I have a PVR. I won’t say which brand because that would be tacky and I don’t get any kickbacks. I will say that they are one of the originals, are still in business, and are about to be overtaken by Apple TV. Thats all the clues I am going to give about the television revolution.

In any case, while I was giving the thumbs down and heav-ho to some recorded shows I came across one of those self-promoting hollywood shows. You know, the ones that keep those hollywood names on the forefront of the news because they haven’t done anything in a while so it’s time to remind the public about them? Anyway this episode asked what Halle Barry, Christy Brinkly, Sianna Miller and some other hasbeen, oh yea Elizabeth Hurley all had in common. The response was they had the unenviable experience of being cheated on. A female (of course) “Doctor” evaluated why each of the men associated with these women had cheated on them. I found it quite interesting since the “Doctor” hadn’t met with any of the couples and pondered if perhaps she might also double as the local fortune teller. In any case among the probable reasons were:
- Mid life crisis
- Low ego
- Madonna-prosititute syndrome

Wow, there are no other possibilities? Because I can think of the number one probability and I don’t have any kind of medical degree. How about a lack of sex? What I find completely infuriating about this whole show is that it is yet again another way to demonize men. Look at the provided reasons why a man might cheat on a woman and they all have to do with failings of the men. Not one single reason attributed to the women. I know among my many male friends the number one marriage complaint they all continue to lament is that their wives simply will not leave them alone in the bedroom when it comes to their husbandly duties. The continually complain that the solace of the office is the only place where they can find peace away from the constant begging for more and more sexual gratification.

Look, here is the simple fact of life. Men and women are different. SURPRISE! Men are built (by nature or God - take your pick) to want sex, and women .... not so much. Want to know why your man is out cheating on you? Ask yourself some very simple question.

Question Number 1: When was the last time you had sex with him? If you need to use a calendar, or think more than 1 second on your answer - which better be “today” or “yesterday” -- then you have your answer.

The next reason why men have sex - believe it or not is to be close to the woman they love. Generally, that love comes out of mutual respect and mutually fulfilling of each-others needs, and goals. So, again if your man is stepping out on you with another woman it’s because she is fulfilling needs for him that you are not fulfilling at home.

Be reasonable for goodness sake. We men don’t complain about your “chocolate addiction”, your “coffee addiction”, your “shopping addiction”, your “soap opera” or “Oprah” addiction (need I continue?). And truly, those are addictions. So, to put it bluntly shut up and put out or get out and quit trying to turn us men into your girlfriends. We are not women. We have different needs. And unless you want us to start projecting our mental imprints onto you and begin producing shows, books, magazines, talk shows, and radio programs about how completely and utterly fucked up you all are - how about just trying to understand us for once? We aren’t that hard to understand.

We are made to desire sex, pure and simple. Everything a man does is to satisfy this need. That doesn’t make it an addiction. Just like your continued eating 3 times a day doesn’t make you a food addict. Or, any thing else that involves NATURAL bodily functions. This is not something we need, or want, to be cured of - unless we are gay or are trying to get into bed with you by letting you think you have cured us of our evil sex addiction.

Want to know what a guy would be like without the possibility of ever having sex? Look at most geek college students. There is a reason why they look like that and act like that. They know their lot in life. And most every man would be like that if they thought they never had a chance at sex. But, some of us know there is hope - or we simply delude ourselves into thinking there is hope. So we do things we hate, like get jobs. If we wanted friends, we would find people who understand us - and those people are called “men”.

You are not us, you will never be us, so you can never understand us. Stop trying to make us you. We are not you, we don’t want to be you. There are people who are like you, they are called “women”. And, for those unfortunate number of us who tried to be like you wanted us to be, we were paid back by being called weak, overly sensitive, and having our manhood called into question ... by YOU! We understand all of this. We understand that to have sex with you:

We must get GOOD paying jobs.
We must get nice clothes.
We must get a nice home.
We must act like you want us to act.
We must do what you want us to do.

Question Number 2: What is his favorite type of sex, and how often do you do it? If your answer is more along the lines of “he likes to be gentle and cuddle” and less along the lines of something so pre-historic and animalistic that it could be shown on the Discovery Channel as a part of their Ancient Mating Rituals of Early Man series, then you are fooling yourself, he is probably already stepping out on you.

Look, I am not saying that men need to have sex so rough that you end up in the emergency room each and every time. But, if you aren’t coming out if it at least a bit sore from time to time, then I guarantee you that he isn’t happy.

Finally, if you don’t know all this already, and you think your man is different, then its too late. If he isn’t cheating on you now, he soon will be. Don’t bother asking him how the sex is. At this point in your relationship -- he will lie. He has been lying to you this long. Why do you think he will change now? I would also be willing to bet that if I were given the opportunity to speak with him candidly and in complete privacy - he would say that he has already told you all these things himself, but you simply didn’t want to hear or refused to hear him. So, he has stopped trying to tell you. And, Ill bet he has stopped trying to please you as well. So ask yourself if there are other things about your relationship that has changed. Not only is he not chasing you around the house anymore, but is he not doing things for you that he use to do? Now some things falling off the plate are to be expected. But if the list is long - your in trouble.

Glass cieling hell. Show me any man who won’t fold like a paper doll when confronted by a woman who he thinks he has the absolute slimmest chance in hell of having sex with, and I will show you a man who is looking for a “life partner”. And if you want the real truth, the longer a man goes without sex at home, the lower his external standards become and the more susceptible he becomes to the wiles of those women.

Take a good hard look at Georgia Brown, or what ever her name was, you can see that it had been a long, long, oh so very long time, since Elizabeth Hurley had been fulfilling the needs of her man at home. Living with a beautiful woman doesn’t mean your getting sex. To the contrary - I would suspect that the more beautiful the woman these men are with, the less sex they are having. That is, unless they are lucky enough to be with Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson. Who amazingly enough themselves don’t have a sexual addiction, but rather are exercising their right to be a strong sexual person in the common age.

Common - women have, and have always had, all the power. So quit-yer-bitchin. And ask yourself, how long has it been? I am willing to bet my reputation that it’s been too long.

So much more to say on the topic, but I have just been informed that the women’s volleyball is now being broadcast from Beijing so it is time for me to go watch bouncy pony tails and count grunts and groans.

Absolutely No Media Bias

2008-08-16T15:01:00.000-07:00

IF there was ever any proof about media bias this must be it. And really, if I have to explain to you what it is about this unstaged photograph taken of these two magazines side by side then you truly are ..... well alright I will discuss a few items.

First from an artisc point of view. Whenever you have a portrait of a subject you want the eyes to be the center of attention. You want your viewer to meet the subject at eye level. There are a few exceptions and Ill explain them. But, what this means is that the eyes should be looking at you, and should be about 1/3 of the way down from the top.

The exception is when you want to portray someone as very strong and dominant over the viewer, in that case you raise their eye level above yours. In photography you do this by simply lowering the camera (Time Magazine) by at least 1 foot. The lower the camera, the more dominant the person in the photograph appears to be.

Another exception is when you want to make someone appear very submissive to the viewer (Newsweek). You do this by lowering their eyes. There are two methods for this effect. First, raise the camera above their eye level by at least 1 foot. The higher the camera, the more uncertain, and submissive the person appears. The other effect is to have the person looking downwards giving them an appearance of uncertainty.

For women, you can have them face slightly left or right of the camera (at eye level), but shift their eyes so that they are looking directly into the lens. Or, if you like raise the camera above their eyes, keep their heads straight but have their eyes shift upwards to you. Either pose gives them a look of sexual aggressiveness and/or promiscuity.

To make a person appear more pure, you over expose them slightly by adding more lighting. This brightens them. To make them appear evil, light them from below or above which gives them a ghoulish, evil look by casting dark shadows under or over the eyes, mouth and chin. Notice how the lighting on the right photo makes George Bush look evil, with dark slanted upwards eye sockets, a skeleton look about the cheeks graduating to very dark jowls.

Next comes the over all positioning of the hands. Barracks arms are folded comfortably, a man knowing what is going on, certain about his surroundings while George W. has his hands clasped in misery - remant of movies about ancient peoples praying earnestly to a lost God before an evil dragon consumes them.

I won't even comment on the mental affect of a dark surrounding (Bush) and a light surrounding (Obama) or what imagery is supported by blending your subject into the dark background (Bush) or having your subject practically POP out by being separated from the background (Obama). Suffice to say that these elements all support Obama while tearing down Bush.

And finally, the cover markings on each magazine. One stresses how religion is controlling (they say shaping) the presidency and the other (without mention of any religion) uses the phrase “contender” drawing up images of a prize boxer ready to fight the good fight.

Some of you out there will say I am making far too much of this. But I hold to the position that either:

Journalists are professionals, who know what they are saying, who understand the English language and know what is meant and inferred by every word OR

The opposite is true, in which case they don’t understand what they are saying and we should not be paying attention to them.

I leave the final decision to you. Think hard, as you look at these pictures, review my comments on art and photography, and ponder the journalistic greats like Sam Donaldson, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather who to this day swear that there is absolutely no bias in Journalism - and any statement to the contrary is just a bunch of conservative lies.

Aug 15, 2008 7:58:41 PM Alright - Enough Already!

2008-08-15T14:58:00.000-07:00

Yes, I have been off for a while, doesn’t everyone deserve a break?

So I have heard your pleas, and contrary to popular belief I am not here to entertain you. What I am here to do is vent, to exise my own demons and if that does anything for you - well ok.

But since you have been asking, Ill try and catch up a number of things in one short (LOL!) blog entry.

1. Barack Obama
⁃ I told you long ago he was going to be President. But then I didn’t expect Nazi Pelosi to crown herself Queen of America. She will be his biggest enemy and might just push moderates over to the conservatives.

2. Nazi Pelosi
⁃ Ok, enough is enough. Who does this beotch think she is? Keeping bills from being voted on by closing out for the summer is pure crap. Start writing your senators, congressmen, best friend - whoever. This ‘woman’ must go!

3. The Olympics
⁃ Yes the Chinese are pushing their scores. Of course they are. This isn’t anything new. We have done it, the Russians have done it. It is the sole reason why you host the Olympics so get over it.
⁃ And once you accept someone as a judge, no one has the right to question their ratings. You can fire them, but you should never force them to change their rankings. I mean what the hell? RIght, wrong or indifferent they are the friggin judges - not you.
⁃ If you wanted sports to be unadulterated in the Olympics then why do you let the host country field a team?
⁃ And while were on the topic of cheating. I don’t think that anyone who performs the sport for a living should be allowed to perform the sport as an olympiad. Especially when your ‘professional’ olympic basketball team still gets their ass kicked by foreigners!
⁃ And again, I don’t believe that you can fairly compare Michael Phelps to Mark Spitz. Spitz had a job for Christ sake and trained for the olympics in his spare time. He was an amateur, a true olympiad. Phelps has been sponsored now for 8 years. Look, in the real world thats called a friggin career!
⁃ Next, an olympiad should only be allowed to be in one, ONE, olympic competition. You had your shot - now move on and get over it.
⁃ And if you didn’t know this then you need to grow the frick up, wake the frick up and drink that friggin coffee that you obviously can’t smell!
⁃ Now, regarding the new ‘sports’ that keep croping up every go around. Look, there are a couple basic rules which determine whether or not the activity is a sport. Can’t we just get back to those basics?
⁃ If it takes a team to complete, it might be a sport.
⁃ If you can die doing it, then its probably a mens sport.
⁃ If women can do it as well as a man, then it is NOT a mens sport and should be left to the women.
⁃ If the women are in Pony Tails, jumping around a lot, dressed in clothing that would be obscene on the streets of any city, and frequently letting out more grunts and groans then during loves labor - its a sport. Done. Face it, men only watch female sports for the hot outfits and the bouncing pony tails. Enough already.

4. Global Warming.
⁃ Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Its the natural cycle of life. It doesn’t have anything to do with what Al Gore thinks it does. Check out the friggin petition with over 30,000 scientific signatures now. Global Climate Change due to human interaction is a farce. Or, are we in that ice age that was forecasted in the 70s?

5. You do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. Im tired of that crap too. If you want to spout your left-wing liberal claptrap, then stand by for right wing conservative claptrap from me whether or not I agree with it. And, the reverse is also true. Until we all meet in the middle nothing will change. Nothing. Life is full of variances, gray areas, and different points of view. Ill listen to yours, as long as I am sure you are not just spouting the extreme lines of your party - and yes I can tell by typically asking one or two simple questions that you haven’t thought about.

6. Men - be honest and tell your women why you started watching womens tennis 10 years ago. It wasn’t that womens tennis was all that great - it was one specific tennis player with a big bouncy.....pony tail. Be honest for gods sake. Heaven forbid women should learn that men have fantasies. And if you can’t cowboy up and tell her, I hear that the syncopated swimming team has an opening.

7. Gosh those Bejing girls are hot in their Asian pony tails and skin tight painted on outfits grunting and groaning all over the place.

FInally, Yes I know my software and blogspot aren’t behaving well and the formatting is off. Get over it. I’m paying for the service not you. No, wait, it’s free. Ok perhaps Ill complain about it this weekend.

May 4, 2008 9:28:00 PM World, Hell, Handbasket

2008-05-04T19:27:00.000-07:00

“What are you people on, dope?”
- Mr Hand, Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Look, I don’t purport to be the sharpest tool in the shed but I have to ask why you all are not asking the same questions that I am. Or, at least why those in the media are not asking the same questions.

For instance, I was shocked to discover that a number of the young girls taken from the polygamist camp in Texas were discovered to have been pregnant before the age of consent. But then I took pause and wondered -- exactly what is the underage pregnancy level in America today? And, more importantly, why wasn’t this information also disseminated at the same time?

The reason is simple. The media hates religion. Yes, of course the statement is a generality but it is also generally true. There is only one organization the media hates worse than religion and that of course is the Republicans. But that is another story for another day.

In any case, the information the media passed was passed to you in just the way they wanted it to be passed. It was delivered in such a way that you immediately thought that it was the dirty old men who impregnated those helpless young girls. Without saying a single word about who the fathers were -- the implication was clear -- it was the dirty old men. Otherwise, the media would have presented the information in the following light:

A significant number of American girls between the ages of 10 to 14 regularly engage in sexual intercourse according to Advocates for Youth. In fact the organization reports that 30 precent of all 15 year-olds and 23 percent of all 14 year-olds have had sexual intercourse. Further, in 1992 the rate of pregnancy among females 14 and under had risen to 17.1 per 1,000.

Now, this admittedly would have taken a little thing called research, and I didn’t try hard here. But what is really important in the news world is getting the story out first, not necessarily correct as Dan Rather taught us.

And if we are going to go after these males (men or boys) who obviously committed an act of sexual misconduct, then we better start thinking long and hard about making sure we play on a level field. If one single person is arrested, then I want to see that boyfriend of Jamie Lynn Spears arrested as well. After all she is only 16. Talk about a mixed message! And I also want every female teacher who has ever had sex with a student thrown in the klink.

But, lets be honest, it’s not about these girls or the males who got them pregnant. It s about being able to take another stab at a religious group, a cult which we despise because they don’t think like us, they don’t look like us and they don’t act like us. I have heard this rhetoric before and I don’t like it.

So I say why waste time with the courts? Go ahead and break out the ovens and the crosses and all you bigots can get down to business.

Apr 27, 2008 7:26:43 PM The Debate on Global Warming is Over

2008-04-27T17:26:00.000-07:00

In recent discussions with one of my readers we discovered simple, cost effective solutions to the Global Warming problem, as well as other on-going issues the world has been suffering. But before we divulge our simple secrets to global problems, we must all agree on a couple pre-requisites.

We must agree that, despite the multitude of voices to the contrary (see the Petition Project which includes 19,000+ scientists who disagree with the IPCC) , the debate on Global Warming (as Al Gore would say) is over. Further, we must ignore the fact that Al Gore is not only currently the leading Lemming in the on Global Warming, but (a) doesn’t understand, or selectively understands, the science; (b) is earning profits from a company which sells Carbon Offsets and (c) doesn’t practice what he preaches. Call me crazy but if I ran around screaming “You and your descendants will die if you don’t drink Fooji soft drinks” then wheeled out my own Fooji drink company - someone might question my intentions. But apparently only if you’re me and not if you’re a former Vice President screaming about Global Warming then selling Carbon Offsets.

