Science Politics And Religion

I have the solutions for the country's problems!

2010-05-27T17:24:00.000-07:00

Opinions and solutions
It is very easy to express opinions about our current political situation. It is just as easy to point fingers and lay blame on any easy target. Politicians put themselves out in the public and have to accept the mud-slinging and criticism that comes their way. It is easy for any politician to respond to any verbal attack with a verbal response designed to show a negative side of his or her opponent. I have decided that I have maligned the actions of professional politicians without actually offering any solutions. This article will be a step toward correcting that failure. I will offer solutions to our current problems as a country.
These are real suggestions that I believe can be made to work. We have seen that our current system is failing and recent elections have shown the voters are looking for some kind of changes. Here are my proposed changes.

1: None of the above
As a general population we have lost trust in our government. We have seen the proof of how politicians and bureaucrats put more effort into protecting their jobs than in serving the electorate. Professional politicians are interested in getting the power and recognition that goes with being elected to office. They revel in attention from powerful people who want something. They really believe the deals they make are the reason they were elected.
Being elected to public office is actually a demonstration of fundraising and the effectiveness of the support group assembled to manage the campaign. It is not a reflection on the integrity or ability of the candidate. Politicians’ greatest skill is in their ability to follow a script and never say anything that can be used by the opposition’s spin doctors in attack ads. The American people do not trust professional politicians as a group. Few of us take the time or effort to understand why we distrust politicians.
Politicians have made a science of making others look bad by twisting their own words against them. The concept, distilled down to its essence, is: “If you are not good enough at what you do to make your self look good, your only hope is to make everyone around you look bad.” It is the evil of office politics expanded to a larger political arena.
To restore trust in our government we need to make real changes in the election process. The party system has become an impediment to effective government. My suggestion for diluting the power of national political parties is a simple change in election law. In any election for Federal public office President, Senator, Representative or whatever, add one additional election option: “NONE OF THE ABOVE” (hereinafter called NOTA). This way the public can express the distrust they have in the candidates offered for election. If NOTA wins a simple majority it will be obvious that the offered candidates are unacceptable. A new election is called with a new slate of candidates. The previous candidates are not allowed to run in the new election. This will assure a new selection of publically acceptable office holders with minimal ties to national parties.

2: Stop paying elected officials from public funds.Everyone in the country that is willing to think for themselves can see that the salary paid to elected officials is not the motivation for seeking elected office. From state level offices to the Presidency the cost of running a successful campaign is many times the potential salary of the job. The lure of the office is power and notoriety. We should not pay people to be self-serving.
One of the reasons we distrust politicians is the fact that they are subject to the influence of political action committees, business sector cooperatives, powerful, well-heeled special interests…etc. If these groups wish to influence a politician’s actions they should pay the “bought” person’s salary.
To make sure the public has some control over their elected officials, each candidate must completely disclose what groups he works for and how much they are paying. As voters we can make our choices based on the organizations that are paying for the legislative votes of a candidate. Any changes during the elected official’s term in office must be disclosed immediately. There will be potential for a popular candidate to receive a very large salary from a large number of paying supporters. As voters we will have the responsibility to learn the positions of the paying organizations and remove the politician if his alliances disagree with our own. Combining this change with the NOTA change described above will make officials more responsible for their actions and easier to remove if they forget who they ultimately answer to.

3: Stop wasting money on drug enforcement. Throughout history, banning any popular substance, activity…etc has proven ineffective. Even the morally indefensible practice of abortion cannot be effectively banned. Prohibition proved how banning something promotes the development of increasingly powerful criminal elements to satisfy the demand. The money flowing through the drug black market probably contributed to the economic collapse we recently endured. We can increase our tax base by producing quality and safe drugs to sell to real addicts while using the revenue to provide treatment and reduce the demand. The only way to remove the criminal element from recreational drugs is to de-criminalize the substances and tax the hell out of them to just below the level where criminal distribution becomes profitable. We cannot ban smoking but it has become a valuable tax resource. Alcohol is a valuable tax resource. Gambling is a valuable tax resource. So too can recreational drugs be. I have not worked out the details of how this could work but the concept has possibilities.

4: Increase government inspections and regulatory enforcement.This can have a positive effect on both tax revenue and unemployment. To help make sure that any company, large or small, does not put profit ahead of public safety we need vigorous inspections and significant, escalating fines for violators. This will add thousands of government jobs and private sector jobs to assure compliance. Again the details are fuzzy but there is some potential.

5: Progressive taxationThis is my favorite. I believe we should select a personal income level at (for instance) 5 times the current poverty level where we start adding taxation based on unemployment rates. If a person has gross income of $200,000 or more per year he will pay an unemployment tax based on the average unemployment rate for the year. If the average unemployment rate is 10% hit him with a 10% unemployment tax. This will certainly promote the creation of jobs and make offshore outsourcing look much less attractive on a personal level. People respond when their own money is threatened. Laying-off people will hurt the managers as well as the laid-off workers.

6: Limited compensationI believe there is no moral justification for personal compensation in excess of $50,000,000 per year. There are ways to reward successful top level managers for their knowledge and experience that makes a company successful besides padding their bank accounts. A large donation to a group of charities in the name of the manager, CEO…etc would be more acceptable. Here is a possible headline on a full page ad in a national publication or on a popular website:
XYZ Corporation wants to thank John C Doe Jr. for his very successful year at the helm of our company. In appreciation for his skills and contributions to our success we have donated a total of $25,000,000 to the following charities in his name. [Followed by a list of charities] Thank you John C Doe Jr.This is public recognition of the contributions made by the executive without making him immorally and wastefully wealthier.

These are some revolutionary ideas and I realize that they may seem absurd on first blush. If you take these ideas as a jump-off point for further discussion, they might lead to some real solutions for the problems at hand. If nothing else, you can respond by telling me how wrong I am. Some of these ideas have been discussed here before. I believe there is some validity to the concepts so I keep bringing them back.

Another explanation of our government's failure

2010-04-17T04:08:00.000-07:00

Ramblings of an independent thinker:

There is evidence that the recent economic collapse was brought about by the deliberate and unregulated manipulation of the financial sector by a relatively small group of individuals. The recent accusations and the government’s lawsuit against financial giant Goldman-Sachs highlight the schemes. The people who were in position to make great personal wealth through control of the credit system were sure there would be no consequences. The Bush government went out of its way to ignore the way the markets were being managed. The policy was designed to let the financial sector have a free hand with no limits or oversight. A few people made billions while destroying the lives and investments of millions. This could have been prevented if previously existing limits had not been legislated away. There were laws on the books to prevent the very processes that caused the collapse. Conservatism was leveraged to eliminate the government control and the financial giants proceeded to destroy the economy while getting very rich. There was no consideration for the lives of the people who would loose their savings and small investments. The leaders of Goldman-Sachs and other big financial institutions knew there would be a failure of the system and arranged to make huge profits as the system imploded. People who had the foresight to see where the economy was headed made deliberate moves to ensure the collapse while also “betting” on the collapse. Hedge-fund managers made multi-billions by arranging the economic failure of the country.
The billions of dollars that the government had to pour into the financial sector to prop up the banking industry was the only thing that prevented the recession from becoming worse than the great depression. The laws that were enacted following the great depression to prevent it from happening again were the same laws that were gutted by the Bush-Republican government. A weak government cannot hope to prevent the powerful from preying on the powerless.
It is true that the average citizen has no concept of how this system works and how it can be manipulated by insiders. It is very easy to place blame on the most visible factors – including taxes and politicians. The blame rests on the huge financial companies with the power to send the economy in any direction they choose. The only hope for the average citizen is a strong government that is willing and able to stand up to the big companies and place limits on their ability to influence legislation. A strong government is strong only when it has the support of the people. A weak government is easily controlled by big business.

As citizens we have lost trust and respect for our government. The way the government has failed to protect the majority of citizens against the greed of a minority has eroded the trust. Everyone knows there are behind-the-scenes and under-the-table deals going on all the time in Washington. Politicians are maneuvering for their own wealth and power instead of in the interests of the people who elected them. Every public statement from any elected official is carefully weighed against the next election. Truth has no place in that equation. The interests of the country take a third place behind re-election prospects and personal power. There are very real philosophical differences about how to manage a country’s economy. At one end of the spectrum lies the idea that the government must never interfere in the way any organization does business. At the other end of the spectrum lies complete and total socialism where private business does not exist. (The second option is so distasteful that my fingers almost refuse to type it.) If we have any understanding of human nature, we can see that the disengaged government is just as dangerous as socialism to personal freedom. We need to ride along the wide gray area somewhere between these two extremes and we need honest and independent people making the decisions. Hard decisions that are unpopular with the public are sometimes required. The leader who has the guts to take the unpopular path will jeopardize his re-election. When the re-election is more important than the good of the country the politician has sold out to the system.
As voters we need to make sure the people we elect have the support they need to do their job. Professional politicians spend their lives saying the things we want to hear and let their party leaders decide their legislative posture. We need a new breed of leadership. When the country is suffering economic woes we need to elect people who understand economics and are willing to exert their knowledge and influence for the improvement of the country. We do not need to know who fathered her third child or who he slept with last Saturday. We need to know where he/she stands on economic issues. We need to look deeper into the qualifications of the people we elect – going past their personal lives to see their value as a tool to help the country. We need to grow up as a people and learn to think for ourselves. We can elect a person based on qualifications, and then when he has done his job; replace him/her with someone who has the qualifications to deal with the then-current issues. Let the elected leaders do their job and if they decide that re-election is more important than their mandate from the electorate they have to go. Politics as a profession is prostitution with a higher pay scale. Politics as a public service is leadership. A true political leader tells the truth, does his job and turns the position over to the next person. A professional politician spends his/her time and effort in pursuit of re-election and personal power. Maybe we should stop paying politicians.

I have fallen victim to the Twitter style of politics. I have found myself trying to express political, economic, scientific and even religious opinions in 140 character phrases. This is the same basic problem we all face when exposed to political advertisement. To have the most impact a short phrase must be emotional and inflammatory. To have an impact on an election, a 30-second ad must tear down the opposition’s political base. The science of public opinion has found many ways to make powerfully influential ads and as a voting public we have little defense. One of my favorite themes is that when two people insist on calling each other liars publicly long enough we start to believe them and realize both are liars. Having no real choice eliminates the motivation to vote. If we do vote, we vote for a party instead of the candidate – based on our perception of the party’s philosophy. We rarely dig deep enough to see if the party’s actions agree with the stated philosophy. In fact there is no connection between action and philosophy.

(There is much more to come. This is as much as most people will read at one time.)

More signs that the United States may be doomed:

2010-03-30T18:17:00.000-07:00

When any publicly known group with a significant following draws a line in the sand and refuses to back down in the face of opposition the potential for violence increases. When this same group is faced with opposition too powerful to resist, the resulting desperation opens the way to terrorism. Desperation is subjective and emotionally charged.
In this country, the principle of free press is sacrosanct while the science of manipulating public opinion has reached a high level of effectiveness. The combination of unrestrained press with scientifically powerful political advertisements can push some susceptible people further toward the fringes. The people on the fringes clump together like dust particles in a stellar nebula; eventually reaching a mass that has an attraction of its own. When these clumps are moving in similar directions it is possible for them to combine into ever increasing mass with proportionally greater attraction.
A sufficiently massive clump (or social movement) becomes capable of exerting a disruptive force on the core system (society). The increasing dissatisfaction [shown by the American people] with the central Government is the force pushing people toward the fringes. The Tea Party Movement and similar groups are indicators of the level of disenfranchisement felt by many. The number of people with interest in these groups is larger than the number of active participants. Charismatic leadership can draw many more away from the government and into opposition to the status quo.
Recently released reports of growing numbers of extremist militias operating on the fringes of society are an indicator of an even more violent opposition. With the right level of desperation, these groups can be very dangerous. If the violent militias become aligned with the growing membership of anti-government movements a very dangerous situation can arise. It may be too late to diffuse the threat but delaying a real effort will surely lead to violence down the road.
One part of the problem is the effectiveness of the media in manipulating public opinion. In the United States, the population has come to rely on the electronic media for immediate information. Slickly produced and scientifically targeted 30 second political advertisements combine with well-planned sound-bites to influence public opinion. Emotionally charged ads use strong words or phrases such as liar or “unplug grandma” to stir up the mob mentality. Mainstream thinkers soon begin to believe the accusations of both sides and decide that both sides are no longer fit to be in charge. The fringe grows stronger with each person who looses trust in the system.
Those of us who still want to work within the system to affect change must try to convince honest people to run for office. We need independent people who can be trusted to work toward real change. We need people with the guts to do what needs to be done without worrying about the next election. When a legislator is not worried about the next election he or she cannot be manipulated by the political parties into voting the party line. If we do not change the system we are dooming our children to the death and misery of civil war on this continent. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, our children should learn Chinese or Arabic to survive the new government imposed by the invading country.

More political commentary from the streets.

2010-03-23T17:38:00.000-07:00

More Political Commentary from the Lower Level
We have a chance to become a stronger country with a social conscience if we take the new health care law to the next level and make it work. If we continue to point fingers and decry the evils of the new law the consequences can be dire. Already several states are grouping together in opposition to the law. Does this sound familiar? It should. Similar action by the states brought on the deaths of many Americans who ended up fighting each other over the opposition to the law.
Opponents are making statements that inflame the public just as before the law was passed. The statements are either untrue or are extreme exaggerations with only small bits of truth. In the end, all the opposition can be distilled to one poisonous product. The opponents do not want to give up any of their income to taxation.
This fact may be hidden beneath several layers of pseudo-economics and high-sounding rhetoric. If you hold your nose and dig into the pile, the core of the opposition is exposed: simple and immoral greed.
People who would otherwise respond in a good way to open and honest discussion are being manipulated and incited to loud protests by the deodorized pile of crap from the richest levels of our society. The only thing these rich people have to loose is a small percentage of their amassed income. They are isolated from the world of pain and suffering here at the bottom and, truth be told, they really do not care.

Forced insurance?
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is a response to the opposition’s demands for non-government funding of health care. The forced insurance would not be needed if health care funding were provided as a progressive tax increase. There are several options for taxation that would spread the cost across several segments of the population with the heaviest taxes on those who can best afford it. I propose a 1% tax on incomes over $15000 A 1% tax on an income of $150000 is much less painful than a 1% tax on someone with $30000 annual income. The cost of living a basic existence is universal. For the $150000 income family, anything beyond a basic existence is a luxury made possible by the extra income. This means that a 4400 square foot home is a luxury. For the $30000 family a 1000 square foot apartment is basic existence. The high income family does not have to choose the 4400 square foot home. A slight reduction in living area can offset the 1% tax. For the low income family they have no options and the 1% tax can mean less food or no medicine for a sick child. This is the basis of the progressive tax that was the original configuration of the income tax. Implementing a progressive health care tax to fund the health insurance subsidy for poor people might eliminate the forced insurance in the new law.

Be thankful for the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.
It is my opinion that those people who have been able to use their talents, skills, training or education to reach the top levels of income should be excited to support the system of government that gave then the opportunity to succeed. There are many places in the world where this level of success is not possible. No business person, inventor, writer, sports star or media celebrity could be successful if no one is buying products or tickets. The largest group of people is in the mid to lower income levels. Letting these relatively poor people live longer with more disposable income will increase economic growth more than letting a large portion of spendable income remain in the tight fists of a relatively few high income families.
One rich family may buy one $250000 houseboat for family vacations. For the same $250000, five hundred families can buy small sport fishing boats. The fishing boat factory has 500 employees and purchases supplies in the local community. The custom houseboat builder has 50 employees and most of the exotic materials used are imported from foreign countries. The benefits of spreading the wealth outweigh the Reagan-era trickle-down approach where each level on the way down siphons off a piece of the flow. Let us have some support for health care. We can continue to work longer and earn more to spend. Spending drives the economy. A booming economy will offset the taxes on the rich because the boom benefits them most.

PS: Give me a year of health care and a paying job I can physically do and I will shut up and go to work.

My views on the healthcare debate

2010-03-22T18:26:00.000-07:00

Part One: My views on the healthcare debate.

Several years ago I had a supervisor that I could not get along with (one of many over the years). He assigned me a project that, in my mind, was totally unworkable. I tried to show him the mistakes and propose a workable solution. He was un-shakable. As expected, the project was a complete flop. His comment was “it would have worked if you had wanted it to.” With several years more wisdom I can see his point. I might have put in more effort if I saw some possibility of success.
Now we have a patchwork effort at healthcare reform being heralded as a giant leap forward. Opponents are loudly proclaiming it won’t work. The opponents have managed to install into the legislation several impediments to real success. Chances are it will not work unless the opponents are willing to make an effort to make it work. Unlike me, they could open their minds and look for effective solutions to the problems they see. Simply standing in the way or dragging back on progress will make failure more possible.
We have to look at the motives of the opposition. Do they want to strengthen the country and take a moral approach to improving society or do they want to be vindictive crybabies because they were voted down? There are some legitimate concerns about the costs at all levels. There are some concerns about the effect on jobs, recession recovery and budget deficits.
The sensible thing to do would be to find ways to solve the individual problems and make the changes work to improve lives and bring the country together. Recent history seems to indicate another approach is forthcoming. There will be several months of nay saying, finger pointing and vindictive actions unrelated to this issue.

