Posts
So you're a Christian ...
There has been some talk of late about mostly ALL Americans coming from immigrants and that public speech (Prayer as it were in Hyrum on Independence Day) in Spanish should be a welcome celebration of our American culture and Independent Sovereignty.
I was pondering the Tower of Babel from the Book of Genesis. Babel translates to 'the Gate of God'. One of Noah's great grandsons (the people we truly come from if you believe in that sort of thing) is thought to have lead a charge to build a tower so high they could just walk right up to Heaven and forgo God's commanded law of righteousness on Earth. The people thought they could ignore the Law and simply and passively invade Heaven. Sound familiar?
God didn't like the attitude so he confused their tongues (invented other languages) making communication very difficult.
So what happened next? Unity or segregation?
There is no need for pride in the color of one's skin or one's cultural heritage. If you're a Christian such pride simply means you are proud of the changes on Earth brought on by Nimrod's spirited charge to Heaven.
For Americans, especially on July 4th, pride belongs with one's allegiance to the Red, White and Blue. Language isn't a matter of pride, it's about communication. In America we speak English whether our dialect be the Lingo associated with Jive, Yankee, Southern Drawl, Chicano or Valley Girl. If you move here, learn and use English when addressing strangers.
Those who move here and use pride as an excuse NOT to learn or use English establish segregation that will find us falling in division rather than standing proudly united.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Perfect Imperfection
Tonight Armando Galarraga threw 8 2/3 perfect baseball innings for the Detroit Tigers. The next batter, the 27th of the game hit a grounder to first. The first baseman fielded the ball cleanly and tossed it to a covering would-be perfect Galarraga who made an imperfect catch of the throw. The snow-cone appearance of a nearly dropped ball prompted a call of safe though replay shows the runner was out.
Travesty? Do we need official instant-replay review in baseball? Should replay be used just this once to grant perfection to Galarraga?
I say no.
If replay is to be used on this one play, then replay should be used on every play (maybe every pitch) of the game to ensure every call was solid. In fact, review should be made of each of the 20 games currently listed as 'perfect' (where available as these date back pre 1890).
There is a lot of talk that THIS PLAY justifies review and little talk of what REALLY goes into a perfect game. Great pitching is only part of the equation. Outstanding plays in the field and at least one run scored before the pitcher leaves the game are also required.
Perhaps MOST important to a perfect game isn't perfect umpiring, but, in its absence, for all bad calls to go the pitcher's way.
Travesty? Do we need official instant-replay review in baseball? Should replay be used just this once to grant perfection to Galarraga?
I say no.
If replay is to be used on this one play, then replay should be used on every play (maybe every pitch) of the game to ensure every call was solid. In fact, review should be made of each of the 20 games currently listed as 'perfect' (where available as these date back pre 1890).
There is a lot of talk that THIS PLAY justifies review and little talk of what REALLY goes into a perfect game. Great pitching is only part of the equation. Outstanding plays in the field and at least one run scored before the pitcher leaves the game are also required.
Perhaps MOST important to a perfect game isn't perfect umpiring, but, in its absence, for all bad calls to go the pitcher's way.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Shortest Bible Verse: Jesus Wept
Life is a privilege you lose by attempting suicide no matter how slow the pace.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Must Carry/Must Cover Go Hand in Hand
There is much to discuss, debate and argue with Sunday’s passing of a Health Care Reform Bill. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. My first bite follows:
Two elements of the Health Care reform package must go hand in hand, requirement of citizens to carry coverage and requirement of providers to offer ‘affordable’ coverage regardless of pre-existing condition.
With the signing of the current Health Care Reform Bill, the US Government will require private insurance providers to accept as clients patients with existing conditions. The US Government will also now impose a ‘fine’/'tax’ (actually an important distinction) on people who do not purchase some minimum of insurance.
If the Government does not make such a requirement of citizens, they render the insurance business impotent with coverage requirements as users of these services will hold incentive to simply await expensive conditions of injury or illness before buying insurance only to drop said insurance once well.
You can’t have one without the other so I believe current strategy to regard the recent Bill as unConstitutional based on the notion that the government has never required a citizen to buy a privately supplied good or service misses a mark and serves a pervasive slippery slope. One argument commonly used to support this claim is that the government already requires one to buy a minimum of automobile liability insurance. This argument is quickly marginalized by the counter that one is not mandated to drive at all let alone on public roads.
