Seriously?

I can't believe that it's really been over two years since I last posted here. Guess I've been pretty slack because there has been plenty in the news and such to rant about, and even more to ramble over for no reason other than to ramble .... I've written several in my head, I think I even typed a few out, but I guess I never got around to actually throwing them up here.

I'd like to say that I was busy with other work ... and late 2010 and through 2011 that was probably true, but 2012 was slow at best and I was unemployed for the beginning of 2013 ... and may be again if I don't manage to turn this contract into a full time position, or land another contract to extend it.

Having spent the last 3 months in the unemployment system I can see how completely screwed up that program has become.

It is a system that does little to nothing to assist an unemployed person in finding a job, and in certain respects discourages taking 'small jobs' while you're looking.

Leaving aside the benefit calculation and length of the benefit as both a confusing mess and for professional workers like myself, a grossly inadequate level of compensation ... if I take a job that earns less than my benefit ... my benefit is reduced by my pre-tax earnings .... so if I were to take a job where I earned less per week than my benefit ... I would be working for free. (Example the max benefit is $330 / Week (pre-tax) ... so if I were to take a temp job that earned me $230 (pre-tax) ... my benefit for the week would only be $100 to bring me to a total of $330 for the week. Since I could have earned $330 for the week without so much as getting out of bed(1), I worked the week for free.)

[(1) - Okay, not technically true as you have to be 'actively looking for a job' and turn in a work search report every week with at least 3 new job contacts ... but since emailing resumes or calling employers counts ... in this day that CAN be done from bed.]

The DoL (Department of Labor) does at least have a website that helps you find contacts .. kind of ... but I got better results using standard job search engines and good ole fashioned networking. And in fact it was networking that landed me the contract I have now. Going into the office, however, is less fruitful ... unless your goal was to waste most of your day to talk to someone that will a) give you a pamphlet that essentially tells you to do what you have already been doing, b) tell you to go to the website, c) give you paperwork that, when processed, will tell you what you already knew if you've gone to the website, and d) smile insincerely and encourage you to keep plugging away at it.

I could cut the DoL budget in about half by getting rid of most of the 'councelors' that don't do anything productive and just stop pretending to offer that at all. They already have a room full of computers so that people that don't have Internet access at home can use the website, and every time I went 60% of those weren't being used, and half of the ones that were were surfing facebook, not job hunting(2).

[(2) - I recognize that I didn't really do a count of the computers that were being used, or how they were being used. This was just the impression glancing around the room while sitting there with nothing else to do while waiting for the counselor to call me.]

The problem is, like so many other government handled programs, it has become a bureaucracy that is heavy on personnel and light on actual service. A bunch of people, pushing papers around, sending letters, emails, and the like. Many of whom may have even gone into the job with the desire to help people only to find themselves ground down by the bureaucratic machine and sheer number of people. Trust me ... for the most part it is not the individuals that I think are the problem.

Inefficiency is the nature of a bureaucracy as you tend to end up with a large number of people doing little more than overseeing people. The government school system is a great example of this often being very administration heavy with some districts having as many as 2 administrators for each teacher in the system. And those overseers are often pulling down hefty government salaries and benefits while having limited impact on the actual goal of the department. This in turn strangles the department budget leaving less and less money to actually go toward achieving the department's goal.

The governmental answer to this problem is usually to create more regulations and hire more administration to determine what the problem is and suggest a course of action to the committee in charge of the department that usually amounts to 'give us more money.'

Which brings us to the current problems with the Federal budget .... much of the problems of our budget could be solved by increasing the EFFICIENCY of the programs involved. Remember folks, it takes roughly 2 tax payers making the same salary (plus the taxes payed by the government employee) to pay the salary of each government employee ... it should be relatively obvious that the larger government grows the more and more impossible it becomes to maintain. This is why only $0.05 to $0.10 of every tax dollar collected actually makes it back out of the government in terms of benefits. Salaries and operational expenses are the biggest expenses that face our government ... and they aren't talking about any REAL long term cuts in those ... in fact they aren't really talking about cuts in anything ... they aren't cutting they're reducing planned increases ... so a department that got 100 million this year is only going to get 105 million next year instead of the 110 million that they were going to get under the previous budget projection. .... mind you we don't have enough money to pay for the 100 million they got THIS year and if we FROZE their budget at 100 million we wouldn't have that next year either so giving them 105 million is 5 more million dollars we have to borrow...

But let's just keep spending ... somewhere down the line I'm sure that money will just fall from the sky and solve our debt problems. Oh ... I know ... we'll find it collectively in between our sofa cushions. I'm sure that planning will work out very well for us in the future....

Welcome to your future

Heard about the riots in France? Greece? Demonstrations in the UK and Ireland? I can't say that I've looked everywhere, but in looking over the national news lately I can't say that these stories have been highlighted by media outlets around here. And why not? The media doesn't want to make a big deal about these stories because they are a glimpse of what we have to look forward to here. They are the stark images of what lays down the road of big government and socialist policies ... a road that we seem to be skipping happily down blindfolded to all of the pitfalls and potholes that litter its path.

The problem in Greece is, of course, that the government is BROKE ... they have no money ... but the government unions are rioting in protest of pay and benefit cuts, other groups are protesting and rioting against cutting spending (benefits) to social programs. The problem in France is that Government Retirement pensions are reaching critical mass and to try and stave of problems the government is trying to raise the retirement age to 62 from 60.

These governments are looking down the barrel of financial trouble and are trying to take the steps needed to get their financial house in order, but their opposition chooses to use violence and fear as their tactic to influence the situation. In France they have shut down public transportation, blockaded fuel depots causing a fuel shortage, barricaded access to airports disrupting passengers and flights, smashed store windows, burned cars, and become increasingly violent over the last week inuring 62 police officers.

Why? Because they feel that raising the retirement age could be the first step in eroding their other benefits ... which include long vacations, contracts that make it hard (or impossible) for an employer to fire employees, and a state subsidized health system that is draining the economy, in favor of a more 'American style' capitalist system.

Except here in America we're heading the opposite direction. We're heading straight down the road to those riots ... we are seeing a glimpse of our future, but we're turning a blind eye to it in the hopes that if we don't recognize it or acknowledge it that somehow we'll avoid it.

The government of the US is already essentially broke, we are spending much more than the government receives .... running much of our social programs and even essential government functions with borrowed money. This is an unsustainable policy, in many cases we are borrowing money to pay the interest on the loans we already had .... the national debt has increased every year since before Carter ... the much touted Clinton 'surplus' was a projection that assumed that nothing in the economy would change over the fifteen years following the report. Of course the report was before the 'dot com' bust that lead to the economic recession that started in Clinton's last year.

We have got to get spending under control in this country or we will be forced to when our economy crashes like Greece's. This is going to require some tough decisions and, more than likely, the elimination or drastic reduction in many if not all social programs. This is not going to be popular with the recipients of those programs, many of whom are proud career government leaches. These people, and the government unions whose over inflated salaries and pensions will likely come under the knife as well tend to be of a more mob mentality; a mentality that justifies and exonerates the tactics currently being used in France.

The longer we travel down the road of socialism the harder it is going to be to turn around and get our country back on track and in line with the goals of our founding fathers. We need to turn it around sooner rather than later ... it needs to start on November 2nd with these mid-term elections ... and it needs to start with an informed voting base.

DON'T just vote for Republicans just because they're not Democrats .... admittedly the Democrats (and particularly the top leadership of this Democrat administration) are largely responsible for accelerating this trip down the road we're on, but that doesn't mean that Republicans have all the answers either. Know the issues and the candidates stances on them ... Don't vote based on party, but on policy. Likewise don't vote for Democrats just because they aren't Republicans ... and don't vote for any candidate just because they are in a particular party.

DON'T just vote for someone just because they are running against an incumbent. There is a major anti-incumbent mentality out there, and I do believe that many of those that are currently in office (in both parties) need to be thrown out on their ears. But voting against an incumbent for no reason other than the fact that they are an incumbent is as just as bad as voting FOR him just because he is currently in the office. You need to know their voting record, know their opponent's stance, make sure that the person that you are voting for is, in your opinion at least, the person that is BEST suited for the job, if it so happens that they currently already have the job, then maybe they need to stay after all.

If you can not be bothered to make the effort to make an informed vote then please don't make the effort to go to the polls and vote, because it is uniformed votes that are the most dangerous to this country.

