Yesterday, I couldn't help but notice how the media characterizes the 4th of July: It's our nation's birthday! Celebrate, everybody!
Actually, it took our founders over ten years - first, fighting back the British overlords who had the world's most powerful navy, then, finding some common ground among the colonists along the east coast with which to craft a new form of government. The United States of America did not have a birthday on July 4, 1776.
What did occur is that a small group of truly ballsy guys signed a written declaration that slapped the British Crown in the face. They had the audacity to "fire" their rulers and attempt to live independently of their former masters.
Naturally, the rulers took offense. They sent their formidable navy to put down the rebellion among the upstarts.
After all, the vast majority of colonists came from less than royal stock. Many were fleeing law enforcement in their old homes, often because they were "rabble-rousers", political dissidents, or malcontents. Surely the sheer force of the British Empire could end the American exercise in short order.
The much-entitled aristocracy of Great Britain just couldn't fathom the allure of freedom, so they greatly underestimated the resolve of the malcontents. The military operation did not go as swimmingly as planned.
So, on the 4th of July, celebrate the guts and perseverance of our nation's founders who risked their lives in an effort to provide the blessings of freedom to their descendants and for all the others who found themselves in North America. It isn't time for cake and candles. It's time for the rumble of small explosives, the laughter of families getting together, and the free exercise of doing whatever makes you happy.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
MF Global and other thieves
Finally, a Congressional subcommittee is conducting a hearing about the $1.6 billion in customer money that seems to have disappeared from the coffers of bankrupt MF Global, but only after discovery of a memo showing that $200 million had been transferred from customer accounts to JP Morgan to cover an overdraft.
How long will Congress continue to cover for white collar thieves, their buddies in political circles? Is it not enough that they have helped such degenerates escape the results of their bad bets by loading the losses onto American taxpayers? Do they not feel shame at having destroyed the dollar in order to appease their greasy friends at GS? (Of course not, the current administration is filled with Goldman-Sachs alums.)
Meanwhile, 38,000 hardworking Americans are getting stiffed. Their retirement funds are gone. Jon Corzine, CEO of MF Global (and former New Jersey governor) denies wrongdoing. Well, who ya gonna believe, the former governor or a mere 38,000 citizens?
Until our federal government holds the people who use the financial industry as their personal cash garden accountable for their crimes, anybody who invests is completely at risk. Your money will disappear, and you will have no recourse. Why would anybody in the financial industry have concern for ethics? One of the prime authors of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill was ..... you guessed it, Jon Corzine.
Disclosure legislation doesn't assure compliance with anything other than the paperwork. When CEO's can swear that their company is carefully controlling the integrity of other people's money, while that money is being stolen, and no CEO is charged with a crime, the law is just a waste of trees.
Hold Congress accountable. Your only chance is with your vote. However, the major parties don't care whether you vote or not -- they have the system well under their control. "Waste" your vote on an independent, which amounts to voting "no."
How long will Congress continue to cover for white collar thieves, their buddies in political circles? Is it not enough that they have helped such degenerates escape the results of their bad bets by loading the losses onto American taxpayers? Do they not feel shame at having destroyed the dollar in order to appease their greasy friends at GS? (Of course not, the current administration is filled with Goldman-Sachs alums.)
Meanwhile, 38,000 hardworking Americans are getting stiffed. Their retirement funds are gone. Jon Corzine, CEO of MF Global (and former New Jersey governor) denies wrongdoing. Well, who ya gonna believe, the former governor or a mere 38,000 citizens?
Until our federal government holds the people who use the financial industry as their personal cash garden accountable for their crimes, anybody who invests is completely at risk. Your money will disappear, and you will have no recourse. Why would anybody in the financial industry have concern for ethics? One of the prime authors of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill was ..... you guessed it, Jon Corzine.
Disclosure legislation doesn't assure compliance with anything other than the paperwork. When CEO's can swear that their company is carefully controlling the integrity of other people's money, while that money is being stolen, and no CEO is charged with a crime, the law is just a waste of trees.
Hold Congress accountable. Your only chance is with your vote. However, the major parties don't care whether you vote or not -- they have the system well under their control. "Waste" your vote on an independent, which amounts to voting "no."
Monday, March 26, 2012
Do the American people have the energy?
I recall the winter of '73-74, when I was living in Arizona. Amoco discovered that gasoline would bring a higher price in California, and supplies were strained. They sent Arizona's allotment to Cali, and gas lines became common in Phoenix. We'd start lining up at 6AM in order to get 10 gallons before the daily amount was exhausted. Violent encounters were common.