So the distinction between auto insurance and health insurance becomes that one is being required to spend money for simply living. To make that last statement accurate one must add to it the words ‘in the USA’. We’ve already a precedent from which to draw acceptance of such a statement. We must pay taxes simply for living in the USA. No American is immune nor are any visitors.
UnConstitutional? I guess to the extent paying taxes fits the bill. But you can’t really argue against a tax for not carrying insurance without arguing against requirements of insurance companies to cover existing conditions. It would be like requiring Auto insurers to allow the purchase of comprehensive coverage of a vehicle that’s already been totaled. It would be like requiring providers to accept a new fire-insurance policy on a home already burned to the ground.
One might argue they should retain the right to choose out of the insurance scheme altogether. I agree so long as one can prove enough resource to handle a certain medical burden financially and is willing to forfeit his/her rights under Acts such as “The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” or EMTALA which take away a Dr.’s right to refuse care based on inability to pay for it. Ahhh, but now I’m nibbling on yet another piece of pachyderm.
More to follow.
Two elements of the Health Care reform package must go hand in hand, requirement of citizens to carry coverage and requirement of providers to offer ‘affordable’ coverage regardless of pre-existing condition.
With the signing of the current Health Care Reform Bill, the US Government will require private insurance providers to accept as clients patients with existing conditions. The US Government will also now impose a ‘fine’/'tax’ (actually an important distinction) on people who do not purchase some minimum of insurance.
If the Government does not make such a requirement of citizens, they render the insurance business impotent with coverage requirements as users of these services will hold incentive to simply await expensive conditions of injury or illness before buying insurance only to drop said insurance once well.
You can’t have one without the other so I believe current strategy to regard the recent Bill as unConstitutional based on the notion that the government has never required a citizen to buy a privately supplied good or service misses a mark and serves a pervasive slippery slope. One argument commonly used to support this claim is that the government already requires one to buy a minimum of automobile liability insurance. This argument is quickly marginalized by the counter that one is not mandated to drive at all let alone on public roads.
So the distinction between auto insurance and health insurance becomes that one is being required to spend money for simply living. To make that last statement accurate one must add to it the words ‘in the USA’. We’ve already a precedent from which to draw acceptance of such a statement. We must pay taxes simply for living in the USA. No American is immune nor are any visitors.
UnConstitutional? I guess to the extent paying taxes fits the bill. But you can’t really argue against a tax for not carrying insurance without arguing against requirements of insurance companies to cover existing conditions. It would be like requiring Auto insurers to allow the purchase of comprehensive coverage of a vehicle that’s already been totaled. It would be like requiring providers to accept a new fire-insurance policy on a home already burned to the ground.
One might argue they should retain the right to choose out of the insurance scheme altogether. I agree so long as one can prove enough resource to handle a certain medical burden financially and is willing to forfeit his/her rights under Acts such as “The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act” or EMTALA which take away a Dr.’s right to refuse care based on inability to pay for it. Ahhh, but now I’m nibbling on yet another piece of pachyderm.
More to follow.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Marijuana: A Realistic Approach
Marijuana: From Reefer Madness to Fast Times at Ridgemont High, it is imbedded in our culture and has come to mean different things to different people. However most treatment of Marijuana, Hemp or just plain THC seems at least loosely entrenched in myth and emotion.
Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one's health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.
Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/
One common myth-based argument against it's legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a 'gateway' drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it's only a 'gateway' drug BECAUSE it's illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside. The 'gateway drug' myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.
On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance. I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.
Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply the congregation and compete with major marketers of good beer. By comparison to sharing one's latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner's Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.
Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.
Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.
Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It's difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.
In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement. Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.
Probably the most notable and oft sited myth stems from the notion that Marijuana is particularly and unreasonably harmful to one's health and to society in general. By comparison to alcohol (black marketing aside) the harm Pot causes to society, the physical body or state of mind is minimal.
Reefer even holds real medicinal value. This is not a myth revealed by a grassroots movement to pervasively bring about legalization through some backdoor. Marijuana truly IS useful in treating side-effects associated with certain cancer or tumor treatments. It holds value as a pain killer. As a non-physically addictive psychotropic it can be used as a treatment for depression or anxiety disorders. It reduces symptoms of conditions such as Glaucoma. In fact, evidence exists that Pot smokers tend not to get cancers of ANY kind.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/
One common myth-based argument against it's legalization is the consideration of Marijuana as a 'gateway' drug that leads to other MORE harmful behaviors. While there is truth that Pot can lead to other behaviors, I postulate that it's only a 'gateway' drug BECAUSE it's illegal. Once one crosses the line into illicit drug activity, the barriers to cocaine, meth, LSD and heroin break down. If MJ were off the list of illicit drugs, the gateway effect would largely subside. The 'gateway drug' myth is hardly a legitimate argument for keeping Weed illegal.