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy

Man

I need to blog more ... lately though I've actually been avoiding the news it's just too depressing that so many people are so out of touch in this country. Though I suppose it shouldn't really be that surprising. I saw a poll that had been done recently (of course I can't find the article now), but in generic terms what it found was that 70% of Americans over the age of (I think it was) 50 had a favorable view of Capitalism and the Free-Market economy and an unfavorable view of Socialism and a Centrally-Planned economy. Under the age of 30 (or so), however, the numbers were more akin to 80% in favor of Socialism and Centrally-Planned economy ... and yet let's step back and take a look at something:

Specifically the USSR (for those youngsters among us that is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the poster child for a Centrally-Planned, Socialist style government) was founded in 1922 and dissolved in 1991.

Likewise it was in 1921 that the Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded and it wasn't until 1943 that it actually came to power by defeating the Nationalist Party in a long and bloody civil war. The CPC is still the ruling body of the Peoples Republic of China, but in recent years has been moving more toward a more Free-Market approach to their economy.

The two largest Communist/Socialist 'empires' if you will ... One collapsed almost 20 years ago, bankrupt, and the other is moving away from a Centrally-Planned economy. The USSR lasted 69 years ... if you take it back to the start of the revolution then it lasted 74 years, maybe a little longer. The People's Republic of China is only 67 years old (89 if you go back to the CPC's founding) and is no longer a purely Socialist / Centrally-Planned economic model.

Conversely, the USA founded upon individual liberty, Capitalism, and the Free-Market was founded in 1776. To date it has stood roughly 234 years. When the USSR and CPC were founded the USA's model of Capitalism had been operating for 145 years.

This is where some people point out that we aren't a purely Capitalist economy anymore either, and that is true. Since the Great Depression (and FDR's 'New Deal') socialism has been eating away at the capitalist structure of this country and since then we have seen the greatest losses of economic liberty, the greatest growths of government, and the greatest decline in power. The New Deal and many of the later growths and mutations of the policies that stemmed from it contain some of the biggest problems in American government today ... Social Security (which was known at the time to be unsustainable and only meant to be a temporary system until a better version could be enacted), the FHA (which would eventually lead to FreddyMac/FannieMae), the SEC, and eventually Medicare.

Whether we would have survived had we not incorporated some of these socialist systems into our economic model is impossible to say. I believe that operating on a pure, or nearly pure, Capitalist/Free-Market system is possible ... and I believe that it is infinitely more likely than a purely Socialist/Centrally-Planned system operating successfully for any significant length of time.

In any case ... why is it that so many seem more than willing to move away from the system that has worked the longest and brought more people out of poverty than any other system in history, in favor of a system that seems to burn itself out in about 70 years. Why are we trying to become more like a system that failed? Do we want long bread lines, longer hours and lower pay? Because that's what the USSR was best known for ... and that isn't from text books or propaganda reels, that's from talking to some clients here at work that lived over there before the fall.

Maybe part of the reason that the young ones do have a more favorable view of Communism/Socialism is simply the fact that the USSR fell almost 20 years ago. They didn't see and hear about the problems, about the living conditions of anyone not in the political class, and things of that nature. They've heard stories, sure, but those are just propaganda, and besides they have all the answers, they'll do it right.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath ......

Myth of Corporate Greed

Corporate Greed ... I'm sure that you've all heard the term. It seems to get thrown around a lot, particularly when economic troubles are in the air ... it is used as the explanation of what is wrong with everything in our economy. Companies laying off workers? Corporate Greed. Companies raising prices or fees? Corporate Greed. Companies going bankrupt? Yup, Corporate Greed.

There's a problem though ... the people using the term can't define it. Basically ... someone else is making more than they are and they don't like it, because if you ask them and press the issue they will likely tell you that the problem is 'greedy' CEOs.

Here's the thing though ... CEOs are employees. Hired ultimately by the shareholders of the corporation. Their pay (and bonuses) are defined by a contract negotiated, often by the board of directors, but ultimately approved by the shareholders of the corporation. Their job (for which they earns the pay and bonuses defined in the contract) is to make as much profit for the shareholders as he possibly can.

You see ... a corporation is basically an elaborate legal structure which exists for one single purpose ... to make a profit. It does not exist to employ people, it does not exist to produce a product, it exists to make money. Employees and Products (or services) are a means to that end.

When the cost of employment starts lowering profit the CEO has a problem ... his job is at stake. He has to make some choices. An over simplified version of the choices available to him are to 1) Pass the cost on to the end user of the product (raise the cost of his product/service to compensate for the additional labor costs) ... probably not a good idea in a down economy as it may result in drastically reduced sales. 2) find ways of lowering costs in other areas (advertising less, etc.) .. these can also have consequences on sales or other aspects of the company itself). 3)Go to the source of the problem and cut employment or compensation packages ... generally the most effective direct result though for a large company it can be a PR nightmare and the effect on production/services does need to be considered heavily.

Most often, of course, it is some combination of all available options that is going to be taken. No matter what the CEO does many of his decisions may be unpopular and very few of them are going to be easy. But that is why they makes the money that they do ... because their experience and business sense has taught them how to make those decisions and what the best road is likely to be for the short and long term health of the company; and more specifically for the shareholders of the company.

It's funny that often if a CEO is given a raise (by the board of directors, or the shareholders) it is because he's greedy, it can't possibly be because ... oh ... I don't know ... that he did a good freaking job. If the employees (or employee union), however, demand a raise ... it's not because they're greedy ... no ... they are the victims of the greedy corporation, enslaved to their pitiful paycheck and benefits.

You see ... the fact of the matter is that in many areas US workers have priced themselves out of the market. A company hiring US employees typically has to pay a lot more in benefits and wages than they would pay someone with the same level of skills in other countries. (Or in some cases even in other States within the US.) .... This effect can usually be traced back to 2 factors - Government Regulation (interference) and Labor Unions. Doing this isn't 'greedy' it's good business sense ... the CEO has a responsibility to the shareholders of the company, not the employees ... the employees exist to assist the company in making a profit, the company does not exist in order to provide them a job and means of income.

Let's take a moment and take a step back .... let's look at who the shareholders are in many of the 'big' companies. The largest holder of many of the large corporations in the US are ... retirement funds ... so, Teachers, Police, Fire, Employee Unions ... in other words 'every day workers'. (It's actually kind of ironic that Unions are often working against the best interests of the retirement funds of the very people that they are supposed to be representing ... but then again the Unions have generally had more of a 'now' outlook so they probably would prefer the 100 now instead of the 1000 later....)

These people have a vested interest in the corporation making as much profit and making it for as many years as possible ... to do this they have a vested interest to hire the best CEO and officers that they can find ... like any market there is a limited supply of people that can reasonably perform that role, as such, experience, track record, all of that is going to come with a price tag.

Are there CEOs (and/or other corporate officers) that are making more than they should be, perhaps, but then again if they were offered the contract, or if the terms that they offered to the corporation were accepted then the shareholders agreed to it and it's up to them to correct the situation for their own good.

Now, of course, many CEOs are also shareholders themselves ... but that doesn't make them greedy either. Yes, it means that they are, in part, making the decisions for their own profit, but that just means that they too have a vested interest in making the best choices possible for the health and profit of the company .... and face it ... would you, as a shareholder, trust a CEO that had no such interest?

People need to realize that there is not a single company on this planet that exists for any purpose than to make a profit for someone; be it the company owner, the partners, or the shareholders. Calling them 'greedy' for looking after their own best interests ... while praising employees for looking after their own is what one typically calls 'hypocrisy'.

Capitalism

As most of you know I play computer games as a hobby (some might say as an addiction). Frequently I play those often maligned games known as MMORPGs or MMOGs (Massively Multiplayer Online (RolePlaying) Games). One of the more interesting aspects of MMOGs in general is the aspect of anonymity ... which is to say that since there is little to no real world repercussions to any given action people will tend to speak or act more freely.

Aside from the fact that it often gives you an unfiltered view of true human nature it also means that people are more apt to speak their minds in regard to politics and economics ... whether or not they have any understanding of the subject. One common such subject is Capitalism.

Specifically the fact that capitalism is to 'blame' for high market prices because it inevitably leads to inflation, profiteering and price gouging. Yup the only reason people put a high price on an item is greedy capitalism (yes I've seen that spelled out in no uncertain terms)

I'm sorry ... but capitalism itself is not to blame for inflation, inflation is a function of devalued currency for a number of reasons ... in an MMO this is most often caused by a higher supply of money into economic system than there is a drain of money out of the system. As the amount of game currency that you can make in a period of time increases so do the prices of items that can be gained in a similar period of time because people will 'price' an item at what they feel is a reasonable compensation for their time invested in obtaining it. Likewise buyers are more likely to spend in higher amounts as they have more money; buying tomorrow for 25 coins what they would only have been willing to pay 20 for yesterday.