I pitied the poor kid who was sent to attach the "Last Car for Fuel" sign to the last lucky consumer. The next guy in line, who had been waiting for hours, often took offense. The kid, who was way too diligent for his low position, often took a beating trying to defend his sign.
Fortunately, politicians at both state and federal levels took notice and assured us that they would develop a long-term strategy to keep our energy supplies and prices at optimum levels.
That was 39 years ago, and I have heard the same blather from the gas bags in Washington time and time again. During every election cycle, elected officials bring out their plan to assure energy independence and provide all of us with cheap energy.
It never happens.
It won't happen as long as the worthless "representatives" in various government capitols continue to take money from lobbies. Some represent oil companies, and they don't want any alternatives to oil to be developed. Some represent alternative energy, and they want massive subsidies to "level the playing field" (Oil companies also receive massive subsidies and tax breaks. Weren't those designed to help struggling new technologies become profitable? How many centuries old does oil have to be to no longer be "new"?)
In order for our economy to be competitive on a global basis, we need three components: 1) labor - our wage rates are well above those in dirt-poor countries, but barely enough to keep families from starving; 2) capital - here the US has the advantage, since our financial system provides capital as efficiently as anywhere; 3) energy - due to our immense resources, the US had the cheapest energy in the world for decades, but now that our government has helped everybody become globalized, oil is a global commodity and nobody has an advantage except the producers.
Let's see how we compare to the rest of our competitors. 1) Congress has squeezed up the minimum wage rate very slowly. Actual wage earners pay little or no income taxes, so that helps us survive. However, payroll taxes have been expanded regularly, and for most wage earners that is the tax that seizes a chunk of their weekly paycheck. Very little can be done to improve the financial condition of workers here without losing more work to overseas outsourcers. 2) Wall Street has securitized most industries, making their access to capital easier, but the big investment bankers have so compromised Congress that they have been able to take an ever-larger piece of each IPO and charge higher fees for every "service" they perform. Until Congress acts to regulate the activities of those bankers, our access to capital will cost more and more until US businesses are on a level playing field with those under dictatorships. 3) Due to new discoveries of natural gas and lower pricing on solar panels, wind generators, and other alternatives to oil, the US actually has the ability to bring our energy costs down to where we have an advantage. But that requires Congress to back away from the lobby trough and start practicing real leadership.
Do you naively believe that will happen?
T. Boone Pickens has proposed a simple, yet effective plan. Convert a large percentage of our transportation to natural gas. That would reduce fuel costs and cut out our dependence on foreign oil. The economy would improve and our balance of trade would stabilize at a sustainable level. The federal government should get on board with that, right?
Check out what it costs a mechanic shop to get a license to convert a car or pickup truck to natural gas. Special training is mandated - good, that insures a safe installation. Minimum levels of insurance are required - expected, since the insurance lobby is in every pocket in Washington. A license fee must be paid - well, of course that's how government makes its money, by charging people for providing no real service except a piece of paper.
The kicker is that the license fee is high. Try $100k. And, that license only lets you work on one type of engine -- not Ford engines or GM engines, one model of Ford engine. If you want to convert any Ford, you will need at least $1 million in cash for fees. God help you if you want to serve all American-made cars.
Does it sound like Congress wants to help us stop dependence on foreign oil?
Does it seem that our government cares how much we are paying to fill our tanks?
Or does it seem like this is an election year, with all the BS in speeches and promises to fix problems that were never meant to be taken seriously?
For 39 years I have waited for an intelligent energy policy to be formed. What do we have to do to get action -- make all politicians fill up their own tanks instead of riding in taxpayer-funded limos? Vote "NO" in November?
I pitied the poor kid who was sent to attach the "Last Car for Fuel" sign to the last lucky consumer. The next guy in line, who had been waiting for hours, often took offense. The kid, who was way too diligent for his low position, often took a beating trying to defend his sign.
Fortunately, politicians at both state and federal levels took notice and assured us that they would develop a long-term strategy to keep our energy supplies and prices at optimum levels.
That was 39 years ago, and I have heard the same blather from the gas bags in Washington time and time again. During every election cycle, elected officials bring out their plan to assure energy independence and provide all of us with cheap energy.
It never happens.
