Posts
Logan’s Herald Journal recently published a letter to the editor from an avid runner. The letter was about being flipped-off by a motorist for jogging on the road while a foot of snow covered the sidewalk.
As a driver I, for one, don't hate pedestrians or cyclists.
I do sometimes resent that I am alertly driving a multi-thousand-dollar, registered vehicle sober with two hands on the wheel, after checking the mirrors for visibility, oil for viscosity, tires for air pressure and tread, windshield for cracks, windshield wipers for rubber or ice, headlights, taillights and blinkers for light, all the while moving my eyes side to side looking for wild animals, joggers, walkers, cyclists, motorists, pot holes, assholes, water, ice, debris, stop signs, yield signs, stop lights, hand gestures and turn signals without leaning and looking over to adjust the AC, radio, answer the phone, grab some shades from the glove box, send a text message or talk to my passenger about the tax on a gallon of fuel...
...yet someone who'd normally be on the sidewalk if not for ALL THE SNOW adds herself to the mix of anxiety-provoking decreased road capacity and wants me to feel guilty for getting perturbed for slowing down and/or swerving to avoid killing them, myself or someone else with my car.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Marriage is for Babies
It's interesting to me.
The gays and their supporters tend to ignore the responsibility that comes with heterosexual intercourse: Potential for pregnancy. We have the responsibility to prevent until ready to conceive. We also have the added joy of making love in order to produce offspring with the one we love.
Isn’t the production of offspring really the natural motivation for sex in the first place?
For a homosexual the aim is strictly to get one or the other’s rocks off which surely can be considered an expression of love. But, to enjoy the passion with one’s life-long partner of creating a being is something gays cannot fully understand or enjoy. Of course they’ll tell us all that this isn’t so, that I’m a bigot or misinformed, and that homo is the SAME as hetero in EVERY way!Gays want to arm-chair quarter back and tell us they'd be good parents just like the rest.
Baby’s are something you make with a lover, not something you go shopping for like a pet. Every time most hetero’s do it there is this chance that a new life will result from the passion. Sure there are outlier arguments like some are sterile, old, or effectively preventing but of course these arguments would miss the mark.
Other than non-monogamous bi's, Gays don't deal with life changing "accidents” like the ones I’ve described. It's easy to stand back and say, "I'd be the best parent on Earth." We really don't know until we expectedly or unexpectedly face the responsibility and commitment that comes with a conception. I find it actually disrespectful for Gays to ignore this responsibility every hetero faces that virtually NO homosexual does. It's a "cake and eat it too" scenario, this support for the "Gay Marriage" issue. They want recognition or validation because they have sex.
There are many great reasons "marriage" reform might be in order when it comes to sharing work benefits or getting tax breaks or sharing responsibilities or inheritance, etc. None of this reasoning has anything to do with having sex unless children are involved. I mean where do NON sexuals fit into this picture? Shouldn’t we be arguing on their behalf, too? Don’t they deserve to commit to a pal with whom sex never occurs in order to secure the benefits that come with committing to a relationship? Why do we need to define a relationship based on sexual activity unless children are to result from it?
Of course I am all for promoting monogamy because it quells a bunch of heartache and disease propagation. However there are at least three ways to be in a monogamous sexual relationship: Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman. Why does the gay world insist that one word fits all for these relationships?
Without looking it up I'd bet the first million American civil unions were marriages of the heterosexual sort. Claim was staked to the term "marriage" long before there was even an America. Why not seek a new term to go with this new and forward thinking lifestyle rather than give credence to an idealogy defined by the homosexual "civil rights" movement to prevent a word from being specifically defined?
The gays and their supporters tend to ignore the responsibility that comes with heterosexual intercourse: Potential for pregnancy. We have the responsibility to prevent until ready to conceive. We also have the added joy of making love in order to produce offspring with the one we love.
Isn’t the production of offspring really the natural motivation for sex in the first place?
For a homosexual the aim is strictly to get one or the other’s rocks off which surely can be considered an expression of love. But, to enjoy the passion with one’s life-long partner of creating a being is something gays cannot fully understand or enjoy. Of course they’ll tell us all that this isn’t so, that I’m a bigot or misinformed, and that homo is the SAME as hetero in EVERY way!Gays want to arm-chair quarter back and tell us they'd be good parents just like the rest.
Baby’s are something you make with a lover, not something you go shopping for like a pet. Every time most hetero’s do it there is this chance that a new life will result from the passion. Sure there are outlier arguments like some are sterile, old, or effectively preventing but of course these arguments would miss the mark.
Other than non-monogamous bi's, Gays don't deal with life changing "accidents” like the ones I’ve described. It's easy to stand back and say, "I'd be the best parent on Earth." We really don't know until we expectedly or unexpectedly face the responsibility and commitment that comes with a conception. I find it actually disrespectful for Gays to ignore this responsibility every hetero faces that virtually NO homosexual does. It's a "cake and eat it too" scenario, this support for the "Gay Marriage" issue. They want recognition or validation because they have sex.
There are many great reasons "marriage" reform might be in order when it comes to sharing work benefits or getting tax breaks or sharing responsibilities or inheritance, etc. None of this reasoning has anything to do with having sex unless children are involved. I mean where do NON sexuals fit into this picture? Shouldn’t we be arguing on their behalf, too? Don’t they deserve to commit to a pal with whom sex never occurs in order to secure the benefits that come with committing to a relationship? Why do we need to define a relationship based on sexual activity unless children are to result from it?
Of course I am all for promoting monogamy because it quells a bunch of heartache and disease propagation. However there are at least three ways to be in a monogamous sexual relationship: Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman. Why does the gay world insist that one word fits all for these relationships?
Without looking it up I'd bet the first million American civil unions were marriages of the heterosexual sort. Claim was staked to the term "marriage" long before there was even an America. Why not seek a new term to go with this new and forward thinking lifestyle rather than give credence to an idealogy defined by the homosexual "civil rights" movement to prevent a word from being specifically defined?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Econ Analogy
The Turkey is Econ. The knife is ones ability to carve Econ into understandings. You can have a very sleek, sharp blade for carving tasty morsels of the beast. You can then share these tasty strips of meat with everyone at the table in an appetizing way from which EVERYONE benefits.
You can take your dull, plastic knife and dig barely recognizable chunks out of the carcass. We'll all taste the Turkey, but it just ain't right!
...Or you can take a shotgun and blow the entire Turkey off the table. Sure there's meat around but it doesn't even taste the same.
There is one other angle to this ... You can take that finely sharpened blade to slice carvings unparalleled by the culinary achievements of the finest Chef, then throw it on someone's plate and scream, "HERE! EAT!"
You can take your dull, plastic knife and dig barely recognizable chunks out of the carcass. We'll all taste the Turkey, but it just ain't right!
...Or you can take a shotgun and blow the entire Turkey off the table. Sure there's meat around but it doesn't even taste the same.
There is one other angle to this ... You can take that finely sharpened blade to slice carvings unparalleled by the culinary achievements of the finest Chef, then throw it on someone's plate and scream, "HERE! EAT!"
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Gay Marriage Semantics Off Track
On gay "marriage" the issue really IS semantics. If you recognize gay “marriage” then you have to recognize them EQUALLY in ALL things on balance with straight marriages, including adoption and educational fiction books for kids in public schools. If they go for “Civil Union” or some other new word, they can then attack EACH equality issue one by one like making sure work benefits packages go to those civilly united in the same way they do for those married.
Civilly united might mean something besides “gay” and monogamous, too, like dependant brother and sister relationships. It doesn’t have to be about having committed sex. I think they are going about this all wrong and they might just be missing out … or maybe being sneaky by claiming it’s only about things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits and not really about all those other things not EVERYONE is ready to back away from.
Let me over simplify: Assume the letter of a law written in 1920 read specifically (this is fiction but not off track), "Only married couples shall be eligible to adopt children." If gay "marriage" becomes recognized because reasonable thinkers vote it in thinking it's a movement toward "things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits" then reasonable thinkers will have been duped into voting FOR gay "adoption" when really they only wanted to vote for gay "marriage". That's why it's semantics. That's why the movement needs to begin with a term like "civil union" and then get that term recognized with each "right" sought. They won't get them all at once, so why let the baby be thrown out with the bath water? This is an emotional fight rather than a logical approach to reason. They won't change the moral make up of this country ... and many of us (regardless of basis for that moral make up) can get behind certain elements of this movement. "
Civilly united might mean something besides “gay” and monogamous, too, like dependant brother and sister relationships. It doesn’t have to be about having committed sex. I think they are going about this all wrong and they might just be missing out … or maybe being sneaky by claiming it’s only about things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits and not really about all those other things not EVERYONE is ready to back away from.
Let me over simplify: Assume the letter of a law written in 1920 read specifically (this is fiction but not off track), "Only married couples shall be eligible to adopt children." If gay "marriage" becomes recognized because reasonable thinkers vote it in thinking it's a movement toward "things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits" then reasonable thinkers will have been duped into voting FOR gay "adoption" when really they only wanted to vote for gay "marriage". That's why it's semantics. That's why the movement needs to begin with a term like "civil union" and then get that term recognized with each "right" sought. They won't get them all at once, so why let the baby be thrown out with the bath water? This is an emotional fight rather than a logical approach to reason. They won't change the moral make up of this country ... and many of us (regardless of basis for that moral make up) can get behind certain elements of this movement. "
Friday, October 31, 2008
TV Monopoly Granted by UHSAA
Incidents of televised high school sporting events have been on the rise over the last decade. I see this as a plus for Utah kids and communities in general. Now the Utah High School Activities Association has sold the rights to broadcast all post-season high school sporting events to KJZZ. In fact the deal was struck years ago but until now meant very little as games KJZZ didn’t cover were pretty much fair game to all other broadcasters big or small.
This year KJZZ has chosen to exercise its monopoly on high school football by forbidding any television broadcast of any post-season high school football game by any “subordinate” broadcaster. To be clear, they haven’t set a price for other broadcasters to meet. Rather, they’ve taken all possible permission off the table. According to their website, during the first two weeks of playoffs KJZZ intends to cover one game each week. During that period, The Valley Channel, Park City Television and Top of Utah Television (to name just a few broadcasters of high school sports) have historically covered at least one game each. By far, more game coverage is being prevented than is being presented.
In essence the government has granted monopoly power to one of many competitors in the field of high school sports broadcasting. I can understand the State selling rights of first refusal to broadcast entities like KJZZ, but to grant this monopoly to one member of a competitive market reigns beyond reason.
I wonder what the UHSAA intends to accomplish with this deal. What should be their role in governing rebroadcast of high school sports? Are they trying to prevent games from airing for some reason? Is their sole purpose to raise a maximum dollar figure? I think their role should involve delivering the greatest amount of satisfaction to the greatest number of schools and students. I wonder what satisfaction snubbed schools will enjoy this year.