On the other hand, advocates often perpetuate the myth that legalization of Marijuana will alleviate society of all ills associated with the substance. I think hasty legalization would bring with it a certain set of societal ills some old and some new. I think we are far from prepared for the consequences of all out legalization.
Perhaps the greatest burden to our society brought on by Marijuana stems from black market sales and all obvious associated pitfalls therein. One hurdle to overcome before legalization can realistically occur is the handling of Pot as a free-market competition and tax issue. Marijuana is very easy to grow. It would be relatively easy for a Weed farmer to grow enough Pot to supply the entire neighborhood whereas a brewer of beer would have to set up quite an operation to supply the congregation and compete with major marketers of good beer. By comparison to sharing one's latest crop of tomatoes and peppers from the garden for a pittance at the Gardner's Market, one could make a decent living growing only Weed in a small room or back yard lending allure to black market tax evasion made easier by society-wide acceptance of use.
Legit entrepreneurs would have to face regulations and liabilities similar to those faced by distillers of alcoholic beverages but bootleggers might undermine the finer points of free-market treatment for THC with little effort. If growing Weed is legalized without complicated regulation, the market remains underground and this is a bad thing.
Perhaps regulation could involve offering grow permits for a fee per plant, per year. To reduce the enticement for bootlegging, stiff penalties for growing without a permit and for black market sales are in order.
Regardless, with legalization the ATF becomes the ATMF or some such acronym inclusive of THC representation and none of it will happen until the challenges associated with sobriety measurement are met. It's difficult now to chemically detect how much time has passed since THC ingestion by an individual though technology is getting better. This has relevance to DUI enforcement and workplace management.
In conclusion, my experience has been that realism lacks from the perspectives of each side of the Marijuana legalization movement. Once the true value associated with this plant is realized and once the true pitfalls associated with a Libertarian-style free-for-all on the substance are acknowledged, Prohibition of THC and Hemp as marketable products might find its end.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Franklin's Famous Words Misused
Though many variations find their way into our conversations (especially since 9/11), Franklin once wrote in quotes in his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
A paraphrased version inevitably pops up in virtually every conversation involving airport security crackdowns. I find this a misuse of the phrase. Often when it’s applied, the user is really complaining about inconvenience rather than poetically citing an unjust sacrifice of Essential Liberty.
When you strap on your seat belt, what Essential Liberty is being taken from you? Driving isn’t a right to begin with. You are still free to choose whether or not to buckle up or whether to drive in the first place. I say it’s an inconvenience worth the sacrifice.
What about Child-Proof caps and safety seals on meds? Is this a sacrifice of Essential Liberty or an inconvenience that saves lives from being taken by those with sinister minds?
Sure an all-out ban on guns would suit Franklin's terminology. But, when we talk about full-body scanners (The most recent heat applied to the topic of Airport Security), we talk about inconvenience not Essential Liberty. What freedom is one sacrificing to wait an extra hour to board a trans-Atlantic flight? How much time would it have taken Franklin to cross an ocean? I fear he would not sympathize for or empathize with those using his immortal phrase to justify disdain for inconvenience.
A paraphrased version inevitably pops up in virtually every conversation involving airport security crackdowns. I find this a misuse of the phrase. Often when it’s applied, the user is really complaining about inconvenience rather than poetically citing an unjust sacrifice of Essential Liberty.
When you strap on your seat belt, what Essential Liberty is being taken from you? Driving isn’t a right to begin with. You are still free to choose whether or not to buckle up or whether to drive in the first place. I say it’s an inconvenience worth the sacrifice.
What about Child-Proof caps and safety seals on meds? Is this a sacrifice of Essential Liberty or an inconvenience that saves lives from being taken by those with sinister minds?
Sure an all-out ban on guns would suit Franklin's terminology. But, when we talk about full-body scanners (The most recent heat applied to the topic of Airport Security), we talk about inconvenience not Essential Liberty. What freedom is one sacrificing to wait an extra hour to board a trans-Atlantic flight? How much time would it have taken Franklin to cross an ocean? I fear he would not sympathize for or empathize with those using his immortal phrase to justify disdain for inconvenience.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Powell Mystery Overshadows Latest Discovery
The Nation is following a story involving a missing-Utahn named Susan Powell. Today a body was found near Wendover. Another story worthy of Nationwide scrutiny is that of a Utah cop who was shot and killed during a traffic stop in Millard County.