It won't happen as long as the worthless "representatives" in various government capitols continue to take money from lobbies. Some represent oil companies, and they don't want any alternatives to oil to be developed. Some represent alternative energy, and they want massive subsidies to "level the playing field" (Oil companies also receive massive subsidies and tax breaks. Weren't those designed to help struggling new technologies become profitable? How many centuries old does oil have to be to no longer be "new"?)
In order for our economy to be competitive on a global basis, we need three components: 1) labor - our wage rates are well above those in dirt-poor countries, but barely enough to keep families from starving; 2) capital - here the US has the advantage, since our financial system provides capital as efficiently as anywhere; 3) energy - due to our immense resources, the US had the cheapest energy in the world for decades, but now that our government has helped everybody become globalized, oil is a global commodity and nobody has an advantage except the producers.
Let's see how we compare to the rest of our competitors. 1) Congress has squeezed up the minimum wage rate very slowly. Actual wage earners pay little or no income taxes, so that helps us survive. However, payroll taxes have been expanded regularly, and for most wage earners that is the tax that seizes a chunk of their weekly paycheck. Very little can be done to improve the financial condition of workers here without losing more work to overseas outsourcers. 2) Wall Street has securitized most industries, making their access to capital easier, but the big investment bankers have so compromised Congress that they have been able to take an ever-larger piece of each IPO and charge higher fees for every "service" they perform. Until Congress acts to regulate the activities of those bankers, our access to capital will cost more and more until US businesses are on a level playing field with those under dictatorships. 3) Due to new discoveries of natural gas and lower pricing on solar panels, wind generators, and other alternatives to oil, the US actually has the ability to bring our energy costs down to where we have an advantage. But that requires Congress to back away from the lobby trough and start practicing real leadership.
Do you naively believe that will happen?
T. Boone Pickens has proposed a simple, yet effective plan. Convert a large percentage of our transportation to natural gas. That would reduce fuel costs and cut out our dependence on foreign oil. The economy would improve and our balance of trade would stabilize at a sustainable level. The federal government should get on board with that, right?
Check out what it costs a mechanic shop to get a license to convert a car or pickup truck to natural gas. Special training is mandated - good, that insures a safe installation. Minimum levels of insurance are required - expected, since the insurance lobby is in every pocket in Washington. A license fee must be paid - well, of course that's how government makes its money, by charging people for providing no real service except a piece of paper.
The kicker is that the license fee is high. Try $100k. And, that license only lets you work on one type of engine -- not Ford engines or GM engines, one model of Ford engine. If you want to convert any Ford, you will need at least $1 million in cash for fees. God help you if you want to serve all American-made cars.
Does it sound like Congress wants to help us stop dependence on foreign oil?
Does it seem that our government cares how much we are paying to fill our tanks?
Or does it seem like this is an election year, with all the BS in speeches and promises to fix problems that were never meant to be taken seriously?
For 39 years I have waited for an intelligent energy policy to be formed. What do we have to do to get action -- make all politicians fill up their own tanks instead of riding in taxpayer-funded limos? Vote "NO" in November?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Trayvon Martin
I have been reading and watching news reports about the teenage boy in Florida who was shot by the leader of a neighborhood watch group. Trayvon was an African-American youth who had gone to the local store to buy candy. He was wearing a hoodie. He was headed back to his father's house where he had been with his dad and his dad's girlfriend. He carried no gun or other weapon.
That sounds like a normal teenager doing a normal thing, but to the leader of the neighborhood watch group, George Zimmerman, he was a black kid who was probably up to no good.
Zimmerman followed him in his vehicle, yelled at Trayvon (scaring him - you never know what a guy in a strange van has in mind), and when Trayvon began to run away, Zimmerman got out, pursued him, and eventually shot him ... dead.
Zimmerman was questioned briefly, released, and no charges have been filed. The rationale? Florida has a "stand your ground" law which allows citizens to defend themselves, even using deadly force when threatened.
Oklahoma has a similar law. To my knowledge, nobody has been cleared of wrongdoing except where there was a real threat. Nobody escaped felony charges when they were pursuing the person who was shot.
We are a state that prizes individual freedom and that allows guns to be carried in public. Heck, we used to be a haven for outlaws (hence the name of my blog). But don't try a "Zimmerman" here - you will be arrested, and an Oklahoma jury will not be sympathetic. Guns are prevalent here, and gun safety and common sense are required.
But apparently in Sanford, Florida, all that is trumped by race. The local police chief (who has since resigned) understands why a citizen would assume that a black teen in a predominantly white neighborhood was suspicious.
Really?
