Posts
Tonight in the debate the idea came up of new special advantages for Veterans in the form of money going to people who hire Veterans over Civilians.
Ron Paul had it right. While there needs to be a call for help in the form of medical care both physical and psychological for our Vets, we don't need to be segregating ourselves into special groups who deserve work over others based on arbitrary means.
Let employers simply hire the best man or woman for the job and stop incentivizing the development of social compartmentalization.
To say Veterans should hold priority over Civilians for jobs is to impose a draft by proxy.
Born in the USA - The Boss
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
Alec Baldwin Melt Down Telling
Rudy Giuliani was a guest on Piers Morgan's CNN show tonight. Alec Baldwin became a topic of conversation as the guy who was wrongfully removed from an American Airlines flight for reading his Kindle.
I assume Morgan struck this line of questioning with Giuliani for reasons of proximity to Baldwin's career and a posture of higher thinking on results attainable by hijackers of planes.
It breaks down like this: Baldwin, Giuliani and Morgan believe they are not harming anyone by using electronic devices on planes especially when they make specific selections on their electronic devices that disable Internet communication. I know none of them are airline pilots or affiliated in any way with the FAA, yet they have one large soapbox upon which to stand for poo-pooing FFA regs.
Never mind that we've all heard that 'motorboating' sound when a cell phone is too close to our speakers or microphones. These high falutin' celebrities are sure American Airlines is engaged in simple tyranny by not wanting ANYONE, not just Baldwin, activating electronic devices during certain segments of travel.
I think they know best, actually ... the FAA and American Airlines that is. I mean if Travolta was raising a stink about this I might be remotely interested in their argument that pilots of planes have no reason to fear technology in the fuselage. But I guarantee Giuliani was asked to turn off his Kindle, his Smart Phone and his pace maker for the interview inspiring my very words.
So my p0int is this: Do Americans really believe that airliners are simply interested in tyranny? Do we believe they just don't know which devices may or may not cause trouble so they say we can't have any of them on their flights? I suggest to you they know exactly what sort of trouble electronic devices can cause. They have their reasons for not wanting devices engaged during the flight. Maybe one of those reasons is that policing the 'disable' function on various technologies is far from reasonable for Airlines. They have far too many responsibilities for that (like serving Baldwin his favorite beverage all the while kissing his pompous ass), so a ban is the simplest solution. Yet Baldwin believes himself above all that. " Don't you know who I am? I'm Alec Fucking Baldwin!"
I ask of a laughing Giuliani who should be most aware: Do you now see a reason people shouldn't bring box cutters on board? I mean I have mine to clean my nails, but what about you Mr. Mayor? Why do you have yours and how do I know the safety catch isn't unhitched?
Furthermore Mr. Mayor, given you know planes can be hijacked with simple box cutters and no one had before considered them a threat, might you not suffer from a closed mind if you don't see that some folks on planes might say they've disengaged their laptops, but really haven't? Even I, a West Coaster who wasn't there that day can see that terrorists will use means we've not considered to achieve their ends. Does some dude with a laptop and seemingly kind intentions have to use his laptop to commandeer an airliner before you finally get it into your skull that the experts ought to be left alone to stay one step ahead of people who want to take control of flying buses full of Americans and crash land them into other Americans?
If there is one thing Giuliani should have learned from 9/11, it's the simplicity with which terrorist strikes can be initiated. Mr. Mayor, please, put some trust in the experts on this and stop calling for relaxed measures so your hero Baldwin can get his Twitter account back!
I am God - Alec Baldwin
I assume Morgan struck this line of questioning with Giuliani for reasons of proximity to Baldwin's career and a posture of higher thinking on results attainable by hijackers of planes.
It breaks down like this: Baldwin, Giuliani and Morgan believe they are not harming anyone by using electronic devices on planes especially when they make specific selections on their electronic devices that disable Internet communication. I know none of them are airline pilots or affiliated in any way with the FAA, yet they have one large soapbox upon which to stand for poo-pooing FFA regs.