Profiteering and Price gouging don't exist, it's an emotional attack on someone making a profit or charging more than a some party (often external to the sale completely) feels that the item is worth. I think I've been through this here before ... if they buyer BOUGHT the item, then, on some level, the buyer felt that it was worth the price asked.

In all transactions it is ultimately the buyer that sets the price; he does this by buying. If he buys at the current price he is telling the seller that it is worth that price to him to have the item now rather than spending the time to find it at a lower price or wait for the seller to offer a lower price.

The seller asks for what he feels that the item is worth ... the buyer can say yes, no, or counter with an offer of their own. If the buyer makes an offer then the seller has the same options. This continues until either the buyer buys the item or one of them decides that the deal is no longer worth the effort and says 'no'.

'But you just admited that the seller can reject an offer, so the buyer doesn't set the price.'

Yes ... the seller CAN refuse to sell at a lower price, at which point the buyer is left with two options: buy or don't buy ... the final choice is always the buyer's.

Capitalism is not responsible for impatient buyers, nor is it capitalism's fault if a buyer is uninformed (buyer beware).

That is not to say that I condone blatantly or purposefully taking advantage of a buyer ... that is fraud and is immoral, but it is a separate issue from the economic model of capitalism. There are ways of dealing with that among the player base, but that is really a discussion for my other blog.

The fact of the matter is ... that the greatest failing in modern capitalist systems is the ignorance of the buyers ... if buyers realized their strength in the system and exorcised it more rather than just accepting the idea of the 'monopoly' of the seller ... that is what creates and drives competition which creates lower and more stable prices. No matter how the buyer feels they always OWN half of the "supply/demand" equation.

Departing on a new Path

... but not leaving this one either. I just recently (as of a few minutes ago) decided to get off my duff and do something that I've been meaning to do for a while now ... start a blog in order to talk about things less related to this world and more related to the virtual worlds of computer games.

Not going to say much here other than to let you know that I'm adding a link in the link section to it and I'll post one here as well it is Klik's Game Corner.

I'll have more news stuff to rant about here soon though.... there's certainly enough idiocy in DC lately....

Ranting about Healthcare

Most of you are probably sick of it ... and others probably won't bother to read it. But I've been seeing and hearing the same counter arguments repeatedly so I figured I'd write my response in a central place.

'Government makes you buy car insurance, it's the same thing.'

No ... actually there are several differences. First, driving is not a basic human right, life is. There is nowhere I need to go that I can't get to by some other means, thus I can choose not to drive, and therefore I don't need car insurance. Many people do this, particularly in large cities. Also ... I don't actually have to have car insurance unless I drive on public roads ... IE - if I only drive on private property I don't need car insurance (or a license for that matter).

The auto insurance issue also fails in the fact that the government does not penalize me if I choose to have more coverage than they 'deem' appropriate. If I choose to pay more to have a lower deductible, or higher coverage in the case of an accident that is my choice. With health insurance, however, the federal government has chosen to place a ceiling above which you will be taxed if you choose to exceed what they 'deem' to be sufficient. They are attempting to mandate not only minimum coverage, but maximum as well ... determining that if you can afford better health coverage than 'average' you should be punished for that success ... it's simply wealth envy, nothing more.

Second off ... and this may sound minor ... but that law is a state law, not a federal law.

What's the difference? Simple ... one is the way this country was meant to run, the other isn't. That is to say, the Federal government was supposed to have very little direct impact/control of individuals, States were meant to have more impact, and cities/towns or other local communities were meant to have the majority of the direct effect on individual citizens ... this was to keep the politics local ... so that the people that passed the laws that effected you lived, shopped, worked directly in the community that they were effecting ... and were there, in the community when they did it.

Yes, the member of the House of Representatives 'live' in their districts, but many of them only do so part time. (As for much of the year they are in D.C. not in their home districts, and they are not in their districts when they cast their votes.)

Remember, the founding fathers were distrustful of strong central government ... they had, after all, just won their independence from one.

Which actually brings me to my next point, 'Opposing the government isn't American.'

Well, actually, one could easily argue that this country was founded on the principle of strongly opposing a government that is not listening to it's people. Much as many people feel that the current government is not listening to the people ... and is, in fact, flaunting the fact that they aren't going to listen to the people.

Now, I don't believe that we are yet to the point that open revolt is warranted, and I am completely against the use of threats and violence in this debate. The Courts and/or the ballot box is still the place to ultimately resolve this issue.

'people are going to get the care at the emergency room and everyone has to pay for that ...'

That is true ... and you know what ... it's not going to change. In fact I'd be willing to bet it gets worse.

The fact of the matter is that people without insurance (and since the CBO estimates that this plan will only cover 3/5ths of the uninsured there will still be plenty of them, mainly illegal aliens) will still get care at the emergency room ... and that will still be paid for the same way it is now ... through insurance premiums and tax money. Only now I'll be paying HIGHER premiums and HIGHER taxes than I was before! Bonus!!

The CBO originally reported that the plan would likely cause a 25% increase to the cost of the average health insurance policy. Add to that an increased tax burden (yes on much of the middle class) and an increased tax burden on employers (this will ultimately hit the working class both in terms of higher price of goods and lower pay) and what you've got is a higher cost to get to the same place.

In fact several groups that opposed the bill did so on the ground that it realistically does nothing to lower the cost of health care or insurance. The hope is that a majority of the 'uninsured' that will be put into the insurance system will be healthy and, therefore, need little to no care and as a result can carry the additional cost of other people's care ... the fact of the matter is that many will be people that will need substantial health care at significant cost, costs that the insurance companies do not have the spare cash to absorb and will therefore have to raise premiums to cover.

'It lowers the deficit'

Um ... no ... not even close. The CBO report said that it would cut the deficit by about 132 billion over 10 years .... BUT ... in another report it estimated the budget for the administrative and oversight agencies that the bill establishes (but does not fund) would be aproximately 16o billion over the same 10 year period, but that amount was not included in the report because the funding for those agencies was not included in the bill. Also the numbers in the CBO assume that the 'Doc Fix' to prevent a scheduled 21% cut in medicare payments to doctors does not get passed ... except Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have assured people that it would be passed (and is currently part of the extension of unemployment bill working it's way through the congress now) which would put another 400 billion or so back on the cost of the bill.

And all of that assumes, of course, that the estimates are anything remotely close to reality ... which the government doesn't exactly have a good track record on.

The fact is that when boiled down the bill spends a lot, to achieve a little. Will it be better than where we were? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. The better question, however, is will the result be worth the price? There is a point in any project or endeavor there is a point past which the effort and cost is no longer worth the return ....

In the end ... Health insurance is not the providence of the Federal Government. Neither to control nor to mandate. The Government has grown and expanded, reaching far beyond it's intended role in many aspects ... this, I believe, is where we need to draw the line; we need to stop this growth and, if possible, reverse the trend or the freedoms of America may disappear into the pages of history.... I will not accept the right of the federal government to dictate what I must buy for my own well being any more than I would accept their ability to tell me what type of car I must buy, or where I must work, or for how much; Nor will I stand by quietly about it.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." and this is something that I feel matters, because as our rights and freedoms erode so to do our lives ... stolen away never to be returned ... seized for the crime of success and hard work.

Peace?

"For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." - President Barack Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

I do have to give President Obama credit for writing a good speech (or at least hiring a good speech writer), but I do have to take exception to the above line because of the message that it sends ... and the message that I believe that Obama fully intended for it to send.

Setting aside for a moment the whole impropriety of the award going to President Obama in the first place, a point that he actually brings up at the beginning of his speech, we have to look into what he said.

I'm picking on this particular line because it lies at what I consider to be the heart of Obama's philosophy ... and his problem as a President.

The problem ... of course ... is his choice of wording. To be alive is to want ... there is no real way around that. A tree 'wants' air and sun and water ... it may not have a conscious understanding of that as we do, but it still wants them. Likewise ... even if you gave me everything I wanted right now, I'd want something else once you were done.

"Freedom from want" is impossible ... and if you could somehow free someone from 'want' you will have taken away from them any possible motivation to improve ... or even live. Because at the heart of all motivation there must be a 'want' to drive it ... you strive to improve your income because you 'want' nicer things, you work out because you 'want' to look/feel better, you go out to a party with your friends because you 'want' to have fun.