The color of our skin is a function of melanin. Melanin is naturally produced, and it acts to turn pigment dark when exposed to sunlight.
Long ago, our ancestors moved around in tribes. Those that moved north, into the cloud forests of Europe, discovered that having dark skin and dark eyes was a negative. Dark eyes don't see as well in foggy conditions, and those with such eyesight are more prone to be ambushed by bears. Dark skin filters out sunlight, resulting in rickets (a vitamin D deficiency disease). Nobody with bent legs from rickets gets laid. Recent victims of bear-mauling are also unattractive to the opposite sex and don't get to reproduce. The result is that northern tribes ended up mostly fair-skinned and blue-eyed.
On the other hand, tribes that headed south found themselves in hot, sunny conditions, where a lack of melanin led to sunburned skin and eventual skin cancer. Peeling skin and oozing sores are a real turnoff, so those folks didn't get laid. Blue eyes let in more sun. While that is a benefit in the cloud forests, light-eyed people in bright sun have to squint. Leopards perched high above in trees found such people to be easy targets. So, southern tribes gradually weeded out the blue-eyed, melanin-deficient members and became dark-skinned people.
So, Zimmerman, how do we get from surviving bear attacks or skin cancer to a bigoted attitude that assumes someone who is not melanin-deficient is a criminal?
Not by using our brains! (Something we all have inherited, no matter from which tribe we descended.)
Zimmerman and his cohorts do something quite common. They categorize and compartmentalize. It's a short cut way of making decisions quickly, similar to the algorithm used by Google to direct search traffic. We develop algorithms that take input (such as melanin content, type of apparel, body piercings, etc.) and, based on a person's past experiences with unique individuals who had similar characteristics, we place the subject into a category (eg, a thug) without any actual basis for the categorization. It allows us to make quick decisions that protect us from unpleasant encounters.
Those algorithms also prevent us from learning anything new that might challenge the truth of our assumptions. Those algorithms also keep us from learning about new people outside our "tribe". Such an algorithm allowed George Zimmerman to gun down an innocent young man without any real provocation. Similar algorithms allowed the police to accept Zimmerman's story and take an understanding view while discounting the life of Trayvon Martin.
Left unprotested, this situation would make me cynical about the future of our species. Fortunately, many people have heard the story and voiced their protests. The mayor and police chief have resigned. A new prosecutor has been appointed. George Zimmerman still remains at large.
So, I'm not totally cynical, but I remain skeptical. How many people gathering in support of justice does it take to nudge the established powers off their porcelain thrones and into action to provide equal justice? Will we ever get beyond visual cues and see the color of skin as a matter of melanin? As a melanin-deficient American, I want this race crap to get behind us before remnants of the northern tribes are always recognized as potential serial killers.
What about you? Do you see this as an indictment of neighborhood watch groups? Do you think the police can do an effective job without them? Are your local police color-blind or racist? Have you been the victim of ignorant categorization? Let me know your story.
That sounds like a normal teenager doing a normal thing, but to the leader of the neighborhood watch group, George Zimmerman, he was a black kid who was probably up to no good.
Zimmerman followed him in his vehicle, yelled at Trayvon (scaring him - you never know what a guy in a strange van has in mind), and when Trayvon began to run away, Zimmerman got out, pursued him, and eventually shot him ... dead.
Zimmerman was questioned briefly, released, and no charges have been filed. The rationale? Florida has a "stand your ground" law which allows citizens to defend themselves, even using deadly force when threatened.
Oklahoma has a similar law. To my knowledge, nobody has been cleared of wrongdoing except where there was a real threat. Nobody escaped felony charges when they were pursuing the person who was shot.
We are a state that prizes individual freedom and that allows guns to be carried in public. Heck, we used to be a haven for outlaws (hence the name of my blog). But don't try a "Zimmerman" here - you will be arrested, and an Oklahoma jury will not be sympathetic. Guns are prevalent here, and gun safety and common sense are required.
But apparently in Sanford, Florida, all that is trumped by race. The local police chief (who has since resigned) understands why a citizen would assume that a black teen in a predominantly white neighborhood was suspicious.
Really?
The color of our skin is a function of melanin. Melanin is naturally produced, and it acts to turn pigment dark when exposed to sunlight.
Long ago, our ancestors moved around in tribes. Those that moved north, into the cloud forests of Europe, discovered that having dark skin and dark eyes was a negative. Dark eyes don't see as well in foggy conditions, and those with such eyesight are more prone to be ambushed by bears. Dark skin filters out sunlight, resulting in rickets (a vitamin D deficiency disease). Nobody with bent legs from rickets gets laid. Recent victims of bear-mauling are also unattractive to the opposite sex and don't get to reproduce. The result is that northern tribes ended up mostly fair-skinned and blue-eyed.