In any case -

We must all agree the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the governing organization which is responsible for identifying the problems associated with Global Warming.

We must further agree that the IPCC is not a scientific body but rather a politically appointed body who’s task it is to determine what risks could (not will) occur by human generated increased Greenhouse Level Gases (GLGs). I quote from their site “The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”

We must agree that the leading IPCC scientists, including Chris Landsea (and here) resigned from the IPCC having decided to leave the organization rather than to be a party to its disinformation and misinformation. Most importantly we must dismiss all these points as irrelevant. Otherwise we see the issue for what it is.

Now we must agree that others including Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri have resigned on the grounds of political activism which compromise the IPCC.

Next, we must acknowledge the IPCC’s determination that GLGs are a result of human activity. We must also accept the fact that the human population continues to grow at an alarming rate. Therefor, if the GLGs are a result of human activity and the human population is growing the first item to gain control of is obviously the human population. In order to put into effect long term changes, the countries of the world must return to the 70s determination for a Zero Population Growth (ZPG) or even better a Negative Population Growth (NPG). It would work like this: each set of parents are allowed only one offspring. Once you as a person, have contributed to the creation of a life, you must be sterilized in order to assure the nations of the world that you will not contribute further to the Earth’s destruction. Should you decide that you desire additional children, the adoption agencies are full of children who need homes. So, choose wisely and act accordingly. If it is determined that you have had a child in violation of this rule, severe and significant punishment would be imposed. Perhaps even death. After all, by contributing to the destruction of the planet you are acting in concert in the act of committing murder on a global scale. And what is more important you have another child, or saving the globe?

Now we need to tackle the immediate GLGs. Since everyone is so concerned about vehicle emissions let us tackle that issue.

Effective immediately all non-commercial (pleasure) airlines travel is banned. Most people just complain about airline service, delays, food, prices etc so let’s just get rid of it all together. Further, all commercial based travel will have a pollution tax attached, just like the sin tax for alcohol and tobacco. Thus, a 100% tax being levied, the funds going to other Global Warming initiatives, will not only increase government funds but will also significantly decrease business travel. Here is how. Once airlines lose Gramps and Grams flying to Florida for vacation as customers, they will need to make up that revenue with increased ticket prices. In order to offset those prices they will replace the no-longer needed economy class with the more appropriate (and ego fitting) Business Class seating - which will actually be much better (and much more expensive) than current Business Class. Once you increase the price, and add the appropriate tax, the once round trip flight of $5k will now be between $10k and $15k. Most businesses will discover that holding a teleconference will be much more cost effective. Massive emissions resulting from needless air-travel will be practically eliminated, along with thousands of airline jobs but what is more important -- jobs or the globe?

Next we need to reduce the number of vehicles on the road which are contributing to GLGs. In order to drastically reduce these vehicles immediately we revoke all drivers licenses for persons over the age of 65 and all persons under the age of 25. There are a number of reasons to do this. First, a full 1/4 of all drivers are over the age of 65, according to Stateline.org. Further, drivers over the age of 75 and teenagers have the highest fatality rates of any other age. In fact, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the number of fatalities involving older people has increase 22 percent since 1975. Regarding teenagers the facts are also clear. The IIHS reports that while male fatalities have decreased significantly since 1975 female fatalities have not. Specifically that teenagers accounted for 10 percent of the population but 12 percent of the fatality accidents and that alcohol typically figured into these fatalities. By removing these child drivers (under the age of 25) we reduce a significant number of deaths of our children. This measure will immediately reduce almost 1/2 of the vehicles on the road and will significantly reduce fatality and non-fatality accidents. And which is more important, exercising a privilege (privilege, not a right) or saving Gramp’s life and saving the planet?

Once a person reaches the age of 25, it can be assumed that they are out of college, have a degree of responsibility, and have gotten most of that drinking alcohol out of their system. Further, they are probably starting out their lives and are seeking jobs. Some may have already had jobs for some time. As a right of passage they may now purchase their first vehicle. However, for persons between the age of 25 and 40 there will be a law which states they can only purchase vehicles which get 35 Miles Per Gallon (MPG) or better in city driving. Once a person has reached their 40’s it is assumed that they are ready to start, or have recently started a family and will be allowed to purchase larger, vehicles with less fuel economy restrictions, in order to transport their family.

Further, and for clarity because there will always be some idiot who claimed we didn’t tell them, any motorized or mechanized method of transporting people, animals, goods or services from one point to another is covered under these changes. So in short, no, you cannot drive your father’s bailing machine from the farm to school.

Now we need to significantly reduce vehicular activities in major cities where there is a condensed population of fossil fuel being burned. So, in any city in which there is a population of more than 50,000 people (combined all ages), there will be no vehicles allowed in a five mile radius from the city center. Further, for each additional 50,000 people another 1 mile radius will be added so that in populations of 100,000 the radius is six miles; populations of 150,000 seven miles and so on. Within these vehicle free zones, only mass public transportation will be permitted.

What remains is the consumption of general fuels which provide day to day power in the homes of the population. We have already attacked the growing population problem and by legal decree the population will decrease by half upon each generation. However, this still leaves the problem of the current population and the continuing demand on power. Not only does our population continue to grow drawing more and more power, but we continue to live in larger and larger homes. According to infoplease.com, in 1970 the average home size was 900 square feet (sq ft) and in 2004 it was 2,300 sq ft. That is an increase of almost 2 fold. This means almost 4 times the heating and cooling requirements. This is to say nothing about the additional televisions, radios, Gameboys, Xboxes, and computers in those homes.

In order to resolve this problem we will take a number of approaches. First, we need to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share of the energy fees, so, much like our nations taxes energy will now be sold on a scaling price level. The more energy you consume, the higher the cost of the watt price. The price of energy would, say double, for every fold in the size of your home.

According to the Energy Information Administration the lowest cost of energy in america is about 4.92 cents per kilowatt hour and the highest level cost of energy is between 8.33 and 11.60 cents per kilowatt hour. So, for example someone heating and cooling a 10,000 sq ft home will pay significantly more per watt than someone heating and cooling a 1,000 sq ft home. This ensures that the poor can afford the electricity to meet their basic needs and those who are wealthy end up paying their fair share.

In our example the poor person living in a 1,000 sq ft home (the average size) would only pay about 5 cents per kilowatthour. The prices then increase as indicated below:

2,000 sq ft 20 cents per kilowatt hour
4,000 sq ft 80 cents per kilowatt hour
8,000 sq ft or larger $1.50 per kilowatt hour

Here we have a perfect energy plan (based on our current tax system) where a wealthy person living in the mansion might pays their fair share of the energy bill while the poor are provided with inexpensive energy.

Further, we will return to safe, clean nuclear power and remove coal burning and river damning methods of producing electricity. This will require that we build more nuclear plants, but for each new plant constructed, we will destroy and dismantle the other plants which are so harmful to our planet. This will have the long term effect of people moving out of those large, costly and energy inefficient homes and returning to small energy efficient homes. And what is more important saving the planet - or playing your Nintendo in your oversized house?

We also have to realize that the days of inefficient single family dwellings are a luxury we cannot afford anymore. One incentive for people to leave these dwellings and move into energy efficient apartments could be the requirement for all single family dwellings to transfer a full 1/4 of their energy consumption to self owned solar power within five years. Another 1/4 will be required to be transferred within the next 10 years. Failure to meet these standards will result in a doubling of their energy fees, with said fees to be billed by the energy company and the additional funds turned over to the government for additional (state level) green programs. And what is more important, you spending a couple dollars to convert to solar fuel and saving in the long run or destroying the planet and all the life on it?

All of these plans are simple, cost effective and will have an immediate return in the battle of global warming, over population, diminished food supply and therefor global hunger not to mention many other ills of the world.

These plans can be implemented with the stroke of a pen, enforced through legislation and they provide both the carrot and stick incentives for populations to take personal responsibility for the planet and or the damage done to it.

These plans ensure the wealthy pay into our green programs their fair share.

These plans address the difference between personal luxury and global need. So now you just need one more thing. You need to ask yourself just how much you believe in Global Warming.

Do you believe in it enough to have these ideas turned into law? Do you believe in it enough to stop pointing the finger at others, enough to stop telling them to change their lifestyle and enough to change your lifestyle? Remember, when you point the finger at me, there are (typically) three of your own fingers pointing back at you. What can you do to save the earth that doesn’t involve changing how I live my life?

Or, is it less about saving the earth and more about controlling me?

Apr 22, 2008 8:39:37 PM Clinton Denials - I have heard this tune before

2008-04-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

“Tell me lies; Tell me sweet little lies
Oh, no, no you can’t disguise
Tell me lies; Tell me sweet little lies“
- Little Lies, Fleetwood Mac

CNN reported today that former President Bill Clinton denied on Tuesday that he previously made race based accusations toward Sen. Barack Obama.

I think I have heard this speech before, yes I am pretty sure I have heard him say something similar, something like this before. I seem to recall him looking right into the camera and practically swearing that he never .... well that’s another story.

Anyway, here is the audio clip of him making the statement:

“No, I think they played the race card on me, and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.”

Keep listening to the recording -- all the way to the end when Bill Clinton, apparently handing the phone over to someone and, not realizing it had not yet been hung, up can be heard saying:

“I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?”

http://www.whyy.org/podcast/election2008/elect20080421clinton.mp3

Apr 21, 2008 8:43:50 PM And just who are you?

2008-04-21T18:43:00.000-07:00

Imagine someone knocks at your door, sticks a gun in your face, flashes a badge and says:

“Someone, somewhere, called us on an ‘untraceable phone’ and said something about there might be children being abused in this town. So, we are rounding up all the children for DNA and psychological testing. Fork over the kids or we will shoot”

Welcome to America.

And as Paul Harvey might say, “now the rest of the story”
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4678143

Apr 21, 2008 8:03:33 PM Equality?

2008-04-21T18:03:00.000-07:00

Today I couldn’t help but notice all over the news that Danica somebody was the first woman to do something or other.

I have to ask, how many other ‘firsts’ do I have to suffer before we start treating everyone, oh I dunno, equally?

Yes yes. In all seriousness congratulations to Danica "Vroom" Patrick on her recent win. After all, what we really needed was an Anna Kournikova of racing.

But, really, if there is such a problem as Global Warming, why are we still running cars around and around and around and around in useless circles? Were we just waiting for a woman to finally win?

Hooray! We can now give up a sport whose sole purpose it is to generate massive additional green house gasses - for the masses.

Apr 21, 2008 8:00:00 PM Harder, Longer, Faster

2008-04-21T18:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I am thinking about writing shorter and more frequently.

Ill write fast blurbs and then from time to time tyrannical rants.

Here it goes.

Apr 19, 2008 8:45:55 PM Ben Stein Asks the Question, Why Can't We Ask the Question?

2008-04-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

“The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 meters into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
- 1984, George Orwell

In Ben Stein’s latest movie “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” raises an important issue. He states that it has come to his attention in recent years that in the field of science and academia, certain questions are being stifled, censored if you will. He points out that to even go against the status quo is to risk your own livelihood and this, he states in the opening lines, scares him. He opines that of all places, science and academia are certainly the very place to ask such questions, to go against the status quo and to seek the truth of knowledge.

To be sure Mr. Stein could have selected from a wide array of topics to prove his point. There are in fact many subjects today which are ‘off limits’ or which have been closed to debate including capital punishment, gun control, abortion, marriage, global warming ad nauseam. However, for this motion picture the topic of Intelligent Design or ID.

When I saw the early ads for this movie I knew that Mr. Stein was on the losing side of an uphill battle, that upon its release he would be crucified. From my own experience, I have not only seen this stifling but I have experienced it first hand at the University of Maryland where I have been an off and on student for the past 14 years. Always seeking to improve myself, I have continued my education, and have become amazed at the change in attitudes towards the growing amount of forbidden topics at this University.

When I began attending the University of Maryland in 1994, practically no topics were, well off topic. However, in recent years I have been instructed (along with my classmates) that certain topics were strictly forbidden. For example, in a writing course the class was instructed to select a topic on which to write mid terms but the following topics were not to be selected: religion, creation also known as intelligent design, gun control, abortion and homosexuality.

And this is exactly what Mr. Stein is talking about. The topic of his movie is actually censorship, what happens to those who raise the question of ID, for example. Included in the movie are examples of scientists and educators who have breached the wall of ID by mentioning the topic. Of course, any rational person who has seen first hand what happens knows the outcome. And, should know what the outcome of reviews of the movie will be. Those who support Darwin whole heartedly immediately make the leap (of faith) from ID to Creation to Religion and ultimately to God. However this is not what those who question Darwin, and raise the topic of other ideas, are speaking to. They simply want to raise the point that Darwin fails to answer many questions which are related to the origin of the species and to be able to seek out answers to those questions. The problem however is that anyone who supports Darwin simply cannot see this as anything other than a modern religious crusade to return God to the classroom.

Just attempt to raise the subject and you are outcast, berated, possibly fired.

Well, it has been less than 24 hours since the movies release and already on boston.com there is a lengthy article in the guise of a movie review on the Boston Globe website (globe.com) entitled No intelligence allowed in ‘Expelled’ (Ethan Gilsdorf, Globe Correspondent, 19 April 2008). In his’review’ Mr Gilsdorf states that the movie is misleading, insulting and manipulative. He continues that those scientists interviewed were approached under ‘false pretenses’ and that the movie concerns a deeply ‘polarizing subject’ in which facts and passions are deeply confused. The article eludes that the movie is politically based in ‘this fractious presidential election season’ then takes great pains to point out that Mr. Stein is a former speechwriter for President Nixon. He continues that the topic is one of evolution versus religion and that the film provides ample screen time to ‘scientists of faith’. The author accuses the movie of non sequitur black and white clips, and of equating Darwinism with Nazism. Well, unfortunately they are correct. On some counts.

You see, for those who will scream and yell at Mr. Stein pointing out the truth of what is happening in academia and science could very well be seen as misleading, insulting and manipulative. Funny how these words were not used in the very glowing review of Michael Moore’s controversial movie “Fahrenheit 911” which the Globe reported as being “riveting’ detailing the ‘crimes, sins, and errors’ of George Bush. Yes, the same Boston Globe that called Michael Moore ”triumphant“ with his release of ‘Sicko’. Gee - I guess all that chatter about the media being left-leaning really is just a bunch of hooey.

To continue, Mr. Stein was a speechwriter for President Nixon. But why raise that point, unless you are trying to make a statement which eludes Mr. Stein himself is right-wing, and why do that when at the start of the article you rail against a movie which makes a political statement in a tense election year? Especially when you failed to do so with Mr. Moore’s film. Again - that is just another example of our modern balanced reporting.

Regarding the religion, and scientists of faith issue - most of those interviewed took great pains to explain how ID is not religion, that this is not a search for God but a search for the truth and to explain why Darwin simply cannot explain the remaining questions regarding how we evolved. Yet the author of the review, as does nearly every Darwinist, only sees and hears these scientists saying ”God“ and ”faith“ and ”religion“.

Finally, there is the argument that Mr. Stein equates Darwinism with Nazism. Yes, the film does do that. But why? Because it is a fairly well published and known fact that the Nazi’s were attempting to use the theories forwarded to control the genetics of their population. They attempted to destroy, in their opinion, the weaker and inferior genetic material and pursue the pure genetic material. This is evolution, Darwinism, in it’s purest form and taken to it’s logical conclusion. Further, isn’t this what anyone who believes in Darwinist would want? The ultimate society, without disease, without illness, without the impurities and deformities from poor breeding? I question how people, especially news people, can pick and choose history, and sort events to their own desires. To mislead the public at large in fallacies of our past. I wonder how history can become so twisted such that anyone who attempts to bring to light questions of impropriety are silenced by the cries of ”Nazi!“ when it’s actually the reverse -- it’s the Nazi who destroys books, silences speech, quells discussion, and eliminates the ”inferior“. Agree with me and survive. Disagree with me and I will accuse you, I will have you fired, I will destroy you.