Everything that you do in life, you do because of a want. Hell, you could say that you continue breathing because you want to live!

Now ... I hear it already ... 'well he meant freedom from the want of necessities, you're taking it too literally.'

No ... Obama is not dumb, he knows that there is a word for the want of necessities ... it's a very simple one in fact ... 'needs'. He choose to use 'wants' for a reason, and that is, in fact, the problem.

Had he choose to say that 'For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from need.' I would have accepted and even agreed with him. It is true that anyone that lacks what they 'need' to survive will in fact fight to obtain it ... that is part of our basic animalistic nature ... so yes, while there is need in the world we will not see any true and lasting peace. But that isn't what he choose to say ... that isn't the message that he choose to convey with his language. Because, in the end, it's not what he believes.

More and more I believe that Obama believes in a government that sees to and manages every persons wants and desires. A government that wraps you in a blanket as you come out of the womb and buries you in the grave when you die ... a government that controls your life in every aspect.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't believe that Obama is himself an evil man, I don't believe that he is doing this with evil or malicious intent. I do, however, believe that he is doing it because he believes that it is what is the right thing to do, and that it is good ... the problem is that there is an old saying that may prove very very true:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Now I'm going to ramble a bit ... but it does have a point:

As I'm sure that by now you all know that I'm a gamer ... I love playing computer and video games ... and there was something in the game 'Jade Empire' that I think is relavant here, and it has to do with philosophy. No doubt my summery of it will not do justice to the concept but I'll at least try to get the basics across.

I have heard, both in the game and elsewhere, of the eastern philosophies of the 'Path of the Open Palm' and the 'Path of the Closed Fist' ... The first is often seen and depicted as the philosophy of the benevolent protector, while the latter is portrayed as the overbearing tyrant. As the game made a point to remark on, however, the follower of the 'Open Palm' must be vigilant lest his benevolence itself oppress those he seeks to help, making him a tyrant in his own right.

In other words ... it's possible to help people too much. Sometimes people need to fall, sometimes people need to fail, sometimes helping someone is really just holding them down with a smiling face, enslaving them with silken whips.

And that, I believe is the mistake Obama is making in his personal philosophy and political decisions ... he is trying to help people ... out of a true desire to help people ... to such an extent that in the end they end up totally dependent and enslaved to government. A position, it seems, that all too many Americans are willing to accept.

4 years - 4 novels

Well ... kinda.

As most of you know I have for the last couple of years participated in National Novel Writing Month (http://www.nanowrimo.org) each November. Specifically I have participated every years since November 2006. Each year I have challenged myself to write a 50,000 word (or more) novel within the 30 day framework of the month of November. And as of today I have completed my 4th successful NaNoWriMo. So I can honestly say that over the last 4 years I have written 4 novels. And, as I have every year, I must again say that if it had not been for the help and support of my wife I would not have managed it ... she encouraged me when I needed it, challenged me to do just a little more, and kicked me in the tail any time I thought about just writing it off this year.

I have to admit ... there was a point that I looked at the word count deficit growing at a rate to rival the national debt and thought ... maybe I should just go ahead and throw in the towel, I'm sure to fail one sooner or later maybe #4 just wasn't meant to be ... as the chart on the NaNo Stats tab of my user page shows on 11/7 I was at 11,680 words, but on 11/20 I was only at 20,532 ... 13 days only 8,852 words ... at 1,333 words a day I should have written roughly 17,339 words in those 13 days but had managed just barely over half of that.

My wife, however, was having none of it. She kept hounding me about it, making me stop house chores and go write. If she heard me stop typing she was asking me why I stopped, or suggesting some writing exercise or another to keep me going. The result was 50,000 words ... and not only did I break the 50k marker and 'win' NaNo for the 4th year running ... but I did it with 25.5 hours to spare. Yes, for the first time ever I wasn't verifying my win at 11pm on November 30th hoping I had enough words ... for the first time I coasted in more than a full day early.

Now ... do I actually have 4 novels laying around ... not quite ... the break down goes something like this:

2006 - Mark of the Pendragon - finished 50,000 words, only about 50% through the planned story arc. (Superhero / SciFi)
2007 - Dragonstorm - Finished 50,000 words, did manage to get through about 85% of the planned story arc. (Fantasy)
2008 - The Snake and The Cross - Finished 50,000 words AND the story arc ... but skipped over a couple large sections that I haven't gone back to write. (Science Fantasy)
2009 - Wild Boys - Finished 50,000 words and about 90% of the story arc ... maybe ... I actually have no clue how it's going to end ... (Superhero / SciFi)

My plan ... in 2010, however, is to pick one of these and complete it and *gasp* maybe even start to refine it a bit and try to ... I don't know ... maybe get it into something I can reasonably submit and try to get published. ... And THIS time I mean it.

Keepers

I have said in a comment to the previous rant that there may come a time when society as a whole needs to say 'if you aren't earning your keep, you aren't worth keeping.' Some people that have heard me say that elsewhere have told me that I was 'cold' or 'heartless' for thinking of such a sentiment.

Is it 'cold', 'heartless', or 'uncaring'? If viewed by those that feel that man has an obligation to assist others in their survival based solely on the 'need' of another, yes it is. To those that feel that man's first and most important responsibility is his own happiness and survival then it is a statement of reality; nether good nor evil, simply true.

But I have the 'right to life!' ... Yes, you do ... neither the government nor any other person has the right to take your life from you ... that does not mean that you have a right to the production or property of another if you are unable or unwilling to provide for your self; and yet that is exactly what every welfare recipient claims ... that their 'need' gives them the right to your money, and that you have no say in the matter.

But let us look at this logically ... what does society as a whole gain from those who are unwilling or unable to take care of their own 'needs'? The answer is, of course, nothing. If they are truly unwilling or unable to provide for their own needs, then they are certainly incapable of producing anything of benefit to society as a whole. After all ... if they could produce anything of value, be it labor, art, craftsmanship, or ideas, they could easily trade that for their needs.

The problem is they don't want to produce, they don't want to work, they don't want to think ... they want to live off of the thoughts, work, and production of others ... existing solely to consume the efforts of others without any cost to themselves.

The government feeds them and like stray cats they just won't go away, so the government houses them and more come. Then the government starts to realize that this is expensive so it takes out its guns and raises taxes because there are still 'needs' to be filled ... and more come. At some point, however, some of those in government realized that this was a great way to grow a base of voters....

The problem is that their 'need' can never really be filled ... They will always want more and one of the main reasons for that is that the 'need' that they aren't meeting is a 'need' that can only be met through self action. What they 'need' is the satisfaction of achievement ... but an achievement that is not earned doesn't provide the same satisfaction as one that is earned through one's own effort.

So we, the producers, the tax payers, pay to provide their survival, but to what end? Why should they survive?

'They are human beings, why do they need a purpose!?'

Everything needs a purpose ... the purpose of something defines its value ... its value defines its survival. That which has no purpose has no value, that which has no value doesn't survive in nature. Except now, we humans have saved those among us without purpose and, by expending our resources to feed their need ... we endanger our own purpose without any real reason.

In nature an animal unable to provide or fend for itself, or contribute to the group in a meaningful way ... dies. If a group of animals were to care for the weak, the sick, or those that otherwise couldn't contribute to the survival (purpose) of the group, then the group as a whole would eventually reach a point where it was unable to survive as a group. Sooner or later the group known as Humans will reach this point ... and when they do ... it's NOT going to be a pretty sight.

Health Insurance and Costs

First I’m going to apologize for the fact that this post is likely to ramble a bit and cover a couple of different topics that have been bouncing around in my head. This is what happens when I leave things too long and things build up on each other….

First, health insurance, or more specifically why it SEEMS to cost so much to so many people. I say seems there because when most people really consider what it IS as opposed to what it is NOT the additional cost usually makes some sense. I say this because many people get the terminology confused they consider health insurance in the same terms as the other insurances that they pay for. The problem with this, of course, is that on those terms health insurance is NOT insurance.

‘But it says insurance right in the name, how can it not be insurance?’

The thing about insurance is that, technically, it is supposed to protect the holder against ‘unexpected’ or ‘unwanted’ circumstances. Heath ‘insurance’ no longer just does this, and hasn’t for a long time. Health insurance now covers things like ‘planned pregnancy’ and ‘hip and knee replacements’ … these are either expected or desired circumstances not the realm of ‘insurance’. Does your car insurance pay for oil changes and tune ups? Does your home owners insurance pay for replacement of carpets from normal wear and tear? Strangely neither of mine will.