On the other hand, tribes that headed south found themselves in hot, sunny conditions, where a lack of melanin led to sunburned skin and eventual skin cancer. Peeling skin and oozing sores are a real turnoff, so those folks didn't get laid. Blue eyes let in more sun. While that is a benefit in the cloud forests, light-eyed people in bright sun have to squint. Leopards perched high above in trees found such people to be easy targets. So, southern tribes gradually weeded out the blue-eyed, melanin-deficient members and became dark-skinned people.
So, Zimmerman, how do we get from surviving bear attacks or skin cancer to a bigoted attitude that assumes someone who is not melanin-deficient is a criminal?
Not by using our brains! (Something we all have inherited, no matter from which tribe we descended.)
Zimmerman and his cohorts do something quite common. They categorize and compartmentalize. It's a short cut way of making decisions quickly, similar to the algorithm used by Google to direct search traffic. We develop algorithms that take input (such as melanin content, type of apparel, body piercings, etc.) and, based on a person's past experiences with unique individuals who had similar characteristics, we place the subject into a category (eg, a thug) without any actual basis for the categorization. It allows us to make quick decisions that protect us from unpleasant encounters.
Those algorithms also prevent us from learning anything new that might challenge the truth of our assumptions. Those algorithms also keep us from learning about new people outside our "tribe". Such an algorithm allowed George Zimmerman to gun down an innocent young man without any real provocation. Similar algorithms allowed the police to accept Zimmerman's story and take an understanding view while discounting the life of Trayvon Martin.
Left unprotested, this situation would make me cynical about the future of our species. Fortunately, many people have heard the story and voiced their protests. The mayor and police chief have resigned. A new prosecutor has been appointed. George Zimmerman still remains at large.
So, I'm not totally cynical, but I remain skeptical. How many people gathering in support of justice does it take to nudge the established powers off their porcelain thrones and into action to provide equal justice? Will we ever get beyond visual cues and see the color of skin as a matter of melanin? As a melanin-deficient American, I want this race crap to get behind us before remnants of the northern tribes are always recognized as potential serial killers.
What about you? Do you see this as an indictment of neighborhood watch groups? Do you think the police can do an effective job without them? Are your local police color-blind or racist? Have you been the victim of ignorant categorization? Let me know your story.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Let's Get Rid of Meth Labs
It has been a few days since my last post. Spring and the everyday responsibilities of life have consumed my time. When it rains, as it has done the past few days, I just want to curl up and take a nap. That makes getting things done even harder. And age has also contributed to my lethargy.
Then again, when I don't hear any disturbing news, I find fewer things to write about. I see no sense in babbling on about minor issues.
There was one news item that got me humming. It seems that an Oklahoma legislator has proposed increased restrictions on some allergy medications. We already have laws that place pseudoepinephrine-containing pills back in the pharmacists' cage. Now, he wants to add more regulations on pharmacists to require them to check out their customers asking for the "dangerous" allergy pills.
Give us a break!
Why is it that the morons in the state capitol immediately resort to taking away freedoms enjoyed by the people as a means of solving a problem? When we say "it's a free country" we mean it as more than a propaganda slogan. If I get a runny nose, combined with sneezing and a headache, I want to be able to buy a simple pill to allow me to continue with my daily activities. I want to be able to do it without a third degree from somebody in a white lab jacket who just graduated from college. I don't want anybody from the government or their chosen agents to tell me that I just don't look right, so I will have to suffer.
I don't want meth labs to flourish in my state. I don't want meth addicts to move here where the supply is abundant. I don't want school kids to be tempted to try such a horrendous drug. I think I speak for the majority of us in that regard.
But if current laws aren't working, I don't think making them more severe will do much to improve the situation.
If there is great demand, there will be suppliers willing to risk punishment in exchange for huge profits. It is simple economics.
Lawmakers lack ingenuity. (Some may say they lack a brain, but that is another discussion.) What we need is an innovative approach.