Today was the day of Josie Fox's Memorial Service and shortly thereafter (if not during) all relevant media providers scrambled for the even-further, west desert to capture a scoop. A body had been discovered wrapped in plastic and duct tape. After MANY reports anticipating a BREAK in an ongoing story, hours of 'feeling the story out' dealt a mustached, 'Hispanic' male cadaver.
Still, pieces reported moved to more speculation on the missing Mrs. Powell without the slightest consideration for who this dead man might be.
Beyond that, left behind is a current mystery involving unfolding details of Fox's case including her own brother's involvement in the alleged transaction that lead to her being ordered to make a stop on her executioner.
What gives? The scoop or what is actually going on? Do we consumers of media demand this sort of hype?
Invasion of the Body Scanners
I’m not convinced pride is the best argument against using full Body Scanners at airport security check points, though I understand why passengers sporting colostomy appliances, catheter tubes, penile implants or evidence of mastectomies might strongly support alternative measures (arguments the ACLU has made).
My concerns stem from ignorance more than anything. First I wonder to what extent this type of radiation might prove less than healthy in the long-run for frequent fliers. Second, I wonder if a device like this would even detect explosives such as those sewn into the underwear of our latest would-be mass murderer. Even if it would, do we know it will make apparent EVERY explosive that can be made into clothing?
Are we just chasing our own tails with this stuff? What are the unintended consequences associated with total reliance on this type of expenditure? When ‘The Club’ came out as an anti-theft device, car-thieves became car-jackers, a far more sinister plot.
Those who intend to harm us will find another way. They will adapt even evolve like the Swine Flu. They are not going to make attempts they know will fail which might explain why we don’t hear too many (if any) stories of airport security foiling a terror plot.
Alternatives? Do we even need any? Any alternative will be met with the evolution of our enemies. I’m not suggesting we make it easier for terrorists to bring down an airliner, but it seems airport security is doing fairly well given the history of flight into and out of the USA. I fear a full body scan might actually do harm by leading to complacency and a very narrow focus on only things the eye can see with the aid of scanner technology.
My concerns stem from ignorance more than anything. First I wonder to what extent this type of radiation might prove less than healthy in the long-run for frequent fliers. Second, I wonder if a device like this would even detect explosives such as those sewn into the underwear of our latest would-be mass murderer. Even if it would, do we know it will make apparent EVERY explosive that can be made into clothing?
Are we just chasing our own tails with this stuff? What are the unintended consequences associated with total reliance on this type of expenditure? When ‘The Club’ came out as an anti-theft device, car-thieves became car-jackers, a far more sinister plot.
Those who intend to harm us will find another way. They will adapt even evolve like the Swine Flu. They are not going to make attempts they know will fail which might explain why we don’t hear too many (if any) stories of airport security foiling a terror plot.
Alternatives? Do we even need any? Any alternative will be met with the evolution of our enemies. I’m not suggesting we make it easier for terrorists to bring down an airliner, but it seems airport security is doing fairly well given the history of flight into and out of the USA. I fear a full body scan might actually do harm by leading to complacency and a very narrow focus on only things the eye can see with the aid of scanner technology.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Faith-Based Control Alive and Well
Though some of Utah's alcohol regs have changed recently, entrepreneurs still need permission from Religious leaders to hold licenses to serve alcohol within 200' of Church property.
Why don't Religious leaders have to ask Atheists or Agnostics for permission to put up buildings like Churches near bars, residential neighborhoods, schools or shopping centers?
I think faith based indoctrination is far MORE dangerous than is the potential for political brain-washing of our children through live and/or televised speeches by our political leadership.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
On Fascism
Let's face it. The word 'Fascism' has become a buzz word widely accepted as terminology representing the view that a new Hitler/Dictator is on the way. Fascism is everyone's enemy and both sides use it against the other. Ironically, though, Fascism is the the enemy of both conservatism and liberalism as 'one party rules all' is the very definition of the term.
Most telling to me: It seems the conservatives these days are those who seem to insist on a one party system. It is they screaming 'sour grapes', 'wanting their country back' and telling the rest of us that you're only a 'great American' if you are one of them.