Legitimate opposition is important. Continued opposition after the fact leads to mistrust and opens the door to divisiveness that weakens the country. We only have to look to the two wars we are engaged in to see where stubborn, vindictive, uncompromising, blind opposition leads. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are divided by two or more internal groups that oppose each other on irrational grounds. The result is unnecessary death of innocents. Draw a line through the recent events and extend it into the future and you will see the internal unrest of today leading to a Chinese-led peace-keeping mission arriving to stop the American Civil war.
This is one possible future, however unlikely. There are other possibilities that are much more in line with the visions of our founding fathers. We can regain the respect of the world and become the beacon of hope that we once were.

Part Two: Moral responsibility?
There is little doubt that many healthcare proponents have endangered their re-election chances. I applaud those individuals who had the guts to do what was morally right in the face of potential political backlash. I point a finger of shame at those who let their personal ambitions of re-election drive their decisions. Their ambitions very likely killed a few people who could have been saved by quick action several months ago. We could have extended help to many who are now dead.
Most of the people who opposed the reform packages did so from a narrow-minded self-focused greed. They do not want to pay taxes. There is significant opposition to the rich folk’s tax that is part of the reform bill. This tax is aimed at families earning $250,000 per year. How can any family at that income level experience any hardship because of an additional 1% tax? Will he have to drive his Mercedes a couple more months before trading it for a new one? Will his family have to shorten their European vacation by a day or two?
Contrast that to people like me. I have a total income of $1200/month. I am unemployed, uninsured, and (even if I had the money) uninsurable due to several medical conditions. My unemployment benefits will expire in three months. A doctor’s visit or two and some prescription support might extend my life. Chances are I’ll not survive to benefit from the reform since the main benefits are delayed four years. Thankfully I have no children suffering with me but many people in similar circumstances do have kids. How can the “hardship” of 1% extra tax on that rich family compare to the suffering we on the other end of the spectrum live daily? Really! How many families in this country earn more than $100,000/year? Multiply that by the amount of a 1% tax and the product would pay for health coverage for many people like me.
I have worked hard all my life. That hard work in unhealthy environments probably contributed to my current medical conditions. Now all I have to look forward to is a painful death. My wife is suffering too, but that is another story. I am an intelligent person with the skills to earn a living in spite of my medical problems. I shouldn’t have to die as a drain on society. Some health insurance could get me turned around and make me productive again. I could get a job and pay part of the insurance premium. I can still live on $1200 a month. Any additional income could pay for medicine and insurance premiums. Contact me and I share my whole story if you get to me before I die.

The Imminent Collapse of the United States

2010-03-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

The Collapse of the United States is Imminent

Many people are realizing how flawed and fractured our government has become. Elections across the country have degraded into a choice between two or more equally distasteful options. Legislative decisions are determined by party leaders and the opinions of individual legislators are unimportant. Public opinion is commanded by the most effective marketing campaign financed by the party. If consumer products were marketed with the same strategies, the public would be outraged. We have actually forced tobacco companies and alcohol companies to follow strict marketing rules yet we continue to accept the marketing of political opinion as freedom of speech. Opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Marketing has been proven to be subject to regulation and is not protected by the constitution. Political advertising is marketing more than it is opinion and should be subject to regulation. Truth in tone and content should be required. Exaggerated claims and emotionally charged proclamations should be restricted. If truth in advertising is applied to political ads, the public’s respect for the government just might improve. When Jon and Jan spend millions on political ads calling each other liars, the public begins to believe it. Both Jon and Jan suffer from decreased respect and trust. Eventually nothing either says is accepted and anyone connected with either Jon or Jan is a suspected liar too.
Marketing is a science. The techniques of effective marketing are well known. The erosion of respect and trust caused by emotionally charged political advertising becomes a grand canyon of distrust and disrespect into which all politicians fall. When any one politician begins to climb out to gain some public respect, the others reach up and pull him/her back down into the muck. The roiling battle to prevent trust and respect makes the 21st century American public the most misinformed ever.
If Americans do not regain respect and trust for the government, the country will surely fall apart. Alaska already has a movement toward declaring independence. Texas has had a taste of independence and southern states still hold some bitterness toward the federal government. Political and economic pressure destroyed the USSR and that country was much more ruthless in respect to the member states than the United States has been since 1865. It can happen and the more we grow to distrust the central government the more likely a collapse becomes. It will be deadly. The (possibly foreign) country that picks up the pieces will determine how our children live or die, the language they speak and the religion that they follow. Think about it. Find a way to convince your representatives that the current path leads to weakness and danger.

The failures of modern government

2010-02-17T17:35:00.000-08:00

The gentlemen who designed the United States had certain concepts that they were passionate about and were sure to include in their documents. The more arbitrary items that may have been part of the discussion were left out of the "official" documentation. That documentation is the constitution and it is the foundation of our country. The bill of rights was the first addition to the constitution and it was intended to specify the limits of government interference in private lives.
Since those high-minded gentlemen completed their work we have made repeated attempt to improve it - most often causing more damage than improvement. Those amendments that were focused on personal choices with no real victims are the most glaring failures of the amendment process. The most obvious failure was prohibition.
Those amendments that reinforced personal freedoms are the most successful. Foremost among the successes is the prohibition of slavery. Other amendments were intended or required to address social changes and technological advances never envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment process allows the constitution to evolve with the needs of an evolving society.
Over history, many prominent societal collapses can be laid at the feet of government - either all or in part. A strong yet responsive government can stand and grow with the support of its people. Tyrannical, self-centered, or isolated governments generally have a limited life-span. The collapse can be devastatingly sudden as demonstrated by the Sadam Hussein government in Iraq or it can be a dismally slow process like the fall of Rome. Either way the population suffers.
Our current government is failing the population in several ways. There have been several symptoms of disease in our government. We can choose to ignore the symptoms like a stubborn man who refuses to have that chest pain investigated or we can get our regular checkup and take corrective measures.

At this point a disclaimer is in order. This writer has a deep populist and liberal leaning so the opinions expressed will be biased by that leaning. The ideas put forth are intended to trigger discussion among intelligent persons in positions to influence the direct of the government's evolution.

The government of the United States originally had limited, if any, influence on private business ventures. Allowing the aggressive pursuit of wealth gave the most dynamic people the chances to expand and build the country. The government even supported commerce by using military force to battle threats to American commerce. This government was empowered by the citizens through voting and taxes.
Every citizen bears some responsibility for financing the government. Taxes are the primary financial resource for the government and when tax revenue does not meet the demand on resources the government must borrow against future revenue. When demands continue to exceed resources only two solutions are available. The government can increase income by increasing taxation or it can reduce the demand by eliminating expensive services.
There comes a point where cutting services any more becomes counter-productive. There is a point where a society begins to deteriorate. When the structure of a government shrinks and puts a growing number of citizens on the margins the marginalized citizens are corrosive to the government. As more people become marginalized the motivation to force a change grows.
We are seeing indications of the marginalization of segments of society daily. Individual acts of desperation are becoming a daily occurrence. School shootings, workplace shootings, wide ranging gang activities and drug distribution organizations are everywhere. The more people are marginalized the greater the potential army of revolution. These people do not vote and politicians are not interested in them in any way.
The professional politicians who should be in positions to direct change are simply using their positions as jobs. They have developed the skills to promote themselves to the voting public and to court the money needed for the next re-election campaign. No one in Washington or any state capital is willing to promote the changes that we need to insure the survival of our country. No position that draws any public opposition will be supported. Personal power and wealth are more important than the country that politicians should be taking care of. They will say anything to get the support of the voters, realizing that once elected what they promise cannot be delivered.
Independent thinkers who will not be controlled by the party leadership have no chance of election. The leadership of both parties will not allow the election of independents. The resources of both parties will be poised against any promising independent. Both parties are intent on preserving their powerbases and will not let the existing power structure be threatened by rogue independence.
This party solidarity and the absolute refusal to compromise for the good of the people have made the government ineffective at best and dangerous in potential. As voters we need to refuse to support any candidate who hints at a party affiliation and receives any support from either of the national committees. Professional politicians must surrender their power to real people who want the country and people to survive and who are willing to do what is required. As people we need to stop believing the party propaganda and learn to think for ourselves. If we do not change the way the government works we (or at best or grandchildren) will loose the privileges our forefathers gave us.
The constitution gives us the means to correct some of the current failures. A couple of well though-out amendments that revise the party system and secure personal rights are needed. Any sign of positive effort by the elected leadership will ease the growing unrest we are experiencing.
The erosion around the margins can be neutralized by a forward-thinking government with the guts, integrity and willingness to make radical changes. Without these changes the country is in definite danger of collapse. A charismatic leader with the support of the poor and disenfranchised can look to foreign powers for assistance. We will find ourselves fighting for survival on American soil. Internal opposition groups can create enough confusion to weaken us to invasion. Another natural disaster might be all that is required to break the public’s trust in the government and allow anarchy to take over.

A somewhat less controversial posting on Science

2009-10-30T10:36:00.000-07:00

Some rambling thoughts.

Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.

We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)

Intelligent human beings are in short supply.

Another health care proposal

2009-10-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

OK, I realize health care reform has become a tired subject but I must address it again. I still believe the root cause of all opposition to reform is money. The insurance industry is afraid of loosing profits. People who have health insurance are afraid they will have to pay more. Legislators are being pressured by money to support the opposition. Rich people (compared to me) are too greedy to pay more taxes. Doctors are afraid the Government will set prices for services. Drug companies are afraid of loosing research subsidies. All in all it is just money and greed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.

The current health care system has the following failures:

The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.

Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.

As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.

Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.

Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.

If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.

The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.

The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.

This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.

The failures of creationism

2009-10-14T18:01:00.000-07:00

The failures of hard line creationism

I recently had to rewrite a review of a book by Richard Dawkins. The book under review was written in support of Darwin’s revelations about evolution and although I have not read the book, the review inspired me to share my opinions on the subject. Far too many otherwise intelligent people keep quiet about controversial subjects to avoid conflicts with their friends and associates. Since I have only a half dozen friends and they already know how I feel I have no fear of reprisal. I will say what I believe.

Evolution is a proven fact that has been demonstrated scientifically, both with natural history evidence and with recent scientific experiments. I say again: Evolution is a proven fact. In the opening paragraph I did not say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” I said “Darwin’s revelations” because evolution is not a theory. The argument that evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. If a scientific fact can be dismissed by labeling it a theory the people using the argument should climb a high structure, declare gravity a theory, and take flight.
Faith in God means faith in the gift of existence in an afterlife. This wonderful gift from God can only be realized by mortals as faith. We keep our faith in the face of uncertainty and in spite of the impossibility of getting any tangible, hard proof. This is faith. It is part of the message all religions try to pass on to us.
Hard line Creationism is not faith. It is a corruption of the faith concept. The origins of creationism are in the bible – a work of man even if it was inspired by a real God. We have to look deep inside ourselves to find our personal connection to our creator. We cannot rely on someone else’s overt connection no matter how divinely inspired. The preaching that the path to heaven is through individual acceptance is important. The message is not “follow your church elder or your pastor and he will lead you to heaven”. Blind faith in the strict interpretation of another person’s written work prevents the personal search for the inner connection we all have. In effect being too lazy to put forth the individual effort toward understanding puts us under the control of others. We can become slaves to someone else’s visions and plans.
Stepping back from established and proven facts in favor of blind faith in another person’s interpretation takes us further away from our own understanding. When we categorically deny our own intelligence and reasoning ability and allow ourselves to be led by well meaning but misguided opinion we also deny one of our Creator’s greatest gifts to us – our ability to seek personal understanding. Hard line Creationists have denied the most important thing that makes us human – advanced reasoning. Denying that which makes us human, in effect takes us a giant step backwards toward the very unreasoning animal ancestor we want so badly to prune from our family tree.
In the creation versus evolution argument, refusing to recognize established facts actually demonstrates the scientific proof of the one thing we try to disprove.

How’s that for circular reasoning?

Taxes, Public Flogging, and the public option

2009-09-29T16:58:00.000-07:00

I have three separate issues to discuss in this post.

1. Another example of how refusing to pay taxes costs us all indirectly
Recently a local crime involving a convicted criminal who was sentenced to eight years in prison less than three years ago renewed questions about sentencing rules. The Nashville Chief of Police held a news conference during which he expressed his extreme disgust with the judicial system. The convicted criminal had been sentenced to eight years in prison for a violent crime, only to be released after only 30 percent of the sentence. The police chief said he had been told it was a money issue but he was convinced the justice system was at fault.
I see this as a money issue related to one of my favorite complaints. In our self-centered focus on taxes we continue to strangle our local governments. Local news reports are regularly populated with stories about the extreme efforts local school boards make to keep schools open with inadequate funding. Incarceration of state and local criminals is funded by state and local taxes just like the schools. Prison overcrowding forces early releases and we all know prisons rarely provide effective rehabilitation. The only way to protect citizens is to keep the criminals separated from law-abiding citizens as long as possible. The way to do this is to provide funding for prisons to keep these criminals away from us. Every time local voters vote down a legitimate tax increase the repercussions are broad and long lasting. Inadequate school funding creates more young people being unprepared for life. Unprepared young people are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. Underfunded prisons are forced to release un-rehabilitated criminals early into a society under-protected by under-funded police departments. The root cause is self-centered greed on the part of local taxpayers.

2: Discipline and punishment
As noted above, current punishments for criminal activity are largely ineffective and unnecessarily costly. I have a solution to propose: public flogging. This should be the second-level punishment for non-violent crimes like burglary. More serious crimes with violence against victims should get this as first-level punishment. The public aspect would serve as a graphic example of the consequences of doing a crime. It just might be a better incentive to obey the law than a few months in jail. To take this a bit further, we could provide for combination punishments where a weekly public flogging was part of a reduced prison sentence. Saves money and maybe reduces recidivism.

3: Why health care reform is in trouble
The heavily funded private insurance companies are using their “influence” to buy opposition to the public option in an effort to maintain their un-defensible profit margins. This protection of profits comes at the cost of some poor, uninsured sick people dying. The connection is unverifiable but the motive is certainly there. The Democrats who are apparently being paid off with some promise of wealth and power should be exposed. If you know the facts about why a Democrat opposed the public option, please let the world know. Maybe I’m wrong. If I am wrong I need to be corrected publicly. Do it here.

DRP

Religion and human accomplishment

2009-09-25T21:45:00.000-07:00

There are three major religions with origins in belief in the same deity. The root messages of all three religions are almost identical; only the rituals and surface trappings differ. If I report that a religion promotes honesty in one's dealings with others, charity for poor and needy, respect for oneself and others, humility, acceptance of the existence of a deity and wholehearted efforts to lead a good life all three of the great religions can accept this as a generic description of the teachings. People are still too uncivilized to see past the surface differences and accept the commonalities.I believe it is wrong to hold onto grudges either as individuals or as members of one or another religious group. As human beings we are rapidly approaching a barrier to our societal maturity. We need to learn to work together for the common good of all people and sincerely put aside arguments over the correct way to worship our common deity. If we continue to put more effort into proving ourselves better than the other group we will remain distracted from our real problems and never achieve the things we as human beings can accomplish.

Some things we can do might include:
1. Vastly improved life spans for everyone by advancing our real understanding of the mechanisms diseases and aging while learning how nutrition and lifestyle apply to lifespan
2. We can work through the barriers of knowledge that limit our understanding of the physical universe. With this knowledge we will become able to exercise the human nature of curiosity and exploration beyond this tiny little piece of the universe. This universe was not created just for decorating our sky. It is a tease to give us incentive to work together and spread humanity to the millions of worlds available to us.
3.Full medical knowledge will eliminate human suffering, especially that suffering caused by other humans.

The list of possibilities is limitless. Each of us, if we decide to, can think of something humans might achieve with cooperation. We each possess a built-in tendency to believe. The beliefs we accept are generally fed to us by religious leaders trained in certain styles. Religious style is very much like language. It provides for communication of abstract concepts in terms of concrete existence. The abstract concepts are the same - only the language differs. Once we accept this we begin the erode the barrier to our true destiny as the masters of this physical universe until we decide, each of his own accord, to pass on to the next level and share the next existence with our deity of choice and those who go before or come after.