How did we get to this point? A combination of factors including government regulation ‘your policies must have coverage for ‘x’ condition on it’, and free market competition ‘we’ll give you coverage for ‘x’ AND ‘y’ for a slight additional fee (or at ‘no charge’).’

Now, while competition has ‘helped’ us get into this condition it is largely government regulation that is not only making it a problem, but also preventing competition from allowing us to get out of it.

How? Not only because the government has, over the years, added more and more things that all policies MUST cover. (For example it is impossible for me to get a policy that doesn’t cover pregnancy costs … a condition that, as a guy, I will only have to worry about in the freakiest of circumstances.) The government has also, due to concern with the rising health care costs, in many instances, regulated pricing as well. In these situations the competition in the free market becomes tangled in red tape and can not operate in a way that provides the consumer with the best product at the best cost.

In addition to that, the government in most states prohibits writing policies across state lines, again limiting competition and narrowing the options of consumers.

The politicians claim that our current health care problems come from a failure of the free market, and offer that as proof that we need a socialized system. But that’s like tying the arms of a baseball player behind his back and saying that his failure to hit home runs is proof that we need to come up with a new game.

Now at the moment it is technically possible to get around some of the government regulations by opting into to a health savings account. In that system you get a high deductable heath ‘insurance’ plan and are allowed to put ‘pre-tax’ money into a special savings account. You can then use money from that account to pay for medical expenses without paying tax on it (or the interest) and the ‘insurance’ plan only kicks in once you go beyond the deductable.

This type of plan, however, is on the chopping block. That is to say that the current ‘health insurance reform’ bills in DC eliminate the provisions for these plans, or downright disallow these types of plans completely, again removing choices from the consumer. I’ll never understand why DC really seems to have this idea that less choices is better for the consumer when history says otherwise.

But then again I really don’t think that there are too many students of history up on ‘the Hill’ these days. In fact I often wonder how many of them up there could tell you anything about recent history (10-15 years ago) much less give any historical perspective on current policy.

But then again, they don’t want to look at history … because history is not really on their side in their goals. Not our history, nor the history of other countries. So why the push to socialize medicine, or anything else for that matter?

For many of the hacks in DC one needs not look past the motivation of ‘power’. Look, for example, at the power that the ruling class in the USSR had for decades. Power and control over all aspects of people’s lives with the people in question having little to no say in the matter. The USSR had completely socialized medicine (and everything else) and look how well that worked out for the people. The ‘people’ had trouble getting anything at all. The political class, however, had whatever they wanted … until the country ran out of money and collapsed around them that is…

What about the people outside the government that are supporting and pushing for these changes as well? For some it’s nothing more than pure ‘sheepizim’ … following what they perceive to be the majority in the hopes that the leaders know what they’re doing, usually a result of either ignorance or indifference due to laziness.

For others it’s something else … almost a spiritual belief in a higher duty of mankind; an honest belief that it is the duty of all men to ensure the wellbeing of all others. The belief that altruism – the act of benefitting others without personal reward or return – is real.

As my wife said a couple of weeks ago, and I agree, given human nature altruism does not and can not ever truly exist.

Human beings are animals, though most people do not like to consider that aspect of humanity. We are intelligent and capable of rationalized discussion and logic, but still a product of our instincts and the collective experience of our past. I hold that the result of this is that humans are incapable of acting without reward of some form.

Any act undertaken by man has a reward … it may not be a monetary or material reward … but there is a reward. Most people that act in what is commonly perceived to be an altruistic manner are receiving one of two possible rewards: pleasure of giving or a sense of superiority to those who are receiving. In some cases they are likely receiving a mixture of the two. Typically speaking the less that the person giving knows about the person that he is giving to and/or the more they publicize their act of giving the more likely it is that latter of those two rewards.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that people do not and can not act charitably … many do … I am saying that it is impossible for them to do so without receiving reward for their action. They are not acting without reward, nor are they, psychologically, acting without desire for reward; they are simply acting in pursuit of a psychological reward.

Don’t get me wrong … the ‘ideal’ of everyone helping each other simply for the sake of helping each other is a great ideal; but as a matter of practicality it fails to account for human nature. It assumes that not only does everyone act in a selfless manner, but that no one would take advantage and act in a ‘selfish’ manner.

The problem, of course, is that humans are, by nature, selfish. Our instincts and psychological make up are to provide for our ‘self’, for our own needs first and foremost, and also by instinct we will use the least amount of energy or effort to do so. This is a survival instinct, part of self preservation, and deeply rooted in our psyche; it is not something that is easily, or ever, overcome. We can not just ‘flip a switch’ and become ‘a better people’ because psychologically we wouldn’t consider it ‘better’.

One must understand, however, that in serving our ‘self’ by achieving and becoming better we CAN help others both by serving as a role model for success and through the efforts of our enterprise (employing workers, buying goods, providing services and in general being part of the free market and economy in general) … it is when these ‘selfish’ and ‘greedy’ capitalists succeed that the market and the economy that is tied to it flourishes … not when those same ‘producers’ are tied down and burdened by regulation and taxation.

This, in turn, brings to mind the subject of taxation – the governmental punishment of success and achievement in order to ‘spread the wealth’ in the name of ‘fairness’. Let’s not lie, life isn’t fair and it never will be and any government effort to make it so can only be achieved through tyranny; by using force to take from those that have earned it in order to give it to those that have not in order to make it ‘fair’.

I’ve quoted it before but I think it bears repeating here:

“A government big enough to give you what you want, is also big enough to take everything you have.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Some time ago in a political discussion online someone from England responded that maybe Americans should be more ‘caring’ toward the poor in reference to paying more taxes to cover more social programs and government hand outs.

I’m sorry … but it is not ‘caring’ to have money taken from you by force in the form of taxes and given to other people that have worked less (if at all) for it. I am all for being caring and generous; I believe that people should help those that need it when they can afford to do so. However, I also believe that it should be the choice of private individuals to ‘give’ their money where and how they choose, not a decision by the government to take it and dole it out as they see fit.

Long before welfare there were social networks, private charities, and similar organizations that performed the same task. Because of welfare and other social government programs and regulations these have slowly withered and either gone away completely, or moved into a secondary role and been largely forgotten by a majority of Americans. If the government programs were to stop tomorrow, however, these would return quickly to fill the ‘need’ and in the end people would likely be better off for it in the long run as the people running it would likely care a good deal more about the people they were helping than the government bureaucrats do currently.

While I’m on the subject of things I’ve heard people say during political discussions, I was listening to talk radio on the way to work the other day and heard a caller say ‘(Atlas Shrugged) is too draconian. If you were to tax the producers at 70% they won’t just pack up and quit, they’ll keep producing because you’re still leaving them with plenty to live off of.’

Now, I got to work just as he finished making the comment so I didn’t hear the host’s response to the statement, but it certainly sparked a response in me.

Yeah … you’re right … they’ll just keep producing. That’s exactly why government tax revenues have dropped by record amounts. That’s exactly why New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and other states are experiencing ‘brain drain’ as the achievers move out of their states to areas with more favorable tax policies. That is exactly why companies are moving jobs and factories OUT of the US in greater numbers than they have in the past.

And keep in mind as well that they may, in fact, not pack up completely … but why should they work as hard as they have been to earn $1,000,000 to be allowed to keep 300,000? They could work half as much they would only get to keep 150,000 but they would only be paying 350,000 instead of 700,000 and lets face it $150,000 is still plenty to live off.

But let’s be ‘fair’ about this. Would you consider it ‘right’ for the government to take 70% of what you make? If the answer is ‘no’ for ANY reason then claiming ‘fairness’ just went out the window pal. You’re not looking for ‘fair’ you’re looking to leach off of someone else’s sweat and tears, and there is no worse depravity in the human spirit. You are worse than a thief that breaks in and steals everything a person owns, because at least they had to put forth some effort to take it. You are worse because not only are you not willing to put forth the effort to steal it yourself, you are too cowardly to take the risk, instead relying on the power of government to force people to give up part of their lives so that you can live more comfortably without giving any part of yours.

You want to prove me wrong? Then stop flapping your yap trying to take your living from those that earn more than you and get off your backside and earn it for yourself. Maybe if more people did that instead of turning to the government looking for a ‘leg up’ the economy in this country wouldn’t be where it is now … but that wouldn’t get the DC crowd the power and control that they so desperately need to make their lives meaningful. That would, in fact, threaten their power and control over the people of this country … it would signal a return to the system that made this the richest, most successful, country in the world. It would, in fact signal the return of freedom and power to the people of this country.