Never mind that we've all heard that 'motorboating' sound when a cell phone is too close to our speakers or microphones. These high falutin' celebrities are sure American Airlines is engaged in simple tyranny by not wanting ANYONE, not just Baldwin, activating electronic devices during certain segments of travel.
I think they know best, actually ... the FAA and American Airlines that is. I mean if Travolta was raising a stink about this I might be remotely interested in their argument that pilots of planes have no reason to fear technology in the fuselage. But I guarantee Giuliani was asked to turn off his Kindle, his Smart Phone and his pace maker for the interview inspiring my very words.
So my p0int is this: Do Americans really believe that airliners are simply interested in tyranny? Do we believe they just don't know which devices may or may not cause trouble so they say we can't have any of them on their flights? I suggest to you they know exactly what sort of trouble electronic devices can cause. They have their reasons for not wanting devices engaged during the flight. Maybe one of those reasons is that policing the 'disable' function on various technologies is far from reasonable for Airlines. They have far too many responsibilities for that (like serving Baldwin his favorite beverage all the while kissing his pompous ass), so a ban is the simplest solution. Yet Baldwin believes himself above all that. " Don't you know who I am? I'm Alec Fucking Baldwin!"
I ask of a laughing Giuliani who should be most aware: Do you now see a reason people shouldn't bring box cutters on board? I mean I have mine to clean my nails, but what about you Mr. Mayor? Why do you have yours and how do I know the safety catch isn't unhitched?
Furthermore Mr. Mayor, given you know planes can be hijacked with simple box cutters and no one had before considered them a threat, might you not suffer from a closed mind if you don't see that some folks on planes might say they've disengaged their laptops, but really haven't? Even I, a West Coaster who wasn't there that day can see that terrorists will use means we've not considered to achieve their ends. Does some dude with a laptop and seemingly kind intentions have to use his laptop to commandeer an airliner before you finally get it into your skull that the experts ought to be left alone to stay one step ahead of people who want to take control of flying buses full of Americans and crash land them into other Americans?
If there is one thing Giuliani should have learned from 9/11, it's the simplicity with which terrorist strikes can be initiated. Mr. Mayor, please, put some trust in the experts on this and stop calling for relaxed measures so your hero Baldwin can get his Twitter account back!
I am God - Alec Baldwin
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Have You Earned Your Freedom?
During a paid 3 minute sermon on the radio a preacher posed the question, "What have you done to earn your freedom? Are you a taker? Think about it." He asked this after framing the signers of our Declaration of Independence as mostly people who sacrificed their lives or were ultimately arrested and tortured.
I say the Founding Fathers did not make such sacrifice so we would have to do it, too. They didn't give their lives so their children would do the same. They did it so we wouldn't have to.
On a similar note, while I respect our soldiers and appreciate the sacrifice some of them have made, some of them come home with chips on their shoulders. Some of them will ask similar questions of civilians, "What have you done to earn your freedom. I fought so you can have rights ..."
I endured such ridicule at the hands of a former friend who didn't agree with my line of reason on this topic. He had signed up for the military during a time of peace though he saw combat duty in Bosnia. He believes I as a civilian owe him something for that and that his status as a Combat Veteran trumps my right to free speech. Some how I should not even comment on Freedom since I did nothing directly to earn the right.
Well, he was paid for his service. He has his benefits. He was taught skills and all he had to do was sign up. He didn't have to interview or tryout for his position. He simply volunteered to be told exactly what to do and when to do it. He knew what he was signing up for. If he was signing up so to have a leg up on we lowly civilians, then he took that job for all the wrong reasons.
I will gladly thank soldiers for doing their jobs as I will do for construction workers and grocery clerks. I think it's time some on high horses found time to thank all productive Americans for sacrificing their time, for risking their lives during the commute if not directly on the job and for being part of the greatest economy the world has ever seen.
I will thank the Founding Fathers for my freedom and for the sacrifices they made so that I could be born with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and I will not feel guilty for not 'earning' these rights as defined by certain elitists.