DRP

We are lazy, misinformed Americans

2009-09-22T19:54:00.000-07:00

The following text was sent to me in an email. I cut and pasted it here so I could respond to it. The facts presented here are most likely true. I will not deny the intent of the text is, on the face of it, is positive. I disagree with the conclusions presented though and I have to respond. Please read the entire document. Take a moment to let what was said sink in. Then read my opinion that follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original text from an email:

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason... They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do..

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ---.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What has happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion:

Yes there are 545 people making our decisions for us. There is a reason. The fathers of our country did not imagine a population of 300,000,000 and the evolution of the media. When the constitution was crafted the average person was no less than weeks away from breaking news and the elected representatives were elected by people who knew them and what they stood for. It was a good system and it worked for many years.

Things have changed. There are more of us but we have immediate access to any information we choose to get. What do we do with this access? We watch untold hours of television all the time bombarded by 30-second messages from advertisers. We spend many hours enraptured by discussions of our favorite sports teams and the latest “reality show” results. We invest much of our work time actually thinking about our fantasy team strategy. We have let the media take charge of our country by letting it numb our minds. Instead of studying the voting records of our elected officials, reading their resumes, looking up their financial reports, and asking important questions we let our opinions and votes be managed by the most prevalent and slickest 30-second political ad. We accept these professionally produced messages when they connect with values inserted into our psyche by other slick, professional ads. We have abdicated the control of our country to the media. The media is controlled by the money. The money is controlled by the businesses and people who believe they have the right to rule the country.

Yes, the 545 people discussed in the text do the actual “work”. They get away with what they do because we’re too lazy to interfere. Too lazy that is until a series of sound bites and slick advertisements rouse the mob mentality in us. We still do not think for ourselves though. We are manipulated by the people in charge. They shouldn’t be in charge. They should be serving our demands. We now have the information to make socially viable decisions. We do not have to be told what to think. We need to take back our government and demand the elected officials at all levels stop being self-serving, power-hungry whores and be the public servants they should be. We (most of us anyway) are intelligent enough to listen to serious, fact-based discussions, and, with open minds, make good decisions. Given facts and unbiased scientific analysis the combined mental power of 300,000,000 people will make this country what it was meant to be. The 545 can do the grunt work. We’ll make the decisions.

Or we can remain lazy, misinformed pawns doing the mob work of the money people.

DRP

Some Science opinions (random and unconnected)

2009-09-15T12:05:00.000-07:00

Random science opinions volume I

1: What kind of person actually believes lights in the sky could be some extraterrestrial visitation. What kind of alien would fly around showing lights if they were trying to hide their presence. If they were not trying to hide their presence why not announce themselves and start some interaction.

2: Some current science disciplines are only slightly removed from art and imagination. What kind of science can describe a 5-ton 200 million year old lizard from a couple crumbling rocks weighing a few pounds? There is a lot of legitimacy in paleontology but imagination also plays a significant part. Paleontologists have a lot of hard evidence but come on, how can they describe the size, shape and lifestyle of an extinct creature from a couple old, rocky bones?

3:Astronomers and astro-physicists like to believe they have a grasp on their subject but their theories are based on imagination filtered through incomplete science. In a way similar to paleontologists, they describe complete systems based on interpretations of measurements with very wide ranges of inaccuracy. The understanding of our universe has not yet reached the equivalent of the earthworm's concept of automobiles. I enjoy the theories but I have always been a fan of science fiction.

4: Psychology is another art and imagination based science. From what I see in the news and TV crime shows (kinda qualifies my opinions, right?) you can always find a psychologist to support your personal opinion on a subject. Any diagnosis is always a personal interpretation based on some hard behavioral science combined with the Doctor's personality.

5:Medicine. Doctors are not allowed to practice their craft the way it should be practiced. The pressures of profit and liability require them to limit the time they spend actually getting the information they need to make accurate diagnoses. With a need to see as many patients as possible in the shortest period of time the average doctor treats the patient's first described symptom and brushes aside anything else. With lawyers lurking behind every patient, every doctor must practice defensive medicine: expensive tests that would not be ordered without the liability threat. As patients we like to believe our doctors are concerned about our well being and know what they're doing. Most doctors actually know what they're doing but get in a habit of quick, simple, defensible diagnoses instead of looking for real problems.

Party politics is ruining our country

2009-09-14T09:54:00.000-07:00

Party politics is ruining our country.

I have always been an opponent of the party-based political system we practice in this country. By letting political parties exercise influence and control over our elected legislators, we abdicate our roles as citizens. When we release ourselves from responsibility for the actions of our elected officials we become simple spectators and commentators. As citizens we have rights and responsibilities. We have the right to express our opinions in a community of valid media including the internet. We have the responsibility to become informed about the facts and to respond to our government’s activities. As citizens we have become lazy. We let others do our thinking and we seem to feel that the ability to quote or even paraphrase the latest sound bite or political headline demonstrates our understanding.
One-liners, sound-bites and thirty-second television ads are not informative; they are manipulative. That such tactics exist and persist is demonstration of the power the parties wield over our public opinions. Legislators should exist to inform us then listen to us and carry our desires onto the voting floor. They should not be part of any power-and-money centered organization working to influence our opinion. Many citizens have realized the influence of money on politicians and how susceptible they can be to the machinations of special interests. Political parties are, in effect, special interests disguised as social groups. No candidate has a real chance of success without allying himself with one of the two parties. Sure, there is a sprinkling of independents but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. In order to gain the support of a party a candidate must express agreement with most of the party’s philosophy and be willing to follow the party’s direction on issues. For any candidate the party alliance effectively isolates him from his constituency and the opinions and desires of the very people who elected him.
Voters have been guided by the party system for so long they see is as the law. It is not law as envisioned by the men who drafted the constitution. Party-centered activities are not described in the constitution. Cooperation between individual legislators on common issues is a good way to get important work done. This cooperation should be the choice of each individual lawmaker; not the choice of some party leadership. Inter-personal cooperation should be based on each legislator’s mandate from his constituency on specific issues, not a tacit agreement to be guided by the minority whip or some other imaginary position. When two or three people are effectively in charge of voting, these people wield a power over the legislature far beyond the intent of the constitution. They also serve as a single point of influence for special interests. It is easier to influence one person with offers of money, power, or other desirables than to spread the same resources over the entire group. This serves to subvert the legislative process.
As voters we should make every effort to support candidates who express refusal to be managed by party leadership. A candidate with the guts to stand alone against the party structure may well be the type of leader we need to take back our government. There is no reason why, as citizens, we cannot become knowledgeable on the issues and express our desires to our elected representatives. If we can do this we should then expect our representatives to respect our whishes; not the party line.

DRP

My personal health care story (all true)

2009-09-10T03:51:00.000-07:00

How the lack of health care affects me personally.

I have been unemployed for going on 6 months now. I am 57 years old and have a cluster of chronic conditions needing regular medications and doctors visits to assure survival. I have absolutely no form of insurance. It’s been several months since I saw a doctor and I don’t know how my conditions have progressed. My unemployment checks provide enough income (along with my wife’s disability check less than $800 month) to pay rent, utilities, a few groceries, and a weekly bankruptcy payment. By the way, the bankruptcy was caused in no small part by medical conditions and expenses. I have managed to get help from PPA for my maintenance medications such as insulin. A proper diabetic diet is more expensive than we can afford. Without the support from drug manufacturers (via PPA) I’d probably already be dead. Every week we have to decide where to most effectively spend the unemployment check – food, medicine, electric bill…etc. My wife’s disability check is eaten by the rent so everything else falls to me. I have managed to maintain an internet connection so I can keep up my job search. I have a recent degree in Information Technology and a Linux+ certification. The longer I remain unemployed the less likely it becomes that I will find work. My physical problems pretty much limit the kind of work I can do but no-one wants to hire a 57year-old entry-level computer programmer. I’ve been looking into freelance work and bidding on projects but I cannot compete with Indian, Pakistani, or other offshore software development companies.
To add to this situation, my wife also has some significant health conditions requiring expensive medications. We have managed to keep her prescriptions filled so far this year but this month she reached the gap in her Part-D coverage. Now we have to pay full price for her medicine which is not possible. Regular price for her medicines (using generics where available) exceeds our total income per month. I don’t know what we’ll do next month. We’re planning to make decisions based on her needs and our ability to pay and select one prescription to refill per month and try to stretch the medicines out like water in a desert.
We applied for additional help from TennCare – the Tennessee version of Medicaid but our total income is a few dollars over the limit. Before my unemployment checks started we had one month of extra coverage from the TennCare/QMB. My wife was reimbursed for her $98 Medicare premiums and for her prescription co-payments. That helped a lot. We lost this help once my unemployment checks started.
My most recent job loss was influenced in no small part by my increasing inability to perform the physical parts of my work to suit the company. It is after all a young man’s world. I have a strong set of marketable skills and experience to share even if I can no longer climb ladders all day, can’t see as well as I once did, or have trouble hearing. I want to work at something productive and constructive. I want to spend my time writing and debugging code and developing the next great website.

DRP

Re-visit some of my older posts

2009-09-08T18:21:00.000-07:00

If you are part of the ongoing debate about health care reform you should read some of my older posts. Click on the [older posts] link near the bottom of the page. Scroll down to read the posts from last month.

Comments on the President's stay-in-school PSA

2009-09-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

The president’s speech to school children

The absolutely unreasonable opposition to the president’s speech outrages me. People have full right to mount any valid opposition to President Obama’s policies. I don’t have to agree with them to let them express their opinions or opposition. The speech in question was not presented as a promotion of the President’s agenda. It was a valid non-partisan inspirational message to encourage children to stay in school. I think people are sending the wrong message to their children when they disallow the speech on partisan grounds.

Children who are old enough to be influenced by a politician’s speech are also susceptible to their parents’ influence. Parents should teach respect for the office of the president and basic human respect for the individual holding the office. Parents also have a responsibility to teach their views to their children. A well prepared child will listen to a politician’s speech and filter what he says through the standards and beliefs provided by the parents. If you are afraid your children will be unduly influenced by a political speech maybe you are not being effective in your teaching at home. Talk to your kids and prepare them for the world. Denying them exposure to the world and not teaching them how politicians, teachers, and even clergy promote their own agendas actually makes them more vulnerable to the influences you are trying to protect them from.

Another personal opinion: I believe the message sent to children by forbidding their access to a public service announcement from the leader of our country helps continue the erosion of support for our government. Parents should become more personally involved in the political growth of their kids. Let them hear the messages then teach them how to recognize spin, propaganda, and partisan messages. They will be better citizens for your efforts and less likely to succumb to the mob mentality promoted by sound bites and professional spin doctors. Maybe I’m being too generous with my opinion of parents today. I know I was never taught anything politically constructive by my parents. It has taken me 50 years to develop a valid political thought process. Someday I might take time to write down the influences my childhood had on my politics and the true crap I had to unlearn before maturing.
drp

Personal Attacks on Barak Obama

2009-09-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

I received another email today trying to convince me that President Obama is not a real citizen and does not deserve to be president. My response to such claims is the focus of this article.

What is the ultimate intent of this movement? Do you want Joe Biden as our president? Do you want another election? Are these claims being supported by international anti-American groups wanting to tear down our government? Do you people propagating these attacks really know where the claims actually originate? Such disruptive statements serve no purpose except to weaken this country through divisiveness. I'm sure there are people in the CIA who could explain this process better because they have used the same process to cause disruption in target countries. It is entirely possible we are being attacked by the Taliban, AlQueda, or some other anti-American organization. If we let these unfounded claims divide us, we are much more vulnerable to more overt attacks and less likely to mount a cohesive response to a real attack.

If you people are anti-American at heart and you believe in disrupting the American government you have to be careful how far you go. All you have to do is make one overt threat and the government you hate will be acutely aware of you. (and all that implies)

If you are propagating this stuff because you think there is truth in it, I want to know who your actual sources are and I want to research this myself. I happen to know that anyone can make up any story along with "photoshopped" images to support that story. Truth is not required. You people must think for yourselves and think about why this stuff keeps coming around. Do you want to be a part of an attack on our country because you're too stupid to choose DELETE instead of FORWARD.

As the Geico Gecko said: "c'mon people"

DRP

A short letter about handgun laws.

2009-08-29T06:32:00.000-07:00

Recently my state (Tennessee) passed a law that allows persons with state handgun carry permits to carry their guns in parks. The same law provides local municipalities the option to ban guns in the parks within their jurisdictions. The complications exceeded anything I ever imagined and TV news stories about the issue have been far too frequent. After one such story where local school boards were refusing to hold school activities in parks where guns were allowed I reacted. I sent the following letter to the TV station that aired the story and I decided to publish it here also.

Guns in parks

As a handgun permit holder I feel more than a little insulted by some recent reactions to the guns in parks decision by the Tennessee Legislature. Opponents to guns act like I’m some crazy person who is subject to shooting wildly about. I am not! Like all legal permit holders I have established a record of non-violence and law abiding stability. I have never been charged with a felony, I have never been accused of domestic violence in any form, I am not and have never been a drug user, and I have never been judged mentally incompetent. In effect I am just about as safe a person to be around as any one you know. If I have my weapon with me it is not being brandished in a threatening manner, in fact you will never know if I have it or not.

Look around you in any public place. What can you say about the people you see? You really have no way to know what kind of person you may be looking at. If you know I have a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit you can be sure I am not an unstable, violence prone felon. I am in fact a safer person to have next to you than some of the people you may know. Please stop acting like permit holders are dangerous. We have met the background checks and we have passed classes on proper safety procedures. We are not a danger to you and especially to your kids. The person carrying a gun without a permit is already a felon and he is not worried about what the law says.

D. Page

Please post some comments or tweet me at twitter.com/wyoknott

Senator Edward Kennedy's passing

2009-08-27T04:52:00.000-07:00

There are opponents of health care reform who are breathing a secret sigh of relief. With the passing of Senator Kennedy the most powerful and long-lived voice for reform has been quieted. Kennedy was a proponent of health care reform many years before the stance became sexy. He sincerely believed all Americans had a right to health care and he did not like the way health care had become a privilege based on one's financial status.

I don't necessarily believe it is a right but at today's rising costs it is rapidly becoming a privilege of the wealthy. My view of reform requires insurance companies to limit the practices that place adequate coverage to sick people far below profit on their corporate plans. I want a plan that provides basic coverage for pre-existing conditions (does not exclude pre-existing from coverage). My recommendation for the public option is based on using the public option to supplement the insurance options available from the private sector. A private sector insurer will always have the right to establish its own coverage system and include any exclusions it sees fit. To have this right the insurer must be willing to pay a surcharge on the premiums it collects from members. This surcharge will help offset the public cost of subsidizing the people who cannot afford to pay for coverage. The public option will provide coverage for anyone. The cost of coverage for the individual will depend on that individual's ability to pay. The private insurers can provide lower premiums by continuing the exclusion practices that reduce their costs but they will have to pay for that privilege with the aforementioned surcharge. This actually seems fair to all and a good, non-controversial option to the status-quo.
Post your comments to tell me what you think!
DRP

ps: I must apologize for the insensitivity of using Senator Kennedy's passing as an opportunity to mount my soapbox but it is a common political practice is it not.

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

2009-08-20T09:59:00.001-07:00

Here is a list of facts about the health care reform issue. This list is what I believe about the issue and the ongoing debate:

1)President Obama truly intends to improve the lives of all Americans by extending access to health care to ALL Americans - Not just the "well-off".

2)The rising cost of health care and health insurance is putting even basic health out of the reach of an increasing number of people.

3)The President's intent is to help the people without adequate access to care. He has no desire to take over the entire population's health care.

4)A workable plan will be an insurance-based plan with subsidies for lower income families so they can choose their own insurance with financial aid from the government.

5)No workable plan will be free. Someone will have to pay for it. The only way to pay is by taxes on someone.

6)The people most in need of help are the ones least able to pay taxes. There exists an income level above which the impact of a health care surtax or some other taxation is minimal the the family's quality of life/lifestyle.

7)Families with income above a to-be-determined level will have to pay the taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for poorer people.

8)People who oppose reform are being manipulated by outrageous statements funded by the rich people who simply do not want to pay for other people's health insurance.

9)People without access to health care are dying daily. Opposing reform increases the death rate and reduces the quality of life for those it doesn't kill.

10)I really believe there are wealthy people in the country who oppose reform because they do not want to share waiting rooms and hospital resources with poor people.

11)Statistics might establish a level of personal taxation needed to keep one person alive for a month. If you (with family income greater than say $200,000 refuse to pay this amount you are effectively killing someone.

12)If you have good insurance coverage that you are happy with, you should be allowed to keep it. that does not preclude paying some tax on that coverage based on income level.