The reader should have noted by now that I have not touched on the accusation of the films non sequitur black and white clips. That is because the accusation is inaccurate, or the author lacked the pertinent gray matter to make the connection between say the scene of the Berlin wall going up and the entrenchment of this new liberal indoctrination in our public school systems. Of course, one would have had to have been in attendance within the public school system to make the connection in the first place, so I give the author the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately attempts to discredit the movie don’t stop at the Boston Globe. Already there is a 15 page entry on Wikipedia under the title of the movie Expelled No Intelligence Allowed (as opposed to that of a 5 page entry on Fahrenheit 911) complete with 180 references. In the New York Times treatment of the film entitled Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary (Jeannette Catsoulis 18 April 2008) describes the movie as a ‘conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry’ using a ‘ram-down-your-throat’ style of information dissemination. In yet another review in the Los Angeles Times entitled ”Expelled could exceed box-office forecasts“ (Josh Friedman Staff Writer 18 April 2008) the author states that Stein argues “Big Science is stifling academic freedom by keeping any discussion of God out of the classroom” then continues to compare it’s release and gross earnings with those of Mel Gibsons’ “The Passion of the Christ”. The author then cites how the “faith market” can be mobilized. The article rolls on and on with biblical reference and innuendo. Also at the LA Times Special editor Mark Olson in his article of the movies title states that the film is “a reminder of the rhetorical logic employed during the era of George W. Bush” with it’s “attempt to deceive audiences”. He furthers that Steins statements are “never fully pursued or proven”. So special was his review and links between Mr. Stein and his “Karl Rove tactics” that the LA Times felt it necessary to print the article, twice, under two separate links on the same day and a third under the title “Expelled: Win Bein Stein’s Acrimony”. And just to be sure that you, the reader understood how horrific the situation is, they of course were also obligated to carry Josh Friedmans NYT treatment of the film on their website here. Oh, did I mention the OpEd piece which the LAT carried on the 16th of April as well? I guess that the NYT should comment that their sister paper over in LA likes to use that “ram-down-your throat style” as much as Ben Stein does huh?

How poignant that within the movie is a clip of a rant by MSNBC correspondent Dan Abrams, practically a rabid dog foaming at the mouth, repeatedly yelling at some poor interviewee to just admit that Intelligent Design is code for religion and God, which the interviewee might have responded to in some sort had Mr. Abrams just shut up for one-second.

I am glad that Mr. Stein selected such a heated topic to drive home his point about censorship in science and academia, but in the end I guess he was wrong. There is no backlash in this country for attempting to raise questions which goes against the status quo. He is completely off his rocker. Just keep reading the movie reviews and you will see. Ben Stein has released an uninteresting, politically based, misleading, insulting, and manipulative movie with the sole purpose of getting God back into the classroom.

I did get one useful thing out of this movie - the term ”worthless eater“. I think I will start using that here. I also was able to review my own beliefs.

I don’t particularly believe that Darwin was fully correct. I do believe that species evolve, but not the way in which he describes it. I believe, for example, that if you take two people of mixed races and interbreed them you get a person who resembles some of the genetic material of each parent. This is a form of evolution. However, whether or not this new person survives any longer than a purely African, Asian, or European child (given the same circumstances) is a load and has nothing to do with natural selection.

I also do not believe that there is an almighty being dispensing justice throughout the universe. If there was, I should be 6’2“, 180 pounds, wealthy and have a woman off each arm.

I do believe that somewhere between modern science and religion is the truth. Believe it or not many of us have a brain -- myself included. We can judge the facts for ourselves. I for one would like to be able to pursue that line of questioning, and I don’t need Minitrue, whether it be a government or the media, to tell me what those answers are.

Apr 16, 2008 6:57:52 PM You Can Keep Coming Back? Even After You're Dead?

2008-04-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

“SILENCE! I kill you” - Achmed the Dead Terrorist

On their website, the Campaign To End the Death Penalty lists five reasons to oppose the death penalty.

The death penalty is racist.

The death penalty punishes the poor.

The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

The death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Luckily for them the death penalty doesn’t target the stupid.

I will quickly resolve each of these fallacies. The first thing you should note is the verbage used in these statements is used to incite you to anger. These are written to draw images in your mind that the law is targeting the minorities. Further, when you go to court if you are poor or innocent (including if you are the victim of the crime being tried) that you will be killed. This is obviously not the case, but these words are carefully chosen to draw up those images in you.

1. The death penalty is racist. Actually, it is not. The death penalty is a penalty levied against those who are duly convicted of capitol crimes by a jury of their peers. What this argument is truly meant to convey, as is correctly pointed out by many ACLU lawyers is that the death penalty is levied against a disproportionate number of minorities. Well, they leave out the fact that minorities commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Thus the death penalty is NOT racist. Further they leave out the fact that the way to level this disparage is to ensure that the punishment is handed out equally regardless of race. In other words, using the same logic to determine that the death penalty is racist, I could argue that the death penalty is sexist. However, since that argument doesn’t carry as much weight in the modern philogynist society - no one wants to argue for the execution of more women so we don’t mention that.

2. The death penalty punishes the poor. Actually, no, it punishes the guilty.

3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die. Again, no it condemns those convicted of capital crimes to die, but only after their case has been reviewed numerous times and determined on each review to be valid. This is not to say that from time to time innocents are unjustly convicted. But this is another topic.

4. The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. Ok, say you come over and rape my daughter and I kill you. Can you come over and rape her again? No you cannot. So then it IS a deterrent. You will never commit another violent crime again. On the other hand, if you are sent to jail there is a high probability that you will get out in a few years. There is also a VERY high recivity rate (criminals repeat their crimes). So, if I don’t kill you, you will be back in 5 years or so to rape my other daughter. To prove this I challenge anyone to show me any violent crime in the history of the world which was committed by a dead person. Once shown, I will of course change my opinion on the topic and lobby against the death penalty as it will have been proven once and for all as a non-deterrent.

5. The death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

This one takes an understanding of both the Law and of the English language, specifically the use of a little thing we call a conjunction.

First I will provide a quick lesson on the law. (I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night you see) A little bit of legislation called the Eighth Amendment is what is referenced in item 5. In full it reads “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”.

It is important to note the use of the words “nor” and “and” in the statement. Think of “nor” as the word “or”. The Amendment would then read: “Excessive bail shall not be required, or excessive fines imposed, or cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”.

Now in order for the common man to understand legal jargon, you must split the phrase by commas:
-Excessive bail shall not be required -- or
-Excessive fines (shall not be) imposed -- or
-Cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

We now see that there are three tests which must be passed when inflicting judicial punishment. First the bail cannot be excessive, second the fine cannot be excessive and finally the punishment cannot be “cruel and unusual”.

Here comes basic English. A conjunction joins two things like “this and that”, as opposed to “this or that”. Those two little words, “or” “and” create completely different meanings.

Now you need to understand the meaning of the terms cruel: “willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.”

Finally you need to understand the meaning of the term unusual: “not usual, common or ordinary; uncommon in amount or degree; exceptional”

If the Eighth Amendment stated that punishment could not be “cruel or unusual” then item 5 might hold true in many cases, but only if it could be proven that the death of the prisoner caused pain or distress OR was not usual.

However, the Amendment states that punishment cannot be “cruel and unusual”. Thus written, the measurement must meet criteria of cruel and must meet criteria of unusual. So, in any case where the method of punishment handed out (electrocution) is the standard method of killing, it thus is NOT unusual and it passes the test.

But suppose, on the other hand, when minorities were to be executed the punishment was to be “drawn and quartered” whereas when a white was executed the method was “lethal injection” -- one might be able to argue that the method was racist, and it is certainly cruel, but still because it was handed out regularly, it is not unusual.

Now consider the case where the death penalty is handed out regularly as either lethal injection, hanging, or electrocution on decision of the judge or jury. But in this one particular case, the judge decides that first we will cut off an arm, then burn the convict. This would certainly be unusual. It would probably also be an easy argument that it was cruel. Thus, this instance would fail to pass the “cruel and unusual” test and it would be overturned.

The question we need to address is not listed above. The question is whether or not Capital Punishment is morally valid. This is a question of the ages and one which cannot be addressed in the one or two pages I have here.

Apr 16, 2008 5:37:39 PM Stoopiditee

2008-04-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

“The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources were focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.“ - Narrator, Idiocracy

Sometimes the shear stupidity of our government amazes me. This level of idiocracy is not limited to one single party - no, there is plenty to go around. So just exactly what is it that gets the dander up on our government? What is it that drives what should be the world’s most influential and reasonable group of leaders into a totally irrational frenzy? What is the one thing that gets them so completely fired up that their blood lust takes over and without a single thought they send wolves out among the sheep for slaughter? Peaceful western religion, not the extreme fundamentalist kind - no the kind where people just want to be left alone like those at Waco, and now in San Angelo.

Nothing stirs our government up like religion or sex. Unfortunately they always seem to after the peaceful types who just want to live alone or sleep together. The latest romp through the First Amendment appears in San Angelo, Texas where, some 400 children were ripped from their parents at the point of a gun simply because the parents were exercising their religious preference of, now stand back this is going to be shocking - plural marriage. Oh My God! Get the ATF down there and burn those villains out! Oh, wait, unless their gay. In that case recall the forces -- because being promiscuously gay is a sexual choice between six simultaneous consenting adults, who once they contract HIV will force us to fund a cure for them. Hey, at least they aren’t smokers.

Ok ok I am a bit theatric here, so lets take this one step at a time.

First we need to understand plural marriage, also known as polygamy. Plural marriage is exercised throughout the world in numerous cultures. However, we in the United States outlawed polygamy. Specifically, we dislike polygyny, which is the act of a single man having multiple wives and is different from polyandry which is one woman having multiple husbands. Finally, there is group marriage in which case there are multiple husbands AND wives.

In this country, we believe in, practice, and hold to the law of the land, the concept of monogamy, or the act of having only one spouse at a time. This idea of marriage however (see previous blogs) is problematic in that the it is a religious concept. Unfortunately it is a religious concept that our country, despite the rulings on the First Amendment still supports. According to the rulings, by supporting the act of marriage, the US Government is favoring a single religious belief (specifically New Testament Christianity) over another (say, Mormonism or Islam) which is a clear violation.

Nonetheless we consider any form of plural marriage to be bigamy which is punishable under the law. In fact, Trigamy (three spouses) is still considered bigamy and is punished under multiple counts of bigamy.

So we have established that having simultaneous spouses is illegal under the law - now we must ask the question “Why”?

Well, the reason is simple. Years ago we enacted the anti-bigamy laws for two reasons. First and foremost was to combat Mormonism. The second was that men are naturally predatory creatures and left to their own devices they would marry and abuse as many hapless, week and aloof women as they could. The law thus covered the two areas of concern: Mormons who were practicing conceptual bigamy and the hapless aloof who was tricked into a plural marriage.

The question that follows would be “Does the Government have the right to pass such a law?”

To answer that we need to take a look at modern society. If you say yes, then you support the supposition that Mormons should be stopped from practicing their religious beliefs AND that women are helpless dupes.

Personally, I believe that woman can (and always have been for that matter) able to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions. As to the question of religion, I can only say that the First Amendment is very clear and I support it UP AND TO the point where your religion violates my rights. In this case, the acts carried out by two consenting adults does not violate my personal rights or freedoms and thus should be allowed. Therefore, the law against bigamy is illegal and should be overturned.

Put another way.

Is the problem of bigamy the fact that two people, having decided to hold a sexual relationship, have also decided to support each other through the rest of their lives? The answer would seem to be yes because, apparently, the government really doesn’t care if you have simultaneous sex with everyone on the planet -- just so long as you don’t decide to marry more than one of them.

Divorce in groups that practice polygamy is practically zero. When compared to the national average of our nation - that is pretty incredible. On the other hand, if the problem is that men are making dupes of women, then isn’t the problem that men are sexually active with multiple partners in parallel?

If the real concern is the latter - then the US Government needs to start throwing massive numbers of persons in jail at the point of a gun because the number one cause for divorce in this country seems to be extra-marital affairs (followed closely by financial woes, probably brought on by extra-marital affairs). And let’s not stop at the married folk - no sir, go to any bar most nights of the week and you will find dozens of not hundreds of those evil stinking parallel sex offenders. Toss them all in the klink and throw away the key I say. Don’t even bother with a trial. In fact, if they have children, take away the kids until the whole nasty thing is sorted out. And since these persons, or persona non-grata, are offenders of a sexual nature then they should be rightfully classified as sexual offenders. We all know and agree that sexual offenders should have no rights at all. They must register in their communities, they must notify their neighbors, they can’t live near schools, they must put signs in their yards and now, well let’s just hang them all for their nastiness and be rid of their filth once and for all.

But before we start building those gallows I would like to point out that these offenders down south have not harmed anyone. There is no proof of abuse, or social violations of any kind. Even the phone call which no-one knows where it came from, can’t be traced? Common. The police know exactly where that phone call came from any anyone who says differently is flat out lying. Heck, make a couple 911 calls and hang up without saying a word and I guarantee the police find their way out specifically to your specific house or apartment lickity split - not your neighbors - yours. So how is it they don’t know where this call came from? In any case, we have violated the rights of a peaceful people who just want to be left alone. And, at the same time all of this is happening, we allow religious extremist fanatics who are hell bent on killing us board planes without so much as a “by your leave” because to stop and search them based on their heritage and religion would be a violation of their rights?

But hold the fort another second. I seem to recall in recent years some banter about wanting to make a constitutional amendment which would declare marriage as being between one man and one woman. I further recall that there was quite an uproar from the populace that the government had no right to declare what marriage was. I seem to recall that there was some small debate about what constitutes a family. Or, am I dreaming? Was it simply a fancy of my imagination? If so then perhaps I should return to my dream. Otherwise, perhaps the American people should stand up and remind their government that the family is not a static picture of one father, one mother and 2.5 children. That the modern American family is two fathers, or two mothers, or ... yes, perhaps even two fathers and two mothers. Hell, even as many mothers or fathers as the family can support. I am pretty sure that if this was a compound of gay men or lesbian women the government would not be involved - other than to try and tell them that they couldn’t get married.

If you ask me I would rather have a bunch of people living in the states who, deciding that they wanted to have sex and make babies, go the full route and marry each other -- rather than giving more rights to those hell bent on killing our babies. Perhaps all the great minds are simply working on hair loss and prolonging erections. But to what end? Apparently once we have all our hair and an erection we can’t do anything without violating some law.

Apr 16, 2008 5:29:20 PM I simply cannot afford to continue to invest

2008-04-16T15:29:00.000-07:00

“Money, get away; Get a job with good pay and you’re ok.
Money, its a gas; Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream; Think I’ll buy me a football team.
Money, get back; I’m all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it’s a hit; Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.
I’m in the high-fidelity first class traveling set and I think I need a lear jet.
Money, it’s a crime; Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say; is the root of all evil to day
But if you ask for a raise it’s no surprise that they’re giving none away”
- Money, Pink Floyd

I recently received my quarterly 401k statement. You know, the (practically) forced savings plan alternative to employer supported retirement? Yes, the one which makes you the employee responsible for your own savings but which provides you no real authority over your savings what-so-ever, with the exception of which employer sponsored program into which you will invest. Yes, the one in which it is just as easy for scandals such as those employed by the executives of Enron, Comcast et all.

But I digress. The problem is that my 401k (which was quite diversified) lost, it lost a significant portion. I lost huge this past quarter - to the tune of 10 percent. Now, that doesn’t sound like much, but you have to imagine that my monthly input into the savings is maximized out and my quarterly earnings after my quarterly deposits was still down 10 percent. When you start doing the numbers on that you can see just how significant a loss it was.

I am by no means a miser, nor am I wealthy beyond my dreams. Nor do I fail to recognize that I have it quite lucky in America today, I am employed, married, and have health insurance - by most measures I am quite wealthy. I have amassed a small sum which I had intended to utilize in my retirement. However, if this downward trend continues, and I see no reason why it should not continue at least through the election, I will have lost nearly one half of my earnings in a single year. One half of what it has taken me fourteen years (14 years) to save.