The point is moot. We will never have a one party system. We will never have a dictator. What we will have are a lot of screaming hypocrites coming at us from both sides.
The point is moot. We will never have a one party system. We will never have a dictator. What we will have are a lot of screaming hypocrites coming at us from both sides.
On Libs vs. 'Cons
I'm tired of loosely flung terminology like, 'Anti-American, or Great-American'. These terms seem to fling from the right by my estimation and it smells like simple sour grapes.
They are not capable of holding office anywhere. Please don't lend credence to their day-in and day-out drivel.
They've turned American governance into a reality show.
It just ain't right. "
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Med School Not What it Used to Be
Why would ANYONE go to Med School in this environment?
They are NEVER allowed to make mistakes.
It takes a fortune to set up a practice that might land you in jail because after you perform some sort of simple surgery your foolish patient didn't take his antibiotics and change his bandage rendering said patient gangrenous and in need of amputation and a kidney-damaging bombardment of meds.
Our government is preparing to make good on a half-century-old promise to go social on the med profession.
A few reasons not to go to med school:
Doctors can never refuse care to you even if they can rest assured you will not pay them for their service.
They are NEVER allowed to make mistakes.
It takes a fortune to set up a practice that might land you in jail because after you perform some sort of simple surgery your foolish patient didn't take his antibiotics and change his bandage rendering said patient gangrenous and in need of amputation and a kidney-damaging bombardment of meds.
What if being a Chef held the same expectations as being an MD? You could never refuse someone service for unwillingness to pay meaning you have to feed everyone who walks in ... and feed them well lest you be held accountable for a substandard meal. If your customer isn't offered first priority over your other slave-driving customers somehow you are not doing your job. Wait, that sounds a lot like what people expect when going to a restaurant credit card in hand. Why do people expect to walk,crawl or be wheeled in to a medical facility for free?
Face it folks, on Med Care, entitlement is driving this without consideration for the insane amount of schooling, insuring and accountability that goes into being that guy or gal YOU insist make your life more comfortable if not downright save it from YOU.
Face it folks, on Med Care, entitlement is driving this without consideration for the insane amount of schooling, insuring and accountability that goes into being that guy or gal YOU insist make your life more comfortable if not downright save it from YOU.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Open Forum
All my HJ friends and enemies.
Let's talk about the HJ's interest in who they think post under multiple monikers.
Who cares?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Do You Feel Safer?
So I keep hearing/seeing the question, "Do you feel safer."
"Safer?"
Why a comparative analysis? Safer than I did before 9/11? On 9/11? Since? Since Obama took Office? Now that Bush is gone?Why is it on Obama to make me feel "safer" than I did 102 days ago? Were we less than safe then?
Frankly I've never really feared any foreign invasion and still do not. Maybe for a second on 9/11 but even then I don't think I felt less than safe. After watching Red Dawn as a teenager I probably welcomed an invasion somewhere deep down inside. No, when it comes to safe, I'd bet most would agree that domestic threats are more taxing on the ole confidence quotient. Hell they just arrested two kids for plotting a blood bath at my old High School (Covina High).
"Do you feel safer" is a rhetorical ploy to target Obama for any future attack and to make the assertion that YOU are NOT SAFE now that he's in charge. It's another 'failure' for which Limbaugh hopes and prays/preys.
"Safer?"
Why a comparative analysis? Safer than I did before 9/11? On 9/11? Since? Since Obama took Office? Now that Bush is gone?Why is it on Obama to make me feel "safer" than I did 102 days ago? Were we less than safe then?
Frankly I've never really feared any foreign invasion and still do not. Maybe for a second on 9/11 but even then I don't think I felt less than safe. After watching Red Dawn as a teenager I probably welcomed an invasion somewhere deep down inside. No, when it comes to safe, I'd bet most would agree that domestic threats are more taxing on the ole confidence quotient. Hell they just arrested two kids for plotting a blood bath at my old High School (Covina High).
"Do you feel safer" is a rhetorical ploy to target Obama for any future attack and to make the assertion that YOU are NOT SAFE now that he's in charge. It's another 'failure' for which Limbaugh hopes and prays/preys.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Enhanced Interrogation Like Swine Flu
Viruses want us dead and they will stop at nothing to make it so. They will even stoop so low as to adapt to our methods for fighting them off.
Question: Why doesn’t the USA generally fear torture and it’s effectiveness against America abroad?
Answer: Because we know our enemies will do it and we have trained our soldiers to deal with it. We also keep information distribution down to a need-to-know basis.