It’s a shame that the people of this country are more concerned about American Idol than they are about their own lives and freedom.

Postal ObamaCare

Okay ... so President Obama, in an effort to defend his stance that a 'public option' insurance plan can compete successfully with private insurance, toted out the US Postal Service. Basically saying that the fears of the government insurance plan would run private insurance companies out of business were unfounded because the Post Office hasn't run UPS or FedEx out of business.

Now the million dollar question is: Did President Obama not really look into that comparison very deeply, or was he intentionally misleading people, counting on the American people not looking into it?

There was a time when I was willing to chalk things like this up to naivete ... that time is past.

You see ... the problem with the comparison is that the Post Office and UPS/FedEx (et al.) technically don't compete. By federal law the US Post Office is the only entity allowed to deliver first class mail ... or 'non-urgent' mail of any kind technically.

Secondly, I thought that his health care plan was supposed to be government provided or at least government subsidized ... last time I checked the government did not provide postage, nor do they subsidize the cost of postage. So in that respect the Post Office analogy falls apart as well.

In fact ... if you take those two points and put them together you ultimately have the primary argument for the fact that government insurance option WILL be detrimental to private insurance options. Private companies can not compete against an entity that does not need to post a profit, can make and alter the rules at will (and in fact the 'rules' that they make typically only apply to competition), and can use tax money seized from private individuals in order to artificially lower the cost of its 'product'.

So why didn't he choose Medicare or Medicaid or even Veteran Services? Oh ... because of course while all of those are great indications of life under government health care, they do not play well with the public because the public knows what a cluster and hassle they are to deal with.

The fact of the matter is, even the Post Office image is not exactly a shining example of government competence either. As another columnist wrote:

'if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government…please raise your hands.(crickets)'

Seriously people ... I'm fairly certain that I've asked this before ... but can ANYONE name one single thing that the government does efficiently? how about anything that they do marginally okay with?

The Post Office is in trouble ... it is loosing money like never before, but it is not FedEx/UPS killing it. It is the inefficiency of the Post Office, and the lack of innovation and client service that is killing them. If the government were to open your mailbox to any real competition the Post Office would be out of business in a month ... but mail is an essential service, and private industry can't be trusted with essential services because the private sector can not be relied upon to do things correctly.

Just as private individuals can not be relied upon to spend money correctly ... the government should do it for them ....

You have GOT to be kidding me

Seriously ... they're kidding right? Well ... I guess they did just say that you could keep your current plan if you liked it ... they never actually said you could get a new one...

Of course who believed in the whole 'leveling the playing field' and 'promoting competition' lines they kept spitting out there anyway? I mean ... come on ... the exchange ... that's the way you want to go ... insure thousands of nameless people in a huge pool (that will eventually include every citizen of the US) ... forget individuals ... individuals are bad ... they think for themselves .... they question ... they might actually have better ideas ... but we're the government and we can't have that. No sir, none of that individual health coverage, just jump in the pool with everyone else so that everyone can have the same crappy health care as everyone else.

Want a Doctor apointment, what's your social security number? Oh, we only see that prefix on the first of the month, and we're already booked up for next month ... we have an opening on the first of november, can you make it at 8am?

A government plan is NOT the way to fix health care in this country ... there are a plethora of ideas out there that would help, but most of them give MORE power and responsibility to the individual and as a result they never get any attention in DC. Hermain Cain had a good article back in April collecting ideas from a couple of different sources as a way to combat the callers to his show claiming that conservitives are nothing more than a party of 'no'.

The cliff is getting closer ... do you have your parachute yet?

Pay to Retire?

Okay ... my wife pointed this one out to me and ... well ... it's just too wrong to not say something about it. (BBC News Article)

For those of you that don't feel like following the link the basic premise of the story is that in the UK they are discussing a plan that would require all citizens to pay up to 20,000 pounds (at today's rate that would be $32,840) in order to pay for health care costs.

Yes ... that's right ... in order to retire you would potentially have to pay the government over 30,000 dollars and in exchange "a certain amount of social care would be provided free to everyone."

...

A "certain" amount....

Um ... yeah. I'll buy that ...

So why is this being considered? Because the current system isn't 'fair enough' ... you see 75% of the population has over the 23,000 pounds limit in their retirement savings to get government funding for their care. These people often have to spend their savings on their health care ... this is just not fair!

Wait a second ... let me get this straight ... 75% of the people have over 23,000 in savings, but have to spend that on their health care and that's bad. So the answer is to seize 20,000 from them when they retire in order to, um, pay for their health care. So instead of THEM having to spend their savings for it, instead the government is simply going to SEIZE it from them before hand; yeah ... that sounds like a perfect government plan. And I'll just bet that the service they get for that 20,000 is going to be the same as if they had paid 20,000 before this government intervention.

This type of plan will likely significantly increase the demand for the public care, and likely will not significantly change the supply of personnel to handle the public care. The obvious result of which will be higher costs to the taxpayer than the 20,000 pounds will cover (as governments seem all to adept at ignoring things that will increase the costs of such programs) and worse care for the elderly that need it. This will result in elderly care being rationed even more or higher taxes on the producers of the economy, most likely it will end up being both.

Here is a thought ... lets stop worrying about being 'fair' and put some thought into things. Okay ... it sucks having to spend your 20,000 on medical care when you get older, but does having the government take that 20,000 away from you really suck any less? Is having to 'spend most of their savings on care' worse than having the government take most of their savings to pay for care? Seriously ... on what level is this even remotely logical?

Okay ... admittedly the plan does say 'make payments up to 20,000 pounds' ... so it is assumed that people with less savings would have to pay less than that ... but realistically that doesn't make the plan any better ... it will still increase the workload and cost of maintaining that public care system, and I would be willing to bet that the income generated in the end will not match the increased cost of the program. It's just another way for them to take from those that worked hard, made good choices, and saved so that they can give it to those that were too dumb or too lazy to do it for themselves.

Maybe I'm just becoming a cold hearted bastard as I get older ... but I think that more often than not in life you get what you deserve ... what you earn. I don't believe that anyone has a right to the property of another and that property includes their retirement savings. They have exchanged a part of their lives for that income in the first place, they did the right thing by saving it so that they could enjoy their retirement, they made the right choices, exercised restraint in their spending during their working years to get to the point where they could retire and have some of those savings to enjoy. Now the government wants to come along and mandate that they pay a portion of those savings to fund health care? And predominately fund health care for those that didn't work hard enough, or save smartly enough (or at all) but now want to enjoy the same care as those who did.

Those that work for it and save deserve better lives and better retirements ... those that don't ... well ... you do the math.

Excuse me, Mr. President

I have to say that the President's foreign affairs abilities have been less than stellar lately. Iran is in turmoil over and threatening, arresting, and killing their own citizens because of an election dispute, and Obama stays virtually mute on the subject. North Korea threatens to launch a missile at Hawaii (and to wipe the US off the map if we start a way .... and doing anything so much as looking at N. Korea cross eyed will be viewed as an act of war.) and Obama says nothing.

Now, in theory he stayed quiet on Iran in order to not give validity to claims that the demonstrations were a result of outside interference. It didn't work, mind you, and the Iranian 'president' called Obama out directly stating that he thought Obama would be 'different' and not 'meddle' in Iran's internal affairs ... wondering where Obama's 'change' was now.

Okay ... so seeing that keeping quiet did not work out the way that he expected along comes the situation in Honduras. For those of you that haven't been keeping up with that story I'll give you a brief run down:

President Manuel Zelaya is upset that he's nearing the end of his term ... and by the Constitution of Honduras he can not run for re-election (the president having a 1 term limit defined in the constitution.) so he demands that a ballot be taken to open a constitutional convention to change the constitution.

The Honduras Supreme Court says - 'No, you can't do that, the Constitution specifically states that only the Congress has the authority to call for such a ballot.'

President Zelaya, however, doesn't like that answer so he says that he is going to go through with the ballot anyway, and his good buddy Hugo Chavez of Venezuela prints up all the ballots and ships them over to Honduras where.

The Military seizes the illegal ballots under order of the Supreme Court and Congress.

Zelaya gets very upset about this and fires the head of the Military ... the Supreme Court steps in and again tells Zelaya that he doesn't have the authority to do that. Zelaya reluctantly reinstates him to his position.

Zelaya, however, takes the ballots and announces his intent to distribute them anyway.

The Military (with the support of the Supreme Court and Congress) arrests Zelaya and Congress names an interum President until the normal elections. The replacement is even from the same political party as now Ex-President Zelaya.