I now offer mine: 1) get the meth chefs together and propose licensing them to produce meth for the government; 2) organize a team of medical researchers (paid by the government, so their conclusions will be what is expected - just like Big Pharma does) to "discover" a new psychological syndrome. We'll name it Chronic Lethargy Disorder (CLD or cloud), although it will probably be more commonly known as Stoners' Syndrome. 3) Propose to treat the new disease the same way we treat ADHD - give the sufferers a big dose of uppers. 4) Provide the "medicine" at government expense (so all taxpayers get to be part of the solution) and direct the manufacture by our newly-licensed cooks.
Simple! And, all those previously-inert individuals will become very active, and probably produce more income, thus increasing tax revenues for state, county, and municipality coffers.
Of course, the roll of "sufferers" of CLD will be heavily populated with meth heads, so we can identify the source of the demand. Then, we start a campaign on the order of how the tobacco Nazis fought smoking and criminalize their behavior. Soon, all the meth addicts will be in our prisons, and the demand for meth will disappear.
We could move the meth production into labs located in the prisons and wait for the explosions that will remove anyone associated with meth from the gene pool.
And in the meantime, all of us allergy sufferers will be able to get relief!
Then again, when I don't hear any disturbing news, I find fewer things to write about. I see no sense in babbling on about minor issues.
There was one news item that got me humming. It seems that an Oklahoma legislator has proposed increased restrictions on some allergy medications. We already have laws that place pseudoepinephrine-containing pills back in the pharmacists' cage. Now, he wants to add more regulations on pharmacists to require them to check out their customers asking for the "dangerous" allergy pills.
Give us a break!
Why is it that the morons in the state capitol immediately resort to taking away freedoms enjoyed by the people as a means of solving a problem? When we say "it's a free country" we mean it as more than a propaganda slogan. If I get a runny nose, combined with sneezing and a headache, I want to be able to buy a simple pill to allow me to continue with my daily activities. I want to be able to do it without a third degree from somebody in a white lab jacket who just graduated from college. I don't want anybody from the government or their chosen agents to tell me that I just don't look right, so I will have to suffer.
I don't want meth labs to flourish in my state. I don't want meth addicts to move here where the supply is abundant. I don't want school kids to be tempted to try such a horrendous drug. I think I speak for the majority of us in that regard.
But if current laws aren't working, I don't think making them more severe will do much to improve the situation.
If there is great demand, there will be suppliers willing to risk punishment in exchange for huge profits. It is simple economics.
Lawmakers lack ingenuity. (Some may say they lack a brain, but that is another discussion.) What we need is an innovative approach.
I now offer mine: 1) get the meth chefs together and propose licensing them to produce meth for the government; 2) organize a team of medical researchers (paid by the government, so their conclusions will be what is expected - just like Big Pharma does) to "discover" a new psychological syndrome. We'll name it Chronic Lethargy Disorder (CLD or cloud), although it will probably be more commonly known as Stoners' Syndrome. 3) Propose to treat the new disease the same way we treat ADHD - give the sufferers a big dose of uppers. 4) Provide the "medicine" at government expense (so all taxpayers get to be part of the solution) and direct the manufacture by our newly-licensed cooks.
Simple! And, all those previously-inert individuals will become very active, and probably produce more income, thus increasing tax revenues for state, county, and municipality coffers.
Of course, the roll of "sufferers" of CLD will be heavily populated with meth heads, so we can identify the source of the demand. Then, we start a campaign on the order of how the tobacco Nazis fought smoking and criminalize their behavior. Soon, all the meth addicts will be in our prisons, and the demand for meth will disappear.
We could move the meth production into labs located in the prisons and wait for the explosions that will remove anyone associated with meth from the gene pool.
And in the meantime, all of us allergy sufferers will be able to get relief!
Monday, March 12, 2012
Kony2012
I learned about a YouTube video, now viral, that introduces viewers to the atrocities committed by a Ugandan warlord named Kony. His methods, not original, include kidnapping children who are programmed into soldiers and/or sex slaves. The U.S. has sent 100 military advisers to help the Ugandan national forces capture this wart on humanity's nose, but he is believed to be currently hiding out in a nearby country.
The world has changed, and now social media has been enlisted to raise awareness and support for stopping this violent criminal. It is encouraging to see how technology can work on behalf of causes like this. It is also encouraging to learn that the bulk of support and action resulting from the video comes from people 25 and under.
Kony will eventually meet his end, and it will no doubt be violent and painful. I just wonder how the Ugandan troops (already accused of bad actions) will deal with the final showdown. How would you, as a soldier, handle the removal of a truly bad man (Kony) without slaughtering dozens of child soldiers? Kony's troops follow his orders and will fight back with complete effort. Kony has set in motion a scenario that is doomed to end in an all-out disaster. Even his child soldiers who survive will need extensive help to re-enter their society.