So, I am faced with the question: Do I leave my money in the 401k hoping beyond hope that the economy will bounce back and return my lost funds before my retirement in two years, or, do I simply withdraw the entire sum now -- pay the tax penalty of and count myself ahead?

Apr 7, 2008 8:55:27 PM The one with a plan for a Czar is Moderate?

2008-04-07T19:25:00.000-07:00

“This is a mature grown up woman who has staked out a moderate position”
- Susan Estrich on O’Reilly Factor

Susan Estrich appeared on the O’Reilly Factor (Fox), and even after having written a book supporting Hillary for President, apparently knows very little about her candidate.

Moderate position? Wow. Moderate. Let me look that one up ... just give me a second here.

Ok, just so we are all on the same page here:

Main Entry: mod·er·ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-d(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin moderatus, from past participle of moderare to moderate; akin to Latin modus measure
Date: 15th century

1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker> b: calm, temperate
2 a: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b: having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4: limited in scope or effect
5: not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
— mod·er·ate·ly adverb
— mod·er·ate·ness noun

Ok, avoiding reasonable limits.

Now, let’s take a look at just one issue.

Hillary Clinton’s plan on Global Warming includes:
- Reducing 1990 level greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050

According to PEW, the 1990 levels for GHG Emissions (EPA) were 6,100 (MMT). In 2005 emissions were at 7,000 even. So, we are going to reduce the 1990 level of 6,100 level by 80 percent — that brings us down to 1,220. That is a MASSIVE decrease. How will she do that?

A business tax credit

A Green Building Fund

A Made Green in America Fund

Green transportation investments

Now, I am not here to debate Global Warming. I will only say that despite the rhetoric by the Liberals, and what the Hollywood Glitterati would have you believe, the debate on Global Warming is not over.

In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, the body which started all this) is a politically appointed body whose sole purpose is to “evaluate the risk of global change caused by human activity.....The IPCC does not carry out research”. I included those quotes for a reason. The IPCC does not conduct scientific research — yet it’s posting it’s findings on the topic of climate research and driving international policy.

In fact, there are numerous problems with the IPCC not the least of which is misrepresentation in the mass media. So badly is the message being propagated that in recent years numerous scientists including Chris Landsea, Paul Reiter and others decided to resign instead of continue being a part of the false message of global warming. In fact, in a paper discussing his resignation, Dr. Reiter stated that he was successful in getting his name removed from IPCC reports only “after strong insistence” that it be removed.

Further, over nineteen thousand (yes 19,000) scientists have signed the Petition Project urging the United States to reject the Kyoto Accords and other similar treaties stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere...”

(Bill Nye versus Dr. Richard Lindzen on Larry King)

So, the debate seems to be split right down the middle with Susan Sarandon, Democrats, the major media outlets and Bill Nye the Science Guy on one side (yes, I know that is quite repetitive and redundant and repetitive), and the Scientific community on the other. So how do you find the truth?

First you need to determine what is real and what is just rhetoric. Ask anyone who believes in global warming for the evidence and see if they can explain it to you, without quoting Al Gore or the IPCC, spewing the latest media story or referencing the Hockey Stick chart. And there is the problem. People no longer review the facts. They simply listen to the five minute blurb on CNN and take it as gospel.

And that hockey stick is beginning to be a real problem for this whack-jobs. Scientists are saying that once you blow up the hockey stick chart and can see the data in its discrete data points, it becomes clearly obvious that the warming effect indicated precedes CO2, not the other way around. This is why you will not find that chart with enough detail to enlarge the chart so that you can see those discrete data points. You will also notice that the chart begins and ends at periods which scientists agree are warming periods -- in our planets natural life cycle. We are now entering a natural cooling cycle and in fact the temperature has been declining slightly over the past couple of years.

So, either Al Gore, the media and the IPCC are misinterpreting the data, or they are intentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) lying. Al Gore reportedly has established a fairly profitable carbon offset company, the IPCC will remain in dictorial power until Global Warming is disproved and the media - well this story is just their current flash in the pan.

Which ever side you choose to believe, is up to you. But, it seems to me that if a bunch of people stood to profit if polar bears were at risk, they would have one of two choices. First, they might report that “ the polar bears are not at risk”. This would effectively end their employment and cushy jobs. On the other hand, they may produce a report which says something to the effect that ...

“polar bears have been on the decline for the past thousand years and it is primarily due to the increased population of humankind. Unless we properly control the rise of humankind, and of course continue the study of the plight of these graceful and beautiful beasts, they may be lost to history. Even worse, our children may never know the humility of being able to see them in their wild and natural state at the Bronx Zoo.” Thereby ensuring employment for many years to come.

In any case, my point here is that debate is far from closed and Hillary Clinton (who is a moderate?) already has a plan to annually spend over $50 billion of your tax dollars annually to prevent any more Global Warming.

That is $50 billion dollars, not currently in the budget, which must be raised from someone and she has already said that it won’t be businesses paying the bill (refer to item 1). Get your calculators ready here. So in a country of 300 million people, and I am generously assuming that 2/3 of those people (200 million) are tax paying adults (and illegal immigration is yet another topic), each of us will have to fork over AN ADDITIONAL $250 annually just to foot that single set of proposals. That doesn’t sound like much - until you again realize that is another $250 taxes annually per person for one program. This is NOT what I would consider to be “observing reasonable limits”.

But again, that is just me.

Apr 6, 2008 6:30:47 PM Hollywood Looses a Great Actor

2008-04-06T17:30:00.000-07:00

“They don’t make’em like they use to”
- adage

I have read today, with great sadness, about the passing of Charlton Heston who died yesterday at age 83.

Mr. Heston is one of the last great giants of the silver screen. When someone says regarding entertainment, “they don’t make ‘em like they use to” these are the kinds of actors they are talking about.

Born John Charles “Chuck” Carter on 4 October 1924 in Evanston, Illinois. Charlton Heston became one of the great actors of my time appearing in over 100 film and television roles. Some of the films in which he starred include: The Greatest Show on Earth (1952); The Ten Commandments (1956); The Big Country (1958); Ben-Hur (1959); El-Cid (1961); 55 Days at Peking (1963); The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Planet of the Apes (1968); Soylent Green (1973); Airport (1975); Gray Lady Down (1978); Tombstone (1993); True Lies (1994); In The Mouth of Madness (1995); and many many more.

He also hosted two episodes of Saturday Night Live and appeared in Wayne’s World 2 in 1993.

A World War II Veteran, he served as an enlisted B-25 Radio Operator in the Alaskan Aleutian Islands with the Eleventh Air Force.and in 1944 he married Lydia Clarke, who was at his side when he died, married to the end. That in itself should say something about the man in a society where marriage is nearly as brief as fast food.

He was interested in politics campaigning for Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy. In 1961 he participated in a picket line and accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. in civil rights marches in Washington D.C.

By the 1980s he was opposed to affirmative action, supported gun rights and changed from a Democrat to a Republican. He campaigned for Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush. He also resigned from Actors Equity, claiming that the union’s refusal to allow a white actor to play a Eurasian role in “Miss Saigon” was “obscenely racist”. He was outspoken against the release of “Copy Killer” by Ice-T for its depiction of killing police officers.

According to his biography on Wiki he is quoted as saying in an address at the Harvard Law School entitled Winning the Cultural War “If Americans believed in political correctness, we’d still be King George’s boys - subjects bound to the British crown”.

The article also credits him as saying “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.”

While president of the National Rifle Association he recited the ‘cold dead hands’ speech. Probably, one of the last of the rugged Americans who could make such a statement and have others believe him.

Whether you agreed with his politics or not, everyone has to agree that there just aren’t many actors who could carry a scene like Mr. Heston.

Chiseled looks, a serious stare, rugged features, and a recognizable voice, all had to have helped this Hollywood icon achieve both recognition and longevity in an extremely competitive and cut throat industry.

Among his awards are:
1960 Academy Award: Best Actor in a Leading Role for Ben-Hur (1959)
1960 Fotogramas de Plata: Best Foreign Performer for Ben-Hur (1959)
1962 Golden Globe: Henrietta Award World Film Favorite Male
1967 Golden Globe: Cecil B. Demille Award
1972 Screen Actors Guild: Lifetime Achievement Award
1975 Academy of Science Fiction: Special Award
2002 Razzie: Worst Supporting Actor for Cats & Dogs (2001); Planet of the Apes (2001) and Town & Country (2001)
2003 Long Beach International Film Festival: Lifetime Achievement Award

His Award Nominations include:
1976 Academy Award: Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award
1952 Emmy Best Actor
1953 Emmy Best Actor
1956 Golden Apple: Most Cooperative Actor
1957 Golden Globe: Best Motion Picture Actor for The Ten Commandments (1956)
1960 Golden Globe: Best Motion Picture Actor for Ben-Hur (1959)
1960 Golden Laurel: Top Male Star
1962 Golden Laurel: Top Male Star
1963 Golden Apple: Most Cooperative Actor
1963 Golden Globe: Mest Motion Picture Actor - Musical/Comedy for The Pigeon That Took Rome (1962)
1963 Golden Laurel: Top Male Star
1964 Golden Laurel: Top Action Performance for 55 Days at Peking (1963)
1965 Golden Laurel: Male Star
1968 Golden Laurel Male Star
1996 Emmy: Outstanding Informational Special
1982 Golden Apple: Sour Apple
2002 MTV Movie Award: Best Cameo for Planet of the Apes (2001)

WIred points out that Mr. Heston also participated in ‘50s-era civil rights marches, served as president of the Screen Actors guild and chairman of the American Film Institute as well as president of the National Rifle Association.

Continuing, in their online article of 6 April 2008 entitled “Charlton Heston Takes Some of Sci-Fi’s Best Lines to the Grave” Wired recalls lines such as “Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!” (Planet of the Apes - 1968), and “Soylent Green is people!” (Soylent Green).

They conclude with a quote by Michael Levine: “If Hollywood had a Mt. Rushmore, Heston’s face would be on it”.

If you’re looking for a good film at your local movie rental store, why not check out Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments or even Planet of The Apes.

Yes, they are old flicks, and they harken back to a different time. A time of the silver screen, a time when Actors and Actresses had class and knew how to act and dress in public, how to speak and how to accept awards gracefully. A time of film giants, like Charlton Heston.

Charlton Heston
b. 4 October 1924; Evanston, Illinois, USA
d. 5 April 2008; Beverly Hills, LA County, USA

DRAFT Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:12:56 AM ET Democrats will have themselves to blame for 2008 loss

2008-04-02T03:12:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party is ripping itself apart in 2008. I haven’t seen this much divisiveness since the party members hated the Republicans more than themselves (2004). At odds are of course former First Lady Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. These two candidates are quite literally splitting the party in two.

The real question here is - what is going on? Well, we have a couple of issues.

First, we have Hillary Clinton, not a quitter by any account and by some a down right angry and mean person (read True Colors or Re-Writing History for example). And there seems to be the primary problem. Hillary who lost nearly every single primary, is claiming (as is her husband) that she is way out ahead of Barack. According to the polls that I have seen this simply is not the case. It is nothing short of the same Clinton spin we have heard going all the way back to her days as a Senior Partner in a law firm where, reportedly, she never tried even a single case. Hillary is of course running, pretty much, on the platform of being the first woman president.

Barack Obama has for all purposes taken the high road in this campaign. He is an eloquent and powerful speaker. What can you say about that? It’s “just the facts ma’am”. His campaign? The same campaign we have heard from the party for years. “We can do better”. The difference? This is the first time I have believed it. Barack definitely has charisma and that is something that has been lacking in our presidency since Reagan left office.

But, with so many elections remaining in their lives why don’t these two powerful party members just work together? Perhaps take the presidency for the next 16 years? Barack for the next 8, then Hillary? The answer leads us to the real issue.

The real prize here is not necessarily the presidency, although as the saying goes “not a bad gig if you can get it”, but rather the ability to call yourself the “first” [insert non-white male statement here] President. And that is a prize that Hillary just won’t let go.

In other news, Hillary did take a moment to show her sense of humor on 1 April 2008 when she cut loose with an April fools joke that took reporters completely unawares. Suffice to say that it centered around the two candidates challenging each other to a dual of sports. Once exposed all had a good laugh, but in her discussions she continued that she was quite a good free-throw shooter in her day. A video is available on the Fox News website.

With recent recollections regarding her press tours in war zones one has to wonder about the ferocity of those statements as well.

In any case, it is good to see the light hearted side of a candidate BEFORE the election, something that I still hold to this day would have significantly helped Al Gore in his bed for the presidency. In today’s high-stress society, this single interaction (showing her human and light hearted side) may end up doing more for her than anything to date.

Do I believe that she still has a shot at the presidency? Only if we take into acount the power of the couple (Billary) and the remaining Super Delegates. I still think that Barack is the clear leader here and Hillary should let him run with it. If we continue down this road, the clear winner will be McCain.

Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:10:36 PM ET: Conducting Blog Repiars...Reepers....re... oh damnit - FIXES

2008-03-29T19:10:00.000-07:00

Please forgive the delay in posting. I have recently discovered that my blogging software was, for some unknown reason, double posting my blogs. I have been working slowly to resynchronize the software. Grr

Sunday, March 23, 2008: How many brothers must I keep?

2008-03-23T20:22:00.000-07:00

“Qualis artifex pereo.” (“What an artist, the world looses in me”) - Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (AD 15 - AD 68); roman-empire.net; hyperhistory.net and others

When Nero discovered that the Senate had finally had enough of him, rather than to be disgraced he took his own life. His final words noted above.

What made me think of this was that recently my brother began discussing what would be the epitaph on his headstone. He opined that he had decided upon:

“the last reasonable man, in an unreasonable world.”

I have to say it is a little disturbing when you hear of others talking about their demise, and doing so not with the humor of youth but with the desire for rest that comes with age. After a lifetime of giving to others, and quite frankly the list of others counting to grow by leaps and bounds at an exponential rate, one has to eventually ask themselves -- how many brothers must I keep?

I do not count myself currently as a religious person, but I did have a very strict religious upbringing. One in which the modern Judea-Christian New Testament beliefs were strongly instilled. So much so that I carry with me to this day, a well versed education when it comes to the scriptures.

Archaeologists and historians are now telling us that there is much evidence that a person named Jesus did in fact life. That he was considered by some to be a troublemaker and was eventually crucified by the Romans. From there, the details vary greatly. But, if we believe all this to be true then the unanswered question remains, was he the son of God.

I believe the real question here is does it matter whether or not he was the son of God? I don’t mean this in a question your religion kind of way but more in a ‘lets pay attention to the message’ kind of way. Look, whether or not he was a deity, I would hope that it would be agreed upon by most reasonable people that (according to the Bible) the message of Christ was of love, forgiveness and caring for each other.

This is where I have my problem. In the time of Christ, historians now tell us that the cities were of a population around 1,000 people. With such a small community it seems reasonable for someone to come to town and begin preaching that we (the village) need to care for one another, help one another when we are sick, visit each other when in the hospital or jail and even feed and cloth each other when poor or hungry. In a town of about 1,000 this is reasonable to me. However, when the village grows to three, four, even ten fold or more this concept is near impossible.

The reality of the people sets in. There will always be those who feed of the caring of others, and as I look at the world today I believe the world to be full of such people. Each and every day I hear one after another person bemoaning the “fact” that this group or that group isn’t doing enough for their group. Typically you hear this argument in regard to the ‘rich’ not paying their fair share of taxes so that the ‘poor’ can benefit.

I find these arguments typically to be very self-fulfilling. The ‘rich’ are typically any conglomerate of people who make more than the person (or persons) who are waging the argument and the poor are typically only the people waging the argument. Seldom do you hear the persons waging the argument agreeing to any kind of fact that, comparatively, they themselves would be considered wealthy by those below them financially and therefore they themselves need to pay more into the tax system. No, typically these people (one of whom was earning over $50k (fifty-thousand) per year part time and living in the Florida Keys) are at the bottom of the barrel, scraping to get by and could be a full member of society with all the benefits if only those bastards making $51k (fifty-one thousand) or more would pay their fare share of the taxes.