My beef isn’t necessarily with KJZZ. It’s with the State being in the business of selling rights in the first place. It’s sort of like the State selling all building permits to one contracting corporation so said contractor can oversee who if any among its competitors will do business in the state. It’s like selling all alcohol licenses to one pub functionally granting them authority to dictate who if any among its competitors will be allowed to compete in the brew market.
Logan High School and Mountain Crest High School are only two of several schools that lost out this week. Local broadcasters had scheduled to cover each school’s first round home playoff games but were officially warned by KJZZ to “cease and desist”. The games were not broadcast. Logan High and Mountain Crest have no voice in the matter.
So if you expected to see your favorite high school post-season game aired this weekend and were snubbed, thank the UHSAA and KJZZ by phone, email or letter for choosing a few bucks and a brand-recognition campaign over widespread satisfaction for our public-school athletes and their fans.
This year KJZZ has chosen to exercise its monopoly on high school football by forbidding any television broadcast of any post-season high school football game by any “subordinate” broadcaster. To be clear, they haven’t set a price for other broadcasters to meet. Rather, they’ve taken all possible permission off the table. According to their website, during the first two weeks of playoffs KJZZ intends to cover one game each week. During that period, The Valley Channel, Park City Television and Top of Utah Television (to name just a few broadcasters of high school sports) have historically covered at least one game each. By far, more game coverage is being prevented than is being presented.
In essence the government has granted monopoly power to one of many competitors in the field of high school sports broadcasting. I can understand the State selling rights of first refusal to broadcast entities like KJZZ, but to grant this monopoly to one member of a competitive market reigns beyond reason.
I wonder what the UHSAA intends to accomplish with this deal. What should be their role in governing rebroadcast of high school sports? Are they trying to prevent games from airing for some reason? Is their sole purpose to raise a maximum dollar figure? I think their role should involve delivering the greatest amount of satisfaction to the greatest number of schools and students. I wonder what satisfaction snubbed schools will enjoy this year.
My beef isn’t necessarily with KJZZ. It’s with the State being in the business of selling rights in the first place. It’s sort of like the State selling all building permits to one contracting corporation so said contractor can oversee who if any among its competitors will do business in the state. It’s like selling all alcohol licenses to one pub functionally granting them authority to dictate who if any among its competitors will be allowed to compete in the brew market.
Logan High School and Mountain Crest High School are only two of several schools that lost out this week. Local broadcasters had scheduled to cover each school’s first round home playoff games but were officially warned by KJZZ to “cease and desist”. The games were not broadcast. Logan High and Mountain Crest have no voice in the matter.
So if you expected to see your favorite high school post-season game aired this weekend and were snubbed, thank the UHSAA and KJZZ by phone, email or letter for choosing a few bucks and a brand-recognition campaign over widespread satisfaction for our public-school athletes and their fans.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Housing Crunch Explained From the Hip: Socialism Nothing New
It seems to me greed caused some bad decisions in the housing crunch. You can't blame either side of the political aisle if you ask me.
Easy-to-get high priced loans made otherwise poor people feel quite rich as they moved into homes way beyond their means.
That led to inflated valuation of homes because it was easier for EVERYONE to live beyond their means and pay MORE for houses. Every home in the neighborhood that was sold for more than it was worth caused the other homes in the neighborhood to appraise higher.
That led to people with good loans refinancing their homes at a higher value. They thought they struck it rich and didn’t necessarily hold on to their newly found fortune. Instead they consumed it. Now they are stuck with homes not worth the loans they have on them and many are simply headed for foreclosure meaning now the banks own these homes they paid way too much for...which I guess now means WE own these homes the banks paid way too much for.
Blame the appraisers and the lenders who worked quite closely together in this whole thing if only with the wink of an eye! You can’t tell me they were incapable of regulating themselves. You can’t tell me they haven’t seen this coming and haven’t been rat holing millions while they steered the market right into the ground. Their dynasties are built and we’re left holding the bag.
Credit credit credit. It's just a way for us to live beyond our means. Business owners don't even operate without it anymore. If you sell widgets, you don't buy widgets at wholesale then retail them anymore. Instead you borrow the widgets and demand cash from consumers who might borrow that to buy your widget. They pay the retailer's markup which now includes the cost of borrowing the widget which was probably built with borrowed goods in the first place. The consumer pays the cost of their own credit, the manufacturer’s credit and the retailer’s credit. It seems a lot of the risk of doing business has disappeared as has the risk of buying a home. Worst case you go bankrupt and some socialist package will emerge to bail you out.
No one should be under the illusion that socialism in our economy is somehow a new concept Obama wishes to introduce.
Easy-to-get high priced loans made otherwise poor people feel quite rich as they moved into homes way beyond their means.
That led to inflated valuation of homes because it was easier for EVERYONE to live beyond their means and pay MORE for houses. Every home in the neighborhood that was sold for more than it was worth caused the other homes in the neighborhood to appraise higher.
That led to people with good loans refinancing their homes at a higher value. They thought they struck it rich and didn’t necessarily hold on to their newly found fortune. Instead they consumed it. Now they are stuck with homes not worth the loans they have on them and many are simply headed for foreclosure meaning now the banks own these homes they paid way too much for...which I guess now means WE own these homes the banks paid way too much for.
Blame the appraisers and the lenders who worked quite closely together in this whole thing if only with the wink of an eye! You can’t tell me they were incapable of regulating themselves. You can’t tell me they haven’t seen this coming and haven’t been rat holing millions while they steered the market right into the ground. Their dynasties are built and we’re left holding the bag.
Credit credit credit. It's just a way for us to live beyond our means. Business owners don't even operate without it anymore. If you sell widgets, you don't buy widgets at wholesale then retail them anymore. Instead you borrow the widgets and demand cash from consumers who might borrow that to buy your widget. They pay the retailer's markup which now includes the cost of borrowing the widget which was probably built with borrowed goods in the first place. The consumer pays the cost of their own credit, the manufacturer’s credit and the retailer’s credit. It seems a lot of the risk of doing business has disappeared as has the risk of buying a home. Worst case you go bankrupt and some socialist package will emerge to bail you out.
No one should be under the illusion that socialism in our economy is somehow a new concept Obama wishes to introduce.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
One Nation Under God?
"This is indeed One Nation Under God."
Says WHO? Based on WHAT? Our nationwide total agreement on who or what God is? Give me a break on that one please!
It is a farce that "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50's. That phrase is one our Founding Fathers might have avoided. It's ironic that "Under God" separates the words "One Nation" and "Indivisible" in our pledge. There is probably NOTHING our nation is more divided on than "God".
It's funny. It's as if a certain general sect of Christians (not even all Christians but only certain generalities thereof) pay lip service to this very important concept of religious freedom that was so important to our roots but don't really believe it. Rather they pity those who believe otherwise. The Mormons pity the Catholics who pity the Jews who pity the Muslims who pity the Buddhists and they all pity the Atheists. Actually you can rearrange all the capitalized words in my last sentence save the first and the point still rings true even if you add about twenty more!
It's un-American to pay lip service to religious freedom, then to claim we are "One Nation Under God" or to be appalled at the notion of a Muslim, Mormon, Southern Baptist, Jew or Atheist taking office. You’d think by now it wouldn’t matter.
Says WHO? Based on WHAT? Our nationwide total agreement on who or what God is? Give me a break on that one please!
It is a farce that "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50's. That phrase is one our Founding Fathers might have avoided. It's ironic that "Under God" separates the words "One Nation" and "Indivisible" in our pledge. There is probably NOTHING our nation is more divided on than "God".
It's funny. It's as if a certain general sect of Christians (not even all Christians but only certain generalities thereof) pay lip service to this very important concept of religious freedom that was so important to our roots but don't really believe it. Rather they pity those who believe otherwise. The Mormons pity the Catholics who pity the Jews who pity the Muslims who pity the Buddhists and they all pity the Atheists. Actually you can rearrange all the capitalized words in my last sentence save the first and the point still rings true even if you add about twenty more!
It's un-American to pay lip service to religious freedom, then to claim we are "One Nation Under God" or to be appalled at the notion of a Muslim, Mormon, Southern Baptist, Jew or Atheist taking office. You’d think by now it wouldn’t matter.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Homosexual Programming Environmental Not Evolutionary
I wasn’t born to drink beer. In fact I couldn’t quite stand my first taste. But as I aged I grew to LOVE it especially with Hot Wings. I wasn’t born to enjoy smoked sausage either. But the older I got and the more I smoked the sausage, the more I grew to love it!
I wasn’t born sexual at all. In fact I didn’t have much of a clue about sexual attraction until I approached puberty. I was exposed to some playful heterosexual activities and found I quite enjoyed girls. I didn’t give homosexuality any thought while I was developing my first crushes on the cute girls in my 5th 6th and 7th grade classes. I was never exposed first hand to homosexual experiences so maybe that’s why I never chose that road but must admit that today I am simply repulsed by the idea of sex with a man though I love many of them.
If I had to have sex with a man to make a baby, I simply would have no children. I couldn’t do it. I wonder why many so-called born homosexuals are able to create babies by stifling a similar repulsion to the gender with which they do not sexually associate attraction. Could it be they were actually born heterosexuals acting on suppressed primal instinct?
Some people never experience beer so never grow to love it. Some even believe religiously that it would be down right wrong to consume such a thing contributing to their lack of exposure. However, some go against the wisdom of the “elders” and “sinfully” choose to tip one back anyway just to see what it’s like.
I’ll spare us all the gory details of the other side of this analogy and hope you get the idea.
I think it has more to do with environmental exposures during sensitive periods of human development prompting choice and less to do with born programming.
I wasn’t born sexual at all. In fact I didn’t have much of a clue about sexual attraction until I approached puberty. I was exposed to some playful heterosexual activities and found I quite enjoyed girls. I didn’t give homosexuality any thought while I was developing my first crushes on the cute girls in my 5th 6th and 7th grade classes. I was never exposed first hand to homosexual experiences so maybe that’s why I never chose that road but must admit that today I am simply repulsed by the idea of sex with a man though I love many of them.
If I had to have sex with a man to make a baby, I simply would have no children. I couldn’t do it. I wonder why many so-called born homosexuals are able to create babies by stifling a similar repulsion to the gender with which they do not sexually associate attraction. Could it be they were actually born heterosexuals acting on suppressed primal instinct?
Some people never experience beer so never grow to love it. Some even believe religiously that it would be down right wrong to consume such a thing contributing to their lack of exposure. However, some go against the wisdom of the “elders” and “sinfully” choose to tip one back anyway just to see what it’s like.
I’ll spare us all the gory details of the other side of this analogy and hope you get the idea.
I think it has more to do with environmental exposures during sensitive periods of human development prompting choice and less to do with born programming.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Newsflash: Joe No Plumber!
You know what else I'm tired of?
Joe the Plumber.
Joe the Plumber is not making $250k + annually as a plumber...trust me. He is Joe the Business Owner. Why do they insist on callling him Joe the Plumber as if he is representative of the class/income level of every construction worker in the USA?