13)The insurance industry is already the most effective rationer of care. We don't have to fear government rationing. How often do we hear of someone being refused treatment because the insurance they have won't pay for it.

14)I have reason to believe our streets could be safer if some marginal people had better care, including mental health care. Private insurance is notoriously limiting when dealing with mental health issues. We need some reform to promote better mental health care. I bet a lot of people believe I should get some help here.

15)The Medicare system has some significant problems but it does make use of private insurors to provide prescription assistance. Something similar to the Medicare system would help many people and it is paid for by deductions from recipient's monthly checks.

16)Opponents to President Obama are using this issue as a weapon against him with total disregard for the collateral damage to unfortunate people.

17)We were once a very powerful country when we combined our efforts. People around the world looked to us an an example. We can solve any problem through cooperation and compromise. We can be damaged from within by political wars with no purpose other than gaining power over someone.

18)People must think for themselves and stop being influenced by TV ads. Just think about how many lives could be saved by the money spent on the ads.

19)We all need to think about the reasoning behind the ads; think about the concept of spinning information to promote a viewpoint.

20) Everyone must look at who will be helped by reform and who will actually be hurt. The helped vastly outnumber the hurt - this cannot be denied. Maybe we need to look to our hearts instead of our bank accounts for the real story here.

dRp

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

2009-08-20T09:59:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of things I believe about the health care debate:
1) President Obama truly wants to help the american people live better, longer, productive lives by providing health care to everyone. (I could be wrong but this is my belief)
2)The plan envisioned by the President is not a complete, all-encompassing health care system for every one. It will be intended for persons who cannot afford insurance or health care at today's market prices.
3)The plan in whatever form it ends up will not be "cheap". There will have to some taxes paid by someone to make any plan workable.
4)the

Something other than health care

2009-08-16T10:18:00.000-07:00

My home state, Tennessee recently passed a law allowing persons with handgun carry permits to carry weapons in public parks. Municipalities are allowed to opt-out of carrying guns in parks by passing local measures. Many cities and towns have exercised this right and prohibited guns in local parks.

I may be revealing too much about my own personality in this post but I feel the need to comment here. The local rules only serve to cause a patchwork of confusion in the state. Handgun carriers travelling around the state can unknowlingly run afoul of local rules - especially if they have been allowed to carry in their home area parks. People who oppose carrying in parks are reacting emotionally and are not thinking clearly about the issue. It can be statistacally demonstrated (I'll get a link to support this statement later)that the people who have qualified for handgun carry permits are one of the population segments least likely to be violent or to permit any crimes. The very nature of the person who meets the requirements establishes that person's stability and history as a lawabiding citizen. All it takes is one incident of violence in a person's background to deny ther permit. Even one charge of domestic violence is enough to deny a permit. The handgun permit holder walking next to you in the park is an anonymous security resource. The criminal in the park carrying a knife (or a gun or club) has no respect for your rights and security. The handgunner has a moral (and possibly legal) responsibility to come to your aid if you are attacked by a criminal type. Do not deny this person the means to come to your aid immediately. A ploiceman is not usually close at hand. You might be surprised how many authorized handgun carriers are close at hand in the places you frequent.

DRP

Why we need reform and not lies or accusations.

2009-08-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

Once more I am inspired to comment on healthcare reform.

On today’s evening news I saw a follow-up report on a free healthcare service for poor, uninsured and under-insured persons. There were literally thousands of people of all ages staying in line just to see one of a group of volunteer doctors. The report went on to say less than half of small businesses can afford to provide insurance for their employees or themselves. This is a very real indicator of the need for healthcare reform in this country. There are millions of people with no access to health care at all. Sure there are some laws the require hospitals to provide a certain level of indigent care but the laws generally apply to acute need and do not provide wellness or preventative care. What happens is people cannot get any help unless their life is in immediate jeopardy.
Now, what does this mean in respect to the current debate raging in the media? It means there is one side that has been either grossly misinformed or is undeniably selfish and greedy. Opponents to reform want the current system to remain in place. The current system is becoming more expensive at an alarming rate – putting reasonable care out of reach to more people. I can understand if you have good coverage at a price you can afford you certainly do not want any drastic changes. My problem is the lack of compassion for the growing number of people left behind as costs escalate.
The intent of the reform is to get some help for lower income level families. There is no intent or need to mess with anybody’s current coverage if said coverage is acceptable to the covered. Certainly there will be costs associated with providing coverage. The only real way to cover these costs is an increase in revenue from some sources. Highway infrastructure is paid for in a large part by taxes related to highway use: fuel taxes, local wheel taxes…etc. It would not be unreasonable to institute a small tax on some portions of the health care system to pay for the coverage. The government should be no more than a provider of insurance coverage for those without any other affordable coverage. There is no reason for government regulation of health care beyond what we now have. I would expect the coverage provided by the government would be less restrictive and intrusive than most current insurance companies. People would have the option of buying the government-backed insurance coverage or any private insurance coverage. For the lower income levels the government would subsidize the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles so families could afford the payments. More people will have access to coverage. Current coverage need not change. The combination of user premiums and subsidies for low income families based on reasonable taxes on existing private coverage would pay the cost. Competition would remain the driving force of private insurers.
If you have an irrational fear of sharing a waiting room with a poor family, you could purchase a private access plan and you never have to see a poor person. If you think it is better to let poor people to suffer instead of paying a bit more tax you are simply selfish and greedy. As I have said before: Some people would rather let three people die prematurely than pay a 1 or 2 percent annual tax on their health care. There is no excuse to oppose reform blindly. Support reform in concept and work with us to craft a workable solution. People are suffering. Be wiling to help. Don’t believe all the outrageous lies being wielded as political weapons. Think for yourself and with your soul. Help us find a workable reform plan!!!

Socialized Medicine Scare

2009-08-09T19:40:00.000-07:00

My response to the socialized medicine ads being run opponents to healthcare reform:

If you have adequate healthcare and you are secure in the feeling that you will have access to care for the rest of your life then there is no need for you to worry about healthcare reform. If there is a chance you might loose the job that provides your healthcare coverage or you might loose the ability to pay for your own healthcare then you should be very interested in how this debate plays out.

Here is an interesting comparison. Legal representation is always provided for criminal suspects if they cannot afford to pay for it. If the suspect can pay, he get the representation he can afford. In the legal system, more money gets better quality representation. This is not debateable. I am aware that legal representation is a right guaranteed by the constitution while there is no direct mention of health care. From this point of view there is no comparison between the justice system and healthcare.

There is another possible point of view. Lack of healthcare access can be a threat to a person's life and life is widely accepted as one of our "inalienable rights". I don't expect that rich person to be forced to the same level of care that I can afford and i don't expect the same level of care the wealth person can afford. I would like to have some access to care that might prolong my life or prevent premature death from some treatable disease.

What is really happening here is that wealthy people are afraid they will have to share their top quality healthcare providers with a waiting room full of poor people. I have personally witnessed the difference in the quality of care and the quality of facilities between well-off neighborhood clinics and poor neighborhood clinics. If I had the money I too would prefer the wealthy neighborhood. I don't have the money and I would be happy to see a doctor in any neighborhood. The opponents are using scare tactics to generate pressure to oppose reform. The exaggerations and misleading statements are intended to manipulate the masses by making the majority of people believe their healthcare is threatened. If the prices continue to increase the income level that provides adequate access is going to increase as well. More people will loose access. Wealthy people will have to pay more.

What we need is a rational plan to subsidize lower income families and the small businesses who employ them to enable their access to healthcare. We need laws to prevent denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. We need laws to tax employers who refuse to provide adequate coverage for employee and families. We need oversight of insurance companies that use drastic rules to deny coverage for expensive treatments. We need to stop insurance company accountants setting the rules for treatment and ignoring doctors' and providers' recommendations. We must put some controls in place to limit the outrageous inflation that has driven healthcare costs out of the reach of so many people including bussinesses. We could actually subsidize doctors' insurance costs if they voluntarily provide lower income care at reduced prices.

What is intended is making healthcare accessible to more people at the lower end of the income scale and possiblly reducing costs to employers who want to provide coverage to employees. There is no threat to the care accessible by people who can afford it. There certainly may be a tax required to pay for it; if you would rather have three people die from lack of care than pay an additional 1% tax that is a reflection on your personal greed. In this country, we have been strangling our government in recent years by refusing to provide the means for the services we demand. even without healthcare reform we need some additional taxes to help our government operate.

Raising taxes vs. letting people die.

2009-08-03T06:54:00.000-07:00

I just read a headline reporting Obama officials have finally mentioned the only thing that will help the health care reform – tax increase. Now the rich and powerful have the ultimate weapon to wield against the Obama administration. The myriad ways of spinning the phrase “tax increase” make it a very powerful weapon indeed. There is no real way to put a positive spin on a tax increase discussion except appealing to voters’ humanity and compassion. I have been preaching this concept for several months now in this blog that remains mostly unread. I even tried to put my own spin on the subject by equating the refusal to raise taxes to allowing people to die.

I cannot see how a person with an income greater than 200K/yr can feel threatened by an additional $500 – 1000 a year in taxes. I have existed all my life on less than $50k/yr and lived OK. I had reasonable health care through my employers, money/credit to buy home or car, and even some vacation time. I have never really complained about the taxes I pay because I realize I should pay my part for the government services. These services often include helping less fortunate in my community. A family making four times as much as I do should have no more real needs than I do. Sure there is a higher priced home, higher priced cars, much higher priced colleges…etc but these are optional expenses chosen – not imposed. If you choose to spend all your money that’s a personal decision and other people should not have to pay for your decisions. When you demand lower taxes in order to increase your available funds you are strangling the government of resources. The reduction in resources will not likely impact your life nearly as much as the people who lose their police presence or fire protection in low income neighborhoods.

This same argument applies to the current healthcare crisis. If you refuse to pay taxes just because you want more spending money, you are hurting someone in need. If you have substantial income, you can continue to pay for increasing healthcare costs for your own family. The family with less income does not have that option – there is a point where their access to healthcare goes away. We are at that point now! People are making choices between medicine and food; doctor visits or rent; getting that cough treated or buying a tank of gas to get to work. I KNOW! I am one of them! Sure I’m being a bit selfish but am I any more selfish than the rich person who demands lower taxes for his own benefit?

There may be some intangible costs involved in denying healthcare to poor people. Think about this: That homeless person with a cough could be suffering from Swine Flu. Do you want him spreading the disease or getting into a hospital for treatment (and isolation)? That young man with an easily controllable mental health issue may have lost his access to the medicine that keeps him stable. What could happen? I realize other people’s problems are easily dismissed as being their own fault. It is a fact that not all of us have the personalities that make us successful in life. You need to keep these people alive – even if for no other reason than to have someone to look down on. Refuse to pay a few dollars more taxes and let one of us die early. You’ll never know about it. You won’t feel the loss nearly as much as you’d feel the extra $30/week in taxes on your $2500/week paycheck.

DRP

Cap on Executive Salaries and bonuses.

2009-07-31T17:12:00.000-07:00

Caps on executive salaries

I see where Congress is trying to impose limits on Wall Street Executive salaries. If they go about it correctly it might be a good idea. If they do it heavy-handedly the cries of socialism will start to ring true. In the ideal world the companies and executives would make these changes without government intervention. I have two suggestions about how this should work. Both of these have been mentioned in earlier posts but I see the need to revisit them.

First, I would like to see a rule limiting any executive’s total compensation to no more than 5 times the average salary of all the company employees. This would help (in theory at least) raise the incomes of all employees. As a working class employee all my life I find it hard to forget that my co-workers and I carry the weight of the executives. They have the education, talent, and personalities to make the million-dollar decisions and I understand that. Still, someone has to tighten the screws and sweep the floors. I have had a hard time in the past being sure MBA didn’t mean” Must Be an Asshole” or “Master of Being Abusive” instead of the accepted meaning. Increasing a company’s profits by limiting wages just to get a large profit-based bonus at the end of the year seems abusive to the workers. Sure, we don’t want to be responsible for the decisions; in a large part because we might have a different point of view.

The economy is not powered by high priced executives; ultimately it is powered by consumers. $25 more disposable money in the hands of 50,000 families has more impact than $1,250,000 divided among 10 top executives. Stockholders expect a few cents per share income on the 100,000(or so) shares they each own. That is capitalism and I have no problem with it. You cannot convince me that paying out multimillions total in bonuses does not impact the stock dividend. If I were an executive I might forego a larger dividend in order to receive a million dollar bonus atop my $750,000 salary.

My second idea for executive compensation is a totally different approach for rewarding top people for extraordinary success. I realize that people who have the personality to make the good business decisions expect to be recognized and rewarded for their success. I also believe there is a rational limit for the personal wealth any person actually needs. There is a point where additional income simply becomes superfluous. If too large a portion of a country’s capital is removed from the groups with the most impact on the economy the economy will suffer. An executive with a personal wealth in excess of $30Million (or another arbitrary figure) doesn’t really need a million-dollar bonus. He should be rewarded for his successes of course. I propose the board of the company (any company) determine what his contribution to the company is worth then publically donate the amount to charity in the executive’s name. A public announcement of the donation and public recognition of the executive’s efforts would be more personally rewarding than another big bonus to hide from the IRS.

I would love to see a full-page ad in the WSJ saying that St Jude Children’s Research Hospital just received a million dollar donation in my name from my company. Public appreciation of this type might be incentive for others.

I realize republican politicians with rich backers will have to label my ideas communist or socialist. I am not a communist or socialist and your opinion of me is inconsequential.

DRP

Health care compromize and More Professor Gates

2009-07-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

Healthcare compromise, Partisanism, Racism again visible

I see members of congress have managed to put a small portion of their “irreconcilable differences” aside long enough to make some compromises on healthcare reform. Any progress is welcome since the current conditions are not acceptable. In the end though, the most important consideration was cost. No elected official is willing to publicly admit the only solution is a tax increase. The threat to their personal power base and the support from their party weighs heavier than their commitment to public service. Not one has (to my knowledge) publicly said health reform was important enough to risk his/her re-election over. President Obama appears to see the personal costs paid by victims of the current healthcare system and is pushing hard for the reform we need.

Way back in high school, I wrote a paper about the development of political parties in this country. I did not see it then but in recent years I have grown to see many failures of the party system as practiced in this country. In order to achieve election success the vast majority of politicians must have access to the parties’ war chests and the incumbent power base. The person with an independent viewpoint and the personal strength to stand by it has no chance on the large scale political arena. The successful politician has to be willing to sell out to one or the other parties in order to be elected. He or she then has the parties’ leaders in his head writing his speeches, controlling his appearances, designating his votes and effectively pulling his strings. The sound bite is the primary political tool. President Obama has shown more independence than any president in my memory. The remark about the police department that arrested Professor Gates shows a willingness to say what’s on his mind – however misguided or misinformed. Unlike a normal politician who avoids confrontation and keeps his bridges well protected from fire, President Obama seems to want to make a difference in his first and probably only term. Re-election is not his goal. Making a difference in the lives and future of the American people is his applaudible goal. Even if your party wants him gone, you have to respect his goals on a personal level.

The arrest of Professor Gates will not go away. As a white person who grew up seeing “black” and “white only” signs over public water fountains and restrooms I can see how much racism has been eroded in this country. I think I see a rebound effect lurking deep within this incident. Professor Gates’ ethnic heritage is much closer to the surface than he would have admitted before this encounter. In the heat of the moment he fell back on this heritage as a personal explanation of what was happening to him. The officer, not having this heritage, did not understand the Professor’s actions or reactions. As I said in an earlier post, the officer’s training required him to seize control of the situation quickly. An unruly (in the officer’s point of view) person needs to be controlled. The most effective means was arrest. As long as living people remember the past at such a core level we will experience these incidents. We need to work toward real understanding and away from the blame. Continuing to keep the incident in the spotlight after a couple of days is counter-productive.

Think about this: In the digital display of the history of racial mistreatment in this country this is but a pixel on a huge bitmap, inconsequential except at a microscopic viewpoint. It makes absolutely no difference in the appearance of the whole picture. Let it go people. We have more important things to worry about.

"Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man"

2009-07-27T13:23:00.000-07:00

Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man
New York Times (07/25/09) Markoff, John
TECHNEWS@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

This was a headline on a recently received email and it spurred my thoughts as many things often do. Machines will outsmart man because man has reached a social stagnation in his evolution/advance. We have the power to change our environment in almost any way we decide to take it. We have the knowledge to end most of the causes of human suffering in the world. We have the means to expand beyond our one tiny world if we just set our minds to it.