I'm Free - The Who
I say the Founding Fathers did not make such sacrifice so we would have to do it, too. They didn't give their lives so their children would do the same. They did it so we wouldn't have to.
On a similar note, while I respect our soldiers and appreciate the sacrifice some of them have made, some of them come home with chips on their shoulders. Some of them will ask similar questions of civilians, "What have you done to earn your freedom. I fought so you can have rights ..."
I endured such ridicule at the hands of a former friend who didn't agree with my line of reason on this topic. He had signed up for the military during a time of peace though he saw combat duty in Bosnia. He believes I as a civilian owe him something for that and that his status as a Combat Veteran trumps my right to free speech. Some how I should not even comment on Freedom since I did nothing directly to earn the right.
Well, he was paid for his service. He has his benefits. He was taught skills and all he had to do was sign up. He didn't have to interview or tryout for his position. He simply volunteered to be told exactly what to do and when to do it. He knew what he was signing up for. If he was signing up so to have a leg up on we lowly civilians, then he took that job for all the wrong reasons.
I will gladly thank soldiers for doing their jobs as I will do for construction workers and grocery clerks. I think it's time some on high horses found time to thank all productive Americans for sacrificing their time, for risking their lives during the commute if not directly on the job and for being part of the greatest economy the world has ever seen.
I will thank the Founding Fathers for my freedom and for the sacrifices they made so that I could be born with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and I will not feel guilty for not 'earning' these rights as defined by certain elitists.
I'm Free - The Who
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
My Jerry Mcguire Moment
In construction there are fire codes. One method to contain out-of-control fire is to build a barrier so that the heat of a fire would take 1 or 2 hours to burn through. Another is to fully fire-sprinkler a building. Fire sprinklers have an outstanding track record for containing fire. Yet in a fully-sprinklered building, we still find compartmentalization defined by rated-walls.
If properly designed, installed and functioning fire sprinklers are as effective as I suggest, then why fire rated walls? The answer is simple. We must consider the possibility of water supply breakage or fire sprinkler malfunction. I say that is a reasonable concern.
But sometimes these rated walls are made out of glass. Fire-rated glass is VERY expensive, so architects and builders need an alternative. They need a way to make fragile and not-so-fire-resistant glass to maintain a 1 or 2 hour rating in certain applications. So what did they do you ask, almost rhetorically? I will tell you! They decided to use special-application fire-sprinklers to solve the problem. The codes that apply to this situation, the sprinklers involved and the volume of water intended to keep every square inch of the glass wet in case of out-of-control fire is also expensive and often aesthetically displeasing.
In short, we need rated walls in case the fire sprinkler system fails, yet in some cases we need to count on the fire sprinkler system to tally a certain rating for our fire-rated walls. If the sprinklers work, we don't need the rated walls ...
Yes, I earn a living in the fire-sprinkler industry and benefit from this sort of bureaucratic nonsense. But like Jerry Mcguire, I have an internal ethic that just doesn't know when to keep its mouth shut!
If properly designed, installed and functioning fire sprinklers are as effective as I suggest, then why fire rated walls? The answer is simple. We must consider the possibility of water supply breakage or fire sprinkler malfunction. I say that is a reasonable concern.
But sometimes these rated walls are made out of glass. Fire-rated glass is VERY expensive, so architects and builders need an alternative. They need a way to make fragile and not-so-fire-resistant glass to maintain a 1 or 2 hour rating in certain applications. So what did they do you ask, almost rhetorically? I will tell you! They decided to use special-application fire-sprinklers to solve the problem. The codes that apply to this situation, the sprinklers involved and the volume of water intended to keep every square inch of the glass wet in case of out-of-control fire is also expensive and often aesthetically displeasing.
In short, we need rated walls in case the fire sprinkler system fails, yet in some cases we need to count on the fire sprinkler system to tally a certain rating for our fire-rated walls. If the sprinklers work, we don't need the rated walls ...