I'm not trying to say Business Owners are bad or necessarily over paid, however, they do NOT represent the $20k to $50k earners on the jobsites I frequent. He is no longer first a plumber though I am quite certain he is proficient in the discipline. Call him what he is. He is MORE proficient and successful when it comes to running a business.
At $250k he affords a CPA to bring that Adjusted Gross Income to a more tollerable modicum when it comes to his tax burden. If he ends up with only $100k per year to spend, please, give me his problems! If he lives by my means he will still have plenty to invest, save or pay for those 4 vacations, cruises or scenic tours he gets every year.
If we are going to talk "Joe Six Pack, Joe Pipe Fitter, or Joe Clerk" let's do it directly without asking for those signing the pay checks to articulate what they think is best for the REAL Joe's. Let's ask the REAL Joes what THEY think without some guise of supposed wealth associated with common manual labor. If we are to talk to business owners small or otherwise, call them what they are! Joe the Plumber? I think not. He's Joe the Boss, Joe the Owner, Joe the Wealthy. Most plumbers I know will spend at least 5 years earning what this "Joe" will earn.
Joe the Plumber.
Joe the Plumber is not making $250k + annually as a plumber...trust me. He is Joe the Business Owner. Why do they insist on callling him Joe the Plumber as if he is representative of the class/income level of every construction worker in the USA?
I'm not trying to say Business Owners are bad or necessarily over paid, however, they do NOT represent the $20k to $50k earners on the jobsites I frequent. He is no longer first a plumber though I am quite certain he is proficient in the discipline. Call him what he is. He is MORE proficient and successful when it comes to running a business.
At $250k he affords a CPA to bring that Adjusted Gross Income to a more tollerable modicum when it comes to his tax burden. If he ends up with only $100k per year to spend, please, give me his problems! If he lives by my means he will still have plenty to invest, save or pay for those 4 vacations, cruises or scenic tours he gets every year.
If we are going to talk "Joe Six Pack, Joe Pipe Fitter, or Joe Clerk" let's do it directly without asking for those signing the pay checks to articulate what they think is best for the REAL Joe's. Let's ask the REAL Joes what THEY think without some guise of supposed wealth associated with common manual labor. If we are to talk to business owners small or otherwise, call them what they are! Joe the Plumber? I think not. He's Joe the Boss, Joe the Owner, Joe the Wealthy. Most plumbers I know will spend at least 5 years earning what this "Joe" will earn.
Obama No Anti-Christ
I am tired of the doomsday approach that says some single American has the ability to bring the whole world to a crumble.
Did the USA and its Founding Fathers not do what they could to prevent one single American from holding that sort of dominion over our nation let alone the world? WAKE UP ...you RELIGIOUS AMERICAN PARANOID DILLUSIONALS!
The ANTI CHRIST? Really? Don’t we hear that every 4 years? Is it because we Americans think we’re the NUMBER ONE SEED in the WORLD TOURNAMENT of DOMINATION? So maybe that’s where you’d expect to find such a Satanic figure? And of course if you are staunchly Conservative you are probably arrogant enough to believe that only a Liberal American could ever qualify for the job of Anti Christ. Boy that’s an inevitably divisive way to think isn’t it?
When did Liberal and Conservative become religions I wonder …. ? It seems to me, the wider the polling gap that shows the Republicans behind, the more adamant if not down right violent the accusations of Satanhood for the Democratic nominee become. Seems desperate and less than professional to me. In fact it’s EXACTLY the strategy I’d expect some ANTI-CHRIST to employ!
Did the USA and its Founding Fathers not do what they could to prevent one single American from holding that sort of dominion over our nation let alone the world? WAKE UP ...you RELIGIOUS AMERICAN PARANOID DILLUSIONALS!
The ANTI CHRIST? Really? Don’t we hear that every 4 years? Is it because we Americans think we’re the NUMBER ONE SEED in the WORLD TOURNAMENT of DOMINATION? So maybe that’s where you’d expect to find such a Satanic figure? And of course if you are staunchly Conservative you are probably arrogant enough to believe that only a Liberal American could ever qualify for the job of Anti Christ. Boy that’s an inevitably divisive way to think isn’t it?
When did Liberal and Conservative become religions I wonder …. ? It seems to me, the wider the polling gap that shows the Republicans behind, the more adamant if not down right violent the accusations of Satanhood for the Democratic nominee become. Seems desperate and less than professional to me. In fact it’s EXACTLY the strategy I’d expect some ANTI-CHRIST to employ!
Obama Neither Messiah nor Terrorist
Comments such as the following have become common place this election cycle:
"The thought that Barack Obama the "MESSIAH"(Words of Reverend Farrakhan) is on his way to being our next President should scare the hell out of every freedom loving American."
Why should I lend any credibility to the words of Farrakhan or any reverend for that matter? Freedom? The Patriot Act extended our freedom? Those F Heads at the NSA passing YOUR phone sex conversations from cubicle to cubicle while gleefully cackling are acting in the name of “FREEDOM”?
Why is the election of our President about religion at all? Like the woman who referred to Senator Obama as an “Arab”, is it about race, too? Why all this talk about Muslim? Are we beyond electing a Muslim? Jew? Mormon? Southern Baptist? Atheist? Scientist? Agnostic? Buddhist? … It goes on … Some melting pot separating Church from state we’ve turned out to be!
Tell me, which religion or lack there of is NOT off limits?
Like those who call for Obama’s head and insist he’s a terrorist or at least a sympathizer to the cause, do you really think he’s less American than you or me? Am I a terrorist for thinking a different approach is in order here? Thanks to Conservative talk radio, our populous is headed for division that leads to assassination. Thanks to McCain for recognizing this. Thanks to McCain for holding his head high while he takes a campaign fall for the right wing crowd who have used him and Palin to bridge the gap between today and 4 years from now while planting seeds they hope will grow into “I told you so’s” in 2012.
The Republican Party had no intention of putting Romney or another valid candidate at the helm of this disaster that is Bush and 6 years of Republican domination. They already want to blame 2 years of Democratic House dominance for the USA’s crumbling economy and reputation abroad.
The public, right or wrong, are willing to give Obama a go. Hate is rearing its ugly head as if Obama is some foreign extremely religious terrorist looking to bring us all down. They want to talk abortion, yet Bush had 8 years to make that difference. Did he? They want to talk economy, yet Bush had 8 years (6 of those with conservative backing in Congress) where are we?
Either the Presidency of the US has failed of late, or the Presidency doesn’t matter all that much until it comes to sending the military somewhere to kill or be killed. I think we’ve had a gut full of killing and being killed while still walking among the living remains the executive producer of 9/11 whose name ironically rhymes with Obama and who is an unusually tall terrorist with tons of dough as well as needs for dialysis. Hussein was easy to kill … how hard can it be to get Osama?
"The thought that Barack Obama the "MESSIAH"(Words of Reverend Farrakhan) is on his way to being our next President should scare the hell out of every freedom loving American."
Why should I lend any credibility to the words of Farrakhan or any reverend for that matter? Freedom? The Patriot Act extended our freedom? Those F Heads at the NSA passing YOUR phone sex conversations from cubicle to cubicle while gleefully cackling are acting in the name of “FREEDOM”?
Why is the election of our President about religion at all? Like the woman who referred to Senator Obama as an “Arab”, is it about race, too? Why all this talk about Muslim? Are we beyond electing a Muslim? Jew? Mormon? Southern Baptist? Atheist? Scientist? Agnostic? Buddhist? … It goes on … Some melting pot separating Church from state we’ve turned out to be!
Tell me, which religion or lack there of is NOT off limits?
Like those who call for Obama’s head and insist he’s a terrorist or at least a sympathizer to the cause, do you really think he’s less American than you or me? Am I a terrorist for thinking a different approach is in order here? Thanks to Conservative talk radio, our populous is headed for division that leads to assassination. Thanks to McCain for recognizing this. Thanks to McCain for holding his head high while he takes a campaign fall for the right wing crowd who have used him and Palin to bridge the gap between today and 4 years from now while planting seeds they hope will grow into “I told you so’s” in 2012.
The Republican Party had no intention of putting Romney or another valid candidate at the helm of this disaster that is Bush and 6 years of Republican domination. They already want to blame 2 years of Democratic House dominance for the USA’s crumbling economy and reputation abroad.
The public, right or wrong, are willing to give Obama a go. Hate is rearing its ugly head as if Obama is some foreign extremely religious terrorist looking to bring us all down. They want to talk abortion, yet Bush had 8 years to make that difference. Did he? They want to talk economy, yet Bush had 8 years (6 of those with conservative backing in Congress) where are we?
Either the Presidency of the US has failed of late, or the Presidency doesn’t matter all that much until it comes to sending the military somewhere to kill or be killed. I think we’ve had a gut full of killing and being killed while still walking among the living remains the executive producer of 9/11 whose name ironically rhymes with Obama and who is an unusually tall terrorist with tons of dough as well as needs for dialysis. Hussein was easy to kill … how hard can it be to get Osama?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Income Tax Disparity for the Rich?
Often cries for tax reform come from those who believe our progressive tax structure is so out of whack that the lower and middles classes should be ashamed of themselves.
Here’s a link:
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf
That link boasts the following:
According to IRS information from 2006
In terms of Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income
The top 1% earned 22% yet accounted for 40% of the total income tax burden.
The top 5% earned 37% yet paid in 60% of the total pie.
The top 10% earned 47% and paid 71%
The top 25% earned 68% and paid 86%
The bottom 50% earned 12.5% and paid only 3%
While some disparity exists it deserves closer examination. A comment was recently made that the top 25% foot 86% the bill for the rest of us. This has become a common ploy by Glenn Beck fans used to distort the reality of truth demonstrated by this imbalance.
Comparing the percentage of taxes paid to the percentage of the population represented is absolutely useless. Saying that a group collects almost 70% of income yet pays 86% of income tax collected is useful. Usually the balance of income earned by each echelon is left from the argument by the distorters of truth.
Something to consider, when someone throws numbers out like the top 25% pay 86% of the burden, they seek to WOW you with this implied extreme imbalance without a point of reference. One thing that reduces the WOW factor of these stats for me is to remember that among that bottom 50% we have to include the homeless, jobless, people on welfare and others who pay zero tax. Why when this comes up does the middle class always get lumped with the lowest of the lower class? I wonder what the statistics look like if we eliminate the bottom 10% from that bottom 50% figure. These numbers are not available on that link.
However, using the numbers we do have we can draw some very interesting conclusions that seem to reveal a certain attempt at sensationalizing the issue. if we take the top 25% (earns 68% pays 86%) less the top 1% (earns 22% and pays 40%) we are left with a rather wealthy 24% of our population earning 46% of income and paying in 46% of the tax burden. Why print details about the top 25% to make an argument for reform when clearly the problem lies at much higher echelons than 25%?
Furthermore, the top 5% less the top 1% appears to pay 20% of the collected tax burden while earning only 15% of the total adjusted gross income, much less a disparity than occurs for the top 1%. The top 10% less the top 5% earns 10% yet pays 11%. So the disparity is clear only at the extreme upper echelons of adjusted gross income. I'd like to see the numbers for the top .1% so as to eliminate them from the top 1% but those numbers do not appear on this table.