The aftermath of Kony's removal can have diverse results. Those who get behind the effort to remove the threat of his LRA will need to stay involved to make sure that the survivors are given a realistic chance to overcome the damage done to their minds and bodies.
This is the ethical consideration that must be developed where social media is used to enact positive social change. Continued engagement is a responsibility that must be assumed by supporters. I'm sure there are other ethical rules that will be developed, but I am interested to read comments by readers about what you think should be an ethical responsibility arising from social media- induced causes.
The world has changed, and now social media has been enlisted to raise awareness and support for stopping this violent criminal. It is encouraging to see how technology can work on behalf of causes like this. It is also encouraging to learn that the bulk of support and action resulting from the video comes from people 25 and under.
Kony will eventually meet his end, and it will no doubt be violent and painful. I just wonder how the Ugandan troops (already accused of bad actions) will deal with the final showdown. How would you, as a soldier, handle the removal of a truly bad man (Kony) without slaughtering dozens of child soldiers? Kony's troops follow his orders and will fight back with complete effort. Kony has set in motion a scenario that is doomed to end in an all-out disaster. Even his child soldiers who survive will need extensive help to re-enter their society.
The aftermath of Kony's removal can have diverse results. Those who get behind the effort to remove the threat of his LRA will need to stay involved to make sure that the survivors are given a realistic chance to overcome the damage done to their minds and bodies.
This is the ethical consideration that must be developed where social media is used to enact positive social change. Continued engagement is a responsibility that must be assumed by supporters. I'm sure there are other ethical rules that will be developed, but I am interested to read comments by readers about what you think should be an ethical responsibility arising from social media- induced causes.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Iran tensions, solar storms
I read news that our federal government has ordered 65 nuclear plants to create an evacuation plan. If that had happened shortly after the Japanese tsunami I could assume that somebody took notice that all such plants are at risk. Now, I wonder if the order is due to escalating issues with Iran.
Israel has requested supplies of bunker-buster/MOAB (mother of all bombs) devices, presumably in anticipation of a need to take out Iran's nuclear program. Saber rattling or evidence of intent to start a new conflict?
Aren't most Americans tired of war? Just as troops return home from Iraq and a draw down in Afghanistan is planned, we seem to be sinking into another swamp in the Middle East. With massive new resources of natural gas being developed here, why aren't our "leaders" doing whatever they can to shake loose of our dependence on foreign oil?
Oh, yeah, we are in an election year. No time for real leadership.
BTW, the solar storm fizzled before it could affect com satellites, GPS, and the all-important Blackberry network. I read several years ago that scientists predicted a peak in solar activity this year and into next, so we still have ample opportunity to freak out when more flares hit the atmosphere.
In the late 1800's, the last peak in solar storms occurred, and it melted some power lines. Mind you, the insulation was not so advanced then, but we weren't so dependent on electricity back then. Does anyone remember how to do math with pencil and paper?
Israel has requested supplies of bunker-buster/MOAB (mother of all bombs) devices, presumably in anticipation of a need to take out Iran's nuclear program. Saber rattling or evidence of intent to start a new conflict?
Aren't most Americans tired of war? Just as troops return home from Iraq and a draw down in Afghanistan is planned, we seem to be sinking into another swamp in the Middle East. With massive new resources of natural gas being developed here, why aren't our "leaders" doing whatever they can to shake loose of our dependence on foreign oil?
Oh, yeah, we are in an election year. No time for real leadership.
BTW, the solar storm fizzled before it could affect com satellites, GPS, and the all-important Blackberry network. I read several years ago that scientists predicted a peak in solar activity this year and into next, so we still have ample opportunity to freak out when more flares hit the atmosphere.
In the late 1800's, the last peak in solar storms occurred, and it melted some power lines. Mind you, the insulation was not so advanced then, but we weren't so dependent on electricity back then. Does anyone remember how to do math with pencil and paper?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
What does God want?
I saw a talk show today featuring Mark and Grace Driskoll. He is a pastor (nobody claims to be a televangelist these days) of a mega-church. The two of them wrote a book advising us that God wants us to be adventurous in bed. God wants us to enjoy sex - but only if "we" means a heterosexual married couple.
That works for me. I have been married to a heterosexual for nearly twenty-nine years, and I wouldn't mind if God wanted us to have great sex.