Instead of doing the things we can and should do to improve ourselves, we find ways to impoverish each other, to kill each other for no reason other than pride, and to impose our wills on others just because they’re weaker. Greed is the driving force of humanity. Greed is in fact the vilest of human weaknesses because it is too easily rationalized away in our minds. Greed is a corruption of our animal instincts in that it has connections deep within us to our survival instincts. Intelligence should be the human strength that controls greed. Far too many of us allow our greed to control our intelligence. This will be the root cause for the eventual collapse of human civilization worldwide. We could use our collective intelligence to see the future path to our destiny. Instead we work as individuals pulling in directions of personal interest. The strength that brought humans to the top of Earth’s heap of life has devolved into a misdirected cancer that erodes our future. I can see this but I do not have the solution. Do you?

DRP

New thoughts about Professor Gates' arrest.

2009-07-25T19:08:00.000-07:00

An important lesson! Can we learn it?
The latest word from the White house and some of the public in general is that Professor Gates was no less responsible for the arrest than the arresting officer. The incident escalated much more rapidly than it should have. We have two intelligent people with much different histories and perspectives in a situation where both personalities expect to be in control. In the end, control went to the authority of the police department and overrode the Professor's personal need to control a situation. The officer was backed up by his department while the Professor was on his own. His personal anger kept the situation more heated than was justified. The police officer could have relinquished control but his training would not allow that. We can learn from this if we understand the two points of view. If we refuse to understand and continue to blame one side or the other we learn nothing.
DRP

Harvard Professor Arrested

2009-07-23T13:38:00.000-07:00

A comment about the recent [unfounded] arrest of a black college professor.

I suspect the professor reacted the same way almost any black person would react in the same situation. He was outraged, and understandably so. If a white person were arrested in similar circumstances he would have no reason to react with outrage to perceived racial bias. The white person would likely be able to quickly provide proof of identity without getting angry. Given the history of mistreatment and misunderstanding between white police officers and African-Americans in general the specter of racial profiling is easily brought into being.

Also, I suspect the police officer has heard the same or very similar argument more than once from a person who was actually breaking into a home. He is not likely to believe what he hears from a suspect until there is some proof of what is said. Rapid escalation toward anger might have made it even harder for the police officer to accept a suspect’s statements. Police training (again I merely suppose) is to gain control quickly in any situation. Arrest is his most effective means of gaining control of an angry and potentially dangerous suspect. Maybe the officer was afraid of the professor.
To a police officer arresting a suspect is no big deal. They do it daily and it very rarely is a personal thing – it is part of the process of completing a task. To a Professor it is a much more personal act of mistreatment.

Without hearing the actual exchange between the participants in this mess I cannot go any deeper into an explanation for either side’s actions.

A quote from AP via Yahoo
“Police supporters charge that Gates, director of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, was responsible for his own arrest by overreacting. “

DRP

anti-reform ads point to Canadian socialism

2009-07-21T17:55:00.000-07:00

I just endured a TV ad opposing healthcare reform. The spokesperson related a horror story about Canadian health care - implying any American healthcare reform would become like the Canadian system. That is an insult to the American people because we CAN do much better than Canadians. We do not have to destroy the good parts of our current system. The level of care available to most people in this country in unmatched anywhere in the world. There are some problems we need to address though. The cost of health care is rising at an unsustainable rate and the effects of this inflation are felt at all income levels. Businesses are reducing or eliminating health benefits for workers. Retirees are being pruned off existing plans. The cost of self-paid insurance is absolutely prohibitive for the very people who need it most. If a person has any of several chronic conditions, most plans won't even insure him/her and those that will cover him impose premiums beyond reason. We continue to strangle our local governments by refusing to pay taxes needed for adequate services putting unfortunate people in need out on the street.

What we need is some reasoning going beyond politics and greed. We can support our unfortunates while allowing people with money the access to all the healthcare they can afford. We do not have to socialize the system. We need to teach capitalism the concept of compassion. Capitalism with a conscience is not an alien concept. Capitalism is the strength of this country and must continue to be. A minor progressive tax to subsidize healthcare for families below certain income levels or with chronic conditions that make then otherwise uninsurable is not socialism. We should work together to devise a plan that is the envy of the world. We should combine the strength of capitalism, some human compassion, American ingenuity, and our American capacity for compromise to help unfortunates. As we work on the problem we might also find ways to fund research without allowing drug companies outrageous subsidies and free reign to rip-off consumers. Drug companies are second only to oil companies in the way they rape the public.

I do not want a Canadian style "socialist" system - I expect an American style innovative solution to a tough problem. Stop beating up on each other and listen to people like me. I know what is needed. I can see it well from down here. There are too many layers of greed, politics, and power brokering obscuring the government's view. Contact me!!! I know what is needed!!!
DRP

California snubs the people rather than raise taxes.

2009-07-21T16:07:00.000-07:00

California's ongoing budget problem has reached a settlement. According to national TV news the solution is massive cuts in government services. I cannot disagree with the proposal to sell oil drilling rights or the idea of selling Arnold-signed products to add money to the coffers. Cutting services such as health care, welfare, police, or fire is unconscionable. This puts the lives and welfare of many people second to raw greed. There is no argument against raising taxes that cannot be boiled down to basic greed. Refusing to pay for vital services just to keep a few hundred dollars in ones account is nothing else but raw greed. One of my earlier posts mentioned letting people die rather than pay a couple percent more in taxes. How much is a life worth? Are all of you so self-centered as to ignore the real impact of your decision on people's lives? All my life I have existed at or just below the level of basic comfortable living. Even at this income level I never truly felt bad about paying my fair share of taxes. I understand the need to pay for government services - especially services for less fortunate. Any other approach is just greed.

drp

More on Health care reform

2009-07-20T15:37:00.000-07:00

fiveboxes - a twitter user - recently commented on my healthcare opinions. The gist of the comments, as I understand it, is that healthcare reform amounts to socialization of the healthcare industry. I can see the reasons for that argument although I disagree. I believe calling reform "socialization" could be much less negative than fiveboxes implies. I recognize that a homeless person dying of cancer can walk into a hospital and receive some treatment for free. That same person will be "streeted" as soon as the hospital can justify it because the hospital does not want to absorb the cost. The well insured person will always receive a higher standard of care because the hospital's greed for profit will demand full services. The limits and restrictions described in fiveboxes' comments are already real in the industry. The healthcare industry and the insurance industry are regularly finding new reasons to limit non-profit services while spinning the limits as cost savings. Either way the less fortunate always fall through ever-increasing cracks leading to poor quality of life and premature death. Socialization, as bad as it could possibly become, will be better for the people on the bottom of society's structure.

I do not believe we will let any president take our healthcare too far toward socialism. We will always support and glory in capitalism. What we need to do is practice capitalism with a conscience. We must be willing to give up a small piece of the profit margin in order to distribute some of the benefits of capitalism to those whose shoulders actually carry capitalism. The people who tighten the screws on our products and sweep the floors in our factories struggle to live a reasonable quality of life when their access to basic healthcare is limited.

I am 57 years old. I have suffered the closings of more than one employer and subsequent personal financial straits. I have had to fall back on 401K money just to survive on three different occasions. I lost my last two jobs in part due to medical problems that impacted my performance. Now I'm unemployed, uninsured, surviving on unemployment compensation for the next three months, and in poor health. I have a place to live as long as the unemployment checks continue but my health is deteriorating because I cannot see a doctor. I make just enough to disqualify for indigent care provisions at hospitals but nowhere near enough to pay for healthcare or insurance. To me a socialized system does not look quite so poisonous.

drp

Jury Nullification: the reason juries are needed.

2009-07-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

Recently I came upon a series of tweets discussing Jury Nullification. I was shocked to learn that prospective jurors are being rejected just for mentioning it. THIS IS JUST WRONG! Any law, no matter how carefully thought out and crafted by strongly legal minds can encounter circumstances where blind application of said law becomes unjust. Juries "of peers" are the means for real people to influence the way a law is applied to specific situations. I'm sure the people who spend most of their lives studying the "legal" application of the law do not want a jury to bypass legal education and decide according to circumstance. The founding fathers intended the jury system to be the check/balance on the legal system. Juries keep the lawyers and judges human and limit their power to be blind to circumstance. Jury nullification is an implied right and a citizens duty when a law is being applied wrongly. As long as people have the right to make decisions as people we will have lawyers instead of robots in control of the legal system. Once the juries loose the right to decide, the government becomes much more powerful and dangerous. Sure there are cases where juries have freed widely accepted guilty persons. This is not a condemnation of jury nullification, instead it highlights a prosecutorial failure. We need to spread the word through the "underground" that if you serve on a jury, you have the right to decide guided by your own heart and soul, and not according to the judge's instructions. I know the one jury I was part of did just that.

Let the poor die - we don't need them

2009-07-15T15:52:00.000-07:00

It is painfully obvious that people who have the money to spend would rather spend the money to fight a tax increase than to pay a tax to help people who need healthcare. The concept is: “I would rather have 3 people die due to lack of health care than to pay an extra $1000 a year out of my $250,000 a year income.” What is wrong with America? Greed is the driving force in this country. What happened to freedom, belief in God (or any god), and respect for others?
It is equally obvious that people who are in a position to do something about this are too afraid of offending their heavily moneyed supporters to do what needs to be done. Maybe the consensus among rich people is: if enough poor people die we won’t have the problem anymore. Is that what is being implied here? Is that the message we want to show the world - We don’t care and we aren’t afraid to hide it. Is it?

Come on people. Don’t be afraid to do what must be done. Don’t be ashamed to admit to your friends that your conscience requires you to help people. How many people in this country have incomes of $250000 or more? How many have incomes less that this? If we organize the voters, we can outweigh the money with votes. The money itself cannot overcome a mass of voters unless the voters let themselves be manipulated by the money-driven media.

DRP

California is loosing its collective mind

2009-07-12T19:35:00.000-07:00

I see that California lawmakers, strangled by the greed of the voting public, are continuing to cut services in their attempt to resolve the budget. This is not really a legislative problem. The people in the state who are not willing to pay for the services provided by the state have hobbled the legislature with an impossible situation. Sure, we all want to keep as much of our own money as we can. If I had any money coming in I would want to keep it as much as anybody. When I did have some income I never complained about the taxes I paid but I certainly complain about the quality and level of services I get for the money. The people who most need the services are the people least likely to vote. This means responsible people who vote must not forget the people who desperately need state services. Cutting services to balance a budget mostly hurts people who neither vote nor have any other resource to fall back on. If people are too greedy about their own money to pay for the services they are not likely to provide charities with enough money to ensure effectiveness.

There is only one way to do this effectively. Raise taxes on those who can afford it. Make the tax temporary based on some measure of economic growth or resource surplus. People who become desperate also become unpredictable and even violent. Think people. Plan ahead. Be people instead of greedy despots.

Ok, I apologize for getting carried away but I hope I can make you think. (AND To the Tennessee legislature: you're not much better.) No one is saying "we need to help people" every one is saying "I pay too much tax already".

DRP

Some thoughts about religion and conflict

2009-07-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

One good thing about this method of communication - If I make people mad at me they have to use up their anger just to find me. That's why I can post opinions like this one.

I recently watched a TV show examining the common origins of the three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. There is a common origin in all of them and that origin is Abraham. One theme winding through the tv show was the way these three religions have lost focus on the message of God while arguing about the "mechanics" of worship and faith.

A couple years ago as part of my college requirements I had to take a humanities course. Segments of this course dealt with these three religions. I had to complete several assignments and one common theme I embraced was the idea that the three great religions had obscured the message of God. The three religions, instead of working to understand their differences and learn tolerance, had devolved into deadly conflict. This conflict continues to this day in very visible and deadly ways. I believe God is above the petty conflicts of man and evil uses these conflicts to weaken us all. Religious leaders try to justify their existence and exercise their power by promoting these conflicts. These leaders, in their blindness to the real message, are doing the work of Satan. I include all religions in this statement but certainly not all leaders in any one religion.

Tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and cooperation will strengthen us all. Intolerance, hatred, exclusion and violence are Satan's work and far too many people are being sacrificed to Satan in the name of God.

Finally some real financial sense in Washington

2009-07-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

I recently read an article (from AP via Yahoo) saying a tax increase on the wealthy might part a large part of the proposed healthcare reform. Here is an excerpt:

"Democrats on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee agreed to a new surtax that would start with households making $350,000 a year and begin in 2011, said the committee's chairman, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

It would raise some $540 billion over 10 years, about half the cost of Obama's ambitious plan to reshape the nation's health care system and provide care to the 50 million uninsured. However, lawmakers could not provide an exact price tag of the overall bill."

I have been screaming this message to anyone who'll listen for months now. I like to think maybe my message got through somehow but I realize that's not likely. The "rich people" who will carry this burden can well afford it. I suspect most of them will spend more than the tax amount to influence greedy legislators to oppose it. The people who exist in the suggested income level certainly have the resources to handle the tax. Sure they might have to forgo an extended trip to Europe or they might decide to keep their BMW for a few months longer than the normal 6 but the real impact on their lives will be minimal. The impact of health issues without medical care is much more real to the poor people who will be the recipients of the health care.
There will continue to be loud speeches trying to say the government will control our healthcare, select our doctors, designate our hospitals...etc. I will go to any doctor I have to go to to get treatment I would not otherwise receive and a lot of people feel similarly. The rich folks will still go the their providers of choice because they can afford it. Also I really do not believe the government wants to control our healthcare. Only if the healthcare industry refuses to cooperate with government cost subsidy plans will interference be needed.

The speeches will be given by those legislators in the pay of the rich who don't want to pay back something to the country that provides them the opportunity and people who shovel the dirt and tighten the screws for them as they make their money.
Look closely at the people who oppose healthcare reform. Make an effort to look past the rhetoric and try to understand their real motives.

D. Page

Healthcare vs. Greed (its all of us!)

2009-07-06T11:40:00.000-07:00

Ok, my liberalism has escaped control again. My friends will never talk to me again after this post.

Any person who does not want some form of health care reform is self-centered, profit-driven, short-sighted, young and healthy, or rich. No NORMAL person can be happy with the present system. Some intelligent people believe one indicator of a society's humanity is the treatment it has for the less fortunate in their world. We are headed toward being a very inhumane society if we do not find a way to support our less fortunate. There are people in this country who make large effort and even sacrifice to help poor, hungry children in Africa or other locations. I applaud any efforts in this direction and I wish I was able to contribute more myself. How do these same people feel about a tax increase to help poor children and sick grandparents in this country?

Any health care reform will have to be driven by the government. There is no way any private organization can cancel the profit chase in favor of helping people. There is no way people who cannot afford health care can influence a private organization to give them free health care. Charity has always been one resource for some but it has always fallen short of being a dependable solution. Charity only arises when a person's own wants and needs have been fulfilled and something is left over.

The middle class in this country always has and always will carry the burden of taxation. The higher income levels of the middle class (I believe)carry much of the current burden of charity. This is not so much because of a desire to help as it is seeking the tax breaks. This limits the resources of the charities. The lower we go in the middle class income scale the less there is available for charity and the less incentive there is for tax-break charity.

Any health care plan that helps the unfortunate will be costly. We should institute a progressive tax to pay this cost based on an entity's ability to pay. I say "entity" because I expect this tax to fall onto companies as well as individuals. Tax breaks should be granted to companies providing reasonable care to workers' families and retirees. Retirement accounts in excess of a certain amount should be taxed for health care when retirees access the accounts.

The 401K plan was and is a very good idea. I do not know if the originators of the idea realized the side effects but 401K accounts have driven the stock market higher for many years. Now the money is not being fed into this mechanism as much as it once was as we boomers retire. Our funds are being pulled out and this might have contributed to the stock market instability of late. If I had a six-figure retirement account I would not mind paying a $40 tax from my monthly withdrawal to support health care for less fortunate. I can see no reason why a person with a seven-figure retirement account could not pay $150 month. He might have to park his RV for a couple days but that would reduce our energy an pollution hits.

DRP

Just want to let everyone know

2009-07-06T11:22:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting for the Linux+ exam tommorrow. I fully expect to be successful.

Does anyone know how to turn a Linux+ certification into a paying job?

follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/WyoKnott

Government shutdowns due to budget issues #2

2009-07-02T05:04:00.000-07:00

California is, I believe, one of our most populous states. The California state government is about to collapse due to budget issues. The reason is obvious if people were willing to think beyond themselves. The people of California demand a certain level of services from the government while at the same time refusing to pay for these same services. If you are expecting your neighbors to pay for the things you want while letting you keep your own money you're living in a dream. The people in California (and any other state) must be willing to sacrifice a bit for the good of the local government and the services provided. The same concept applies to the Federal Government. If you want to support the American way of life and keep our country strong you have to be willing to sacrifice. A small tax increase across the entire population would go a long way toward propping up the national economy.

Government shutdowns due to budget issues

2009-07-01T08:47:00.000-07:00

Ok - anyone who has read some of my wild ravings before should realize where this is going.