To Obama, however, this is a travesty and the new government is illegal and should return to control to the ousted President, Manuel Zelaya.

Wait a tick here ... let me make sure I've got this right.... The President is over stepping his authority left and right and blatantly defying the court and congress .... but their arresting him (in accordance with the country's constitution) is somehow illegal?

Now did Obama just jump the gun because of the criticism he received for being slow to respond to the Iran and N. Korea issues ... or is there a deeper issue?

Does he not want people to realize that a President doesn't really have ultimate power over the universe? That there are limits to the powers of a President and that a President seeking to over reach that authority can (and should) be removed as necessary to maintain a legal sanctioned government?

I mean ... if the Supreme Court of the US were to step up and say 'Excuse me, Mr. President, you do not have the right or authority to seize control of private industry, it is illegal.' What, exactly would he do? And if he continued would the Court have the guts to enforce the law and arrest him?

Various Rambles

Yes, well ... I've always been a somewhat sporadic blogger and anyone that has followed this blog will realistically know that. There have been more than a few things over the last month that I've thought about blogging, but just haven't really found the motivation to actually write them down.

Which is a shame really, because now I can't remember what some of them were ... and I had some serious rants too. *sigh*

You all already know that I'm a computer gamer, and really a MMO addict, in fact I'm presently playing Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Guild Wars: Trilogy, and EVE Online as well as Tale 4 of A Tale in the Desert. And while that sounds like a big bunch of gaming, I'm actually managing to play them all relatively casually and still do silly things like ... oh ... yard work and my job ... as well as write and play some RockBand 2.

That is, of course, not what I came here to write about.

I want to start by expressing my sympathy and support for those protesting the Iranian elections. They are fighting a fight that I believe most Americans wouldn't have the ... ahem ... intestinal fortitude ... to fight. While I certainly believe that the elections were heavily rigged, at this point that is not the issue.

The issue is the violence and oppression that the government has used in response to the protests. Lets look through the altverse and see what things would have looked like if, after the election results, the government had not tried to censor the media and not tried to use force to intimidate the protesters. You know what happens? The story goes away. Internationally the issue evaporates ... there's no story and shortly the issue of 'were the elections rigged' disappears because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, who is elected matters to a degree ... but if protesters had not been shot at and/or beaten by government forces ... then the rest of the world would have largely shrugged and said 'well that's their problem' and proceeded to deal with whoever was in charge. A few countries might refuse to deal with the Iranian government calling it 'illegitimate' but that is fairly unlikely and would probably have been a short term protest as a way of showboating for political favor at home than anything meaningful.

But ... when you try to limit the media ... in this day and age of technology ... you are slapping them in the face and they do NOT like it. They will find a way to report what you are trying to hide, and they will make you look bad for making them do it. On top of that the images that are coming out of Iraq do not make things look good for the establishment. Meeting protests with violence will not settle the protesters .. you might terrorize them back into quiet lives but their protest will remain, and in dark, quiet corners it will grow.

Speaking of Terrorism it seems lately that our own American government is trying to 'redefine' it a bit. Not that redefining words and meaning is anything new in this country ... the definition of 'racism' for example has been broadened to the point of being meaningless. But now you have this question on a US Department of Defense exam:

"Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?"

1. Attacking the Pentagon
2. IEDs
3. Hate crimes against racial groups
4. Protests

The correct answer (for the exam) is #4 'Protests'

Now ... last time I checked the definition of Terrorism was:

"ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) - n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Now notice the 'use or threatened use of force or violence' a 'protest' does not inherently use or threaten force or violence ... yes they can sometimes become violent, but people in bars sometimes become violent as well ... are we going to start calling anyone that goes to bars 'terrorists' because drinking in a bar 'threatens force or violence'?

I mean, come on, I didn't agree with the people protesting against the war ... but I would hardly call them terrorists. Even the protesters that went so far as to block the driveway to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, or some of the more extreme anti-war protests in California that shouted hatred and obscenities (and in some cases spawned violence) at recruiters at military recruitment centers weren't terrorists (loons maybe, but not terrorists).

Seriously do we want to expand the definition of Terrorism to include 'a person or gathering of people expressing a disagreement with an opposing point of view.' ?

Isn't that essentially exactly what they are doing in Iran right now?

Once we allow 'Terrorism' to include 'Protests' then now, or in the future, we open the door for the government to answer any and all protests with the use of police or military force ... arresting and imprisoning protesters for 'terrorism'. Is that a road that any of us actually want to consider going down?

"We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

Material World

Looking at the current economic crisis ... and both government spending as well as the general consumer habits over recent years it can definitely be said that 'we live in a material world' as the song goes....

But what has taken it to the level that it has reached? Certainly throughout the ages people have sought a comfortable life ... but what was it, when was it, that the norm shifted from living comfortably within your means, to living extravagantly beyond them?

William Shakespeare once wrote "Have more than thou showest; Speak less than thou knowest." ('King Lear', Act I, Scene iv) ... and while iirc the context was a little different I think that the quote aptly applies to most aspects of life. Financially speaking a family that lived moderately within their means and set aside savings would, in fact, have more than they showed ... and more importantly would likely live comfortably and have a better ability to maintain that lifestyle even in lean times.

In part I think that this is simply something that the older generations have understood better than many of us do today. Face it .... in the grand scheme of things it wasn't that long ago that a lean harvest might well mean that some people in the village didn't survive ... setting aside today's plenty for tomorrow's want was something very real ... and was the beginning of drying and otherwise preserving foods.

Today, however, that never seems to be an issue ... I'd say probably 90% of the population of the US couldn't tell you if it was a good or bad year for the crops, even based on store prices. Part of the result is we don't think about putting things aside for tomorrow, and I think that has translated into our financial habits as well ... and now we're starting to pay the price for that.

Two other factors have, of course, contributed greatly to this lifestyle of living more extravagantly than perhaps we should ... television (and to a lesser degree radio) and credit cards.

Television and radio have, over the years become more and more inundated with advertising and at the same time more people have joined the audiences of these forms of media. We are constantly bombarded by advertisements showing us the luxury and 'cool' gadgets available. The shiny new cars, the great looking food, the new and beautiful appliances ... the result is, naturally, increased desire for these items.

Radio and print ads are less effective at this largely because the moving images of television are much more pervasive to the human mind; they are alive and, thus, much more real to us.

Credit cards take this desire built by the media and its advertising, however, and give it an outlet. You don't have to have the money to pay for that new iPod now, you've got plastic fake money! And there starts the root of the problem because too often people don't view credit as 'real money'; they don't connect the charge of the item to the money that they are going to have to pay later. Usually the considerably larger amount that they will have to pay due to interest.

Credit has, of course, been around for ages, but really it has only been recently that it has become so widely available. The result is, of course, that a lot of people have received credit that were not really prepared for it ... and in some cases should never have really had it. Combine that with the recent popularity of 'micro-transactions' that make it even easier to spend large amounts of money without realizing it and you have a recipe for disaster.

For those not familiar with the term Micro-transactions it is basically things along the lines of iTunes ... transactions for (usually) virtual items at low dollar amounts. Given the 'normal' cost of items most people don't think much about spending 1 or 2 dollars for something ... it's just a little change, it won't make any difference....

But then they realize that they've downloaded 300 songs in a month at $1.50 each ..... and that $450 suddenly seems like 'something'.

The same thing applies in DC ... it's just $200,000 for this program, that's nothing. But when you cram a couple of thousand of those into a bill and the price tag goes up fast...

The problem is ... this is not a sustainable situation in our personal lives and it's not sustainable in DC either. Sooner or later that money has to be repaid ... sooner or later the interest will bury us.

At what point do we reach critical mass? At what point does the fact that the Federal Government is competing with business for the same loan money completely demolish what is left of our economy?

At what point do we realize that what we NEED to do is stop the deficit spending and get back to a responsible method of accounting on a personal level as a society ... but also on an economic level as a country ... if we don't things will not go well for us in the long term.

Of superheroes and countries

As I was sifting through a site of collected quotations (The Quotations Page) I came across several great quotes ... filing many of them in a quote file for future use. One quote in particular caught my eye and got me thinking in a way different from the others.

"About Superman and Batman: the former is how America views itself, the latter, darker character is how the rest of the world views America." - Michael Caine

This got me to thinking about things and, in general I would say that Mr. Caine is probably right, but I'm not sure that it's a bad thing. (I'm not saying that Mr. Caine is implying that it is either though I think that some people would take it that way.)