I just wonder if God is terribly concerned about the quality (or adventurousness) of my sex life. I rather suspect that God is more concerned about "people of God" who tell masses of people what He wants. Personally, I would rather hear it from God instead of a pastor. I always worry that a middleman may get the message wrong.
Also, I cannot find anything in the Bible that condemns lesbians. Any passages about homosexuality refer to males, not females. Lay off the lesbians (no pun intended).
That works for me. I have been married to a heterosexual for nearly twenty-nine years, and I wouldn't mind if God wanted us to have great sex.
I just wonder if God is terribly concerned about the quality (or adventurousness) of my sex life. I rather suspect that God is more concerned about "people of God" who tell masses of people what He wants. Personally, I would rather hear it from God instead of a pastor. I always worry that a middleman may get the message wrong.
Also, I cannot find anything in the Bible that condemns lesbians. Any passages about homosexuality refer to males, not females. Lay off the lesbians (no pun intended).
Super Tuesday or Silly Season?
Now that Super Tuesday is behind us, we can expect politics to shift into high gear. More likely, we can expect the political silly season to inundate us with a barrage of posturing. The remaining candidates will pull out all the stops to convince the party core that they truly represent all predominant positions.
It's not unexpected that silly season is such a part of our electoral process. Where else, in any profession, business, industry, or ministry do we choose a nominee based on the questionable skill set of shaking hands, lying with a straight face, and kissing babies? Even pedophiles find kissing babies unnecessary.
Let's face it, the system is grossly dysfunctional. If any company spent over a billion on marketing a questionable product, investors would hammer the stock. Yet, both major parties go all out to present their front men in a carefully triangulated light. Each party carefully points out the other guy's weaknesses. Voters are left with a choice of who is the lesser evil - Fric or Frac.
It doesn't matter. Both are poor choices. Both serve the same stupid system. It is the system that fails the people on a regular basis.
When George Washington was asked his opinion on political parties, he responded that he didn't care for them at all. He said that the purpose of a political party was to gain power, maintain power, and not to concern itself with doing the peoples' business. Smart man.
A poll taken a few years ago asked registered voters which party they were closely affiliated with. 41% said neither. That means the majority of Americans don't really like either major party. (41% independent, 30% Demos, 29% Repubs) If we really elected someone that truly represents our views, we would have mostly Independent members of Congress, non-partisan President, etc. What a change that would be!
Would a vote for an independent be a waste of our votes? If nothing else, it would shake up the leadership of both parties and force Washington to stop their juvenile bickering, if only to figure out how to regain power. Would it create a horrible administration? Maybe, but could it get much worse than $15 trillion in public debt, mostly held by China, who could at any moment tell Washington exactly what they are going to do to pay them back (the people of this nation, be damned)?
Yet, we continue to do the same thing every four years, hoping for a different result. Isn't that insanity, or is it just, well .....silly?
What do you think?
It's not unexpected that silly season is such a part of our electoral process. Where else, in any profession, business, industry, or ministry do we choose a nominee based on the questionable skill set of shaking hands, lying with a straight face, and kissing babies? Even pedophiles find kissing babies unnecessary.
Let's face it, the system is grossly dysfunctional. If any company spent over a billion on marketing a questionable product, investors would hammer the stock. Yet, both major parties go all out to present their front men in a carefully triangulated light. Each party carefully points out the other guy's weaknesses. Voters are left with a choice of who is the lesser evil - Fric or Frac.
It doesn't matter. Both are poor choices. Both serve the same stupid system. It is the system that fails the people on a regular basis.
When George Washington was asked his opinion on political parties, he responded that he didn't care for them at all. He said that the purpose of a political party was to gain power, maintain power, and not to concern itself with doing the peoples' business. Smart man.
A poll taken a few years ago asked registered voters which party they were closely affiliated with. 41% said neither. That means the majority of Americans don't really like either major party. (41% independent, 30% Demos, 29% Repubs) If we really elected someone that truly represents our views, we would have mostly Independent members of Congress, non-partisan President, etc. What a change that would be!
Would a vote for an independent be a waste of our votes? If nothing else, it would shake up the leadership of both parties and force Washington to stop their juvenile bickering, if only to figure out how to regain power. Would it create a horrible administration? Maybe, but could it get much worse than $15 trillion in public debt, mostly held by China, who could at any moment tell Washington exactly what they are going to do to pay them back (the people of this nation, be damned)?
Yet, we continue to do the same thing every four years, hoping for a different result. Isn't that insanity, or is it just, well .....silly?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)