There is no excuse for any government entity to be nearing shutdown because of budget. The blame for the current situations looming over some (actually most) state and local governments falls squarely on the greed of the local voters. Yes greed! Blind insistence that "Its mine and I want to keep it" is greed. If you want the city to keep the streets clean, well lighted, and safe you cannot expect others to pay for it and not contribute your part. I could go on about the many services provided by governments at all levels but I assume you are at least smart enough to extrapolate beyond my one example.

We are the lowest taxed people in the western world and as a whole we have more than adequate income. Continuing to strangle our governments by refusing to pay our taxes is weakening our country. Stop voting down tax increases! Stop cutting services just to keep a few dollars a week of your overblown salary. The money you're burying in your retirement accounts will be useless when the gangs take over your city. Political unrest naturally follows periods of oppression driven by greed and power brokering.

WyoKnott

Observations about guns and related issues.

2009-06-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

Recently my state passed a law allowing people with carry permits to carry their weapons into places where alcohol is served. Opponents are outraged. I have a permit and occasionally go into restaurants where alcohol is served. I always left my weapon in my car and felt the weapon was vulnerable to be stolen from my car. I would have felt better having my weapon under my personal control. Now I do not have to leave it where it can be stolen.

No one with a weapon should be drinking alcohol just as no drinker should be behind the wheel. Drinking and driving is a criminal offense and carries penalties such as loss of driving privileges. I have not studied the recent law so I do not know what specific actions are indicated in case a gun carrier is caught drinking. I do believe any person caught with a weapon and a blood alcohol level above the legal limit should loose his carry permit and have his weapon confiscated. Now the anti-gunners could use this type of provision to remove guns from the public. Or would they realize gun owners as a group are much less likely to drink than just about any other specific group? Maybe we should start confiscating cars from drunk drivers. That actually sounds like a life-saving measure when you consider how many repeat offenders we're exposed to. How many people do you know who have had a DUI ticket and how many gun owners do you know in that group.

One more thing: At one time I lived in a very rural area with a large field backed by a large hill. It was a very good area for shooting practice and I occasionally had small groups over for some shooting. Some of them enjoyed beer so I had a rule. No drinking until after the shooting. All weapons were unloaded and put away before the first beer was opened. None of my "crazy gun owner friends" ever objected or tried to disobey.

WyoKnott

The connection between UFOs and the Mayan Prophesy

2009-06-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

UFOs and 12/21/2012 (Huh?)

One of my personal problems is the tendency to think too much when I have too little to do. This morning over my first cup of coffee the following concept came to me. It is not a serious opinion just a very unlikely possibility. Here it is:

As I mentioned in a previous article, our solar system will cross the plane of the galaxy on or about the same date described in the Mayan world ending prophesy. (This is from a TV show I saw a few weeks ago.) Now there are an increasing number of people professing belief in the Alien Abduction Phenomenon. My mind made a connection in my imagination and I decided the UFOs are preparing for the collapse of our civilization by taking DNA samples and maybe even marking some individuals for rescue as the catastrophe unfolds. Being a purveyor of how-to advice to anyone who’ll listen, I decided to produce a how-to document for increasing one’s chances of being rescued by the aliens. I also realize I may not have all the answers so after I list my suggestions I am going to request ideas from the public. I really do not believe anyone is actually reading this crap but if someone stumbles upon it and has a good suggestion – post it.

Learn Klingon and put “here I am” in Klingon on your roof.

I don’t know how the various religious groups get along with aliens but you could try praying.

Move as far away from other people as you can; this will make you seem special.

Become a leader of a country and never let anyone forget it.

Set up a transmitter and start broadcasting on the “hydrogen line” – the fundamental frequency of the hydrogen atom.

Move to a mountain top and make your presence known in any way you can:
Paint the entire mountain top bright yellow
Level the mountain top and draw huge figures and lines on it
Gather together a bunch of followers and start stacking stone blocks into geometric shapes.

More to come (I hope)

Prepare for 12/21/2012 "End of the world" Surviving (Science Fiction)

2009-06-28T13:22:00.000-07:00

Prepare for122112

Introduction

We’ve been hearing a lot about the end of the world as predicted by the Mayan calendar. I personally believe the prediction has been over-hyped and the actual events of that date will not be so catastrophic to the world and civilization. That said; I am also willing to accept I can be wrong. The following article is aimed at preparation for survival should events play out differently. I saw a television show that indicated our system will cross the plane of the galaxy on 12-21-12. The assumption which drives the survival plans I present here is that crossing the galactic plane will disrupt the magnetic fields of our planet and of all the electrical/electronic devices we depend on. This is a work of speculative fiction, I hope.

What to expect

Assuming the worst-case, here is what to expect. Upon crossing the galactic plane the galactic magnetic field reverses. As any electrician will tell you, when two magnetic fields are reversed they try to realign. That’s a simplified explanation of how motors work. In the case of our planet we could expect the planet to try to realign itself with the new magnetic field and/or our planet’s field to be realigned around our planet. My assumption here is that we will experience the effects of both reactions.
Planetary realignment will result in tectonic stresses beyond any we have ever experienced. Known fault-lines will shift dramatically. New fault lines will arise and the layout of the earth’s crust will change. Earthquakes, volcanoes, lava flows, and general geologic upheavals will occur. We can expect severe changes in weather patterns as the planet’s physical alignment in its orbit changes. Our current weather patterns are produced in part by the angle of inclination of our planet. As Earth tries to rotate back into alignment, the angle will change and force tremendous changes in weather patterns.
Even as the planet tries to realign, the magnetic fields the fields themselves try to reach accommodation. Another fact of magnetic fields is that a magnet exposed to a strong reversed field can be re-magnetized to align with the magnetizing field. As the earth’s field is reversed it must reduce the existing field to nothing then rebuild the field to the new alignment. Everything on the planet that relies on magnetic fields will be affected. That means everything electrical will fail. As the earth and the fields attempt to change we might experience massive induced currents in any wires – destroying attached devices with huge over-voltages and currents. The few survivors will find themselves in a new stone age. The technology of the last 20,000 years will be effectively eliminated.
There will be no place on the planet immune from the changes. It is impossible to predict what will happen at any location so each of us who try to prepare for survival must gamble on what part of the planet will remain relatively habitable during and after the cataclysm. I am not one to simply sit and wait for something bad to happen, and I expect most of us want to plan ahead as much as possible. The amount of planning and preparation we expend is a personal choice. Preparation can include a simple survival kit not unlike hurricane survival kits often assembled by people living near coasts or it can extend to a huge re-enforced bunker with full life support. Your personal approach and your available resources drive your decisions.
I will present my recommendations for where to go, what to take, and how to survive. I am not a survivalist or any kind of expert so please consult your own references and experts for real advice. I just want you to think about this a bit. I’m hoping to get a head start on building a new civilization by saving some of our knowledge and our brightest people as the seeds of the new civilization.

Where to go

There are some very obvious places NOT to be during this period of upheaval. Coastal areas and small to mid-sized islands are definitely off my recommended list. Any location within 50 miles of a known volcano (even long dormant ones) is another deadly location. Any city of more than 100,000 people will present some long-term survival problems as resources will quickly be depleted and basic services will be overwhelmed. New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago…etc will be death traps for millions. Hawaii is another goner.
There has been some discussion about the Yellowstone super-volcano in western North America. No place within 100 miles west of Yellowstone and 500 miles east will be survivable, and these distances are quite conservative. If weather patterns change dramatically the directions may be irrelevant too. I’m not familiar enough with geography outside my own country to name specific “stay away” locations in Europe, Asia, and Africa…etc. I can say that the entire group of islands in the south Indian Ocean is not a recommended location.
When you are looking for a survival location, there are several factors to consider. You certainly need to survive the initial upheavals as our planet shivers and shakes but afterward you will need to be self-sufficient as society is reborn. Do not expect things to return to the “normal” we enjoy now. Think in terms of Stone Age, pre-civilization, or cavemen. That is the world you will find yourself in if you survive the first year after the upheaval starts.
Roads will exist (forget about bridges, though) but will rapidly deteriorate. Automobiles will be entirely useless - a good horse will be more useful if he doesn’t get eaten first.

Open Letter to President Obama (Economy, Healthcare...etc)

2009-06-23T11:54:00.000-07:00

An open letter to President Obama.

If anyone who reads this knows how to get the president to read it please do so.

First, some background so my opinions have foundation. I am 57 years old, currently unemployed, married, and in less than perfect health. My wife has been drawing a Social Security disability check since a severe auto collision in 1993 and she has ongoing medical issues. Over the years I have attempted to put aside money for retirement in 401K accounts at several jobs. Each time I got a few thousand saved, something happened to the job and I had to spend the 401K on survival until the next job. I admit some of my financial decisions were flawed but the net result is that I have nothing in savings.
I saw a few years ago that my health was not going to allow me to continue doing the physical work I have always done. I started classes in information technology and achieved an AAS/IT degree. This degree was accompanied by a $30,000 student loan. I have lost my last two jobs in some degree due to my worsening physical condition and inability to do the work as well as the younger people. Now I am unemployed, practically unemployable, undereducated (I would like to go on to a BS but can’t afford it), living on unemployment and my wife’s $780 /month Social Security. (Thanks for the extra $25 by the way) I have been trying to break into computer programming as a career. My thought was that as long as my brain and one finger still worked I could be productive and earn a living. Maybe I was wrong but I haven’t given up yet. I achieved a 3.6GPA so I’m not some ignorant country boy – I can learn and I truly enjoy working with computers. But that’s enough about me…

I just watched the Presidential news conference and feel I have respond. My first response actually goes to the press corps in general. Do you people only hear 20% of what is said? Your interpretations of the President’s answers seem to focus on certain phrases out of context and rarely on the actual meaning intended by the President. Lighten up! Go back and read the transcript a couple of times until you understand it, then write a response fit for publication. I suppose your job performance is judged by your time on camera and not by the quality of your questions.

Now to President Obama: Mr. President I do not intend to stop defending you to my narrow-minded friends. I believe you have inherited a situation brought on by the greed and power-seeking of financial leaders and easily manipulated political figures. The opposition to your policies is driven by a need to recover control and not by any real concern for the economy. If there was a real concern for the economy, the actions and policies that got us to this point would never have occurred. I cannot accept that people in charge of multi-billion-dollar corporations are too stupid to see the side products of their actions. I truly believe they (as a group) simply chose to blind themselves to the consequences in order to pursue additional wealth and power. President Obama: keep your focus on the people and give us a chance. WE can restore this country to its leadership position in the world economy if we are given the chance. Remind everyone that there is more at stake than their weekly take-home. Remind us how personal sacrifice was a major contributor to the victory in World War Two. Remind us that this is a fight for the American way of life and the moral high ground of true democracy.

I have little to contribute personally. My best contribution at this time is to try to maintain a positive outlook and keep looking for a real job. I am available to start immediately if there is a paying position on your staff for a wannabe computer programmer or an even less likely wannabe writer. (I digress).

Now to the Health care issue: I was appreciative of your response to the accusation that a government health care option would put private insurers out of business. Excellent point and an example of a narrow-minded response by the press!
We should realize that insurance has its roots in gambling. We bet our premiums that we will need medical care at some point. The insurance companies are the bookmakers that take our bets and hope to balance the losses and wins into a profit. Let private companies set whatever restrictions they see appropriate on the people they insure in order to keep premiums low. Tax the hell out of them if they take exorbitant profits or in some morally bankrupt way manipulate the process. Give them significant tax breaks if their policies meet socially acceptable guidelines. I’m sure there are mathematicians who can develop formulae to analyze an insurance company’s actuarial policies against some standard. Tell us (the people) in as plain language as you can what you are doing. Make it hard for the opposition to spin your intentions.

Your policy (at least the public one) on Iran’s current situation is proper. We can decry human rights violations any time and any where they happen. We must not make threats. We cannot give some hard-handed leadership any ammunition in the war of public opinion in [their own] country. Truth is always the ultimate weapon against tyranny.

Donald Page

Health care, taxation, capitalism with a conscience

2009-06-18T19:03:00.000-07:00

I just saw a news report that Ex-President Bush believes the private sector will bring the economy back in line. Phooey! In the Great Depression the private sector rolled itself into a little ball and waited for a miracle. Only FDR’s aggressive government spending turned the path around. This current crisis is in many ways the fault of the private sector that ignored the lessons of the past while being blinded by the prospect of quick, easy wealth.

I also saw a news report where some people want to halt any government involvement in health care. The health care industry is following the lead of the big business clowns and seeking an attractive bottom line. Business considerations outweigh people’s needs. We need the power of the government to redirect the focus toward health of the people instead of health of the bottom line.

The Tennessee legislature has passed a budget that cuts services to many who need the help the most and cuts jobs during a time when unemployment is nearing a crisis point. They do this instead of increasing taxes. What causes this is the fact that people who really need the government services do not vote. The poor people and the lower middle class put all their personal effort into surviving and have little left for politics. It is an established fact that much less that half of the qualified voters actually vote. The politicians cater to the portion of the population that votes. The voting public consists of too many people who blindly vote their religion or some other single issue and a large population of relatively successful (read relatively wealthy) self-centered upper middle class families. To this latter group the closing of a mental health support center or the elimination of funding for a battered women’s center means nothing. Cutting police services to balance the budget has no real effect on the people in the affluent neighborhoods – they will make sure they get their share of patrols. Increasing the tuition for state colleges means nothing – their children are not going to some backward state school – they’re going to some “reputable” (read high priced) out-of-state school.

People need to look outside themselves and their little isolated comfortable worlds. Have some compassion for the less fortunate - stop demanding lower taxes and let the government have the resources it needs to provide the services to those who cannot afford to pay. The original income tax structure was a progressive tax that placed a greater tax on those who can best afford to pay it. This also placed a greater tax on those who most benefited from the capitalism that is the backbone of this country. We need to return to this type of taxation. It is a measure of a society in the way the weaker members of that society are treated. By letting our personal comfort and greed blind us to the needs of the less fortunate we are eroding the foundation of our society. A society cannot long survive on a shaky foundation. It has been pointed out to us by recent events where greed and avarice lead the country. We must take steps to improve our society or prepare for the inevitable collapse. Revolutions are usually ignited by persistent mistreatment and/or neglect of lower classes.

Here is a repeat of two of my more radical ideas: No business executive, CEO, Chairman…etc has any need of personal wealth beyond some arbitrary amount (I choose a maximum total annual compensation of $2 million and a total net worth of $20 Million). Now I realize the contributions by many of these very smart people to the business growth and stockholder dividends deserve reward. I suggest putting the reward into charitable contributions. Make a public announcement something along the line of: “The board of directors of Acme Widget Company wish to thank our current CEO John Doe III for his leadership over the past year. In addition to John’s regular compensation package we are donating the sum of $3 million to the following charities and public assistance programs… in his name” This gives the CEO public recognition for his work and puts money where it does some direct good. His power and influence are not diminished. Thirty or forty million sitting in a bank somewhere helps no one – not even the owner of the money. Put it back out in circulation and help the little people whose efforts and daily spending indirectly made the huge profit possible. Many will label me a socialist or communist. In fact I am a firm believer in the power and benefits of capitalism. I believe capitalism must be accompanied by a real social conscience that causes it to self-limit the impact it has on less aggressive members of society. We cannot all be leaders of packs – someone has to watch the kids and tighten the screws.

Toombstone of America

2009-06-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

I recently received a "chain email" showing the tombstone of America claiming death by suicide on Nov 2008. This is a hateful message with hidden connotations. I responded with the text below and I thought I should publish my opinion here as well.

I first saw this tombstone on a co-worker’s locker. It was kind of cute in a dark sort of way. The fact that it is still circulating is a sign that we still have a lot of maturing as a society. The people who propagate this stuff are keeping our society mired in a wrong and limited direction that works against maturity. People who refuse to think for themselves are the tools of hate-mongers. The hate-mongers have their own agendas that have very little to do with the propaganda they distribute. They are manipulating the weaker members of society in order to increase their own power base. People who continue to keep this stuff going are refusing to think for themselves. They are also refusing to see through the fog of hate to the real reason behind the distribution.

The death of America will be the result of unconstrained greed – not because of election results. The recent economic collapse is a prime symptom of the disease that is killing us. Money and power are tools of the greedy. These tools put them in charge of legislative bodies and allow them to manipulate lawmakers to support their greed. The propaganda of the email under discussion is intended to promote their control by undermining the support for groups who oppose them.