Superman is an ideal ... an invincible shining knight protecting the world from evil and corruption and upholding 'Truth, Justice and the American Way.' Generally speaking I would say that is how many Americans like to think of the US ... though in many ways I think that the ideal of Superman is dead in this day ... but that's a ramble for another time....

Batman, however, is the detective, the gritty protector of the people who's not afraid to get his hands dirty to get the job done. He is unconcerned with how he is perceived as long as, in the end, he puts the bad guys behind bars.

And that is really the difference ... Superman is always looked up to by those that he protects, while Batman is feared or disliked by those he protects, though they would still admit that they are safer with him around.

And, yes, I would say that is probably a good description of how the world views the US ... many dislike or even 'fear' us for our ability and willingness to be proactive in defending ourselves and others, but they will generally admit that the world is a safer place as a result.

In all honesty I don't know that there ever was a time when the US was ever really Superman in the eyes of the world ... and personally while I think that Superman is certainly embodies the ideal of America ... I personally would like to see us more as Iron Man - self made, strong, and always improving ourselves. Sadly I'm not sure that the American Spirit has that kind of drive any more. Maybe these tough times will re-kindle the strength of what made us the great country that we are ....

Well ... one can dream at least.

A beautifully (clouded) mind

Before I start this I'm going to define a couple of terms so that it is clear how I am using them ... these terms are often thrown around and used as political labels and, as with many words in the English language, their meaning is sometimes a moving target. To give fair credit I am taking these definitions from local Atlanta radio host Herman Cain.

Conservative - Person who believes in increased individual responsibility, decreased taxes, and less government.

Liberal - Person who believes in decreased individual responsibility, increased taxes, and more government.

Now ... some people that consider themselves 'Liberals' take offense to the 'increased taxes' part of the definition above ... but when pressed on how to pay for increased government spending they will almost all default to 'raising taxes on the rich'. Many of them will complain that they don't stand for 'decreased individual responsibility' ... and yet they will back programs such as Universal Health Care, Social Security, and Welfare, that take the responsibility for a person's well being out of the hands of individuals in favor of giving that responsibility to the government. Many of them will say that they don't want 'more government' and yet, they will go along with increased government spending, more government programs, and increased levels of government regulation in the markets....

Basically what they're saying is 'well it sounds so BAD when you put it that way.....'

Now ... on to the real reason for the rant ... my conversation a few days back with a liberal. I couldn't help but notice throughout the course of the conversation that any time I mentioned a fact, rather than disputing it he changed the subject. And THEN said that's the problem with 'you guys' ... you never give up and go all over the place.

o.O

I had to scroll back up through the conversation and make sure I wasn't loosing my mind, but there it was ... every change of subject was a result of him avoiding a fact or dodging a question. But somehow ... in his mind ... I was the one 'going all over the place'.

And when I made the statement that you "Can't spend your way out of debt." ... to him the only alternative was to 'continue to give 99% of the wealth to 1% of the country who happen to be friends....'

1 - 99% of the wealth doesn't go to 1% of the country. The top 1% of income earners in the country account for about 20% or so of the total income collected during the year. (That may be a bit off as I'm pulling that from memory but I'm pretty sure that it is under 25%) Yet if I recall correctly the pay about 35% of the income taxes that are collected for the year.
2 - That income is not GIVEN to them ... it is earned. You might not consider it work ... but they are getting paid for their knowledge and/or experience and most of them worked very hard to reach that level.

'but they aren't worth what they are paid.'

WRONG ... in a free market they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. People complain about the huge salaries of pro athletes as well, but it's the same dynamic ... if Team A is paying Player Z 10 million a year, and he becomes a free agent not bound by a contract, if Team B wants to hire him they are going to have to offer enough to make it worth the hassle of Player Z changing teams ... and it's probably going to be more than 10 million as he can probably make that by staying another year with Team A.

If Player Z tells Team B that he wants 15 million a year ... then they have a choice ... do they want him enough that they feel that he is worth 15 a year. If they say 'yes' and hire him for that .. guess what ... he's worth 15 million a year. If no one takes him at 15 a year and he lowers his asking price to 12 and Team C picks him up ... then he (and/or his talents) are worth 12.

Likewise these CEOs and the like are worth whatever these corporations have agreed to pay them ... that's the way it works. Sorry if you don't like that, but it is not the government's job to regulate what companies pay their executives (that is what the Board and/or the Shareholders are supposed to handle.) ... nor is it the government's job to tell companies what they can or can't pay their employees.

Then again ... we're getting into an administration that feels that it IS the government's job to manage the private sector ... and there in lies many of my problems with things.

In the end he 'tired' of our little argument and said that we didn't have any ideas other than continuing with the same thing we had for the last 8 years and that we needed to let the 'new team' have their chance to fix things.

The republicans screwed things up by not sticking to the definition of Conservative I laid out above and instead chose to grow government, increase spending, and basically act like Liberals. Sadly too many people fail to realize that the last 2 years the Senate and the House were run by the Liberal Democrats and things weren't getting better, they were getting worse ... the result is that they put DC completely in the hands of the liberals ....

It's like this ... we are driving toward a cliff .... and we need to change direction. Our driver, however, has just stomped on the gas and isn't showing any signs of turning except to get a better line on the cliff ahead .... he says that there is going to be a bridge there ... the government is going to build it for us ...

... Is anyone else looking for a parachute right about now?

The sky is falling!

I'm sure you've heard about it by now ... I mean it has dominated the news for over a week already. The H1N1 virus, more common called the swine flu, is the flavor of the month for health scares that ... based on how much media attention and coverage it is getting ... is going to wipe out the human race in the next year.

Um ... okay ... whatever.

Seriously, let's put this in perspective. The United States has a population that is listed as 306,353,082 people; we'll just call it 300,000,000 or 'over 300 million' will probably work just as well. The World Health Organization (WHO .... why do I always think of an old British Sci-Fi series?) has confirmed 985 cases in 20 countries worldwide.

Um ... 985 cases? Yeah we'll stick with the 300 million number. So if all of those 985 cases were in the U.S. we'd be talking about roughly .00033% (less than since I'm not including over 6 million people). That 985 cases are not all in the U.S., however. The rough worldwide population is 6.7 billion ... with a B.

So if my math is right we're talking about an illness that has infected roughly .0000147% or less of the worldwide population.

Admittedly this is a 'young' pandemic, being only 10 days old, but still we aren't talking about something that's burning through the population like wildfire either ... even in Mexico which has shown the heaviest concentration of confirmed cases (506 confirmed cases and 19 deaths or roughly a 3% fatality rate) we are still talking about a very small percentage of the population being infected.

Not to say that people shouldn't take reasonable precautions to avoid catching it, but I really don't believe that this is likely to balloon into something worthy of the extreme media coverage and hype that it has been getting to date.

I honestly feel that the media is making this into a much bigger issue than it is, and through their constant coverage they are, in fact, generating the panic that they are covering. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are intentionally trying to generate a panic over this flu ... rather I think in their hunger to find and report a story that they have a tendency to over dramatize the issue which creates a little fear. The media then reports on the fear, which in turn generates more fear and more news coverage....

On the political front a 'pandemic' like this and the panic (as caused and fed by the media over coverage) has a tendency to drive DC as 'justification' for Universal Health Care. The hysteria over the issue becomes an excellent vehicle for Congress to hook the wagon up to in order to lessen the opposition to the issue. 'You can't be opposed to government stepping into health care right now ... we're facing a pandemic! If the US Government doesn't step in by passing UHC this week we might never recover!'

Yes, I'm purposefully exaggerating there, but we do have a White House and Congress that doesn't like to 'let a good crisis go to waste.'

Is it serious? Yes, and people need to be aware of the dangers ... H1N1 is credited with the deaths of over 40 million people worldwide in 1918 (when it was known as the Spanish Flu). We have to accept that better medical facilities, awareness, and not being in the middle of trench warfare is likely to keep this from being quite the pandemic that the Spanish Flu turned into. (Not to mention that it's also possible (and even likely) that many of the 1918 deaths might have been incorrectly attributed to the virus.)

The other danger here is simple ... the more they blow this up now, when it's really not as big an issue as the coverage would have it seem, the less likely people are to get worked up about it later if it or another strain suddenly becomes a major threat to the health of the country ... There was the bird flu a couple of years ago, and the asian flu, and the SARS scare ... all of which certainly were dangers, but if I learned anything over the years it is that the more you cry 'wolf' over this or any other such issue (hurricanes, etc) the more likely people are to ignore it when the 'real thing' comes along.