Yes, I earn a living in the fire-sprinkler industry and benefit from this sort of bureaucratic nonsense. But like Jerry Mcguire, I have an internal ethic that just doesn't know when to keep its mouth shut!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Breaking News
Broadcasters have lost touch with the words "Breaking News". I watch a lot of CNN. Since 9/11 I believe the words "Breaking News" have burned themselves into my Television Monitor. They're using the term loosely to grab your attention but the 'cry-wolf' syndrome and law of diminishing returns have to eventually kick in.
Before the turn of the century it seems to me news was broken down into Sports, Weather, Latest News, Developing Stories and Breaking News. Breaking News was rare.
Breaking News is not a story that developed a couple hours ago. Breaking News is something developing as we watch. It doesn't come with pre-packaged pieces edited with well-written commentary. There isn't time for that. What we see the likes of Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace dubbing "Breaking News" is generally what ought to be considered "The Latest".
Someone employed by Rupert Murdock needs to pull the reins on the term before it is squeezed dry of all meaning. Go back to terms like "The Latest" so that when we see "Breaking News" we actually watch with the anticipation of old.
Of course, I recognize they use "Breaking News" as a sales pitch. I don't buy it anymore. Do you?
Before the turn of the century it seems to me news was broken down into Sports, Weather, Latest News, Developing Stories and Breaking News. Breaking News was rare.
Breaking News is not a story that developed a couple hours ago. Breaking News is something developing as we watch. It doesn't come with pre-packaged pieces edited with well-written commentary. There isn't time for that. What we see the likes of Anderson Cooper and Nancy Grace dubbing "Breaking News" is generally what ought to be considered "The Latest".
Someone employed by Rupert Murdock needs to pull the reins on the term before it is squeezed dry of all meaning. Go back to terms like "The Latest" so that when we see "Breaking News" we actually watch with the anticipation of old.
Of course, I recognize they use "Breaking News" as a sales pitch. I don't buy it anymore. Do you?
Our Amusing Trip to Lagoon
We've been planning a trip to Lagoon (Utah's answer to the amusement park scene) for weeks. We decided that the day before school starts would be a great way to wrap up the summer.
We prepared our picnic and sort of had fun mapping out what we'd do with our day once we got there. We checked the Lagoon website to determine what time they opened and got there a half-hour early anticipating having the park to ourselves on a weekday.
Driving up we noted the lack of activity and cars in the parking lot. As we got closer I started wondering where the employees parked. I started wondering, 'Don't the workers get here a little early to open up the park?'
We rolled up to the parking attendant booths noticing a couple driving away looking a bit miffed. In big letters the sign read, "Open Weekends Only for Remainder of Season".
It was my Clark Griswold moment. Tuesday was the second day of their new Fall schedule. Oh, the disappointment in the eyes of my 11 and 6-year-old was unbearable.
All was not lost. Quick thinking landed us at Boondock's (Typical Fun Park/bowling alley/mini-golf facility) for an 11 hour romp. I think we had more fun playing laser tag, bumper boats, go karts, mini-golf and video games than we could have had sweating it out at Lagoon and Tuesday was discount day for unlimited passes at Boondock's.
I guess our not-so-close reading of the Lagoon online-calendar yielded a serendipitous event that my children both remarked they'd never forget.
We prepared our picnic and sort of had fun mapping out what we'd do with our day once we got there. We checked the Lagoon website to determine what time they opened and got there a half-hour early anticipating having the park to ourselves on a weekday.
Driving up we noted the lack of activity and cars in the parking lot. As we got closer I started wondering where the employees parked. I started wondering, 'Don't the workers get here a little early to open up the park?'
We rolled up to the parking attendant booths noticing a couple driving away looking a bit miffed. In big letters the sign read, "Open Weekends Only for Remainder of Season".
It was my Clark Griswold moment. Tuesday was the second day of their new Fall schedule. Oh, the disappointment in the eyes of my 11 and 6-year-old was unbearable.
All was not lost. Quick thinking landed us at Boondock's (Typical Fun Park/bowling alley/mini-golf facility) for an 11 hour romp. I think we had more fun playing laser tag, bumper boats, go karts, mini-golf and video games than we could have had sweating it out at Lagoon and Tuesday was discount day for unlimited passes at Boondock's.
