Rules

Okay ... recently I stopped by a McDonald's to get out of the heat while I waited for someone to come pick me up after my car broke down. While I was waiting I saw the rules posted on the playground area for the kids, and I just had to wonder where this country's discipline has gone. The rules (from memory here so may not be exact) were:

• Please do not run in the playground.
• Please do not wear shoes on or in the playground area
• Please wear socks at all times
• Please do not climb on the outside of the playground equipment

Please? PLEASE?? Are these rules, suggestions, or requests? The sign was labeled as 'Playground Rules' so I would assume that they are, in fact, supposed to be rules and that not following them can get you removed from the playground area. I understand that it is nice to be polite ... but those aren't 'rules' ... they are requests.

"No running in or around the playground" is a rule ... "Please do not run in or around the playground" is a request, not a rule. We wonder why our kids have no sense of discipline or responsibility, why they seem to think that they can do anything that they want ... it's because we keep giving them requests instead of rules.

I've heard it in stores as well 'Timmy, please stop running around and come here.' .... the mother in question asked him 5 times ... he never complied, and she never elevated her request or did anything to stop or prevent him. What has Timmy learned? That there is no consequence for ignoring mommy.

Seriously people ... if someone can't handle being told that their child is not allowed to run in the playground doesn't need to have their kids loose in a public place. I mean, come on ... this is McDonald's property if your child is going to use it they need to learn that when they are there (or anywhere else for that matter) there are RULES that have to be obeyed and these rules usually involve limiting the things that they are allowed to do.

But "No" has been ostracized as a word for being too negative. It has been declared harmful to children because it imposes limits or somehow harms their self worth. You can't give them a bad grade because it might damage their personal perception of themselves. (god forbid they try to work harder and get better .... if they did that it might make another student feel bad, or worse encourage them to do better too.) Children must be coddled and protected and made to believe that they are the center of the universe ... eventually that view will have to be crushed in some form or another but by then they'll be adults and can pay therapists thousands of dollars per hour to figure out how their lives got so screwed up.

It's just a flag

I came across this article while skimming through Neal's Nuze (boortz.com) for today. For those of you that don't want to follow the link to read the article I'll give you a quick summery:

A California high school Principal has announced that the school will be canceling the school paper next year after the paper ran a picture of a burning American flag, along with an pro-flag burning editorial piece. He said 'the latest issue of the student-run Volcano newspaper was embarrassing' and that 'the paper is finished' and the faculty advisor called it 'bad journalism'.

The faculty advisor also said that they put the image and article at the last minute which implies that she wouldn't have let them run the article had they submitted it. This would be a different issue as it would amount to a government employee telling people what they could and could not say in the student publication.

This is a complex issue in that the school pays for the publication of the student paper, and in that respect should have some control over content, on the other hand the school is government funded so is technically paid for by the students parents. (and to some degree the students themselves if they have part-time jobs). So who should really be controlling the content of the paper?

However, the question of should the paper be discontinued over this issue is an easy 'no'. First off it is essentially the school Principal saying 'they are expressing opinions that I disagree with so I'm going to shut it down so that I don't have to worry about that in the future.'

The article does say that the school had previously been considering shutting the paper down because money was tight, but given his statements about the article being 'embarrassing' it seems pretty clear why the choice was made, regardless of previous considerations.

But then again ... that fits in with the mission of the government schools in general ... 'we don't want them to think or have opinions, we want them to be good little workers that think as little as possible and do what they're told.'

Now ... the issue of flag burning is one of those 'on again off again' hot topics ... it makes the rounds every now and again. Personally I find burning the flag to be abhorrent and reprehensible, but I don't believe that it should be illegal either.

Does it offend me, yes. But that doesn't mean that I believe that people should not be able to express themselves in that way. If they feel strongly about something and feel that the best way to express that anger/frustration/dissatisfaction is to burn the flag, then they should be allowed to do that. Provided, of course, that they do not do so in a way that damages someone else's property or otherwise infringes on someone elses personal rights. (This would, of course, mean that it would have to be a flag that they bought and own, not one that they took from someone elses flagpole ... and burning a flag in someone else's yard without their permission would infringe on their property rights and potentially harm their property.)