Enhanced Interrogation by the CIA might have yielded some results during our struggle with Terror. If so, I submit techniques employed brought truths to fruition only because our enemies did not believe we’d do it. They were ill prepared. Now they will adapt and be prepared.
Question: Why doesn’t the USA generally fear torture and it’s effectiveness against America abroad?
Answer: Because we know our enemies will do it and we have trained our soldiers to deal with it. We also keep information distribution down to a need-to-know basis.
Enhanced Interrogation by the CIA might have yielded some results during our struggle with Terror. If so, I submit techniques employed brought truths to fruition only because our enemies did not believe we’d do it. They were ill prepared. Now they will adapt and be prepared.
How long before we move on to cutting off toes or scorching genitals because our enemies have learned to tolerate this less than torturous thing called water boarding? If it isn't "torture" how hard can it be to adapt to?
When did the best we can do become brutality leading to fear of the innocuous water board? Our enemies are willing to cut your head off slowly in front of someone else to make them talk. How can waterboarding compare to that? It's like taking a thumb tack to a gun fight. It's like answering a nuclear bomb with severe name calling.
If torture is our best bet for gathering intel, we clearly have a problem. I'd rather rest assured I live in the smartest country on Earth with the greatest and most creative surveillance and information gathering techniques.
I hope we can do better!
If torture was effective, we’ve spent our last chance for it to be so. I hope the information gleaned from it was worth the effort.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Open Forum
There have been a couple topics of discussion deleted from the HJ site recently.
One, the Peterson USU BJ in the steam room thang,
Two, the funeral respecting a family's sacrifice in Iraq.
My take is that neither dialogue should have been deleted though the dialogue got "out of hand". There is a balance of argument there. No one should go there while grieving yet if they do they should be prepared to take the good with the bad. I can see how the Alleman family could stand tall with clenched fists whilst the rest of us beat up on Desertique who believes funerals are appropriate venues for protest. That said, the only problem I really have with her comments is the venue she chose for expressing this view. I didn't catch the entire dialogue but I do remember going through it just before deletion and thinking there was an extreme view pushing her over the edge.
Let's talk right here.
One, the Peterson USU BJ in the steam room thang,
Two, the funeral respecting a family's sacrifice in Iraq.
My take is that neither dialogue should have been deleted though the dialogue got "out of hand". There is a balance of argument there. No one should go there while grieving yet if they do they should be prepared to take the good with the bad. I can see how the Alleman family could stand tall with clenched fists whilst the rest of us beat up on Desertique who believes funerals are appropriate venues for protest. That said, the only problem I really have with her comments is the venue she chose for expressing this view. I didn't catch the entire dialogue but I do remember going through it just before deletion and thinking there was an extreme view pushing her over the edge.
Let's talk right here.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sex, Roles and Performance Enhancement at the Academy
Why offer Academy awards to best actor and actress? Why not best black act and best white act? Best straight act and best gay act? Why even supporting role designations? Ledger’s supporting roll was far more moving than most leads and might have rivaled any top performance.
On the other hand, he may have used performance enhancers. Would using deadly, illicit drugs to "get into a role" parallel Bonds' bringing himself to his world class peak at the ripe ole age of 40?
On the other hand, he may have used performance enhancers. Would using deadly, illicit drugs to "get into a role" parallel Bonds' bringing himself to his world class peak at the ripe ole age of 40?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Exclusive GLBTA too Inclusive
Let's talk about the acronym GLBTA for a second. I say the movement needs to drop it if they insist homosexuality is a born trait and no one should deny the way things were meant to be.
If that insistence holds Nature's endorsement, then why do Trannies do it? How can they justify the "Nature got it wrong" approach to maiming their own bodies?
When denying this as a moral issue, the GLBTA holds a platform that dictates, "We have no choice." Couldn't a homosexual become a Catholic Priest or even Cardinal and simply abstain? Couldn't someone born Bi stay true to their Church's moral standard by dating only the opposite gender? They may crave others of the same gender much like your average hetero married for 7 years or more ogles hotties of the opposite gender. It doesn't matter where you get your appetite as long as you eat at home.
They say one word should fit all with "Marriage" but if that word is to be used to define the gender make up of a relationship we have a civil rights issue on our hands; yet, we MUST remember to define male homosexuals as Gay and females Lesbian.
So why the Alliance? Strength in numbers? Maybe a more appropriate acronym would read ALSD: Alliance for Lives Sexually Defined.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Run On!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)