I guess our not-so-close reading of the Lagoon online-calendar yielded a serendipitous event that my children both remarked they'd never forget.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Vulgarity alert!
I want all American politicians, from the President of the USA on down, to stop fucking standing in front of cameras to tell me what you are TRYING to do and how you have fucking opponents who are trying to stop you.
GET IT FUCKING DONE! I don't have a vote in the immediate process so any time you spend soliciting 'my support' is a waste of YOUR fucking time and MY fucking time.
Do your fucking job, and we'll evaluate it next election!
FUCK!
GET IT FUCKING DONE! I don't have a vote in the immediate process so any time you spend soliciting 'my support' is a waste of YOUR fucking time and MY fucking time.
Do your fucking job, and we'll evaluate it next election!
FUCK!
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Rapture
The end of the world is nigh. Or so they say. But who are they? Based on results, they are fools it seems.
Anyone who picks a date is a nut because no one has ever correctly proven a specific date for apocalypse. If someone ever gets it right, it might not really matter.
Seemingly universal belief among at least Christians, is that the end will come and there will be Rapture for the believers.
Who are the believers? Those who fear death now that the end cometh nigh? Those who Believe, now? Those who Repent for Sins, for Regrets?
Who are the real nuts? Everyone knows the difference. The real moon-howlers are they who believe not the end is nigh, but the end is upon us ... NOW!
This will reign true until the end of time!
And even then, those who live their lives true to themselves, true to their own souls ... those who don't need to die when everyone else dies, but who could die alone ... they will surely reap some reward not available to the rest.
Rapture - Blondie
Lyrics to Rapture
Anyone who picks a date is a nut because no one has ever correctly proven a specific date for apocalypse. If someone ever gets it right, it might not really matter.
Seemingly universal belief among at least Christians, is that the end will come and there will be Rapture for the believers.
Who are the believers? Those who fear death now that the end cometh nigh? Those who Believe, now? Those who Repent for Sins, for Regrets?
Who are the real nuts? Everyone knows the difference. The real moon-howlers are they who believe not the end is nigh, but the end is upon us ... NOW!
This will reign true until the end of time!
And even then, those who live their lives true to themselves, true to their own souls ... those who don't need to die when everyone else dies, but who could die alone ... they will surely reap some reward not available to the rest.
Rapture - Blondie
Lyrics to Rapture
Friday, May 13, 2011
This just in: Being Born Alive Linked to Death
Hyrum - Recently released studies reveal that 100% of deaths of humans of any age have occurred after being born alive. While some nearly 7 billion cases of humans being born alive and not dying are claimed to exist, experts expect the number of humans dying after having been born to rise. These recent revelations have raised speculation as to cause.
Studies currently underway report evidence of correlations between recent medical applications of birthing and death. "The more advanced our medical technology becomes, the more examples of death after birth we are finding," says one professional of high ranking. "Take for instance, Addis Abbaba where only 37,500 people die per year compared to nearly 300,000 in the USA."
"It's clear that because of America's advanced technology more people are dying every year," said a well-respected member of America's leading research team. "In Addis Ababa, most people are born at home on dirt floors whereas in America most people are born in hospitals. We find this cause for concern. Hell, without AIDS, we believe it possible no one would die in Addis Ababa."
While the numbers mount, skeptics scramble for alternative explanations. "We attribute much of this to America's willy-nilly and obscene usage of vaccination," said one expert at a book-signing event the day after his book The Fight To Stay Alive, a Vaccination Nightmare was published.
Other scientifically founded explanations for this phenomena currently under exploration include 'the Narrow-Birth-Canal Theory', 'the First-Breath Theory', and 'the Separation-From-Placenta Theory'.
Scientists are baffled but hopeful for the currently living 7 billion cases of people having been previously born. "We don't want to raise panic," claims another leading researcher of high acclaim. "We believe there is hope that each of these 7 billion cases might result in a death attributable to something other than being born. We also expect as we continue our research we can end these needless deaths."