Another thing to consider: When we are talking about people who pay ZERO income tax, usually the immediate assumption is that only the lowest income earners are ~guilty~ of such a thing. Consider the wealthy and retired. Do they pay income tax from year to year? I suppose they would if they had investments that paid off but I doubt they rank among the upper echelons of adjusted gross income earners and if their investments were a losing venture I suppose they’d pay zero income tax. The above referenced table is a snapshot for one year so in 2006, it is very likely that some very wealthy individuals paid ZERO income tax. Consider also corporate income taxes. These might populate some of the highest echelon yet one could argue they pay zero tax as this cost is simply passed on to their customers in pricing procedures.
As you can see, I don’t buy into the passing of guilt or judgment or cries for reform based solely on who pays the most or least percentage of the income tax pie. It’s much more complicated than “The top 25% pay 86% of this burden” as one commenter put it.
Here’s a link:
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf
That link boasts the following:
According to IRS information from 2006
In terms of Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income
The top 1% earned 22% yet accounted for 40% of the total income tax burden.
The top 5% earned 37% yet paid in 60% of the total pie.
The top 10% earned 47% and paid 71%
The top 25% earned 68% and paid 86%
The bottom 50% earned 12.5% and paid only 3%
While some disparity exists it deserves closer examination. A comment was recently made that the top 25% foot 86% the bill for the rest of us. This has become a common ploy by Glenn Beck fans used to distort the reality of truth demonstrated by this imbalance.
Comparing the percentage of taxes paid to the percentage of the population represented is absolutely useless. Saying that a group collects almost 70% of income yet pays 86% of income tax collected is useful. Usually the balance of income earned by each echelon is left from the argument by the distorters of truth.
Something to consider, when someone throws numbers out like the top 25% pay 86% of the burden, they seek to WOW you with this implied extreme imbalance without a point of reference. One thing that reduces the WOW factor of these stats for me is to remember that among that bottom 50% we have to include the homeless, jobless, people on welfare and others who pay zero tax. Why when this comes up does the middle class always get lumped with the lowest of the lower class? I wonder what the statistics look like if we eliminate the bottom 10% from that bottom 50% figure. These numbers are not available on that link.
However, using the numbers we do have we can draw some very interesting conclusions that seem to reveal a certain attempt at sensationalizing the issue. if we take the top 25% (earns 68% pays 86%) less the top 1% (earns 22% and pays 40%) we are left with a rather wealthy 24% of our population earning 46% of income and paying in 46% of the tax burden. Why print details about the top 25% to make an argument for reform when clearly the problem lies at much higher echelons than 25%?
Furthermore, the top 5% less the top 1% appears to pay 20% of the collected tax burden while earning only 15% of the total adjusted gross income, much less a disparity than occurs for the top 1%. The top 10% less the top 5% earns 10% yet pays 11%. So the disparity is clear only at the extreme upper echelons of adjusted gross income. I'd like to see the numbers for the top .1% so as to eliminate them from the top 1% but those numbers do not appear on this table.
Another thing to consider: When we are talking about people who pay ZERO income tax, usually the immediate assumption is that only the lowest income earners are ~guilty~ of such a thing. Consider the wealthy and retired. Do they pay income tax from year to year? I suppose they would if they had investments that paid off but I doubt they rank among the upper echelons of adjusted gross income earners and if their investments were a losing venture I suppose they’d pay zero income tax. The above referenced table is a snapshot for one year so in 2006, it is very likely that some very wealthy individuals paid ZERO income tax. Consider also corporate income taxes. These might populate some of the highest echelon yet one could argue they pay zero tax as this cost is simply passed on to their customers in pricing procedures.
As you can see, I don’t buy into the passing of guilt or judgment or cries for reform based solely on who pays the most or least percentage of the income tax pie. It’s much more complicated than “The top 25% pay 86% of this burden” as one commenter put it.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
McCain's Apprroach Lacks Grand Design
I think it's cute that McCain uses diversionary reasoning to support a failing campaign. First using Palin to change the focus from him to someone who had not spent millions proposing herself worthy of a presidential bid, then Ike to keep Bush off the floor of the Republican Convention, then the state of U.S. economy to maybe prevent the first scheduled ’08 presidential debate...even his opening comment about Kennedy before addressing the first question of the debate seemed a diversionary tactic. Further, his claim that "tactic" and "strategy" are so different that every intellectual should be appalled by Obama's use of the word seems the antithesis to Clinton defining "is". "Obama doesn't understand," was his mantra. But does McCain understand? He seems real in touch with certain people who are not me.
My dictionary offers as synonyms for the word "tactic" and "strategy" thusly:
Tactic:
approach, course, device, line, manoeuvre, means, method, move, ploy, policy, scheme, strategem, tack, trick, way.
Strategy:
approach, grand design, manoeuvring, plan, planning, policy, procedure, programme, scheme.
I wonder to what extent McCain was "programmed" as a POW. I wonder if years of torture can be overcome. If so, why not torture our enemies? If torture experience can be reasonably cast as a credential for an American presidential bid, what's the big deal? I'd then say break the bones of every imprisoned enemy. Worst case? They become leadership material for their movement if they survive imprisonment. Is that cruel treatment? Making leaders out of enemies?
Ok, maybe it would be bad strategy. Or would the right word be tactic?
My dictionary offers as synonyms for the word "tactic" and "strategy" thusly:
Tactic:
approach, course, device, line, manoeuvre, means, method, move, ploy, policy, scheme, strategem, tack, trick, way.
Strategy:
approach, grand design, manoeuvring, plan, planning, policy, procedure, programme, scheme.
I wonder to what extent McCain was "programmed" as a POW. I wonder if years of torture can be overcome. If so, why not torture our enemies? If torture experience can be reasonably cast as a credential for an American presidential bid, what's the big deal? I'd then say break the bones of every imprisoned enemy. Worst case? They become leadership material for their movement if they survive imprisonment. Is that cruel treatment? Making leaders out of enemies?
Ok, maybe it would be bad strategy. Or would the right word be tactic?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Polygraph For Liars
Some estimates put polygraph accuracy near 70%. (others say close to 100%) I hope it’s a lot higher than 70% accuracy and here’s why:
Assume a truth you tell is being tested. If you test positive for untruth, now everyone REALLY thinks you're lying. Well, at least they think there’s a 70% chance you've fibbed.
On the other hand given the same truth, if you pass the lie detector test, people are still thinking there’s only a 70% chance you’re telling the truth.
What’s the worst a lie detector could do? If I call a coin my lie detector, accuracy will be 50%. In fact, if 70% reliability were counted on, that probability would be closer to a 50/50 coin-toss than perfection.
But if you don’t take the polygraph test, suspicions are raised, guilt inferred. Does it become a Damned-if-you-do/Damned-if-you-don’t-scenario? Would a gadget reliable 70% of the time have any use for someone telling the truth?
Why would anyone lying take a lie detector test? Well, there’s a 30% chance he’ll pass the test. If he fails, those who speculated guilt will only be 70% sure of the lie. They may have already been at least this sure.
I’d say for any test less reliable than 90% (seems polygraph accuracy has to be measured subjectively to some extent), it’s a better bet for the liar than the teller of truths.
Assume a truth you tell is being tested. If you test positive for untruth, now everyone REALLY thinks you're lying. Well, at least they think there’s a 70% chance you've fibbed.
On the other hand given the same truth, if you pass the lie detector test, people are still thinking there’s only a 70% chance you’re telling the truth.
What’s the worst a lie detector could do? If I call a coin my lie detector, accuracy will be 50%. In fact, if 70% reliability were counted on, that probability would be closer to a 50/50 coin-toss than perfection.
But if you don’t take the polygraph test, suspicions are raised, guilt inferred. Does it become a Damned-if-you-do/Damned-if-you-don’t-scenario? Would a gadget reliable 70% of the time have any use for someone telling the truth?
Why would anyone lying take a lie detector test? Well, there’s a 30% chance he’ll pass the test. If he fails, those who speculated guilt will only be 70% sure of the lie. They may have already been at least this sure.
I’d say for any test less reliable than 90% (seems polygraph accuracy has to be measured subjectively to some extent), it’s a better bet for the liar than the teller of truths.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
McCain Chooses Poorly
Gov. Palin represents a bad choice for White House potential. Not because she’s a woman. Not for lack of experience (I champion that actually, experience has us where we are. Inexperience is a happy change)
She’s a bad choice because she has “actual responsibilities” (to quote from her speech tonight). She has a baby and other small children. If McCain dies in office (or even not) she’ll be juggling dirty diapers and back seat arguments while making an attempt at remaining focused on dying soldiers or starving, drowning citizens on whom befalls a Katrina-esque disaster.
I can hear it now: “Don’t make me stop this limo! You two stop fighting! Can Mom get a break? I am dealing with some VERY complicated world issues and all you two are worried about is who gets the toy from the cereal box!” Oh, and this one, "Sweetie, I know you're only 17 but that is YOUR baby not MINE! I have other 'actual responsibilities'. I have no time to help you learn to be a mom before you are done being a kid!"
Nope! It ain’t fair to the US; it is LESS fair to those kids. She has 5 kids and a grandchild on the way. As a parent, I know that my kids come first. For a President, the country has to come first.
Come back in 18 years or so Mrs. Palin. I’m sure you’ll make a fine executive but can't that wait until after the high school graduation party when your little one will walk with your daughter's little one? Do the right thing. Raise those kids yourself. Don’t let the Federal Day Care Center do it!
She’s a bad choice because she has “actual responsibilities” (to quote from her speech tonight). She has a baby and other small children. If McCain dies in office (or even not) she’ll be juggling dirty diapers and back seat arguments while making an attempt at remaining focused on dying soldiers or starving, drowning citizens on whom befalls a Katrina-esque disaster.
I can hear it now: “Don’t make me stop this limo! You two stop fighting! Can Mom get a break? I am dealing with some VERY complicated world issues and all you two are worried about is who gets the toy from the cereal box!” Oh, and this one, "Sweetie, I know you're only 17 but that is YOUR baby not MINE! I have other 'actual responsibilities'. I have no time to help you learn to be a mom before you are done being a kid!"
Nope! It ain’t fair to the US; it is LESS fair to those kids. She has 5 kids and a grandchild on the way. As a parent, I know that my kids come first. For a President, the country has to come first.
Come back in 18 years or so Mrs. Palin. I’m sure you’ll make a fine executive but can't that wait until after the high school graduation party when your little one will walk with your daughter's little one? Do the right thing. Raise those kids yourself. Don’t let the Federal Day Care Center do it!
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Bearly Made it Out of Tahoe!
So there I was in the street in front of our S. Lake Tahoe Cabin talking to my brother on my Cel phone. Suffice it to say he was sharing with me some struggles he'd been experiencing and didn't want the whole family alerted to before he was to arrive at the cabin.