Well for years I have heard these arguments. When I was making less than $15k (fifteen thousand) per year and not only feeding but clothing my family I heard them and I railed against those making them. “What are you doing to improve yourself?” I would ask. Typically, they would look at me with abject horror, complete disbelief that they were required to do anything. I would explain to them that instead of complaining about my situation I was working two if not three jobs in order to feed my family and my situation was no one’s fault but my own. Again, looks aghast.

Well it is time that those of you who think you are at the bottom grab yourself up by the bootstrap and stop complaining that I am not doing enough for you. And of course I don’t mean me literally, I mean all those of us who are not at or below your level of income. I know that sounds a terrible thing to say in today’s politically correct environment, but as for me, you have drained the last of life’s blood from my desire to continue. I have all but quit your society and in a brief amount of time, to quote a former president “well, you won’t have me to kick around anymore”.

So you better start doing for yourself, before others like me see that there are just too many of you out there and you are just to damn ungrateful for what we can do, have done and continue to do. The clock is ticking. Before you loose us as the artists in your financial lives, as the last reasonable men who gave more than they had to give, what are you going to do for yourself?

Saturday, March 22, 2008: You are not welcome here

2008-03-22T20:53:00.000-07:00

“It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we’re living in is getting small , and all we say is, ”Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.”
- Howard Beale, Network.

I saw a no trespassing sign today that caught my eye. It was your typical warning that violators would be prosecuted etc. However, what I found strange was that it was the facility it was allegedly protecting.

The world is rife with problems these days. People are afraid to go outside because of the criminal activity. So, they tend to stay in their homes, and the computer age has aided our ability to do so. Now, from the comfort (safety) of our homes we can order anything we need from the internet: clothes, food, drink, toys, books, magazines, music, television, ad infinitum. You can even obtain employment which allows you to work from your home (called telecommuting) without ever meeting your employer and you can obtain a college education. All without leaving the confines of your front door.

All these can be done from the desk at which I now sit -- all but one. Human interaction. Oh, there are those who will argue that we are interacting right now, you the reader and I the author. But my friend this is not interaction. It is not even discourse it is simple one way communication of the written word. No, in order to have human interaction you must go out into the world, into the light and seek out other human beings.

And perhaps that is what I was doing on Saturday when I found myself at the end of a somewhat long and winding road, stopped in my automobile staring at a sign which read in ominous white letters on red background:

“Stop. Keep Out. Private Property. No Trespassing. Violators will be prosecuted.”

What I find disturbing, if you choose to believe, was that I ended up at this particular location for a reason. Some unseen hand of fate, or perhaps even the almighty himself had guided me in my trek to find something my life was missing to this final destination. To the one destination that could fill my void, and put an end to my longing, or answer my questions. A church - - one in which I may have entered had there not been a sign prohibiting me from doing so.

Which then raises the question in my mind - - how does one become a member. Perhaps I was looking for a church to attend, yet I could not enter, because I would be trespassing.

I believe that I understand what was meant by the sign. I am sure that the owners of the facility meant that the unwanted riff-raff is unwelcome at this house of worship. I believe what they meant was, that after spending so much of the members hard earned money on the land and building the owners wanted to keep it clean of graffiti, and clear of the troublesome persons of our society, the dregs of society, the troublemakers - - in short the sinners.

Who knows why I was there. Perhaps it was fate, perhaps I was just out on a Saturday drive in the country. No matter what the reasons, if I truly was seeking spiritual help or even considering it -- that one sign may have been taken by me as more than just a sign of people who cherished THEIR land and THEIR building more than my soul. It might have been taken as another kind of sign by someone hanging onto life itself by their own very last thread.

In any case, it seems to me that these church owners forgot that they do not own the land, God owns the land. It seems to me that they need to remember that it was never their hard earned money, it was the money that God provided them so that they could, in turn, provide for the sinners they are apparently trying so desperately to “Keep Out”.

Perhaps they need to replace their sign with one more appropriate. One which reads:

“Come, enter. All are welcome. God’s Property. Trespass, and you shall be ministered to. ”

If they don’t like that one, then perhaps a sign from God’s own words:

“Ask, and it shall be given you; Seek and ye shall find; Knock, and the door shall be opened unto you:” Mat. 7:7

Saturday, March 15, 2008: I am confused

2008-03-15T13:02:00.000-07:00

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.”
- Alexander Pope, 1688-1744; Essay on Man

In, what I consider, my ongoing education I have learned many things. As an observer of people I have discovered that most, but not all, of what is taught in modern college is a lie. Our educational system is no longer one in which free thought flows between students of varying backgrounds, beliefs and abilities. It is rather an organized method of indoctrination to the thinking of the liberal left.

Please don’t misunderstand. I believe in the most liberal position of all: I can do, say and believe what-so-ever I like so long as it does not infringe on your ability to do the same, and you may also act in the same manner.

However, occasionally I do come across some truths still being taught and one of those such truths discovered in our modern facility for higher learning was the concept of Reproductive Strategy and Parental Investment.

In short, Parental Investment states that in a relationship where it takes more than one to reproduce there will generally be one mate who stays in the nest and raises the offspring and there will generally be one mate who does nothing other than provide the required half to the sexual experience. It is said that the mate who stays in the nest and raises the offspring has the greatest level of Parental Investment. Further, that among all such species the mate with the greatest level of Parental Investment is considered to be the mate least sexually active, and the mate with the least level of Parental Investment is considered to be the sex among the species which is most sexually active. The associated concept of Reproductive Strategy explains why.

In all species you must maintain a balance of numbers. Too many or too few of one species and the ecosphere is thrown a kilter. So, how to keep the species numerically in tact? The answer, give one member of the species a very active sexual drive and the other sex of the species a lower sexual drive. This ensures that, generally, the population is always sexually active and that the most fit of the species meet and become parents. It is a bit complicated but here is how it works.

The sexually active member of the species goes around saying “I want sex, I want sex” and the lesser active of the species answers back “so what’s new?”. For a number of reasons dealing with Nature, the ecosystem and biology, this mates entire purpose in life is to spread their seed as far and as wide as possible. Suffice to say its part of the whole Darwin thing -- and since we are talking science we all can agree that the debate on Evolution versus Creation is closed right?

Anyway, when the lesser sexually active of the two is ready to mate, that one responds the calls for sex with “Sure, yah, ok I am game”.

You know what happens next right? Well, 50 different suiters appear all claiming to be the one with him the sexual encounter was promised. This is where the better of the suiters wins out because of brightness of feathers, strength of horns, the survivor of combat, the amount of expendable cash -- whatever.

In the end, for most all species in the world once the deed is done the two mates literally go their own way. The one with the greatest amount of Parental Investment does their part and raises the offspring to young adulthood.

So in short we accept the following postulates:

Most all species on the planet require two parents to produce offspring

We identify the roles each of the parents plays based on the theory of Parental Investment

Reproductive Strategy requires that the parent with the least level of Parental Investment to be always on the “prowl” for a new ”mate“

And here is my question.

If we agree on all these things, and we allow this material to be taught in college -- why then are we so shocked when a man is caught in a sexual tryst not involving his wife?

It is no wonder why the people of this nation are completely non compus mentis. We say one thing then expect everyone to act contrary to what we have taught you. I know that many will argue that there is a significant difference between man and the beasts of the earth (and of course I mean humankind). However, this is not true taking into account only what is being taught in our colleges. Man is nothing more than a beast of the earth.

But mankind, you say, can reason -- so by this ability alone mankind should be able to defeat millions of years of genetic evolution in order to domesticate ourselves. This may be a valid argument if it were not for other animals ability to also reason and discern one thing from another. Consider however how birds fly south for the winter. Is it because they have always just done it? Or, are they acting for the survival of their species, and knowing that winter is arriving that they need to flee to warmer climates? When you have a puppy or a kitten, if these beasts are unable to reason then how is it that you can train them not to excrete their bodily waste in your home? You teach them that when they have an ”accident“ in the house they are punished and they must wait until they go outside.

No, I say that mankind was never intended to have one mate for life. I say that while mankind can reason, this ability only serves to allow mankind to (perhaps -- but not in all cases) prefer the company of one mate over another. In the end, mankind is a beast and as such must answer the call of nature. The females of our species, having the greatest level of Parental Investment thus have the lowest level of sexual urges. The males of our species, having the least amount of Parental Investment (despite relatively modern domestication) must maintain the greatest level of sexual activity and therefore must continually advertise ”I want sex, I want sex“. Once a willing female answers that she is willing, the male has no choice but to answer natures natural call and resolve those natural urges. To act in any other way would result in the death of our species.

To put it another way, men are at fault for letting loose with a mating call and subsequently seeking out any responders no more than women who so infrequently respond to the needs of their domesticated men at home. And even if frequently resolved, the millions of years nature has had to enforce the need to spread seed across the population in order to provide diversity ultimate wins out of the trivial thousands of years of domestication.

So I cannot resolve a group of people who purport to be well education, yet are shocked when a man falls prey to a woman and her seductive ways. I do however find it quite satisfying when a person has made a life’s work out of prosecuting such men, themselves falls victim to these same ‘sins’.

I think you know where I am going with these thoughts.

Yes, summer time is upon us and I think this year I will take a week vacation in New York. Does anyone have about $4k I can borrow? I hear they have some real kick ass entertainment up there!

Saturday, March 15, 2008: A week in the news

2008-03-15T11:11:00.000-07:00

Well, the political rivalry between Hillary and Barack continues with what appears to be Barack taking the high-road and Hillary staying low. With the exception of Barack’s minister sending a couple shots across a wide range of bows, I haven’t read or heard of too many responses.

What I have seen in the news is people who are now urging Barack to respond back in kind to Hillary’s attacks and I believe this to be the wrong approach. Barack has to date stood for change, and a higher moral standard. To switch that position now would result in politics as usual. It is his new approach and his charisma that attract me. Attacking Hillary would result in a loss of my vote, perhaps even the votes of others. I would then be left with only one Democratic choice for President, John McCain.

I could vote for Hillary Clinton, but to date I haven’t heard anything to make me believe that she is qualified to be President. Of course I haven’t heard anything from Barack either, but at least both are on an even keel regarding qualifications. Yet, Hillary keeps spouting that she is more qualified.

How are you more qualified? That is my repeating question.

While she recounts her battles with Republicans during her husbands time in office, I would like to remind her that those were her husbands days in office. And, by the way, fighting a battle in which you were just standing by your husbands words (later to be proven wrong) does not mean that you are able to represent our country in fighting (again of all people) the Republicans.

How is it that you believe the number one qualification in running a nation is opposing all the recommendations of the minority party?

What about important issues like:

fighting our enemies

striking back at, or protecting us from, those who are trying to kill us

reducing inflation

reducing the deficit

bringing our troops home

increasing my salary

reducing my taxes

increasing my comfort level

reducing poverty

increasing our national product

reducing our hunger

increasing our jobs

reducing the number of our unemployed

bettering our medical coverage without increasing our medical benefits cost

eliminating hate (including not only sex and race based crimes, but how about political party based hate speech as well?)

Again, in the days Bill was President, that was his responsibility -- not Hillarys’.

So in truth, the only experience that she has an abundance of, over those of Barack Obama, is that for a number of years she was close, very close, to the actual President of the United States. In that capacity, and by that I mean one of fulfilling womanly and wifely duties to a sitting President, we can agree that Hillary has far more experience than Barack.

But I would also point out that since Bill was typically eating out, I would then have to call into question her abilities as a cook as well.

Saturday, March 8, 2008: All hope abandon ye who enter here

2008-03-08T17:04:00.001-08:00

“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye. 
Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love. 
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.”
-Alighieri, Dante; Divine Comedy; circa 1306

I am sometimes amazed at the world and what I see in it. I look at a situation and actually say -- well it cannot get any worse than this. That is my failing, for my spouse repeatedly screams not to tempt fate.

Recent events in the office draw my attention to the classics. Not only do I understand far more today than I did in high school, but I find myself drawing upon these experiences and, the writings of these men being so accurate and relevant to the modern day, wondering if anything has changed in the last two thousand years.

Only someone experienced with the things I am going through could possibly understand.

Did Shakespeare have an apprentice who was scheming and lying in order to take advantage of him; and doing it so very obviously and poorly that everyone else wondered just how long Bill would put up with Smiths’ crap before he beat the living tar out of him?

HAMLET
I do not well understand that. Will you play upon
this pipe?
GUILDENSTERN
My lord, I cannot.
HAMLET
I pray you.
GUILDENSTERN
Believe me, I cannot.
HAMLET
I do beseech you.
GUILDENSTERN
I know no touch of it, my lord.
HAMLET
'Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages with
your lingers and thumb, give it breath with your
mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music.
Look you, these are the stops.
GUILDENSTERN
But these cannot I command to any utterance of
harmony; I have not the skill.
HAMLET
Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know
my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to
the top of my compass: and there is much music,
excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot
you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you
cannot play upon me.

Did Poe had to explain over and over and over to some employee WHY it had to be that damn raven who was rapping, rapping at his door? Not for a lack of mental capacity but that the employee would have rather the creature been a bluebird or perhaps a sparrow or even something large and dangerous like a bunny. “I just don’t understand how a raven works here Ed”. (editors note: Alas the pundit was correct here but his idea would be lost to time until, almost 700 years later an English troupe known as Monte Python produces a film in which they portray the dangers of unassuming rabbits).

I wonder if these kinds of things occurred, or if perhaps those individuals, who in my fantasy were under the employ of these writers, were simply overjoyed to be employed?

And it is questions like this that makes me believe that man has not changed in 2 millennia, that these writers (whom I never really understood) did have true genius and that the modern workplace is not an office, no - it is hell with fluorescent lighting and as such . . . o’er the door to my office should hang the sign:

“All hope abandon ye who enter here.”

Sunday, March 2, 2008: NYT Reports Paid Sick Days Battle Begins

2008-03-02T16:43:00.000-08:00

In its article entitled “With the Democratic Congress, Groups Gear Up for Fight Over Paid Sick Days” the New York Times is reporting on this very important issue.

Now, as you have read in my previous articles, I have been employed by a number of companies for a number of years. My running joke is that I started my work career with no benefits, worked my way up to 30 days vacation and unlimited sick, and have now worked my way back down to 10 days vacation and no sick. Why? Because with every passing year company principles responsible to corporate stock holders have had to come up with new ways to improve holdings and increase profits. What is the easiest method to increase profits? A decrease in employee absences.

There are a couple of supporting arguments that they make. First, they argue that sick days are statistically proven to be used as vacation days at the end of the year. They are able to cite report after report indicating that as the final holidays of the calendar year draw neigh, the number of illness related absences increases proving beyond a doubt that these individuals are not truly sick — but are mearly using sick days as vacation days.

Here is a thought — it’s winter. People are struggling and working and over working to get things done by the end of the year. As the cold and flu season approaches them, their bodies are worn down and less able to fight cold and infection. Call me crazy — but I think I can pretty much find statistical proof that people get sick in the winter season. And those illnesses have nothing to do with the holidays.

Businessmen (yes and businesswomen) also argue that providing paid sick days to employees drive up costs, which will result in businesses closing. Uhm, no it will result in increased costs and those costs will be shifted to the customers. This does not necessarily mean that those customers will leave and the business will close. After-all, every business will have to provide sick days. So, you competitors will have the same “disadvantage” of added cost as you.

Here is what corporate principals and business owners will not agree to. Sick people will report to work in order to keep from having to use their vacation time as sick time. This results in more people in the work place becoming ill and production will drop, those sick people will also report to work and in the long run production numbers will drop. Sick people are not as effective as healthy people.

So, what is the answer. Well, I think that the Democrats have it here, but only part of it. Yes, businesses should provide employees paid sick days. However, the employer should also have the right to require employees who take sick time off to provide a physicians note confirming the illness and inability to work. Many large corporations with a short term or long term disability program do this already under those programs. Why not provide the same ability for illness. In order to be fair, the rule could be something to the effect that an employee may be out ill for 2 consecutive days before having to provide a note of illness by a physician to the employees immediate supervisor. For any period of illness not covered by such a note, the employee must take vacation time.

The result is that employees will not be able to abuse the system for vacation time without the collusion of a physician. It also places the onus on the employee. Should the employee have a 1 day flu — then they can go to a doctor and get a note, or take vacation. The employee decides what to do.