Researchers with high-IQ's claim limits to research techniques have made it difficult to reveal deaths of people of all ages who were never born. They remain confident that with future techniques as yet undiscovered, confirmations of people dying who were never born will be made.
Studies currently underway report evidence of correlations between recent medical applications of birthing and death. "The more advanced our medical technology becomes, the more examples of death after birth we are finding," says one professional of high ranking. "Take for instance, Addis Abbaba where only 37,500 people die per year compared to nearly 300,000 in the USA."
"It's clear that because of America's advanced technology more people are dying every year," said a well-respected member of America's leading research team. "In Addis Ababa, most people are born at home on dirt floors whereas in America most people are born in hospitals. We find this cause for concern. Hell, without AIDS, we believe it possible no one would die in Addis Ababa."
While the numbers mount, skeptics scramble for alternative explanations. "We attribute much of this to America's willy-nilly and obscene usage of vaccination," said one expert at a book-signing event the day after his book The Fight To Stay Alive, a Vaccination Nightmare was published.
Other scientifically founded explanations for this phenomena currently under exploration include 'the Narrow-Birth-Canal Theory', 'the First-Breath Theory', and 'the Separation-From-Placenta Theory'.
Scientists are baffled but hopeful for the currently living 7 billion cases of people having been previously born. "We don't want to raise panic," claims another leading researcher of high acclaim. "We believe there is hope that each of these 7 billion cases might result in a death attributable to something other than being born. We also expect as we continue our research we can end these needless deaths."
Researchers with high-IQ's claim limits to research techniques have made it difficult to reveal deaths of people of all ages who were never born. They remain confident that with future techniques as yet undiscovered, confirmations of people dying who were never born will be made.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
CNN Hipocrisy
A few minutes ago while watching CNN, I became ashamed of myself for having that channel on my remote-control 'speed dial'.
During the John King show, a substitute for King at the helm, a story was told of an academy-award nominated, otherwise award-winning photojournalist's passing in Libya. She led the story with an accusation at the end of a wordy monologue that set this story as representation of all those who perish in the Middle East who go unsung. She asserted that perhaps those unsung remain so because maybe "... they don't look WHITE or WESTERN enough."
Her first guest dropped another name of a photographer who died in the attack that killed Britain's Tim Hetherington. His mentions fell on apparently deaf ears. This journalist who had just posed the theory that some are unsung for not being white enough carried on with her discussion about Hetherington even though other 'white westerners' died in THIS attack, nary a mention, even acknowledgment of the others.
Is it because she's racist? Of course not. Others unsung in this situation were white. What, then, might be the reason she continued a focus on Hetherington in the face of news spat right upon her nose?
Could it be that Hetherington is interesting for his award-winning popularity? Might it have NOTHING to do with race? Might setting this up with race simply represent the path that sells the most advertising? Of course it MIGHT and the level of hypocrisy represented in the CNN newsroom reeks of ignorance.
Yes CNN, the reason we see stories on only CERTAIN people who die ANYWHERE is because the likes of YOU choose what we see. Are you, CNN, going to sit back while you accuse yourself of outright racism?
During the John King show, a substitute for King at the helm, a story was told of an academy-award nominated, otherwise award-winning photojournalist's passing in Libya. She led the story with an accusation at the end of a wordy monologue that set this story as representation of all those who perish in the Middle East who go unsung. She asserted that perhaps those unsung remain so because maybe "... they don't look WHITE or WESTERN enough."
Her first guest dropped another name of a photographer who died in the attack that killed Britain's Tim Hetherington. His mentions fell on apparently deaf ears. This journalist who had just posed the theory that some are unsung for not being white enough carried on with her discussion about Hetherington even though other 'white westerners' died in THIS attack, nary a mention, even acknowledgment of the others.
Is it because she's racist? Of course not. Others unsung in this situation were white. What, then, might be the reason she continued a focus on Hetherington in the face of news spat right upon her nose?