I was pacing the street in front of our house and neighbor's yard and driveway (vacant that night). After an hour or so I turned to head back toward our open garage (two garage doors, one open one closed). In the garage very near the open door sat the garbage cans containing, among other things, trout guts, tri-tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
There he was, walking between my car and the garage (about a 3 foot space) heading away from where I had been standing most of the previous hour. He was pretty big and his hair glistened brown as the light from the garage highlighted his derriere.
He walked on and I rushed in to the garage to hit the garage door opener/closer. To my chagrin I hit the wrong button and rather than closing the open door, I opened the closed door! I proceeded into the cabin to not so calmly alert the family to the bear I had just seen. Exacerbating the excitement, a coat rack I knocked over by opening the door hit the floor right about the same time I spit out "Bear ... Front yard."
Another brother followed me out the front door to catch another glimpse and my niece promptly closed the door behind us. Of course locking the door behind us made her feel even safer from a bear who might try to use the front door to gain entry into the house.
We didn’t see him again that night but he left some rather large and intimidating paw prints in the front yard.
Two mornings later the garbage cans were at the end of our very short driveway awaiting pick up. We were making sausage and eggs for about 20 people when my Mom came unglued at the sight of a much bigger bear with a black coat sitting among the cans enjoying, among other things, fish guts, tri tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
The younger gals in our group pretty much lost it in much the same manner Mom did. My brother-in-law smiling and enjoying a comfortable view from the balcony upstairs reached for a camera.
About that time Dad opened the door and had a word or two with the bear who casually looked up at Pops and sauntered off slowly as if to say, “Take it easy man, I’m just eating your trash. It’s not like you wanted it anyway!”
Our neighbor later informed us that he had seen the bear on our front porch right outside our front door. He had hoped none of us would walk out and startle it. Of course that was unlikely as we were quite busy tempting our appetites to the smell of sizzling Jimmy Deans. I guess we were lucky!
My brother-in-law missed the shot so decided it might be a good idea to plant a trout or two in the bushes outside so as to lure the bear back against most everyone else’s better judgment.
Of course, the bear never made it back and my brother-in-law and sister took off later that night so I did the right thing by trashing the rotting fish while ensuring the garage door remained shut with garbage cans properly sealed.
I think the first bear was a Black Bear (brown in color) and the second was a Brown Bear (black in color) I’m basing this analysis on size alone. It seems to me Black Bears seem to be smaller than Browns but I've heard they can be either color.
I was pacing the street in front of our house and neighbor's yard and driveway (vacant that night). After an hour or so I turned to head back toward our open garage (two garage doors, one open one closed). In the garage very near the open door sat the garbage cans containing, among other things, trout guts, tri-tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
There he was, walking between my car and the garage (about a 3 foot space) heading away from where I had been standing most of the previous hour. He was pretty big and his hair glistened brown as the light from the garage highlighted his derriere.
He walked on and I rushed in to the garage to hit the garage door opener/closer. To my chagrin I hit the wrong button and rather than closing the open door, I opened the closed door! I proceeded into the cabin to not so calmly alert the family to the bear I had just seen. Exacerbating the excitement, a coat rack I knocked over by opening the door hit the floor right about the same time I spit out "Bear ... Front yard."
Another brother followed me out the front door to catch another glimpse and my niece promptly closed the door behind us. Of course locking the door behind us made her feel even safer from a bear who might try to use the front door to gain entry into the house.
We didn’t see him again that night but he left some rather large and intimidating paw prints in the front yard.
Two mornings later the garbage cans were at the end of our very short driveway awaiting pick up. We were making sausage and eggs for about 20 people when my Mom came unglued at the sight of a much bigger bear with a black coat sitting among the cans enjoying, among other things, fish guts, tri tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
The younger gals in our group pretty much lost it in much the same manner Mom did. My brother-in-law smiling and enjoying a comfortable view from the balcony upstairs reached for a camera.
About that time Dad opened the door and had a word or two with the bear who casually looked up at Pops and sauntered off slowly as if to say, “Take it easy man, I’m just eating your trash. It’s not like you wanted it anyway!”
Our neighbor later informed us that he had seen the bear on our front porch right outside our front door. He had hoped none of us would walk out and startle it. Of course that was unlikely as we were quite busy tempting our appetites to the smell of sizzling Jimmy Deans. I guess we were lucky!
My brother-in-law missed the shot so decided it might be a good idea to plant a trout or two in the bushes outside so as to lure the bear back against most everyone else’s better judgment.
Of course, the bear never made it back and my brother-in-law and sister took off later that night so I did the right thing by trashing the rotting fish while ensuring the garage door remained shut with garbage cans properly sealed.
I think the first bear was a Black Bear (brown in color) and the second was a Brown Bear (black in color) I’m basing this analysis on size alone. It seems to me Black Bears seem to be smaller than Browns but I've heard they can be either color.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Afterlife
I can tell you that I pretty much believe it's been human nature since the dawn of man to ponder other-worldly existence especially as it pertains to the afterlife. Man is creative and it's no wonder he's come up with thousands of "spiritual" translations for what "God (or the gods)" expect us to do so that we do not spend eternity in "Hell" or simply disappear into nothingness.
It's at least a very difficult thing to face that this 70 or so years we get on Earth may really be all there is to our existence. An existence lacking eternal life can make dealing with death very troubling for the human psyche.
I find it hard to believe, though, that a Creator put us here with the intention of having us jump through a bunch of hoops that He is very slow and cryptic about clearly defining. The “hoops” range too dramatically across too many different doctrines. I believe I should "be good". I don’t need a cleric, preacher, pastor, shaman, priest or bishop to teach me what that is. My parents and other family or friend mentors did most of that for me and the rest can be left to intuition or instinct. I find it hard to believe a Creator who is interested in communicating with us directly would put translators or middlemen between He, me and you only so we can disagree about His word and spend all human history killing each other over it while waiting for new signs of impending doom from above.
Even though mankind has an apparent motive to "create a Creator", science leaves me convinced that everything began; that there was nothing, then there was something. There must have been an event we can call "the beginning of time".
I believe the Big Bang theory is an incomplete explanation for the origin of all things and that the infinite point of mass (singularity) must have come from somewhere. There had to be nothing, then something. Science is troubled by the first few fragments of a second after the initial “bang”. The laws of physics as we know them do not allow for the rapid expansion that must have occured immediately following the initial explosion. It seems to me the laws of physics and passing of time began shortly after the Big Bang. Anything before this part of the event can be left to our imaginations for pondering.
It's at least a very difficult thing to face that this 70 or so years we get on Earth may really be all there is to our existence. An existence lacking eternal life can make dealing with death very troubling for the human psyche.
I find it hard to believe, though, that a Creator put us here with the intention of having us jump through a bunch of hoops that He is very slow and cryptic about clearly defining. The “hoops” range too dramatically across too many different doctrines. I believe I should "be good". I don’t need a cleric, preacher, pastor, shaman, priest or bishop to teach me what that is. My parents and other family or friend mentors did most of that for me and the rest can be left to intuition or instinct. I find it hard to believe a Creator who is interested in communicating with us directly would put translators or middlemen between He, me and you only so we can disagree about His word and spend all human history killing each other over it while waiting for new signs of impending doom from above.
Even though mankind has an apparent motive to "create a Creator", science leaves me convinced that everything began; that there was nothing, then there was something. There must have been an event we can call "the beginning of time".
I believe the Big Bang theory is an incomplete explanation for the origin of all things and that the infinite point of mass (singularity) must have come from somewhere. There had to be nothing, then something. Science is troubled by the first few fragments of a second after the initial “bang”. The laws of physics as we know them do not allow for the rapid expansion that must have occured immediately following the initial explosion. It seems to me the laws of physics and passing of time began shortly after the Big Bang. Anything before this part of the event can be left to our imaginations for pondering.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Bluto's List: A Blogger's Challenge.
Famous last words!
I wonder what some of the funniest "last words" uttered or heard by the deceased may have been.
I wonder how many people died right after hearing or saying the words, "One, Two, Threeeeee..."
or,
"I wonder what this does."
or,
"Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!"
or,
"What ever you do, don't touch that!"
You get the idea...
Any thoughts?
I wonder what some of the funniest "last words" uttered or heard by the deceased may have been.
I wonder how many people died right after hearing or saying the words, "One, Two, Threeeeee..."
or,
"I wonder what this does."
or,
"Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!"
or,
"What ever you do, don't touch that!"
You get the idea...
Any thoughts?
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Pizza and Cereal
Pizza and cereal are the same and everyone knows it! Ok, you’re sitting there thinking, “He’s ugly AND stupid!”
But it’s true. Take cereal. EVERYONE likes CAP ‘N CRUNCH but when you visit your friends do they have it on hand? NO! They have Rice Krispies and Cheerios. You know why? Because they ate all the CAP’ N CRUNCH!
Take Pizza. If you are having a pizza party with 30 people you can assume it will take like 7 large pizzas to satisfy that crowd. Do you know what pizza is left at the end of the party? The veggie and sausage with anchovies! You know why? Because your guests couldn’t get enough pepperoni! That’s why!
Why do we need 7 DIFFERENT pizzas for this party? Why is it a contest looking to crown the most creative pizza orderer up front, but in the end it comes down to he who can eat the most pepperoni fastest?
Yup, pizza and cereal are the same and you knew it all along. That doesn’t make me less ugly or stupid, it just makes me right! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
But it’s true. Take cereal. EVERYONE likes CAP ‘N CRUNCH but when you visit your friends do they have it on hand? NO! They have Rice Krispies and Cheerios. You know why? Because they ate all the CAP’ N CRUNCH!
Take Pizza. If you are having a pizza party with 30 people you can assume it will take like 7 large pizzas to satisfy that crowd. Do you know what pizza is left at the end of the party? The veggie and sausage with anchovies! You know why? Because your guests couldn’t get enough pepperoni! That’s why!
Why do we need 7 DIFFERENT pizzas for this party? Why is it a contest looking to crown the most creative pizza orderer up front, but in the end it comes down to he who can eat the most pepperoni fastest?
Yup, pizza and cereal are the same and you knew it all along. That doesn’t make me less ugly or stupid, it just makes me right! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
Booter Fails to Achieve Deregulation
When I first looked at this I saw it as conflicted-interest, private law enforcement. I've changed my mind a bit after looking at it a little deeper.
First off, if Shaw (owner of only booting company in town) were going to charge $200 or something ridiculous, apartment owners would stop giving him permission to do what he does on their property because they'd probably lose business. Tenants or customers might not want to take the risk.
Second, it sounds like many want to argue that $80 or $90 even $70 is out of line. It's as if the fee is viewed as a high price to pay for parking. It's not parking payment folks; it's the price you pay for trespassing. Shaw's opponents will likely find themselves spending more than $70 to illegally park now, and it's a shame that this results from vilifying a businessman with perhaps a "creepy" demeanor. The real culprits are those who choose regularly to park their cars wherever they damn well please as if no one can lay claim to private property rights.