D. Page

Chiefs and Indians

2009-06-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

In any endeavor involving more than 5 people there will be some who "manage" and some who actually do the work. If you are a "worker" who is ambitious to be a "manager" your work will be influenced by your ambition. You will always have in the back of your mind the ways your actions reflect on your ambition. In today's world promotions rarely follow real job performance. People are promoted based on perceptions of value and not on actual work. The person who is honest about his abilities, honest about his mistakes, quietly diligent in his work and accepting of the limitations of others will rarely be noticed when promotions are available. If you ambition requires promotions for personal satisfaction you will never be successful by simply being good at what you do. If personal satisfaction is satisfied by doing the best job you can, you might as well give up on advancement beyond the worker level.

There is a type of personal activity often embraced by ambitious people. As a worker you can expect to become a victim of this action. I describe it as: "If you cannot make yourself look good make everyone around you look bad." Maintain a thick skin and be sure you have records of your performance or an experienced practitioner of this approach can easily put your job in jeopardy as wells as cause you tremendous personal emotional pain. Another cliche: CYA!

Respond please

D. Page

General Motors Bankruptcy

2009-06-02T18:53:00.000-07:00

The failure of General Motors is the most recent in a series of events that could destroy this country. The United States of America that will emerge from this current crisis will not be the same as the one we grew up in. We have lost our leadership in the world. Our capitalistic society has succumbed to the very faults that have always been touted by anti-capitilists. Greed has destroyed the country as we have always known it. A new country must arise from the rubble.

What happened?
My opinions have no basis in expertise so take me with the proverbial "grain...".
Several factors played into this situation. High level business leaders with the ears of influential lawmakers convinced said lawmakers to relax regulations in favor of quick easy profits. It worked. Huge financial organizations made unbelieveable
profits with activities that would have been poorly received in a less de-regulated environment. There was no consideration of the long-term effects. Everyone looked at the short term and expected no significant change in the world financial environment. Those few who had the foresight found their vision obscured the euphoria of quick, almost limitless wealth. Resources were "invested" into esoteric financial "paper" that had no intrinsic value. Banks were encouraged to loan money to anyone with enough education to fill out the paperwork. All was well as long as the economy expanded. Nobody remembered that there is a cyclic property in the economy.

Lending and borrowing are the foundation of the economy that this country has embraced. This causes a detachment from the real world and there is "money" in the system that is based on a concept instead of a thing of value. This imaginary money is subject to rapid fluctuations based on emotion and not on real world values. Everyone who makes profit from manipulating

these fluctuations knows this. I suspect it is even discussed behind closed doors in high corporate offices. This recent crisis followed a period where huge "profits" were ascribed to loans based on inflated real-estate values. This was OK but the
inflated values could not withstand a precipitous downturn in the economy. Along came our enemies in the world. Perhaps with actual knowledge and skill but more likely blind luck they managed hit us where we were weakest - a fragile economy.

The WTC attack and the subsequent wars chipped away at the foundations of our economy. While oil companies enjoyed the protection of their in-pocket lawmakers oil prices escalated. The worst impacted were the people who were barely able to afford it. People began to make choices between mortage payments and fuel to heat their homes or gasoline to get to work. Imediate needs take precedence. Loan defaults increased; real estate values collapsed; and the imaginary money in the system
lost its perceived value. Companies were suddenly reporting losses...etc.

It is my opinion that these companies did not lose money. What they lost was some imaginary inflated value. As is always the case, only the people at the bottom actually lost anything. We have lost jobs, we have lost the small bit of real value we invested in our homes. We are the loosers. We are also the ones who will have to pick this economy back up if it can be done. We are being called upon to sacrifice. Some people can look at history and learn that world war two was won by the American
people who sacrificed at home to promote the war effort. We must all give up some of what we demand for ourselves in order to make this country great again. Once we have the country back on top we can go back to demanding our personal piece of the pie but in the meantime we can all support the "war effort".

We cannot blindly accept President Obama's Plans but we must not continue to oppose them just because they are his. Be willing to make a sacrifice for the effort - stop demanding lower taxes. The government is the only entity with the resources to finance the recovery. We need to support progressive taxation to increase the government's resources. I'm unemployed and have yet to receive an unemployment check. I cannot pay taxes til I get a job. Those of you who are working should consider paying taxes as contributing to the war effort. Those of you who are living well above the poverty level should be paying a slightly higher tax. Those with incomes exceeding 100K should be willing to pay an even bigger tax to support the government of the country that gave you the opportunity to achieve what you have. I still promote raising taxes and I vehemetly oppose any effort to blindly lower taxes until the economy can support itself without government crutches.

Propping up the new General motors by buying a major portion of the company was necessary to keep people working. When the stock value comes back in a couple years the government can reap a profit from the return of the stock to the private sector. For now we need to be sure the government has the resources to stand up to the onslaught. Support taxation for the war effort!!

Killing Abortion Doctors

2009-06-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

The recent killing of another abortion doctor has me outraged again. There is no way I can justify the late term abortions this doctor allegedly performed but killing him did not solve the cause of the problem. It is still my opinion that the best route to solving this problem is education. As long as people continue to make babies they do not want or continue feel that they have no other choice but abortion this problem will persist. Just as no amount of police work prevented bootlegging during prohibition or no amount of DEA activity slows down the drug trade; such terrorism against abortionists will not stop the activity. The only way to reduce this is to remove the demand. Repealing prohibition and taxing alcohol took away the criminal involvement. Legalizing certain drugs then taxing and regulating them would remove much of the driving force of the drug trade. Education and anti-drug campaigns also help. To reduce the abortion problem real pro-life activists should work to educate people about alternatives. They should pool resources to provide nationwide support for expectant mothers who would consider abortion. They should promote government plans to provide alternatives. Trying to outlaw any activity without addressing the demand at the same time has proven ineffective already.
Many of the same groups who oppose abortion have in the past opposed sex education in school, distribution of condoms in school, or worked to force teen mothers underground by requiring parental notification. This is like "having your cake and eating it too". It cannot be both ways. Teach abstinence both at home and in school. Educate everyone in the real facts. Provide support for people who need it without making it nearly criminal. Educate, Educate, Educate!!! Make support easy to access and give people real options with real help.
Did the man who shot the doctor ever offer to adopt one of the children before they were aborted? Did he provide free and no-strings counseling to the mothers? Did he belong to any groups that did? Did he contribute to any organizations that provided alternatives? Or did he only work to outlaw the activity he hated? I don't know these answers and I might well be wrong about him. I can support his goal but I cannot condone hos method.

We should increase taxes!

2009-05-21T17:23:00.000-07:00

Progressive Taxes?

In case you haven’t noticed, the economy is having severe problems. Businesses are closing or reducing workforces. There are two side effects of this trend that are mostly overlooked by the majority of people.
First, with many people out of work the tax base falls drastically. Local and state governments, already strapped by voter demands for reduced taxes, find it impossible to meet the costs of services. Services get cut to make budgets balance. The services that get cut first are those that have the least voter support. These same services are aimed at the people who most need them. The result is that more people find themselves without health services and housing support. People with treatable mental health issues loose their support and end up on the street.
Second, the people most likely to loose their jobs are, for the most part, the people who are barely making a living. They are not likely to have savings to fall back on or to pay for health insurance. They then provide additional load on services that are already being cut.
This current situation will continue to be painful and there is little hope that the state of affairs is going to turn around quickly. We must make an extra effort to support charities to help our citizens get through this mess.
What we need to understand is the reasons why we have taxes and government. If we were all equally talented and skilled, there would be little variation in incomes across the range of employees. In fact there are people who possess the skills or abilities of managers, the ambition or drive of entrepreneurs, or the talents of teachers. The person who has worked faithfully on an assembly line for 10 years (at $10.00) suddenly finds he is jobless though no fault of his own. He has minimal education and his pay rate has provided no margin for savings. He needs the government services to tide him over and help him prepare for a new job. Without some support, he becomes another homeless statistic – and a drain on society.
If, while the economy was in growth mode, we had provided a small tax increase to set aside a buffer fund, the government services would be able to weather the economic downturn without reducing services. The economic recovery just might happen sooner with fewer people loosing income. A tax – based fund is a good idea, in spite of what bean counters say. Bean counters do not know how to assign value to humanity.
One analogy that will be understandable to electrically knowledgeable people is the filter capacitor in a DC power supply. Without the capacitor (the buffer fund) the output (government services) varies greatly. The load on the power supply (the human condition of society) is degraded. With the capacitor in place the output is stable and the load does not degrade.
Please stop demanding reduced taxes just because your child has to drive a Chevy instead of a Porsche or she won’t get to go to Princeton. Allow the government to provide for the poor and the result will be an improvement in society over the long run.

Another view on religion

2009-05-20T05:13:00.000-07:00

This is just an observation and not necessarily my real personal opinion.

I was channel surfing my TV channels this morning and stumbled across a program Named God vs. Satan. It might have been the coffee but I suddenly became aware of a different way to look at the subject. Here it is.

Looking at humans as the one (as far as we know) creature that has established civilization based on education not instinct opens a new lens on religion. There are animals that exhibit high organization and cooperation - ants for instance. These traits are based on instinct and require no training. Humans on the other hand must be trained or educated in the ways of civilization and cooperation. Religion is one of civilization's tools to promote good behaviour within the society. The concept of God in any form is rooted in the need for people to put their personal desires secondary to society's needs. The concept of Satan represents the giving in to base animal behaviour. "Good" people find a balance in their lives where society's needs generally override the animal within them. "Bad" people [at many levels] ignore society in favor of their own desires. Society says "act this way in spite of your desires" while the animal says "do this because you want to".

Satan and the concepts of evil represent the unconstrained animal in us all. Without religion and education in the ways to live in society, the animal in us would never let us mature beyond the level of a 3 or 4 year-old child. Demand and take what we want just because we can - disregard the needs of others.

God and the concepts of good represent the pressure to modify our base behavior in ways that support society and civilization. We have the intelligence to understand good and evil. We have the ability to make the choices in every thing we do. Any time we put our own wants and desires ahead of the requirements of civilization we are responding to the animal side. Without the animal side to provide competition we would never advance. Without the cooperation driven by religion and civilization we would never have evolved as the leading species on this world. As individuals we are weak and defenseless. Cooperation and civilization (promoted by religion) are our strengths. Devolving back to the animal side (evil)leaves us vulnerable to being eaten.

Donald Page

uh huh?

2009-05-19T20:53:00.000-07:00

It was a dark and stormy night, etc.

find me on twitter

2009-05-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

http://twitter.com/WyoKnott will get you to my twitter page.

Why do we care about gay marriage laws?

2009-05-15T13:10:00.000-07:00

First you need to know my perspective: I am a 57 year old heterosexual male who was raised in the rural south. The vast majority of the people I have known in my life believe homosexuality is a sin. They see marriage as a religious union more than a civic agreement.

I will not speak to the morality of homosexuality, there is a higher authority that will make that decision for us and that is not the government of any state or country.

My thoughts on gay marriage:

In our society marriage has two main components. There is the marriage license that is the civil component and the wedding ceremony that is the religious and personal component. We have always maintained a large degree of separation between the two; only intersecting them at the point where the person officiating over the ceremony
signs the license indicating the ceremony was performed.

The civil component is the basis for all the legal rights and responsibilities that are part of the marriage convention. These laws are intended to protect all parties from being harmed in any way from the marriage or any subsequent divorce. Divorce laws generally ignore the religious component completely.
The religious component ignores the civil component and focuses on the relationship and moral responsibilities of the parties involved.

It is generally legal to be married by a Justice of the Peace or a recognized official of any religious organization. If you are married by a priest or Rabbi you are expected to follow the teachings of your religion based on the vows you take during the ceremony. These vows do not bind you to or release you from the legal issues connected to the signed marriage license. The license does not bind you to the views of your religion. I say let anyone marry anyone in whatever combination their personal religious beliefs support. Let all parties sign legal documents declaring the union and accepting the civil rights and responsibilities that are part of the license. Let them have whatever ceremony they want as long as the officiating person is recognized as an acceptable signer.

Since I was married by a preacher and made vows to my wife, I accept the moral responsibilities of our marriage. Since this same preacher signed and made the license a legal document I am bound by the local laws. What ever those people across town decide to do is their business. I am not in the position to judge them. I certainly have opinions but judging is not my responsibility. Their marriage does not in any way affect me. Laws imposing moral arguments are against the spirit of this country. If you disagree with what a group is doing you have the right to let your opinion be heard. I do not believe you have the right to prevent them from doing it just because you do not believe the same way they do.

We are all familiar with the way women are treated under strict Islamic law as enforced by the Taliban. This is only one example of the ultimate destination when we travel too far down the road of legislating morality. We should put our efforts into educating others in our beliefs and helping them with their problems; not on making legislation to force them into our mold.

D. Page

Politics and religion

2009-05-15T12:36:00.000-07:00

This posting might stir up some response.

First, I have to comment on the recent flurry of activity following Miss California's answer to a pagent question. She answered the question in a manner fully compatible with the original intentions of our founding fathers. She indicated her acceptance of the way the country allows open discussion of thr subject and presented her personal view. She did not condem the views of others and she did not attempt to promote her views as the only valid views.

The many people who subsequently condemmed her response went too far. They had the right and maybe some responsibility to respond with their own views. They went too far when they declared her unqualified for the pagent crown because of her views. She fully exemplified the spirit of free speach and freeedom of religion that are the backbone of America. People have the right to believe their own way and the right to express those beliefs. The do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Secondly, I have strong personal views on abortion. I accept the concept that the fetus is a life. I believe the anti-abortion groups should make all efforts to educate people in this fact. They should put their efforts into providing alternatives and promoting prevention. Unwanted pregnacies are a disease that is 99%preventable.

I differ from the traditional pro-life groups in that I do not believe government and politics is the proper environment for these efforts. Over the centuries we have seen that laws do not stop unwanted behaviours, only criminalize them. Put your efforts and support into education and non-government support programs and your results will be greater. Teach people to think. Let our politicians run the country as an efficient business; do not expect them to legislate morals. Most of them are immoral anyway and only say whay you want to hear to get your vote.

D. Page

How the world ends.

2009-04-22T06:37:00.000-07:00

GONE

Silence.
Not that it matters, there are no ears to hear. The fluorescent blue blob oozes unseen down the slope. If eyes could see and a consciousness could understand, the slope would be recognized as part of a mangled metal contraption.The vehicle was in motion when the driver ceased to exist. The blue blob is leaking from a broken plastic container, once part of a child’s toy, and becoming a viscous, shapeless mass where the slope meets the ground. The ground is still warm.
There remains nothing alive. Nothing. All cellular life has been disintegrated. No living cell survives the blast of raw stellar energy. Only those things based primarily on minerals retain any structure. Anything that relied on cellular arrangements for structure has become shapeless on the ground. Trees, grass, animals – all gone. There will be no biodegradation. There are no organisms left to perform it.
Some viral forms have survived the blast but there are no living cells to support their reproduction. Those that have the capability go dormant and wait. The wait will be long. The life that once existed had taken almost five billion years to evolve. By the time a sentient life again exists on the world there will be absolutely nothing remaining to indicate they are not the first. The planetary activities of weather, tectonic movement, volcanism, and asteroid strikes will have redesigned the entire surface of the world. The already molten core increased in temperature as the stellar energy passed through it making the reshaping of the surface even more complete.
There will be nothing surviving of the plans, dreams, or activities of the world’s most sentient lifeform. The changes to the world brought about by the population will quickly be undone. A fresh, virgin world will greet the new lifeforms that eventually appear. The cycle repeats.

What Happened? What caused this?
The stellar energy that sterilized the world was the galactic shockwave of a super massive supernova. The energy bathed every star system in the galaxy. Those systems farthest away received a more dilute wave of energy and were slightly less affected. The rest were effectively sterilized. The galactic clock is reset.

Donald Page

UFOs and all the related crap

2009-03-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

UFOs explained

I have always been a science fiction fan so most people would expect me to be a believer in UFOs as extraterrestrial in origin. Wrong. I present here the answer to UFOs (at least a far as modern science can explain).

Ninety percent of reported UFOs are simple miss-identifications of man-made objects. Of the remaining ten percent, half are optical anomalies caused by temperature inversions in the atmosphere. What people are seeing are distorted reflections of terrestrial objects or lights. This explains the apparent ability of these "objects" to perform physically impossible maneuvers. It is like a laser dot on a wall - you can move from side to side instantly with no effort. Also, when viewing a reflection you can move slightly away from the line of the reflection and the object will seem to disappear.

The remaining five percent of sightings are natural phenomena that modern science does not have the understanding needed to explain. These will be explained in about 25 years when physics gets beyond the self-imposed limits that currently hold us back.

Now, we can all quit worrying about silly stuff and focus on surviving the 12/21/2012 catastrophe. (check back later for more)

W.

Failure of Capitalism?