Could it be that Hetherington is interesting for his award-winning popularity? Might it have NOTHING to do with race? Might setting this up with race simply represent the path that sells the most advertising? Of course it MIGHT and the level of hypocrisy represented in the CNN newsroom reeks of ignorance.
Yes CNN, the reason we see stories on only CERTAIN people who die ANYWHERE is because the likes of YOU choose what we see. Are you, CNN, going to sit back while you accuse yourself of outright racism?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Income Tax Solution
Paying too much to Uncle Sam?
A 50% tax on lottery winnings is in no way a deterrent to those who play. The fact that one might win $20 million but only collect $10 million seems acceptable. Maybe it's true that lotteries are no more than a tax on the stupid.
Nonetheless, the following truth holds:
If you don't want to pay $1 million in income tax next year don't make $2 million (which is actually an exaggeration, you'd have to earn much more or have a lousy accountant to pay that much). If you want to pay less of a percentage of your wage to Uncle Sam, earn less. If you only want to pay $10k in income tax, keep those earnings down around $50k. That's what most people do ... on purpose ...
Stupid rich people, they're being scammed!
A 50% tax on lottery winnings is in no way a deterrent to those who play. The fact that one might win $20 million but only collect $10 million seems acceptable. Maybe it's true that lotteries are no more than a tax on the stupid.
Nonetheless, the following truth holds:
If you don't want to pay $1 million in income tax next year don't make $2 million (which is actually an exaggeration, you'd have to earn much more or have a lousy accountant to pay that much). If you want to pay less of a percentage of your wage to Uncle Sam, earn less. If you only want to pay $10k in income tax, keep those earnings down around $50k. That's what most people do ... on purpose ...
Stupid rich people, they're being scammed!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The LTPGA
So the LPGA has now become the LTPGA. That's right! A transexual of 5 years can now qualify for tournament events, testosterone and all. Well, not 'ALL'. It seems that this man had to maim his body first. No he didn't have his appendix removed. It was something else.
golf.fanhouse.com/2010/12/01/lpga-votes-to-allow-transgender-golfers/
You no longer have to be a 'female from birth' to be a member of the LPGA. You just have to, um, well ... have no 'member' as it were So do they test for performance enhancing drugs in the LPGA? If so, I doubt Lana Lawless will pass. Funny name for a former male cop don't you think? Without that qualifier from birth, Pandora's Box is now open and no P' Dora is not some slut on tour.
So when will the LPGA simply digress to the Jr.PGA or some such beat down? It becomes more about skirts and genitalia than the actual hormones and natural steroids that cause men to build far more muscle mass on average than can women. Maybe Fred Funk will don a skirt next year and sweep his way to another level of fame from the ladies tees.
I hope the LPGA is ready to get down to the nitty gritty about what it is they want to accomplish. What now is the qualifying physical designation for play? Genitalia inside or outside the crotch? Dress codes? Claiming that you are REALLY a woman. Will there ensue testosterone tests? My guess is that Mr. Lawless will test higher than anyone on tour ... by far!
Maybe it's time for the GLBTGA. That would solve everything.
golf.fanhouse.com/2010/12/01/lpga-votes-to-allow-transgender-golfers/
You no longer have to be a 'female from birth' to be a member of the LPGA. You just have to, um, well ... have no 'member' as it were So do they test for performance enhancing drugs in the LPGA? If so, I doubt Lana Lawless will pass. Funny name for a former male cop don't you think? Without that qualifier from birth, Pandora's Box is now open and no P' Dora is not some slut on tour.
So when will the LPGA simply digress to the Jr.PGA or some such beat down? It becomes more about skirts and genitalia than the actual hormones and natural steroids that cause men to build far more muscle mass on average than can women. Maybe Fred Funk will don a skirt next year and sweep his way to another level of fame from the ladies tees.
I hope the LPGA is ready to get down to the nitty gritty about what it is they want to accomplish. What now is the qualifying physical designation for play? Genitalia inside or outside the crotch? Dress codes? Claiming that you are REALLY a woman. Will there ensue testosterone tests? My guess is that Mr. Lawless will test higher than anyone on tour ... by far!