For sure signage needs to be clearer. For sure owners of property need to make it clear to their patrons that they allow booting before they sign them on as tenants or customers. For sure property owners need to make it clear to Shaw that parking permits need to be stuck to the INSIDE of a car and owners could offer tenants parking passes for visitors. More than once as a student living in student housing I had to go find a parking spot well away from my own unit outside of my own parking lot because of this free-for-all attitude which arrogantly expresses a disrespect for property rights, an American institution.
People seem to be very willing to discuss figures as if there is some universal standard for the price they deserve to pay for screwing up. It doesn't work that way. It reminds me of driving at high speeds on Utah highways. No matter how fast I'm going, the driver behind me wants to drive a little faster. It's a race. It's as if passing people is what gets you there fastest. In this case I'd argue it has little to do with the dollar figure. It's the fact that it wants to increase.
However, since we're talking private law enforcement, we need to see some competition. All the regulations could go away save those that address price fixing if there were someone else ballsy enough to take this on. It’s a dirty job but it sounds lucrative, unless of course $70 or $80 is just not enough to sustain such an endeavor. In that case, deregulation seems in order lest we all prefer to pay $200 to be towed!
I really think the biggest problem people have with this is that we're not used to paying our fines on the spot. So we argue that it is unfair and would prefer to pay MORE money LATER if you'll just tow my car.
First off, if Shaw (owner of only booting company in town) were going to charge $200 or something ridiculous, apartment owners would stop giving him permission to do what he does on their property because they'd probably lose business. Tenants or customers might not want to take the risk.
Second, it sounds like many want to argue that $80 or $90 even $70 is out of line. It's as if the fee is viewed as a high price to pay for parking. It's not parking payment folks; it's the price you pay for trespassing. Shaw's opponents will likely find themselves spending more than $70 to illegally park now, and it's a shame that this results from vilifying a businessman with perhaps a "creepy" demeanor. The real culprits are those who choose regularly to park their cars wherever they damn well please as if no one can lay claim to private property rights.
For sure signage needs to be clearer. For sure owners of property need to make it clear to their patrons that they allow booting before they sign them on as tenants or customers. For sure property owners need to make it clear to Shaw that parking permits need to be stuck to the INSIDE of a car and owners could offer tenants parking passes for visitors. More than once as a student living in student housing I had to go find a parking spot well away from my own unit outside of my own parking lot because of this free-for-all attitude which arrogantly expresses a disrespect for property rights, an American institution.
People seem to be very willing to discuss figures as if there is some universal standard for the price they deserve to pay for screwing up. It doesn't work that way. It reminds me of driving at high speeds on Utah highways. No matter how fast I'm going, the driver behind me wants to drive a little faster. It's a race. It's as if passing people is what gets you there fastest. In this case I'd argue it has little to do with the dollar figure. It's the fact that it wants to increase.
However, since we're talking private law enforcement, we need to see some competition. All the regulations could go away save those that address price fixing if there were someone else ballsy enough to take this on. It’s a dirty job but it sounds lucrative, unless of course $70 or $80 is just not enough to sustain such an endeavor. In that case, deregulation seems in order lest we all prefer to pay $200 to be towed!
I really think the biggest problem people have with this is that we're not used to paying our fines on the spot. So we argue that it is unfair and would prefer to pay MORE money LATER if you'll just tow my car.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Everyone's an Economist
Well at least that’s what everyone seems to think. Take for instance the economics consideration of the term “true public good”. If you are economics savvy, you know that a true public good is defined as a resource both non-rival and non-excludable. That is: You cannot easily charge one for the resource and thereby exclude him from use for nonpayment. And, one’s use of the resource does not reduce availability to another of said resource.
But if you’re not economics savvy you might want to debate what the term REALLY means. The words “true public good” seem to conjure images of the things we like in life that the government “buys” for us.
I must assert the obvious: Not everything provided by the government is a “true public good”. Not every “true public good” should be provided by the government.
Some assert that government spending should be limited to only “true public goods”. I pretty much agree but think there are a few private goods that deserve consideration (fire fighting and law enforcement) and a few public goods that should be hands off (Over the Air TV)
What do you think?
But if you’re not economics savvy you might want to debate what the term REALLY means. The words “true public good” seem to conjure images of the things we like in life that the government “buys” for us.
I must assert the obvious: Not everything provided by the government is a “true public good”. Not every “true public good” should be provided by the government.
Some assert that government spending should be limited to only “true public goods”. I pretty much agree but think there are a few private goods that deserve consideration (fire fighting and law enforcement) and a few public goods that should be hands off (Over the Air TV)
What do you think?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Crime and Punishment: Intent
I think that in considering punishments, intent should play a large roll. Recently a tragic death occured when a 64-year-old man attempted an illegal U-Turn from the right shoulder of a major 4-lane highway. He pulled in front of a motorcyclist who was not wearing a helmet. Word is not officially in as to whether or not protective head gear would have saved his life but he did die of severe head trauma and made it to the hospital alive.
Presumably, the driver of the car did not intend to kill anyone. He intended to make an illegal U-Turn. I am not saying that his only punishment should be for the U-Turn. Negligence is the real crime here. The driver's negligence resulted in an accident; BUT, I'm not convinced the driver of the car is 100% responsible for the death of the victim. If reasonable doubt exists that he wouldn't have died wearing a reasonable helmet I think this should be treated the same way it would have been had the victim survived.
On the other side of the coin, if I intend to kill you by shooting you and you survive, my punishment should be the same as it would have been had you died. That is: In my book attempted murder = murder.
Presumably, the driver of the car did not intend to kill anyone. He intended to make an illegal U-Turn. I am not saying that his only punishment should be for the U-Turn. Negligence is the real crime here. The driver's negligence resulted in an accident; BUT, I'm not convinced the driver of the car is 100% responsible for the death of the victim. If reasonable doubt exists that he wouldn't have died wearing a reasonable helmet I think this should be treated the same way it would have been had the victim survived.
On the other side of the coin, if I intend to kill you by shooting you and you survive, my punishment should be the same as it would have been had you died. That is: In my book attempted murder = murder.
Going Steady, Shacking Up, Lawfully Wedded
Recently a letter to the editor of the Herald Journal ruffled a few feathers and I’m surprised it did. In fact I’m glad it did. (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10099720) The original letter raised concern over whether or not a Lesbian pair's “celebration of love” should have appeared in the paper as a “Marriage” under the “Weddings” heading.
I think it's odd that the advocates for gay marriage often come off like this is a no-brainer issue. It's not! We're talking about change (some might say dramatic change) in American custom and tradition. These things take time and dialogue.
I’m not talking about whether or not gays should marry. I’m talking about whether or not all committed relationships can be considered with equal monogamous integrity and commitment. I think they cannot. There is a spectrum of description for committed relationships ranging from Prom Date to Going Steady to Shacking Up to Legally Wedded. The list can be filled with a plethora of terms.
The Spencer-Taylor announcement was not a wedding or marriage nor was it intended to read as such in the paper.
The original letter by Narayne Rougeau had nothing to do with advocating FOR or protesting AGAINST gay marriage. Instead, Rougeau brings up a great point that surely solicits consideration as this change of American tradition gains momentum: There is a vocabulary issue. The Eskimos have many terms for describing snow conditions, Islanders have many terms for describing surf conditions, Americans have many terms for describing things on which you drive ... It seems America is ready for some new terminology associated with describing relationships.
I’d say we need unique terms for Holy matrimony, lawfully wedded, celebrating love, shacking up, going steady, ... etc. Same sex can be incorporated with ANY of these categories so again we are not talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about calling a spade a spade (As in shovel speak). Words like “marriage” and “wedding” seem to carry too much of this burden.
Perhaps it’s programming rooted in American tradition, but I think these words commonly associated with “nuptials” should be reserved for those who are making a legal commitment through formal obligation as defined by the terms of a marriage certificate. After all, divorce works as a deterrent to splitting up. Without the certificate, you only break-up when it’s over. Breaking up may be hard to do, but divorce is even harder.
Common Law Marriage can keep the word “marriage” I guess, but I’d prefer two different terms to describe lawfully wedded and commonly involved in law. The qualifiers simply do not satisfy.
Inspired by Narayne (can I buy a vowel) Rougeau and by debating with some very intelligent and respectable thinkers and communicators, I may have reached an amiable solution to this dilemma of categorizing announcements in the newspaper:
Change the name of the heading from “Weddings” to “Celebrations”.
The Celebrations section might see more traffic. Anniversaries, birthdays, prom dates, new steady relationships, celebrations of love, vow renewals, and weddings can all be acknowledged on the same page. So long as no one mixes terms and calls a Wedding a Bar Mitzvah, there should be no problem.
I will post the content of the original letter as a comment.
I think it's odd that the advocates for gay marriage often come off like this is a no-brainer issue. It's not! We're talking about change (some might say dramatic change) in American custom and tradition. These things take time and dialogue.
I’m not talking about whether or not gays should marry. I’m talking about whether or not all committed relationships can be considered with equal monogamous integrity and commitment. I think they cannot. There is a spectrum of description for committed relationships ranging from Prom Date to Going Steady to Shacking Up to Legally Wedded. The list can be filled with a plethora of terms.
The Spencer-Taylor announcement was not a wedding or marriage nor was it intended to read as such in the paper.
The original letter by Narayne Rougeau had nothing to do with advocating FOR or protesting AGAINST gay marriage. Instead, Rougeau brings up a great point that surely solicits consideration as this change of American tradition gains momentum: There is a vocabulary issue. The Eskimos have many terms for describing snow conditions, Islanders have many terms for describing surf conditions, Americans have many terms for describing things on which you drive ... It seems America is ready for some new terminology associated with describing relationships.
I’d say we need unique terms for Holy matrimony, lawfully wedded, celebrating love, shacking up, going steady, ... etc. Same sex can be incorporated with ANY of these categories so again we are not talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about calling a spade a spade (As in shovel speak). Words like “marriage” and “wedding” seem to carry too much of this burden.
Perhaps it’s programming rooted in American tradition, but I think these words commonly associated with “nuptials” should be reserved for those who are making a legal commitment through formal obligation as defined by the terms of a marriage certificate. After all, divorce works as a deterrent to splitting up. Without the certificate, you only break-up when it’s over. Breaking up may be hard to do, but divorce is even harder.
Common Law Marriage can keep the word “marriage” I guess, but I’d prefer two different terms to describe lawfully wedded and commonly involved in law. The qualifiers simply do not satisfy.
Inspired by Narayne (can I buy a vowel) Rougeau and by debating with some very intelligent and respectable thinkers and communicators, I may have reached an amiable solution to this dilemma of categorizing announcements in the newspaper:
Change the name of the heading from “Weddings” to “Celebrations”.
The Celebrations section might see more traffic. Anniversaries, birthdays, prom dates, new steady relationships, celebrations of love, vow renewals, and weddings can all be acknowledged on the same page. So long as no one mixes terms and calls a Wedding a Bar Mitzvah, there should be no problem.