The rest of the problem that Congress needs to consider is that once (if) they get such a law passed, the immediate response of business would probably be to shift current vacation plans to cover the sick policy. By that I mean the following. Suppose you work for a company in which you are provided 10 days of vacation a year and Congress passes a law which requires your employer to provide you with 5 days of paid sick leave per year. The result would probably be that next year your company would revamp their plan to 5 days of vacation and 5 days of paid sick leave providing that you have proof from a physician that you were actually ill. Congress must include in the plan, a requirement that companies may not diminish existing vacation plans in order to compensate for sick leave days.

As you might note, I am a strong supporter of such a plan. The last thing I want in my office is sick people coming to work because they don’t have vacation time available or worse, simply refuse to use their vacation time as sick time. To be sure I completely understand. Working for a company that provides fewer vacation days than there are Federal Holidays it is clear to me that employers don’t actually want you to take vacation. In stead they simply want you to take a long weekend once in a while. And, for a professional employee in modern society, that just isn’t enough time to get out and recharge the batteries. Even worse, and heaven forbid you get the a full swing case of the flu, as did my sister-in-law this year and are out of work for 3 weeks. That is one and a half years of vacation time lost for her. Your choice is to go to work sick, or burn upwards of two years of vacation time due to your illness. That can be extremely harsh on a family especially today’s family, most of whom are already scraping just to get by.

Sunday, March 2, 2008: Self-Serving and Just Plain Wrong

2008-03-02T16:13:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article in one of today’s newspapers. The article, “Clinton’s plight isn’t unusual” by Cokie and Steven V. Roberts appeared in the Opinion Section of The Capitol (Annapolis, Maryland). What I found interesting in this article is how it centered on author Cokie Roberts mother. In it’s opening salvo across the bow of American Patriarchy, Cokie reminds us of just how important in American history her mother is:

“... former congresswoman and ambassador Lindy Boggs ....”
“...this pioneering feminist -- Cokie’s mother -- found herself as the ‘first woman’ over and over again in her lifetime.”

I will take the time to point out that any time an author of an article, especially in the newspaper, who refers to themselves in the third person is, well, pompous.

None-the-less after dedicating the first (and sizable) paragraph to the importance of Cokie’s mother in history, the second paragraph points out that any hope Hillary Clinton has of wining this election will fall to white women and older people because, as she points out in the third paragraph:

“white men, less educated and lower-income voters -- shifted their support so Sen. Barack Obama”.

You see what the author has done? She has stated that if you are voting for Barack Obama, you fall into one of those categories: white men, less educated or lower-income. Nice.

In the end the authors opinions are summed up with the opening quote by their revered mother Lindy Boss who reported stated:

“I just can’t believe the country’s still not ready for a woman.”

Well, perhaps you need to look at things more realistically. Perhaps the problem is not that the country isn’t ready for “a woman [President]”, perhaps the matter of fact is that the country just doesn’t want that woman as President.

Saturday, March 1, 2008: For the Love of God - Learn to Program

2008-03-01T04:23:00.000-08:00

Ok, I admit it, there are a number of things that irritate me. But so what? It is a modern world and we strive, we work really hard to make life easier. So why is it that no matter how hard to try to make things easier you always have a group of idiots bent on making it hard?

So I play a computer game. No big deal. One of the nice things about the game is that the players can add their own little programs to the game to customize it a bit. These are called Add-Ons. Before we go on, you need a small refresher (or intro) into programming.

In modern programming there is a concept called Re-Useable code. It actually started a number of years ago, but the thought goes something like this:

I have already written a program that takes two numbers, adds them, and gives you back the result (Ok actually the sum but you get the picture). This little block of code (or program) is added to a big group of other programs and we call this big group of programs a Library. When other people want to add two numbers, they simply reference this library and voila! You don’t have to waste your time writing new code. You see? It’s already been done — so why do it again?

Another added benefit is that everyone in the computer world knows that this little block of code exists, and they know that it exists in this “Library” so if something goes wrong they know where to look right? WRONG! You see, we have a whole group of morons who think they are programmers. They even have the gall to call themselves Software Engineers. These idiots actually COPY the little code from the library, put it someplace else on your computer and use the copy.

So why do they do this? Why is it a good idea?

Some “Software Engineers” will argue that they don’t want the little block of code from the library to change. That they need it to perform EXACTLY as it did on the date that they coded their software which depends on the block of code from the library. So, they copy that block of code and put it someplace safe. The problem is, that if this is the case, then they should write their own little block of code and add it to the library. Why don’t they do that? Because they are lazy little shits.

Why shouldn’t they do this? Why is it a bad idea?

Well, if the programmer is using that little block of code from the library (what we in the industry call “a Standard Library Call”) then when we try and debug the software we are going to go to the original program in the library for the problem. Why would we go there? Because there are literally thousands of programmers out there writing thousands of programs and we, as troubleshooters, simply can’t look through every friggin’ file on our computer to determine if some programmer in Walla Walla Washington made a copy of wcount and put it 15 directories deep in his program. When the program error dialog tells us that there is a problem with wcount we are going to look in the standard library for wcount to see if there is a problem with it.

This was the main reason I stopped using Windows computers. You see, beyond my game this is a bigger problem.

Back in the day, these same programmers would use this same tactic when writing code for Windows. They would copy and move DLLs or OLEs and use these copies. Even worse, they would take old copies of DLLs and OLEs then change their version numbers and dates to make old copies look more recent and repost them. The result was Windows terror! Windows constantly crashing, blue screens of death and all manner of problems.

Standards and Libraries exist for a reason. If you are going to use the library then use it properly, reference the original file and keep your program properly updated. If you are not going to use the library code properly, then for gods sake at least have the common friggin decency to program properly. By that I mean make your own code, using your own logic and put it in your own directory. Don’t make a copy of the library file and put it in some obscure location. This may be fine on your own machine — but I and other users like me literally have hundreds of gigabytes of software and data and we simply can’t afford to spend all our time tracking down your lazy ass excuse for code to find a problem.

Even worse, despite what you personally think you egotistical grabastic piece of crap, the computer becomes confused as to which call it is using and can really fubar our data.

God you suck.

World of Warcraft Add-Ons which Violate Good Programming Practices:
For using COPIES of ACE-2 Library
- ABFU
- AllPlayed
- AnnounceIt
- AtlasLoot
- AutoProfitX
- Cartographer
- Cartographer_Herbalism
- Cartographer_Mailboxes
- Cartographer_Mining
- Cartographer_Noteshare
- Cartographer_NoteTarget
- Cartographer_QuestObjectives
- Cartographer_Treasure
- CraftbotFu
- Decursive
- EnchantBotFu
- EnchantingSell
- Omen
- VanasKOS

Saturday, February 23, 2008: Inconvenient Truths - Men v Women

2008-02-23T16:50:00.000-08:00

As the I ponder the coming election, and how far women have come in the last century, I think that it is time we consider ancient customs which we still adhere to which perform no modern function than to keep women downtrodden and beholden to men.

Alimony

According to Wikipedia, Alimony arose as a result of the indissoluble nature of marriage (till death do you part). In other words, in the rare case of divorce men were required to keep the women housed and fed. However, in modern society women wear, almost as a badge of honor, their divorce record. Divorced women, once considered damaged goods, are now simply considered wiser for the wear. Women no longer stay at home and raise families whilst the men head out into the forests of the world to slay the proverbial dragon — no today the women are slaying those beasts right along with their men. Thus, there is no real account for the argument that I have no life without him, no means to support myself. Therefore alimony is a throw back to a time which no longer exists and should be ceased lest it continue to do more harm than good.

Child Support

This one has always perplexed me more than just a bit. A child is not a financial lever which one utilizes during divorce proceedings. To be sure, it took two to make the child and so it should take two to raise the child. However, in the modern world we find that couples are at times, at odds with each other and decide to go their separate ways. As already indicated in the paragraph on alimony — we are no longer in an age whereby women are suffered to remain at home and raise families. More and more women are working professionals and as such, should they resolve to maintain custody of the children then the financial responsibility should also be theirs and theirs alone. It is a decision of a parent to enter into a court of law and fight of custody of a child. Said custody should be based on which parent is most able to provide for the proper upbringing of that child. Should the courts decide that the father is more properly suited, then so be it. And, the reverse is also true. However, whom-so-ever it falls upon to be the guardian of the child, then that individual is responsible on all accounts. In the case of joint, or shared, custody, then certainly some financial obligation is due and should be paid. However, also in such cases there should be shared decision processes.

The Abortion Argument: It’s Her Body

This is certainly true. However, as I previously stated, it takes to in order to make a baby. Abortion is t touchy question and one which invokes a number of heart based arguments. In reality, such arguments have no place in discourse. Only facts and dispassionate truths need be examined. So lets examine the dispassionate truth. In order to make a baby, a man and a woman must participate in the sexual act of intercourse. I have to be clear here because recent presidential testimony makes it clear that some sexual acts are not sexual acts at all. But I digress. Two people must decide to have intercourse. At the time that they (the two people) make this decision they know all the possible outcomes. Pregnancy and disease are but two of the possibilities. That being said — these two people made their decisions before having sex. To regress after the fact and have one of the two partners claim that it’s my body and Ill do with it as I please — without consent or knowledge of the second partner is nothing short of fraud. In my mind we could put an end to much of our social problems with one simple court enacted law. Abortion is legal, if, both participating parties once being proved to be the biological parents sign affidavits swearing to that fact and both agreeing that abortion is the course desired. Should either one of the two descent, then the responsibility— the full responsibility of that child becomes that of the descenting party. Proof of relationship must be obtained before assent to abortion can be granted thereby assuring that some friend or recipient of a $20 bill will claim to be the father thus providing assent. I believe that in such a law men will begin to understand their role in raising a child, and will take more seriously the sexual act. They will become more conscious of their acts and the outcomes of those acts. In the same way, women will become more responsible. Yes, it is your body but you already made your decision when you lay down with me. And what about my rights as a man? What about my desire to have progeny? Aren’t you then abridging my rights to have offspring? You may say I am in the minority -- but until such laws are passed I have no voice and so you do not know how I feel. I am not consulted, yet if you on the other hand decide to have a child without consulting me the courts find it completely and perfectly legal to force me to pay to support a child which perhaps I did not want. So we have a double standard in which the men ALWAYS pay the price for a woman’s indiscretion. It simply isn’t fair to have it both ways.

Thursday, February 21, 2008: What Does One Do, After Two Lifetimes of Work, and a Third Lifetime of Work Remaining? Satirement!

2008-02-21T09:26:00.000-08:00

“This is madness .... madness!“

The year is 2008, and my annual Social Security Benefits Report just arrived. Truly, I don’t know why they bother anymore. Is there a soul left in this country who believes that there will be any benefit remaining when they retire? This annual document says two things very clearly. First, I am worth more as a disabled spouse parenting no children, today than s retired spouse who continues to work for the next 20 years. Why? Because in 20 years they will only pay me 1/8th of what I am barely surviving on now - and that is if they find a way to pay it.

The document states:

“Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.” It continues “... by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75% of scheduled benefits”

Ok, stop and please read that again. That my friends is what lawyers call a disclaimer. You are required by Federal Law to pay into a system that they are now putting in print -- is defunct. They are stating clearly here that there will be no benefit for you when you retire.

So amidst the many concerns over the lack of retirement funds, Social inSecurity continues to fall under much scrutiny. And not just Social inSecurity.

In recent years most corporations have shifted retirement plans from company based plans to 401k based plans - - but are 401s any better? To believe that a 401 will protect you from the theft of corporate mongrels is simply false hope given to you by companies and politicians in light of Enron, Comcast and other corporate fraud. In my parents days you went to work for a company. Perhaps you left that company and went to work for another, but pretty much you ended up settling down to a single company and you got your gold watch and retirement after 20. Well, that’s not how it works today. In addition to your watch you received income from the Social inSecurity - but how many people understand that the program was a pyramid scheme and we, yes we, have destroyed it. Not the politicians - we the people. We did this by destroying the employment base that paid all those benefits.

In the early days it was simple mathematics. More people worked than retired. Let me explain.

When Social Security was formed, three generations of people were involved. Grandpa and Grandma, if both survived retired. They received a little benefit based on money the government had collected from them. Their children (our Mom and Dad) also paid into the system, and Grandpa and Grandma received money from that pool as well. Finally, we (the children) also worked and paid into the system. Grandpa and Grandma received a little money from that pool. It’s called robbing Peter to pay Paul - but it worked. It worked because, and I wish I could find this statistic, on the average there were 10 workers paying into the system for every retired person collecting from the system. But, along the line a lot happened to our society. Modern medicine allowed Grandpa and Grandma to live beyond 65, and into their 70’s and 80’s and 90’s and now even into their 100’s. That is an additional 40 years of payments the government never planned on making. So to counter, every couple years they extend the age of retirement. Now it’s 62, but full retirement isn’t until 67. Next, we completely eliminated child labor through the enactment of the child labor laws. That’s a full 1/3 of the labor force no longer paying and a full 1/3 living 3 times their expectancy (as far as collections go). Finally, we didn’t have an entire class of peoples working, and NOT paying into the system, yet DEMANDING all the benefits of that system.

Recap: 1/3 less labor force paying into the system, 1/3 labor force surviving an extra 40 years drawing from the system and one full new additional non-paying group drawing from the system.

So, where do I come into the discussion? Do you know what it takes to be eligible for retirement in the eyes of the Social inSecurity Administration? In order to be eligible you must earn “credits” through working. Most people need 40 credits over a lifetime in order to retire. That is based on a maximum of 4 credits earned per year and, up until this year, those credits were based on a complex calculation. Suffice to say it took between 15 and 20 years to get your 40 credits.

I started working in the 70’s. I have been paying the conglomerate of employment taxes since 1976. Thats 32 years. Based on 15-20 years to obtain 40 credits, two lifetimes of work. I received my first notice of eligibility for retirement in 1990’s. So why don’t I retire already? I am only 45. I am only 45 and I have earned enough employment credits to retire twice over.

Despite the fact that I have been working for over 30 years, and had earned enough credits to retire before I was 30 - current laws prohibit my collecting any retirement for another 20 years unless I become disabled.

Should I continue working until age 62 (circa 2025), based on my current earnings history, my estimated Social Security monthly benefit would be about 15% of my 2006 salary. Let me say that again, if I continue working another 20 years, based on my current earnings history my monthly benefit in 2025 will be 15% of my 2006 monthly salary. Think back to what you were making in 1986. Take 15% of that and tell me if you could survive TODAY on that amount. Now remember, that is if the Social inSecurity Administration has the money to pay me. By their own account, they will only be able to pay 75% of my 15%, or 11% of my current salary.

The sad part is what would happen if I were to become disabled now.

In the case where I become disabled now, the Social inSecurity Administration will pay me 20% of my 2006 salary for the rest of my life. Additionally, because I am disabled, my wife may also be eligible for another 15% of my 2006 salary and my child might also be eligible for another 15% of my 2006 salary. Thats, 20% + 15% + 15% or about 50%. It isn’t really because there is about a 30% total family cap on eligibility. But, am I the only one here who sees a problem?

This means I have an insane choice to make.

1) Continue working another 20 years (3 lifetimes) for 11% of my 2006 salary for the rest of my life (estimated 10 years benefit from retirement date)
2) Become disabled today and everyone in my family collects a sum equal to 15% of my 2006 salary for the rest of my life (estimated 30 years benefit from injury date)

CALL ME HANK REARDEN

I have worked my entire life. I can remember my first job like it was yesterday. I got a job because I wanted to purchase something and my father wanted to teach me the value of a dollar. So, I got the job, and when I had enough money to buy the thing I wanted to quit. But, no - my parents wouldn’t let me. You see I had responsibility now. I had people who depended upon me to perform my job. So, day after day, I continued with this job -- a job that I hated, a job that everyone who saw me spoke to my parents about how unhappy I was. But, they wouldn’t hear it. I wanted a job and now I had one. It was time for me to act like a man of responsibility. From that point on, I always had at least one job, if not two. And all that on top of going to school. There was no play time in my youth. It was up early for school, then to the first job and off to the second on weekends. During the summer months it was wake up to the first job, lunch, then off to the second job. Heck, I have been working for so long I don’t know anything else, but I have learned a lot.