Maybe it's time for the GLBTGA. That would solve everything.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sex is Choice
It's true, all sex acts are a choice. Many people reserve the act for marriage in the first place (mostly a heterosexual situation actually). Many take vows of celibacy for life (Catholic Priests, even Gay Cardinals).
It may also reign true that humans come out of the womb as non-sexual beings. Yes, it's possible that we are ALL born with a mind for molding on the matter and, thus, choices to make accordingly.
Perhaps parenting can cause certain reactions among children to the opposite gender later in life. Being abused might cause gender identity issues. Treatments on the playground may cause one to believe he/she must be gay because 'I just can't identify with the opposite gender'. Maybe it's simple shyness that causes it sometimes. Sometimes imprisonment or isolation with extended time exposed only to the same gender might cause homosexuality. Drug habits might lead to a tendency to 'get off one's rocks' anyway one can. I'm not laying claim to any specific scientific proof, yet I believe theoretically some of this probably happens.
Likewise I'd bet sometimes we ARE talking about born tendency. Geneticists claim to have isolated some evidence for this among homosexuals ... even alcoholics.
So, two things:
First, being 'born gay' is at least similar to being 'born an alcoholic'. In the future, some parents, given such information at or before the birth of their children, might choose to affect the fruition of certain tendencies through environmental nudging or nurturing. Perhaps someday genetic solutions will be made available and some parents will choose to medically eliminate such tendencies altogether. And, on the other hand some of these parents might choose to put beer in their children's lunch box.
Second, often Prop 8 opposers represent a hypocritical stance that gay is ALWAYS a born trait and NEVER choice. Of course that is the norm among the Prop 8 opposition because it's the only way to lay claim to a MLK style Civil Rights piggyback ride. So, sometimes the argument is made (because I for one often argue a link to governmental interest in marriage intended to affect responsible child rearing) that only people who intend to or even CAN make babies should be afforded a marriage license. Fine then. Since the 'Gay Marriage' movement is pushed solely as a Civil Rights issue, ONLY gays who are proven BORN 'that way' should get marriage certs. Bi's and Trannies are out lest they choose opposite gender commitments.
It may also reign true that humans come out of the womb as non-sexual beings. Yes, it's possible that we are ALL born with a mind for molding on the matter and, thus, choices to make accordingly.
Perhaps parenting can cause certain reactions among children to the opposite gender later in life. Being abused might cause gender identity issues. Treatments on the playground may cause one to believe he/she must be gay because 'I just can't identify with the opposite gender'. Maybe it's simple shyness that causes it sometimes. Sometimes imprisonment or isolation with extended time exposed only to the same gender might cause homosexuality. Drug habits might lead to a tendency to 'get off one's rocks' anyway one can. I'm not laying claim to any specific scientific proof, yet I believe theoretically some of this probably happens.
Likewise I'd bet sometimes we ARE talking about born tendency. Geneticists claim to have isolated some evidence for this among homosexuals ... even alcoholics.
So, two things:
First, being 'born gay' is at least similar to being 'born an alcoholic'. In the future, some parents, given such information at or before the birth of their children, might choose to affect the fruition of certain tendencies through environmental nudging or nurturing. Perhaps someday genetic solutions will be made available and some parents will choose to medically eliminate such tendencies altogether. And, on the other hand some of these parents might choose to put beer in their children's lunch box.
Second, often Prop 8 opposers represent a hypocritical stance that gay is ALWAYS a born trait and NEVER choice. Of course that is the norm among the Prop 8 opposition because it's the only way to lay claim to a MLK style Civil Rights piggyback ride. So, sometimes the argument is made (because I for one often argue a link to governmental interest in marriage intended to affect responsible child rearing) that only people who intend to or even CAN make babies should be afforded a marriage license. Fine then. Since the 'Gay Marriage' movement is pushed solely as a Civil Rights issue, ONLY gays who are proven BORN 'that way' should get marriage certs. Bi's and Trannies are out lest they choose opposite gender commitments.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Heed Babel
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)