I will post the content of the original letter as a comment.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bluto’s List: A Blogger’s Challenge
Things you should never do but if you do, here’s what you should or shouldn’t do:
1) Peeing in the shower: If you must do this, do it at the beginning of your shower so as to completely flow the urine through the trap, otherwise the urine will stink!
2) Smoking Marijuana: If you must smoke, avoid aluminum cans or foil for smoking. This is only speculation on my part but I do not believe the FDA or any agency has tested this for safety. Given that aluminum is found in the brains of dead Alzheimer’s victims, I’d bet this would be an unsafe practice. Yes aluminum cans have been cleared as a culprit here, but I believe that only applies to the intended use of drinking from them. I’ve heard that an apple can be used as makeshift paraphernalia.
3) Any other ideas?
1) Peeing in the shower: If you must do this, do it at the beginning of your shower so as to completely flow the urine through the trap, otherwise the urine will stink!
2) Smoking Marijuana: If you must smoke, avoid aluminum cans or foil for smoking. This is only speculation on my part but I do not believe the FDA or any agency has tested this for safety. Given that aluminum is found in the brains of dead Alzheimer’s victims, I’d bet this would be an unsafe practice. Yes aluminum cans have been cleared as a culprit here, but I believe that only applies to the intended use of drinking from them. I’ve heard that an apple can be used as makeshift paraphernalia.
3) Any other ideas?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Law Enforcement/Fire Fighting Dangerous Jobs
If you google “America’s most dangerous jobs” a group of articles and blogs referencing a list of the Top Ten most dangerous jobs pops up. The list is rooted in on-the-job fatalities.
A list of the world’s most dangerous jobs can be found at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/09/most_dangerous_jobs_bureau_of_labor_statistics_2006_2007.html
Curious that the list of dangerous jobs doesn't include soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan but that’s not the point I’d like to make.
The list doesn’t include fire fighters or agents of law enforcement either. I guess fatalities per officer or fire fighter do not measure up. The list doesn't reflect the danger of the job per se, it reflects available equipment and training to perform the tasks listed or more accurately, a lack thereof.
Maybe we need to find an alternative to crop-dusting. Maybe we need commercial fishermen off their boats in Alaska until weather prediction can be perfected. I guess we need to quell our need for timber, get OSHA to frequent jobsites more often ... etc ... Maybe that’s what this list REALLY tells us.
How dangerous would a cop’s job be without weapons? How dangerous would be circus performance without nets.
The list perpetuates some misconceptions if it’s used to marginalize the dangers associated with law enforcement or fire fighting.
If just anyone who signed up to be a cop were made a cop, how dangerous would that job become? It takes a certain innate sense of bravery to control the fight or flight reaction in many situations cops and firefighters face. Timid or shy cops or firefighters would drop like flies.
The list may also reflect a lack of discipline on the part of workers interested in cutting safety corners in order to produce more and thus earn more money. I think cops are more likely to perform "by the book" (not that they all do to a T) than are roofers or commercial fishermen. I doubt too many cops show up to work drunk or on meth, but I've known a strung out roofer or two in my day!
The fisherman doesn’t necessarily realize the dangers he faces because much of it comes in the form of unforeseen rogue wave or storm. Roofers shed a fear of height and really go on without realizing the dangers that face them. They focus on getting the job done as fast as possible so as to maximize their income. Cops and firefighters are well aware of the dangers they face EVERY day, yet roofers get up there feeling safe and secure without a harness because, well…they did it yesterday and didn’t die…
You really have to examine the caliber of person who is given these jobs and the training that goes into them before they are turned loose! If roofing is TRULY more dangerous than law enforcement, why isn't there a Roofer's Academy to get them ready to perform while weeding out prospects who simply do not measure up to this hazardous task?
Cops know the dangers and are serious about keeping cops alive. They are assertive about this whereas many roofers (and other tradesman) are simply foolish about safety equipment.
It's not necessarily a perfect measure of "danger" to count the death toll per worker.
Tupac didn’t write any songs about offin’ roofers, or poppin’ caps in the posteriors of commercial fisherman. I guarantee more cops are shot at every day than ANYONE on that list of "dangerous/deadly" jobs! I guarantee more firemen run into AND out of burning buildings EVERYDAY than anyone else on that list! What takes more bravery? Roofing? Fishing? Construction? Sorry, call it a “less dangerous” position based on whatever criteria suits you, being a cop or firefighter takes a special breed both physically and psychologically.
A list of the world’s most dangerous jobs can be found at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/09/most_dangerous_jobs_bureau_of_labor_statistics_2006_2007.html
Curious that the list of dangerous jobs doesn't include soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan but that’s not the point I’d like to make.
The list doesn’t include fire fighters or agents of law enforcement either. I guess fatalities per officer or fire fighter do not measure up. The list doesn't reflect the danger of the job per se, it reflects available equipment and training to perform the tasks listed or more accurately, a lack thereof.
Maybe we need to find an alternative to crop-dusting. Maybe we need commercial fishermen off their boats in Alaska until weather prediction can be perfected. I guess we need to quell our need for timber, get OSHA to frequent jobsites more often ... etc ... Maybe that’s what this list REALLY tells us.
How dangerous would a cop’s job be without weapons? How dangerous would be circus performance without nets.
The list perpetuates some misconceptions if it’s used to marginalize the dangers associated with law enforcement or fire fighting.
If just anyone who signed up to be a cop were made a cop, how dangerous would that job become? It takes a certain innate sense of bravery to control the fight or flight reaction in many situations cops and firefighters face. Timid or shy cops or firefighters would drop like flies.
The list may also reflect a lack of discipline on the part of workers interested in cutting safety corners in order to produce more and thus earn more money. I think cops are more likely to perform "by the book" (not that they all do to a T) than are roofers or commercial fishermen. I doubt too many cops show up to work drunk or on meth, but I've known a strung out roofer or two in my day!
The fisherman doesn’t necessarily realize the dangers he faces because much of it comes in the form of unforeseen rogue wave or storm. Roofers shed a fear of height and really go on without realizing the dangers that face them. They focus on getting the job done as fast as possible so as to maximize their income. Cops and firefighters are well aware of the dangers they face EVERY day, yet roofers get up there feeling safe and secure without a harness because, well…they did it yesterday and didn’t die…
You really have to examine the caliber of person who is given these jobs and the training that goes into them before they are turned loose! If roofing is TRULY more dangerous than law enforcement, why isn't there a Roofer's Academy to get them ready to perform while weeding out prospects who simply do not measure up to this hazardous task?
Cops know the dangers and are serious about keeping cops alive. They are assertive about this whereas many roofers (and other tradesman) are simply foolish about safety equipment.
It's not necessarily a perfect measure of "danger" to count the death toll per worker.
Tupac didn’t write any songs about offin’ roofers, or poppin’ caps in the posteriors of commercial fisherman. I guarantee more cops are shot at every day than ANYONE on that list of "dangerous/deadly" jobs! I guarantee more firemen run into AND out of burning buildings EVERYDAY than anyone else on that list! What takes more bravery? Roofing? Fishing? Construction? Sorry, call it a “less dangerous” position based on whatever criteria suits you, being a cop or firefighter takes a special breed both physically and psychologically.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Conflicted Interest in Private Law Enforcement
Private law enforcement holds too much conflict of interest to reign effectively in our society. Booters are the case in point. Recently the Municipal Council was consulted to disallow Logan city the authority to regulate the price a private booter can charge to remove a boot from a legally disabled vehicle. They cite a rise in the cost of doing business (specifically gas prices) as the justification for at least an increase in the limit that keeps them and their competitors in check.
Wouldn't people not parking illegally hurt their bottom line even more? If demand for their product is low because people learn the lesson and stop parking illegally will they raise their fees even higher? The fewer who commit this crime, the more the private enforcers need to charge to stay in business.
I understand that owners of private property need a way to enforce the use they intend for their property. They, their tenants and their customers are paying to have those parking spots available. But without regulation, what stops a booter from asking you for $1,000 cash to get your car back? I suppose there are market forces that might cause people to stop renting from landlords who hire booters who employ extreme techniques. But, what other rules might private owners of property choose to make enforceable? No spitting? If a passerby is caught spitting he must give the landlord $100 dollars or must run the gauntlet? Obviously some regulation is in order.
If the crime rate decreases over time, will our police force decrease, too? Will we save some money on enforcement that we don't really need? Probably not! That ratchet just keeps on a clickin'!
It's sort of a typical CV thang isn't it? We make a list of safest places to live and how are we rewarded? Higher fines, more taxes and more cops! It seems counter intuitive to me.
Wouldn't people not parking illegally hurt their bottom line even more? If demand for their product is low because people learn the lesson and stop parking illegally will they raise their fees even higher? The fewer who commit this crime, the more the private enforcers need to charge to stay in business.
I understand that owners of private property need a way to enforce the use they intend for their property. They, their tenants and their customers are paying to have those parking spots available. But without regulation, what stops a booter from asking you for $1,000 cash to get your car back? I suppose there are market forces that might cause people to stop renting from landlords who hire booters who employ extreme techniques. But, what other rules might private owners of property choose to make enforceable? No spitting? If a passerby is caught spitting he must give the landlord $100 dollars or must run the gauntlet? Obviously some regulation is in order.
If the crime rate decreases over time, will our police force decrease, too? Will we save some money on enforcement that we don't really need? Probably not! That ratchet just keeps on a clickin'!
It's sort of a typical CV thang isn't it? We make a list of safest places to live and how are we rewarded? Higher fines, more taxes and more cops! It seems counter intuitive to me.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Aura Schmaura, Indigo Schmindigo!
Here’s a bit of piece that ran last week in the Herald Journal:
“Kids these days are fundamentally different than ever before, and parents, families and schools need to change to accommodate those differences, according to an education professor from Brigham Young University.Rebecca Rocque, a BYU Ph.D student and teacher, taught a seminar on indigo children to about 15 people Saturday in a conference room at the University Inn, on the campus of Utah State University. The event was not associated with USU.According to Rocque, indigo children are those who have indigo-colored auras. An aura is believed to be a field of colored light that radiates from each person, but can only be seen by a few certain people...
...Her goal is to help educate people so they can better associate with these new and different children... 'Parents and teachers want to understand their children better,' she said...
...Rocque said about 96 percent of the children born since 1994 are indigo children. The idea of indigo children was first put forth by a woman named Nancy Ann Tappe, who claims the ability to see these auras in her book, 'Understanding Your Life Through Color.' Though there are different types of indigo children, Rocque said, most possess a high level of creativity and can have trouble fitting into systems that don’t require creativity, she said. She also said they are born with a 'feeling of royalty,' meaning they expect to be treated with dignity and understand they are children of God, and they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority.”
96% of them are the same? Well GREAT! That narrows it down! "Kids these days are all the same." We get it! “Feeling of royalty?” “High level of creativity?” "...they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority?" Doesn’t that simply describe the nature of being a child?