I learned that you use to be able to go far by having a good, hard work ethic but now you don’t even need the basic skills of communication or mathematics. No one cares what you say, and you have machines to make change. So pleasantries like “Good morning Sir, thank you for visiting us at .....” mean nothing. In fact, look around, basic English isn’t even requried anymore let alone being able to provide someone with a standard greeting. And as far as producing a quality product? Please- this country hasn’t produced anything (let a lone a quality product) since the steel industry left town. Those few items left which we do produce, the employees couldn’t care less. In my day, it wasn’t the company name on a product, it was mine. I could point at a thing and say - “I made that” and I was proud to say it. Not today.

So, here is what I have decided. Or, actually my wife has decided for me. After a lifetime and a half (30 years) of labor, I am going on sabbatical. I don’t know how long it will last - it may last for ever thus a retirement. To be frank, after working my entire life having nothing to do might drive me insane. Which is why I have had to come up with a new term for this, open-ended sabbatical / retirement. The term I find most appropriate - Satirement.

I will continue working for the next two years. During that time we will be making drastic changes in our life. We will begin to dispose of those worldly items which, sounded nice when we bought them - but as the saying goes “that which you own”. We will pay off our debt, and diminish our footprint. Then, on 31 December 2009 I will stop working. I will just shrug it all off.

IT WAS SUCH A SIMPLE DECISION THAT I COULDN’T MAKE IT

The idea of it was so simple, but one I couldn’t see. As I said I have been working 30 years, and I don’t know anything else. My wife says I don’t know how to just stop, sit down and enjoy the moment. I have to be constantly moving, going, doing, working, or thinking about work. I am sure that once I stop working the lack of activity might just kill me. But, the decision has been such a relief. Mostly because we will be getting out of this rat race. We will be leaving his extremely high cost of living area, and moving someplace slower, simpler. Someplace where we can take the time to enjoy ourselves. If the housing market continues we will be able to dump our house and buy a nice new home right out in a smaller community. We will have our savings, and my wife will continue to work. I will have my hobbies that I can focus on and perhaps turn a coin or two there. So, there will be work but work that we want to do, and with people we want to do it with.

In the end those are the things that matter. The office place today, filled with it’s politics has taken the enjoyment out of employment. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t say something nice to someone without someone else overhearing, taking a compliment out of hand, or the wrong way and you find yourself in a suit. You cannot put out a quality product because you and your work are destroyed by the office politics, by those who want to succeed over your destruction and not by their own abilities.

Well, I am tired of it. I tire of the 60 hour work weeks, the thankless people. I am weary of constantly watching my back and the backs of my employees. I am worn over trying to make sense of every comment and syllable from every hater with power in the office and trying to figure out who they are out to destroy next. No amount of enjoyment or pride in the work itself can overcome the difficulties brought on by the people you are sometimes forced to deal with. It is depressing, it is wearing, and it draws the life’s blood from you.

I am 45. And I don’t want to die from work related stress. I want out. I am getting out.

January 1, 2010 = Satirement 1.0

Thursday, February 21, 2008: It takes 10/10 in Order to be Recognized by Major News Network - No Black Candidates (NBC)

2008-02-21T09:06:00.000-08:00

After a 10/10 sweep NBC has placed a Barack Obama interview in the coveted 7:00 to 7:30 time slot. This is the first Barack interview I can recall during the entire political season -- while on the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been present nearly every day. I can only attribute this to

1) Extreme coincidence in my failure to catch every single appearance of candidate Obama during this time slot or
2) NBC picked Hillary as ‘their man’ and stuck to that decision all the way to the bitter end.

Thankfully, albeit too late in my book, they have come around to publish an interview. Perhaps someone over at NBC finally saw the writing on the wall. Perhaps someone finally realized that, should Barack win the popular vote and Hillary the delegate vote (primarily due to ex-Prez and husband Bills campaigning) there would be such an outcry that this nation has never seen. What ever the reason, I am sure that NBC is touting themselves as a middle of the road, fair, balanced and unbiased news agency when the truth is in the pudding. They should be ashamed of themselves. Or, in the very least if the lack of Obama interviews was due to scheduling issues or refusals by the candidate - they should so state in they’re morning news. So many empty weeks and months without the candidate can only leave one to speculate as to why.

Thursday, February 21, 2008: Forgive the Respit

2008-02-21T03:19:00.000-08:00

Forgive my brief departure from blogging, but things have been quite hectic here at The Bacman. Between blogging software changes and illnesses it has been a tough couple weeks. Besides, we never promised to blog constantly.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008: Prepare for Another Stolen Election

2008-02-13T00:16:00.000-08:00

The results for the Northeast is in and as we suspected it was Barack Obama by, well we would like to say a mile but it was more like a nose. Which forces us to raise the issue of stolen elections.

I am not proud that the Democratic party has, in the past two elections used the childish argument of 'cheater' and 'do-over' concerning vote counts. We have pointed our fingers and stomped our feet and held our breath. We have cried, and yelled, and screamed and we have refused to even discuss the issue. Come on, you know what I am talking about. We have a tendancy to dismiss out of hand those who disagree with us. If you don't agree with me then I am taking my (political) ball and going home. That is how we respond and it is childish, short sighted, wrong, and will never help bridge the gap between us and those against us. We have actually started to believe that 'the debate is over', that we are always the majority and always right and any other result, is a result in cheating. We have forgotten how to be liberal, and accepting of other points of view. If others do not believe as we believe, we call them Nazi, and 'hater' and 'phobic' and .... on and on and on. This is no form for discourse.

You catch more bees with honey, as my mom use to say. And Republicans, no matter how wrong or confused, have points of view, some of which may actually be intriguing if we were to ever let them finish a thought.

In the end what really happened was this:

We have a program in this country to elect our leadership. It's called an election. While it would seem to the common man that an election is a popularity contest, in the case of President that is not true. The elections are based on popularity within a state and what is called the distribution popularity, or the popularity across the nation. So, when there were close calls in recent years the Democratic party cried foul and led people to a misunderstanding that it is simply a popularity contest. A contest, like prom-queen or president of the student body where each and every vote counts. NOT TRUE.

Well, I say if you are going to call foul on the other team then you need to be ready to call it also on yours. Are you familiar with the idea of Super Delegates and why they are so important in this election? If you want to watch an election get stolen then start watching the news.

The concept of the Super Delegate is a Democratic party secret since the 60's. Basically, it is a handful of Delegates who do not have to vote for the person you voted for. It most elections where there is a wide spread difference between candidates it doesn't matter. But, this year where as of today there is only a 70 delegate delta between Obama and Clinton - the 200+ Super Delegates make all the difference.

These delegates WILL DECIDE who is the next president. And who is the most powerful super delegate? Bill Clinton. Former President Clinton (in case you haven't been watching the news) has been calling in every favor, contacting every friend and making every political deal he can to swing those votes to one of the two candidates.

Now, I really am torn here. As an American Mr. Clinton (and I chose Mr. here specifically for a reason) certainly can get out and help the candidate of his choosing. Mr. Clinton as a husband is certainly expected to campaign for his wife. Heck, former President Clinton may even be expected to aid his former Vice President run for office.

But, for some reason a former President who is a Super Delegate (the most powerful Super Delegate in fact) campaigning for his wife makes the hairs on the back of my head stand on end. Perhaps it is the impropriety of their history, Whitewater, becoming a legal partner without trying any cases, sexual assault charges founded or not I don't know. It just makes me uneasy.

I find it ironic that a party that has screamed foul in the past two elections, a party which has vowed that we will "count every vote and make sure that every vote counts" leaves out the bit about the 200+ delegates which don't care how you vote at all.

I fear a presidential win for Barack Obama on the basis of individual votes and a loss due to the Super Delegate vote.

I doubt anyone who looks at the two major parties in America would argue that we have differences. We have MAJOR differences in almost every concern save one, each party believes they are doing the best thing for America as a whole. That is an important concept because once you understand that, then you understand that no part can be all things to all people. And it won't be until we learn how to sit down with our counterparts and hold a civil conversation that we will be able to convince them of the true best way to serve Americans as a whole.

Just a thought to start your day. And if you want to know more about the Super Delegates, check out the Super Delegate description on wiki.

Sunday, February 10, 2008: Except in the Cases of Hate Crimes

2008-02-10T14:18:00.000-08:00

Now from the same document, Barack plans to:

"Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability..."

Hmm. So I guess I should be clear here - I like Barack Obama. I like his presentation, his charisma, his message of hope. But things like this scare me because I see the results in the news every day. White on [insert minority] crime is automatically a hate crime while [minority] on [minority] is not.

This is wrong. This says two things:

1) Only whites can commit hate crimes, and let me tell you as someone who has been 'hated' that just isn't the case.
2) It diminishes the value of a life.

How? Simple. It elevates the value of another life in a different category. Let me give you an example. Murder. Can their be any more of a hateful crime than to take the life of another person? Regardless of color? Some would say yes - but my answer is no. In order to take a life you really, really have to dislike someone. One might even say you would have to hate that person. Does it matter on what that hate is based? And, if someone hates me thus kills me and is the same race as me - is it any less of a crime than those who kill me because I am in this group or that group? And by group we of course mean no-white male or non-white.

I hate racism. But there is simply no way around the fact that we have created societal embedded racism with these laws that we are passing. God help us all.

Sunday, February 10, 2008: Barack Wins!

2008-02-10T11:17:00.000-08:00

In three states.

But, I'm calling it here first! I believe, that even with what I would call inappropriate campaigning by her husband Bill, Barack Obama will beat out Hillary Clinton for President.

This is a good thing because many people would have concerns regarding who Hillary would choose as a running mate and over who was really in control of the Presidency.

What really concerns me about Hillary however is brought to light in a recent article in which she, is quoted as asking "isn't it about time you had a president who brought your voice and your values to your White House?" By those values I can only assume she means the values in which you refuse to forgive someone who made a mistake, is being punished and who has publicly apologized. I am of course referring to the David Shuster debacle in which he reported stated that Chelsea was being "pimped out" on behalf of Hillary. Mr. Shuster was suspended and has since apologized. However this isn't enough for the former First Lady who has written a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus complaining that "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."(1)

Did you catch that? A person running for the office of President has complained to the president of a broadcasting agency, an agency which has given Mrs. Clinton prefferential treatment in regards to on air time, that one of the agencies employees cannot be punished with "temporary suspension" for exercising freedom of speech.

After all, it isn't like NBC came out committed an act of slander. An employee of NBC simply called it as he saw it. If, you are going to allow your self to enter into public life, then perhaps you should be aware of the consequences and be ready for them when they arise. And if your job is to report on those public figures, then you should not be in fear of a firing because the darling presidential candidate feels that you slighted her very public daughter who is ... out ... on ... the ... streets ... selling ... an image for you.

Oh, and where was that powerful, yet righteous indignation 10 years ago when, to me at least, it would have meant something. By my calculations Chelsea is a big girl now - capable of taking care of herself.

(1) Shear, Michael D and Kornblut, Anne E.; "Obama Wins Big Over Clinton in Three States"; Washington Post, 10 February 2008, Section A, pp 1,11

Sunday, February 10, 2008: Obama to End Racial Profiling

2008-02-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

While reviewing information on Barack Obama, I found a link to his plans and policies regarding equality. So, I downloaded the document.

Within the document is the following statement:

"End Racial Profiling: This year, the Department of Justice released a survey that found that blacks and Hispanics are more than twice as liekly as whites to be searched, arrested, threatened, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Of those who had force used against them, 83 percent felt that the force was excessive. As a state senator, Barack Obama introduced and passed into law requiring the Illinois Department of Transportation to record the race, age and gender of all drivers stopped for traffic violations so that bias could be detected and addressed. As a U.S. Senator, Obama cosponsored federal legislation to ban racial profiling and require federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice. As president, Obama will continue his decades-long fight against racial profiling and sign legislation that will ban the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provde federal funding to state and local police departments if they adopt policies to prohibit the practice."

Certainly, any reasonable person can see and understand the senator's concerns. But, I believe the terms and the elimination of the practice here are nothing short of political banter to garner your votes. I will explain why.

Profiling, of any type, is a tool that is used to identify the probable suspects of a crime. I will create a ficticious crime for us to study. Cereal killing. I don't know why anyone would want to kill a breakfast product but .... what? Its SERIAL? Ok, Serial killing. That's different.

A killing spree is occuring. Nothing is known about the killer. No notes have been left, and not demands have been made. How do we go about finding the killer? Well, some might say that crack detective work is the answer, some that more police on the streets. But frankly we start with a profile. A criminal profile identifies based on statistical occurence that the killer is probably a white male between 25 and 40. Based on where the killings occur (location profiling) we can determine areas WHERE the killer may strike again. Based on the estimated times of the killings we can determine WHEN the killer may strike again. Based on all this (and a few other tidbits) we send out our detectives and our policement at the place and time where we think the killings are likely to occur and we look closely at white males between the ages of 25 and 40. THIS is an example of profiling INCLUDING racial profiling.

Now, let us take a look at how laws like those proposed by Obama get pushed through the system.

Sadly this is a True story and is as accurate in the discussion as can be possible without an actual taped recording. I have a friend at work. This person falls into a minority category and one night on the way home from work this person was stopped by a police officer. The story goes like this. My fried tells me that a racist cop stopped him because he was a minority.

Me Why did the cop say he stopped you?
Friend: He said he stopped me because I was speeding.
Me: Were you speeding?
Friend: Whats that got to do with it?
Me: Uhm, perhaps everything.
Friend: Everyone speeds down that road.
Me: Were you speeding?
Friend: I was only doing like 15 miles over.
Me: What time was it?
Friend: Huh?
Me: What time was it when you were stopped?
Friend: Whenever we left work - like 8:30 (pm).
Me: So it was dark?
Friend: Yes
Me: Could you tell the race of the police officer as you passed him?
Friend: No - why?
Me: What makes you think he could tell yours.
Friend: Otherwise he wouldn't have stopped me.
Me: Were there any other cars on the road?
Friend: No - but that doesn't change the fact that ...
Me: Wait. By your own admission, it was 8:30pm, dark and you couldn't tell the race of the cop as you passed him at about 50 miles an hour in a posted 35. A road that people have been complaining about speeders for months? And you think this is racial profiling.
Friend: Yes, it had to be.
Me: Ok.

Here is my concern.

1) I am sure that racial profiling exists, but I am not really sure as to what it is.

2) Certainly racial profiling IS needed. It tells us who PROBABLY to look for based on historical FACT.

3) If we continue down this road we WON'T be able to search middle eastern men between the ages of 25-40 who have baggy, yet bulging overcoats with protruding wires, as they go through the security line at the airport - but we will continue to harrass 80 year old grandmothers in their wheel chairs because they knew when they bouth their ticket that metals were not allowed on board.

4) Simply because a minority claims that they were profiled does not mean that they were, or that it was improper.

5) Simply because someone claims they excessive force was used ("Don't Tase me Bro!") does not implicitly mean that excessive force was IMPROPERLY used.

6) If Obama gets such laws instituted, and if a police officer in a neighborhood predominantly filled with one type of minority is looking for a criminal. Doesn't it make sense that the person that police officer will be looking for is PROBABLY of that minority group? Just like if the same police officer was in a predominantly white neighborhood he would be probably looking for a white criminal? In both cases, race profiling is used. In the first case would the police officer only be able to question a minority after questioning an equal number of whites? And in the latter could the police officer only question a white suspect only after questioning an equal number of minorities? More specifically, to question 1 white suspect must the officer also question 1 black, 1 hispanic, 1 german, 1 australian, 1 brazilian, 1 russian, 1.... you get (I hope) the picture.

And that raises another question. For years I have been hearing that the "minority" status has nothing to do with how many of race 'x' exist in America. It has to do with which race is in power. The same goes for racism - that you can only be a racist if you're in power. So, once Obama wins the election, doesn't this completely turn racism and minority status on its head? Will I, as a white male, begin to get preferential treatment in my applications for employment with the US Government?