2009-03-08T22:36:00.000-07:00

Failures of capitalism

Preface:
I am a strong believer in the reasons behind the founding fathers’ establishment of this country and the constitution that defines it. Almost everything needed to make a country strong and its citizens free was included. In the decades since the constitution was accepted as the basic defining document a lot has changed. Technology beyond anything the founding fathers imagined has arisen. Social changes in how people view each other make modern society nothing like the eighteenth century society where the constitution answered the needs.

I have to explain my point of view here so my comments that come later have some validity. I am basically a Democrat leaning strongly toward Libertarianism. This is mainly an opposition to what I see as the Republican approach to the country and the economy. I watch some television news channels for about an hour a day before work in the cafeteria. This happens because I cannot change the channel. At home I refuse to watch the national media because I find myself arguing with people who cannot hear me and whose opinions I have no hope of changing. I have tried to distill my personal doctrine down to a single document and this is the first draft.

Capitalism?

The title should evoke some feelings in people of my generation who were raised under the threat of Communism. I am not a communist. I believe communism could be a good thing for small family groups of less than, say, 100 people who fully believe in it. This group will still have to interact with the capitalism that is the one workable solution for human beings living in a technological environment. The failures I will describe here are the failures that rampant capitalism has dealing with individuals.

Unrestricted capitalism certainly rewards those persons who best understand it and have the personality traits that enjoy the rewards of success. Wealth is, of course, the main reward of capitalism and a self-made rich person is rewarded for his successful efforts. Most ambitious capitalists do not stop when their wealth exceeds anything they can normally expect to need for an extremely comfortable life. I have to believe there is more to this than the accumulation of pure wealth. There is a personal power; public acknowledgement of one’s success; and sense of accomplishment that accompanies success. This drives people much more effectively than the pursuit of wealth ever has.

All of this is a good thing and I thank the inventor of money for providing this outlet for the leadership oriented humans. Without money we would have to establish leadership by pounding down the others around us in order to become their leader - not unlike the Alpha male in a wolf pack. The only failure in this scenario is that the power of money makes a leadership challenge virtually impossible. Leaders bask in their power much longer than the natural world would allow if they were not being propped-up by artificial strength. These unnaturally enhanced leaders can often loose sight of what should be their real contribution to their pack – the safe and comfortable lives of their pack members and the growth and enhancement of society.

We can rationalize all we want but the collapse of the banking industry and the subsequent collapse of the real estate market were caused by unrestricted greed exercised by persons who had lost sight of reality. The people who sought to improve themselves using the tools offered by the greedy industry leaders were not aware of the dangers of borrowing money they couldn’t afford and the lenders did not care if the loans were good or not. On the front end the large numbers of loans created short-term bonuses and apparent success at all levels of the banking industry.
Gleefully ignorant of what could happen (intentionally, I suspect) the leaders enjoyed the benefits of leadership, never considering the fact that all these people were leadership’s responsibility once they were included in the leaders’ packs. The leaders lost sight of the reason to be leader and their money-backed power left them invulnerable to challenge.

I suspect many banking executives never thought at all about the individual families whose lives they were manipulating. I doubt they even think about that now – they likely spend their private moments bemoaning the money and power they could loose. All of them have held their leadership much too long and must be challenged. The only way to pose a leadership challenge is cooperation among prospective leaders and their supporters. The potentially most effective challenge to the general banking industry leadership exists in our government. For too long this challenge has been subverted by the power of money in the form of political contributions and lobbyists. I see a need for financially independent challenge to the current industry arrangement. Re-regulation to limit the problems that got us here and excess personal income tax to limit the personal wealth and power of lost-touch leaders will make leadership challenges more effective.

I know this is contrary to the capitalist mentality and I realize there must be rewards for truly effective capitalist leaders. That said I cannot personally justify bonuses and salaries exceeding six figures for people who have lost the right of leadership by loosing sight of reality. If the organization feels the contribution by their high-priced leader warrants a substantial reward give that reward to charities that help people being ignored by the policies that produce the wealth. Tell the country that “John Doe bank has donated three million dollars to the American Cancer Society in the name of our CEO Doe John. This is because his leadership and vision has increased the wealth of our stockholders by thirty-seven percent in the past fiscal year.” When a single person has a personal wealth exceeding [an amount to be determined by vote or government] there is no real reason to give him more. Recognize his accomplishments and make sure he has the power to continue his good work. Increasing his wealth beyond a certain point helps no one – not even him.

This is the first stage of this document. I will continue with it in another issue.

If you want to see more of my ramblings visit www.s-p-a-r.blogspot.com
or www.lifewithindustry.blogspot.com .

Time and space theory

2009-03-08T16:29:00.000-07:00

Another space-time-mass-energy theory

With too little to do at work I find myself spending too much time thinking. I have to be careful about where my thoughts lead because I tend to be a practical joker and some of my jokes can put me in danger of losing my job. With all this in mind, I decided that even though I have no education in the field, theoretical physics is a subject that will not likely threaten my job. Combining some concepts picked up from the Science Channel with my overactive science fiction imagination I produced the following theory. It is something to think about but probably shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I began by trying to imagine a way to represent four or five dimensions on a two dimensional image such as a drawing or graph. We already represent three dimensional objects on two dimensional images by using perspective clues such as extending lines toward a common point and by using shading and shadowing for more realistic images. I was convinced there was a way to do this same thing with additional dimensions.
Time is widely considered the fourth dimension. How can one possibly represent time in relation to a three dimensional object depicted as a two dimensional image. I decided that time in relation to a physical object begins when the object comes into existence in the form shown by the two dimensional image. When the object ceases to exist in that original form, the time dimension of that object ends. To represent this time dimension on a two dimensional depiction, I suggest a circle drawn around the (imaginary) center of mass of the object and having a diameter relative to time duration of the existence of the object. This is the intersection of the time dimension sphere of the object and the two dimensional plane on which the object is being depicted.
If a three dimensional depiction of a four dimensional object is produced by a holographic computer, the time dimension would be shown as a translucent sphere with the three dimensional object at its center. The object’s fourth dimension could be indicated by points on the surface of the sphere corresponding to the intersection of an imaginary line extending from the origin of the object (therefore the center of the sphere) through the points representing the object in three dimensions.
My next problem was the fifth dimension. This dimension cannot be conceptualized in my human brain but I can use some imagination to fill in the blanks. This dimension is totally outside the previously “defined” dimensions. Time represented by a sphere concentric with its related object leads to the fifth dimension being another sphere encompassing the dimension of time as a whole. The infinite number of object-centric time spheres exists within this much larger sphere and interactions of various three-dimensional objects with each other are represented as intersections of their time spheres. At this point any two dimensional representation becomes impossible because the two dimensional plane intersects a virtually infinite number of fourth and fifth dimensional spheres and the intersection points blur into each other, The two dimensional representation problem is not solved but it has been proven unsolvable in any realistic sense.

Next level

The spherical concept of multi-dimensions started me thinking in another direction. Since freeform thinking is similar to dreaming and dreaming can lead to nightmares my mind escaped in a new direction. I began exploring the spherical concept of multi-dimensions.
About a year ago I came up with the idea of time as the primary driving force of our universe. This idea came from thinking about the big bang and what could have initiated it. My thought at that time was that the big bang was a point where time ruptured the boundary of its then-current dimension and began escaping.*1 That escapement of the time force brought into existence our universe. The expansion of time to fill the thus-created void began to cool and coalesce into the various forms of matter we recognize today. All physical laws of this universe are driven by the time force. The “grand unified field theory” will only be explained when (and if) we as humans learn to understand the true nature of time. If we can escape the limits of time in this universe we will break out into the next dimensional level where time is not the primary force. We will have access to the multiple dimensions currently being suggested by modern physicists.

*1 My explanation is: the point that was our pre-universe contacted (became concentric with) a point on the boundary on the next level universe.

Bizarre religious overtones

At this point my daydreaming expanded toward the nightmarish. I considered our involvement in the investigation of the fourth and fifth dimension and saw it as an evolution of humanity toward the concept of a greater consciousness. When we pass from this corporeal existence our souls join in the great consciousness of the next level. As we increase in our understanding of these additional dimensions our contribution to the greater consciousness increases. This entity exists in a set of dimensions of which we are only a minor part. There may be many such entities who are in their own way exploring the levels of their own existence…

Any further discussion from this point gets even too bizarre even for me so I will stop. If you have the nerve and emotional strength feel free to take my thoughts and explore the ramifications if you dare. Do not blame me when you wake up in a padded cell.

Wyo_Knott

I'm not quite serious about this but... think about it.

2008-11-08T23:51:00.000-08:00

Aliens among us?
A theory from the country filosofer

Aliens are visiting this planet to observe how civilizations always self destruct when they advance to a certain technological level. In the galactic past nearly 99% of civilizations never evolve or advance beyond our current level of technology. There are very few civilizations that learn how to cooperate on a worldwide basis to avoid destroying each other or poisoning their planet.
It is possible that we are actually the lab-rats for the aliens. We are short lived, easy to breed, and exhibit the inherent tendency to embrace self-destruction. If we ever expect to join the real citizens of the galaxy we must demonstrate that we can indeed become truly civilized. I expect however that a few samples of our race are even now being preserved to be used in the next experiment. Very few of us have the ability to see where we are headed. The Mayans could very well be correct: December 21, 2012 might be the last day for our current civilization.

Read Larry Niven’s short story: “What can you say about chocolate-covered manhole covers?” From: All the Myriad Ways

2008-11-01T19:32:00.001-07:00

The recent crisis in the mortgage banking industry is a strong indicator of where a free-market economy can go if not over seen by a government with the willingness to reign in the organization that abuse the rights they have. Businesses exist to create wealth for the owners. Owners are for the most part shareholders with little actual influence on day-to-day operations of any company. At best they can vote their shares at stockholders meeting to influence policy with in the organization.
With no oversight, business can approach financial anarchy where each decision is taken with consideration of maximum profit only. Hands-off government policies promote this way of doing business. The powerful business leaders have the ear of the lawmakers and can promote their own point of view on policy legislation. We have to be careful that this is not the only view the lawmakers hear. Responsible legislation promoting diverse opinions before major votes or policy decisions is one way. Stockholders should make efforts to know where their companies are headed and public disclosure must be encouraged. True Democracy depends on an informed voter and voting stockholders must be informed.
Public interest organizations should make efforts to inform the voting stockholders and the public of views other than the business leaders’ profit-only-driven views.

Wyo_Knott

2008-11-01T19:31:00.001-07:00

Small businesses hire the people in the lowest level of the economic structure. The person making less then $10.00 per hour does not have any income to put into economic growth. The small business owner (My definition of small business is a business with <$100000 per year net income for the owner). It is these people who most need to protection of the government to assure the businesses do not fall back on slave-like employee treatment and abuse.
Small and medium businesses have a certain responsibility to the citizens of this country who provide them with the opportunity to be business owners. The business owner with the lawn service business and three employees is out there working hard with his crew. He doesn’t need oppressive taxation but the three employees must be protected from the tendency of business men to make maximum profit at the expense of others. The influx of Mexican-born general laborers for these low-level jobs and the hesitation of the government to control this influx serves to prove the tendency toward employee abuse and the government’s intentional blindness toward it.
We have the minimal employee protections in place already. We must be sure the government has the means and the will to help when needed. The business owner can pay a small tax if his employees’ average income is below a certain level. This helps the government pay for the support for the people who cannot afford their own health insurance at the wage they’re paid. There is a wage level where the ability of a person to save a portion of his income into a 401-K plan does not exist. What if a business pays well enough that the employees as a group save a certain percentage into retirement plans? The company part of the Social Security tax could be reduced. A novel idea: rewarding businesses for being fair to employees.
Even poor people have a right to a minimal level of life. They don’t have a right to a private beach house or a 55-foot yacht but they have the same rights as the business owner to pursue these things. Keeping people in their place by underpaying them for their work could be construed as a rights violation. I do not think it is but there is a very thin line that must be patrolled by socially conscious people.
Here’s a thought: If the annual net income of a business owner exceeds ten times the average wage and benefits package of his employees he should pay a small excess profits tax. This same rule could apply to the top executives of larger companies. It is just the cost of supporting the American Government that empowers the business to exist and grow.

Wyo_Knott

2008-11-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

Even basic statistics cannot predict how a presidential candidate will act once in office. No pre-written and rehearsed speech will reveal the candidate’s heart and soul. No thirty-second paid ad or a 15 second sound bite from a speech shines a light on the future seen by the candidate.
In the end we know less about a presidential candidate than we know about the neighbor two doors down or the upstairs apartment. Our votes reflect our opinions that have been shaped by our experiences and colored by the political ads and sound bites of news reports.
In the voting booth, to a large part, we vote our personal, recent history. If your recent experience has been some what positive you may vote for more of the same. If you have recently lived a troubled recent history you will tend to vote for a change. How you perceive the candidates position on change is the actual guide for your vote.

Wyo_knott

Views on religion (this one will cause responses!)

2008-10-12T13:51:00.000-07:00

The development of human civilization has been one product of the intelligence and instinct that are part of being human. Religion is one part of that development that has been influenced by the greater consiousness called by many names by many religions throughout the centuries. Most of these religions, inspite of their common cries to the contrary, are based on the same concept of God. The basic concept is to promote love and kindness for each other and to live in ways that allow each of us to be what we can be and to be recognized as individuals that are all equal in the eyes of each other. This concept is needed to help all of us supress the animalistic and self-centered instinctive drives that brought us to the top of the inhabitants of this world. Without some religious pressure helping us get along we could never have became civilized. We would be like roving packs of wolves ruled by the most vicious in the pack. When the pressures of religion are weakened on a strongly individualistic member of our society we get the Hitlers and the Saddam Husseins who have no real love for any other person. These persons can warp the intentions of the religious pressure in their own society to support their own self-centered goals.

I have never raised kids (another story for another column) but I believe the instinctive me-centered animal that any uneducated child is must be balanced and controlled by the education and religion that society needs. All criminals and criminal actions are in some part the result of ineffective education and faulty religious pressure. That said, I have to qualify the statement by defining my concept of criminal. Criminal activity is an extension of the way a child of, say four, will hit another child and take away something the other child has. Breaking a societal law or rule is not necessarily a criminal act in my mind. The victimless crime is an oxymoron. If there is no victim, there cannot be a crime. "Crimes" based on religious rules are certainly crimes imposed on people by the religious criminals who want to have their own way. They are just advanced forms of the uneducated 3 or 4-year-old who has not been properly instructed.

We have all lost sight of the true root message of religion and instead have become focused on the messengers and the formatting of the message. Many millions of people have died over the centuries because someone was convinced they followed the wrong god. In fact, both victims and killers were focused on their messengers and formatting and had ignored the message of God (which was the same to all).

WyoKnott

A science comment

2008-10-12T13:36:00.000-07:00

First I have to declare my official ignorance of any form of science beyond high school physics. That said, I still have opinions on top of opinions or I wouldn't be spending time writing this.

I am convinced modern physicists have been beating their collective head on a wall for several years. There is a significant understanding of the measureable and predictable effects of gravity and the electromagnetic force. I suspect there may be a similar but not quite fully predictable understanding of the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces. The grand unified field theory that Einstein was never able to produce is still eluding scientists even with all the technical advances in computing and all the experiments with various particle accelerators...etc. Science will be stuck in this level of understanding until some person with a bit of insight and a willingness to express it cracks the wall. I will not live to see it and with the way we humans are destroying our own environment we may loose the chance. We need to support education and science with open minds. We must not limit our support to those persons and projects that fit into the simple pigeon-holes of tradition. Support the fringes of science and personal style so that unique ideas get tested instead of supressed.

WyoKnott

Quit paying elected officials!

2008-10-05T04:32:00.000-07:00

We are all aware that elected government officials such as senators and congressmen are constantly being "romanced" by various special interest groups and political action committees. There are always ways for these groups to influence the decisions of our lawmakers. Most of this activity happens behind the scenes, out of the public eye. I believe we need to know who our elected officials are being influenced by. Here is my proposal:

Stop paying elected officials from the public coffers. Let them freely and openly accept their pay from the groups they support. Any person running for election will be required to list all sources of their political income. For example: Candidate Jones will announce his support for and payment by this list of organizations: The NRA, the auto industry PAC, the right to life movement, the British conservatives group...etc. As voters we will know where his votes will fall on the issues we find important. We can choose to vote for the candidates who are supported by the organizations we agree with or against the candidates who are paid by groups we strongly disagree with. The more effective politicians will receive better pay from their support groups and we will not be voting for candidates who promise the moon but deliver BS.

Think about it...

Welcome to Science Politics and Religion

2008-10-04T19:47:00.000-07:00

I just created this blog and there is no content as yet. I plan to pour out my personal opinions about the three subjects in the title and I certainly expect to encounter disagreement. My only request is that your responses are not personal attacks, are reasonably literate and properly spelled (within reason).