I think people who need colors to describe an interpersonal experience are people who have a hard time open-mindedly experiencing or using words to describe individuality. Doesn't “the fact” that your kids have a 96% probability of effervescing the same color "aura" lead you to believe the “gift” of seeing auras is relatively useless? Count on it, these people think your kids are "Indigo" kids and have some solution for approaching this apparent problem. Prepare for the sales pitch leading to government funding.
“Kids these days are fundamentally different than ever before, and parents, families and schools need to change to accommodate those differences, according to an education professor from Brigham Young University.Rebecca Rocque, a BYU Ph.D student and teacher, taught a seminar on indigo children to about 15 people Saturday in a conference room at the University Inn, on the campus of Utah State University. The event was not associated with USU.According to Rocque, indigo children are those who have indigo-colored auras. An aura is believed to be a field of colored light that radiates from each person, but can only be seen by a few certain people...
...Her goal is to help educate people so they can better associate with these new and different children... 'Parents and teachers want to understand their children better,' she said...
...Rocque said about 96 percent of the children born since 1994 are indigo children. The idea of indigo children was first put forth by a woman named Nancy Ann Tappe, who claims the ability to see these auras in her book, 'Understanding Your Life Through Color.' Though there are different types of indigo children, Rocque said, most possess a high level of creativity and can have trouble fitting into systems that don’t require creativity, she said. She also said they are born with a 'feeling of royalty,' meaning they expect to be treated with dignity and understand they are children of God, and they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority.”
96% of them are the same? Well GREAT! That narrows it down! "Kids these days are all the same." We get it! “Feeling of royalty?” “High level of creativity?” "...they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority?" Doesn’t that simply describe the nature of being a child?
I think people who need colors to describe an interpersonal experience are people who have a hard time open-mindedly experiencing or using words to describe individuality. Doesn't “the fact” that your kids have a 96% probability of effervescing the same color "aura" lead you to believe the “gift” of seeing auras is relatively useless? Count on it, these people think your kids are "Indigo" kids and have some solution for approaching this apparent problem. Prepare for the sales pitch leading to government funding.
Gay Marriage? Gay Pride? Gay Choice?
I'm actually ok with gay marriage ... even polygamy among consenting adults. The commitment is worth promoting. I think divorce, on the other hand, needs to be much more difficult to come by!
I have some questions about gay and "choice". Supposedly “they've" isolated some gene that causes this condition. This is usually the basis for the argument that gay is NOT a choice. If they isolate an obesity gene and discover a method for preventing obesity, do you think parents would choose to make the necessary adjustments to prevent obesity? How about homosexuality? Given the choice of preventing this "condition" (disorder?), would you? If not then methinks your "it's-not-a-choice" argument has no place.
One more thing. How can you be PROUD of something with which you're born? "I'm white and I'm proud! WHITE PRIDE! STRAIGHT PRIDE!" Doesn't sound right does it? Not in today’s PC world. Can you imagine a major chunk of the American population getting away away with a T-Shirt that reads, "Proud to be Male, White, and Straight"? Talk about two-way streets! Drop the rainbows, parades and secret hi-signs and live your dam life! You can be proud of your accomplishments, achievements and that of you children, but PROUD of your race, sexual orientation or abundance of toes (or lack there of)?
I have some questions about gay and "choice". Supposedly “they've" isolated some gene that causes this condition. This is usually the basis for the argument that gay is NOT a choice. If they isolate an obesity gene and discover a method for preventing obesity, do you think parents would choose to make the necessary adjustments to prevent obesity? How about homosexuality? Given the choice of preventing this "condition" (disorder?), would you? If not then methinks your "it's-not-a-choice" argument has no place.
One more thing. How can you be PROUD of something with which you're born? "I'm white and I'm proud! WHITE PRIDE! STRAIGHT PRIDE!" Doesn't sound right does it? Not in today’s PC world. Can you imagine a major chunk of the American population getting away away with a T-Shirt that reads, "Proud to be Male, White, and Straight"? Talk about two-way streets! Drop the rainbows, parades and secret hi-signs and live your dam life! You can be proud of your accomplishments, achievements and that of you children, but PROUD of your race, sexual orientation or abundance of toes (or lack there of)?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Beer a Dietary Supplement?
There is too much being said about beer being good for you. I submit (me as an example) that most beer drinkers do not hold it to 2 beers a day. One Big Dog (32 oz at the White Owl) and you've exceded that amount. That is to say many of our local beer-selling restaurants sell beer in quantities that excede this "healthy" perspective on beer. That said, I should not be judged by what I consume or by how much of it I consume. Judge me by my actions. If I get drunk and stumble down the aisle at your favorite restaurant and shout obscenities (NEVER HAVE NEVER WILL) then judge me for that and don't let me use the booze as an excuse for offensive behavior.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Who Needs Guns?
Who needs guns? The answer to this seemingly rhetorical question is cops, soldiers, hunters, outback campers, farmers, ranchers, target-shooters, collectors and the guy who gets the 100-yard dash underway. That’s it as far as I can see.
You don’t need a lethal weapon, concealed or not, to “protect yourself”. Protect yourself from what? How often do you hear about a guy who saved himself from a mugger because he had a gun? Do you shoot someone who is wearing brass knuckles and a mask, or do you reach for the stun-gun, mace or baton. Surely you carry these non-lethal weapons in your other pocket, under your belt, strapped to your ankle, or tied to you back. I wonder how many carry lethal weapons AND non-lethal weapons, "Fergit the mace...aaam goin' straight fer the lead!"
Do you think you have the skills to quell the chaos at Trolley Square just because you have a concealed carry permit?
The idea one needs a concealed weapons permit to protect oneself seems ludicrous. To me it’s not about protection. It’s about wearing a muscle suit so people will be so afraid of you they dare not mess.
I see most permit carriers as self-proclaimed law enforcement officials. It can be a frightful dilemma.
Law enforcement training and hostage negotiation does not go into the “training” required to obtain a concealed carry permit. Once permitted, when do you draw your gun? When you see a fight? When someone insults you with profanity? If you see someone climbing through a window?
If someone draws a gun on you, do you really have the guts to engage in the showdown? Will you duck behind a solid object and return strategic fire?
Look, you are more likely to see a fire when you walk down the street than to have a reason to pull out a gun and defend yourself. Drop the guns and carry fire extinguishers if you are all about the greater good. Otherwise admit it. You want your gun so you can feel like Rambo even though you look like Richard Simmons before or after the weight loss gig.
You don’t need a lethal weapon, concealed or not, to “protect yourself”. Protect yourself from what? How often do you hear about a guy who saved himself from a mugger because he had a gun? Do you shoot someone who is wearing brass knuckles and a mask, or do you reach for the stun-gun, mace or baton. Surely you carry these non-lethal weapons in your other pocket, under your belt, strapped to your ankle, or tied to you back. I wonder how many carry lethal weapons AND non-lethal weapons, "Fergit the mace...aaam goin' straight fer the lead!"
Do you think you have the skills to quell the chaos at Trolley Square just because you have a concealed carry permit?
The idea one needs a concealed weapons permit to protect oneself seems ludicrous. To me it’s not about protection. It’s about wearing a muscle suit so people will be so afraid of you they dare not mess.
I see most permit carriers as self-proclaimed law enforcement officials. It can be a frightful dilemma.
Law enforcement training and hostage negotiation does not go into the “training” required to obtain a concealed carry permit. Once permitted, when do you draw your gun? When you see a fight? When someone insults you with profanity? If you see someone climbing through a window?
If someone draws a gun on you, do you really have the guts to engage in the showdown? Will you duck behind a solid object and return strategic fire?
Look, you are more likely to see a fire when you walk down the street than to have a reason to pull out a gun and defend yourself. Drop the guns and carry fire extinguishers if you are all about the greater good. Otherwise admit it. You want your gun so you can feel like Rambo even though you look like Richard Simmons before or after the weight loss gig.
Is the US a Potential Major Player in Petroleum Exports?
I've been accused of suggesting "that the present spike in [oil] prices are a blip, and the US should be exporting petroleum now to take advantage of these high prices before they go down."
I admit it. I'm assuming we are in a “gold-rush” sort of environment, so yes, I’m probably assuming a blip. I’m assuming the world is in a mad dash to develop alternatives to oil and to some extent we are right up there with the leaders of the charge. I doubt oil prices will continue to increase indefinitely. But I don't have much to base this on except to say that demand will likely decrease. If supply remains constant then the price will eventually fall.
As I’m putting all this together it seems to me that no matter when we tap our reserves it will likely go onto the world market and not dedicatedly be consumed at home.
I am not so sure our untapped oil is restricted to North American Continental geography, either. For instance, we now claim responsibility for monitoring a whole shload of oil under Iraq. I'm not saying we should simply take it. But, maybe extracting it to help pay for the "protection" we apply to the arena is a reasonable expectation. Let’s help them spend THEIR money on building THEIR nation and stop spending ours.
I’m just drawing a common-sense (with minimal qualifications) argument that if alternatives can be reasonably expected to replace oil, oil we hold on to will become less valuable. We’ll either never tap it, or we’ll sell it to those who stay on oil a little longer than we do.
I think I’m using the term “reserves” loosely. Are there “strategic” reserves for military use and “reserves” that represent the rest of the oil in the world to which we now lay legit claim? I’m shooting from the hip and not in a Google type mood.
I admit it. I'm assuming we are in a “gold-rush” sort of environment, so yes, I’m probably assuming a blip. I’m assuming the world is in a mad dash to develop alternatives to oil and to some extent we are right up there with the leaders of the charge. I doubt oil prices will continue to increase indefinitely. But I don't have much to base this on except to say that demand will likely decrease. If supply remains constant then the price will eventually fall.
As I’m putting all this together it seems to me that no matter when we tap our reserves it will likely go onto the world market and not dedicatedly be consumed at home.
I am not so sure our untapped oil is restricted to North American Continental geography, either. For instance, we now claim responsibility for monitoring a whole shload of oil under Iraq. I'm not saying we should simply take it. But, maybe extracting it to help pay for the "protection" we apply to the arena is a reasonable expectation. Let’s help them spend THEIR money on building THEIR nation and stop spending ours.
I’m just drawing a common-sense (with minimal qualifications) argument that if alternatives can be reasonably expected to replace oil, oil we hold on to will become less valuable. We’ll either never tap it, or we’ll sell it to those who stay on oil a little longer than we do.
I think I’m using the term “reserves” loosely. Are there “strategic” reserves for military use and “reserves” that represent the rest of the oil in the world to which we now lay legit claim? I’m shooting from the hip and not in a Google type mood.
Long Time Comin'
The trouble with creating a Blog for me has been to get started. What topic do I begin with? Do I find old submissions I’ve made to various publications or websites? I decided to jump right in with a debate I’m having among friends at the http://hjnews.com and then put up another piece I relatively recently shared with my friends at http://kvnuforthepeople.com. Let’s see how “Bluto’s Blog" evolves! I don’t even know how to post videos or pictures with my entries yet! Ok, actually, I see how to do that now...
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)