I really don't want that. I want to be considered on my ability. Plus, I really don't want a government job. I have seen how the government (fails to) work. I do not doubt that there are a number of good people in the government, nor do I doubt that in the long haul they truly want to do good. But I keep looking at government employees and I keep hearing my party representatives saying the purpose of government is to create jobs and all I can think is that in the end - we will all be government employees and that scares the crap out of me.

Sunday, February 10, 2008: Separate But Equal?

2008-02-10T08:41:00.000-08:00

Politics is a funny thing. Its all about persuasion - nothing else.

Say you are at a meeting of the Americans for Woodgies. Chances are that any politician who comes to speak will speak out about the injustices Woodgies face in America. They will probably say that if Woodgies were still being made here, not only would hundreds if not thousands of families be employed, but they would probably go on to add how much better Woodgies are than Widgets.

That is to be expected. It is to be expected because Politicians lie to you in order to make you believe that they care about you BEYOND the price of your vote. Fine. I am down with that.

So, what is the medias excuse?

I do not find it acceptable that the media takes a clear side in their reporting of a story and I don't really care what the story is. The purpose of the news is to share the news. When I was young, telling a news story (I was taught) involved stating the W's. Who, What, When, Where and if possible Why.

But media reporters today are almost all to a man, opinion writers. I am getting nothing but opinion. Trust me when I tell you I can get opinion anywhere. I get it at work, at the coffee shop, at the mall, at the food store, at the grocery store EVERYWHERE. What I do not want is opinion in my news. Heck, believe it or not I even have my own opinion. It's what is formed in my head after I hear the Who, What Where, When and Why of a story.

What brings this on today? I just picked up the Washington Post only to discover that the paper finds itself capable of declaring victory for Barack Obama (yeah!) over Hillary Clinton in all three states according to "Yesterday's Results" (Section A, Page 1, Column 5, 10 February 2008).

However, the paper finds it impossible to declare any winner in the Republican race except for that of Huckabee and ONLY in Kansas.

Hmm.

Sunday, February 10, 2008: A Game and the Human Condition

2008-02-10T08:24:00.000-08:00

Some years ago a family member, knowing my affection for studying the human condition, introduced me to an online game. This game has millions of online players world wide - which is what separates it from other games. When you log in, you are not playing against a computer but are playing against another person. Ok, you can play against the machine, but human interaction is more interesting.

Here is a little about the game - and why I enjoy playing it.

The game is divided into two teams or nations or factions - whatever you like. Because everyone online is anonymous I find that their playstyle tends to magnify their lifestyle. What do I mean by that?

Well, I know in real life a number of people who play this game. In fact there are millions of people world-wide who play this game. In any case, some of the people who I know play the game, don't know that I also play the game. When they discuss the game, I question them about it. Almost always it gets around to them offering me the chance to join their group of merry men.

My response, typically, is to tell them how I appreciate the offer and how I may take them up on it one day nice but I am really to busy right now to get involved helping them with their game. I am not rude or anything - I just let them believe what they wish. I have not lied to them. I have not told them that I don't play the game - but I do have them explain their view of the game to me.

Then when I get online, having already extracted from them their online information, I sometimes run into them. I play with them a bit and I discover that if the person is helpful in real life - they tend to be very helpful in the game. If the person is more self-centered in real life, I find they too tend to be very self-centered in the game. If the person is somewhat selfish in real life, they tend to be extremely selfish in the game. Its actually quite interesting.

I haven't decided if I like everything about the game. Their are certainly aspects which I do not like. Having played both nations and having some limited understanding of each - it appears to me that certain character types and certain nations or factions, are more appreciated by the developers of the game and thus have a bit of an edge over the other nation or faction. Ok, they have a significant edge.

But, part of the game is learning how to build alliances with people in order to overcome these inequalities.

Now, this is just one aspect of the game, and I could go on for quite a bit. In fact, I will at a later time. However - since I have actually kissed a girl - and eventually married one, I tend to do things with her from time to time. At this particular moment, she is desirous of a coffee from one of the local establishements. This is not an all too unappealing thought for me so I believe I will join her.

Until then here are some topics for me to remember the next time I log in:

- The nation states

- The politics of these nations

- The character types, and why people choose to play each type

- How well players play their part?

- Do players understand their part?

- Can players play together?

- Are there really inequalities between character types?

- Are there really inequalities between nation states?

Sunday, February 10, 2008: The Problem With Barack Obamas Website

2008-02-10T04:44:00.000-08:00

I would like to know more about Barack Obama, so I went to his "Official" website. Unfortunately, in order to access the website you have to provide:

- First Name
- Last Name
- Email address
- Zipcode

In recent years, I believe that too much of my personal information has been released into the world by organizations dedicated to my privacy. So, I guess I will have to get all my Barack Obama information from NBC and Fox.

UPDATE

The site now allows you in without providing all that pesky information. (thanks for the info Gilbert)

Sunday, February 10, 2008: The Ballots Are Out

2008-02-10T02:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I received my official Specimen Ballot for the Presidential Primary Election (Democratic Party). I was kind of taken aback by what I saw.

I can vote for not more than four (4) Female Delegates and not more than three (3) Male Delegates. I more or less shrugged it off thinking — well we need an alternate and it had to be someone. But then I thought — why the separation of Male and Female? But there it is on Screen 2 of the Ballot:

"Female Delegates and Alternate to the DNC - Vote for No More than Four."

Then on Screen 3 Male Delegates to the DNC - Vote for No More than Three"

Why not just one screen? Why not two screens with mixed sex Delegates and a total vote of not more than seven? Is there something in the electoral process that I am missing?

Then one of my fellow Democrats from the neighboring county said that his Specimen Ballot was written in the EXACT same way. Two different ballots, two different counties, both provide delegates broken down by sex and both state 4 women and 3 men.

Interesting. I would like to find all the ballots for my state and read what their screens show. Was it always this way? I don't recall.

Damn my poor political memory!

Saturday, February 09, 2008: They Have Been Campaigning for Over a Year Now - When Do We Vote Again?

2008-02-09T15:37:00.000-08:00

A year ago I forecasted to my friends at the office that the Democratic party was chock full of political genius.

First, they have a true understanding that this would be the next Democratic Presidency and I explained my reasoning:

1. The average American has a very limited political awareness.

2. The average American has a very limited political memory.

3. The average American basis the selection of their political party on the desire for change from the current party and very few (once they choose a party) change their minds over the course of their lives. This results in the nearly guarantee change of Presidential party every 8 years.

I was informed that I was crazy. So, I asked (and I still ask) when was the last time one party held Presidential power for three consecutive elections? Call it what you will — the stats are on my side here. The Democratic party will win.

Now - who to run. The Democratic party would orchestrate an election based purely on diversity. I forecasted that the las two remaining runners would be Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. I stated that this would be purely because it would guarantee that a Woman or African American would be President and the Democratic Party could declare victory for either group — and thus claim that victory as their own.

Finally - when the results are in the Democratic Party can yell their already pre-determined rhetoric of:

1. (We Won!) See! The previous elections were stolen, and we have prevailed, with the first ________ President!

2. (We Lost!) See! The Republican Party is still stealing elections!

In either case, the party is once again proclaiming that the youth will come out in droves to vote. Hmm. I have heard that before and while I truly wish that the youth of this great nation would exercise their right - I simply do not believe that they (in great numbers) will.

There are only two questions which remain are:

1. Why is candidate Obama never live on the morning news? I wake up at 6 am every morning and between 7 am and 730 am nearly every day on the morning news program I watch, candidate Clinton has been speaking. If not live, then certainly taped. The program also details at least once a week how the Republicans are doing — but typically in some bad light and I hear very little about candidate Obama. It got so bad I was actually going to make a joke here about finally seeing Mr. Obama on the Fox Channel while at work and opining astonishment regarding this Republican about whom I had, to date, heard nothing. But, I will try to keep the sarcasm here limited.

2. For whom shall you cast your vote? It is down to two. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Personally, I think voting for Mrs. Clinton rings horrifying thoughts of the Clinton dynasty in Cumalot, er Camelot 2009.

Wednesday July 17, 2003: Sour Grapes: Why My Writing Skills Wither on the Vine

2003-07-23T17:03:00.000-07:00

A bit of an essay I penned years ago for a college course. I wanted to keep it, seems like this might be the place. Perhaps it will grow a life of its own on the internet and live eternal giving ... oh never mind.

Essay #1
Sour Grapes: Why My Writing Skills Wither on the Vine
T.R. Bacman
17 July 2003

The role of writing my life is more like a collegiate bear bash than social drinking. It is fast paced, short-lived, painful, yet euphoric once completed. I dislike the process of writing in my life and it is this dislike combined with the lack of purposeful writing that is causing my once capable skills to slowly wither and die.

Though it is not always been so, for the past ten years there have been only two needs in my life for authorship, demands really, which have been placed upon me by two very different and distinct people with different and distinct to desires for the fruits of my labors. These masters are the English professors and the business managers.

English professors are like wine connoisseurs and the educational environment is like a wine festival - for enjoyment, education and fulfillment. These professors are there to mentor you on the many nuances of writing, much as the wine connoisseurs mentor you in the selection of wine. It is an endless effort an education that culminates in the selection of the proper wine to accompany my meal. To me such an education is wonderful, for I grew up the son of the teacher and in a home where I was unable to make a comment about my beliefs which wasn’t questioned by the devils advocate himself in the guise of my father. In time, I learned that he was teaching me to always seek other options. This technique is something that I try to use, when time and setting permit, to draw thought and comment from those around me. I find that it is at these these moments I am most satisfied, when I learn the most about the world, about those around me, and about myself. These are the moments when, if I possessed the skills, ability and time I could enjoy transferring thought to print.

This sad truth of it is that I now will probably never be able to utilize any such talents in text. In my situation in matters of little significance that I desired a fine wine, I simply have little time to enjoy it and few to enjoy it with. I am a product of events which of let me to a profession with the writing equivalent of an eternal weekend frat party, an industry providing little opportunity to sample, or enjoy let alone cultivate, what I know can be possible for me. It is here than most of my writing takes place, and the masters have quite a different demand than those which I encounter with in the educational system. Demands which are driven by, at least in part, the corporate billing structure, which is broken down into direct billing and overhead projects.

In this business employees have, in addition to the direct billing projects, certain overhead tasks which such as responding to e-mail, writing internal memos, conducting research etc. In an effort to reduce expenses, corporations have devised the concept of the minimal billing period.

The minimal billable period is the period of time in which a task, if completed, is not to be accounted for on the time card. For each company the period is different. I have been in companies were in the minimum billable period was 15 minutes. This causes quite a bit of concern for employees. Since management is aware of the minimal billable period, they attempt to have all employees complete overhead transactions in fewer than 15 minutes. All direct labor employees must account for eight hours labor each day on their time card. Therefore, if you consumed 14 minutes on one overhead projector then you must work the total of eight hours of 14 minutes per day. The irony of it all is that your overhead tasks become part of your evaluation review. If you cannot achieve success of these tasks, your review suffers. However, as you achieve greater success of these tasks, management tends to assign you more of them, and since the time spent on these projects throughout the dare are not cumulative, you quickly find myself spending 9, 10, or even 12 hours a day in the office. Such managers are like a friend who buys you shot after shot at the bar, then berates you when you tell him “No, really, 15 is enough thank you.” This is the world in which I live. Isn’t it is the world which constantly places me at odds between the clock, overhead projects and direct billing projects. It is the world that forces me to reduce the majority of my writing to the equivalency of drinking cheap shots of liquor, the faster I get down my gullet, the less painful and is, and the more numb I become to it in the future. It is in this world that my professional writing can be broken down into two major categories: the quick document and the techno jargon.

The quick document is the beer bash of writing. On this type of document I’m to spend not more than 30 to 45 minutes total.

Though typically an overhead project on which I’m allowed slightly more time, I am rarely provided an overhead charge number. So this document is written, and is expected to be written, during my lunch break, sandwich in one, hand keyboard in the other and quite probably while in the middle of a teleconference. It is the ultimate achievement in multitasking, and, is also the most common form of writing conducted in my office. If I can’t complete it in the office, I bang it out on the home computer while locked away, hiding from my family and all order of distraction in order to finish it as fast as possible, like an alcoholic hiding in the dark recesses to sneak a drink, so necessary, so vulgar. The resulting document is one written by someone either half asleep, have distracted or both.

The other category, techno-jargon, is language to convey to other technical personnel complex concepts in a brief yet easy to understand format. It is here where any real writing is done. The closest my professional writing will ever come to enjoying a night of social drinking.

When provided these assignments I am typically instructed to give it some thought (such fine activity is also not bill will buy the way) before penning a rough draft not to exceed four pages. Finally, some time to compose a thought, to reason what I intend to transfer from grey-matter to black and white. Once I’ve given the topic some consideration and composed my thoughts I produce my first and probably my final draft. I never produce beyond the initial draft because of the aforementioned structure to the charging process comes back into play.

Documents are constantly reviewed, refined, honed, shortened, and red lined. Unfortunately the majority of these tasks are never conducted by the original author but by other employees assigned the task as non-billable overhead. This whole process for documents is to be put in place in order to achieve maximum production will keeping cost to a minimum.

I’ll have perhaps an hour or two to draft some general ideas regarding the pay the proper way to sharpen a pencil. For this, I’ll have an overhead charge account to which may bill my time. From here however, the paper leaves the overhead billable process and returns to the overhead non-billable routine of other direct labor employees for comment. This document will be forwarded to first level management, who has never seen a pencil or pencil sharpener for that matter, for review. What this really means is that that the management has a 15 minute opportunity to “red line” my document and hand it back for modification. The result is a document management wanted - but they themselves did not want to write. After modifications the document returns to the same manager for reading re-review. The cycle continues to the manager is satisfied, at which time the document goes to the next management level and the cycle begins anew. Some time later, the document, which I now only vaguely recognize, makes it past all the various stages of review (and re-writes on others behalf). It is a distasteful process

One such cycle in which I was involved began with a simple 12, page (single side double spaced) document developed by a two member team (myself and one other), off and on, over a period of five days. We are proud of the material. It was clean, concise, and to the point - the paper conceptualized a break through web based system. The target market was our existing clientele, the system would be easy to develop, and required minimal support. It would have the added benefits of low production cost and provide a high profit margin. Lastly, detailed training for even the slowest learner could be completed in less than one hour. We’d gladly handed the product over to first level management, who, stating the document who wasn’t quite right, proposed a new format and requested additional information. Her continual modifications drove the document in ever increasing detail and size. Eventually the document was completed to her satisfaction and routed to the next level management. This-manager was disappointed that the team wasted so much time producing a 75 page document (now double sided and single spaced) on a system which should have only required a document “of about 10 to 15 pages, single sided and double spaced”. Ever have such a bad hang-over that you wished someone would just put you out of your misery?

It is at this point that I had my epiphany. First, management appears at times to care more about imposing its power over me, through unexplained and apparent meaningless change, than about the content of my documents. Secondly, since higher-level managers will not review documents until clean drafts have been made by lower level managers, I had become a glorified dictation machine, regurgitating exactly what my supervisors, and subsequently his or her supervisor, would have themselves written. In the end it appears to become less than less about what is correct, accurate and precise and more about methods leadership uses to secure their position within the “chain of command”. Finally, much like when the “morning after ” arrives, all of the glee, pride and euphoria which you experienced the night before, has turned into something which simply makes you hurt from head to toe, fear the morning, loathe the office, and tremble violently at the thought of another writing assignment.

What I wouldn’t give for a different station in life, one in which I can return to the writing of my youth. Having the time, patience, and mentorship to develop the skills, techniques and ability to properly intermingle pros, wit, satire and philosophical subject in such a manner as to be able to inspire and draw thought from, or to move into action, those around me. How wonderful it would be to craft such ideas, the plant them, to cultivate them, to watch them grow - from seedling, to vine, to grape; to harvest them, to age them, and to finally to pour them out for others to enjoy.

Instead, my vineyard rots - trampled upon by the peasants more accustomed to, and with more desire for, beer aged a month in mental containers than wine aged for years in oak. My wine is spat out by those insecure in the knowledge of what they want, but secure the knowledge of what they don’t want - and what they don’t want is the vintage I have just corked for them, a vintage turning to vinegar because of its improper care.