Every now and again the government (state or federal) tries to pass laws making the burning of the American flag illegal. That should never, ever, happen. It is a very tricky thing because it would first require a very specific and legal definition of what constituted a flag ... if I draw an image of the American flag and burn that (for example) would it be violating the law that bans flag burning? ... Of course it also opens the door for other restrictions on what can and can't be used as a symbol of expression ... In the end it comes down to one thing - where do you draw the line?

The government ... ALL governments have shown that once they've been granted a power they are reluctant to release that power. Rather they become hungry for more such powers. Like the old saying goes, 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile.' I'm not willing to risk freedom in order to prevent someone from doing something that I find offensive.

I once heard a radio talkshow host (I'm sorry I don't remember who it was) say 'Freedom means that some people are going to do things that I don't like, and that's okay.' I found that statement to match almost exactly my feelings on a lot of matters .... there are a lot of people out there, and we're all different (if we weren't the world would be a pretty boring place) ... I'm not going to agree with everyone, and not everyone is going to agree with me ... we've got to learn that just because we don't like or agree with something does NOT give us the right to say that someone else can't do it.

Change

Okay ... The Democrats have chosen their candidate (barring a sudden shift in the super-delegates before or at the convention) and so now we can go forward into the general election as Obama vs McCain.

The democrats have rallied behind the champion of 'Change' and yet most of them don't know what 'change' he represents. They will say (have already said in fact) that McCain will simply be a 'continuation of Bush's failed policies' largely because he supports continuing the Bush Tax cuts and maintaining our forces in Iraq. Those two issues, however, are two that I happen to believe were both good policies and should be continued, if not expanded upon.

What needs to 'change' is government spending, something that John McCain has at least made statements to with his vow to 'freeze' federal spending at current levels for a year while 'evaluating' government programs to eliminate waste. Obama, on the other hand, has not discussed federal spending at all, but has proposed a slew of new Federal Aid programs aimed at helping low to middle class Americans get back on their feet. This increased spending would, of course, be funded by allowing the Bush Tax Cut's to expire as well as raising taxes in other areas.

This plan of increasing the tax burden in order to increase federal spending is somehow supposed to stimulate the economy ... despite the fact that historical evidence shows that it is almost exactly what the Government tried to do at the beginning of the great depression and is the main factors that economists believe caused the depth and length of the great depression to be much worse than they would have without governmental interference.

Historical data indicates that every increase in tax has resulted in lower federal revenue and a much larger decrease in economic growth, while lowering taxes and (this is where Bush failed) decreasing federal spending causes dramatic economic growth and build up of private sector wealth across ALL income levels.

Apparently a majority of Europe and the Middle East favor Obama being elected, but these people also want a weaker United States and most of them dislike us largely due to our success. There is a reason that the 'poor' in this country have a better standard of living than ANY other country in the world ... but every year it seems that we loose sight of that reason more and more. The question is, is it too late for our eyes to turn back to the light that made this country great and away from the bottomless abyss of government?

A new month

Well ... it's been nearly two months since I last rambled here. I'd like to say that I made my two month 80,000 words in 61 days goal, but the fact is I didn't even make 40,000. This is even more sad because of the fact that I was at 35,000 at the end of April ... a little behind the target, but close enough to easily make it up in May.

I'd like to say that it was work, or that I got really sick, or that aliens came and took me to another galaxy and I didn't have any way to write, but it wouldn't be right. The fact of the matter is, ultimately I gave up ... I stopped writing. Work did factor in as I got shifted to an early morning shift to work on a feature film, but really it shouldn't have stopped me from writing because I shouldn't have let it. In part I'd say it was what I had feared ... to a degree I burned out ... I enjoy writing, but I also enjoy practicing on my bass, and playing video games and it was starting to feel as though I was forcing myself to write at the expense of the other things I enjoy doing.

The other thing that I'm starting to come to the realization of is that Summer is a bad time for me (us actually as my wife has been having the same problem) to write. This is the third summer I've attempted a personal challenge and all of them have resulted in failure. My wife and I were talking about it the other day and she expressed the opinion that it may be because we feel that there's so much to be done, yard work, home improvement, and the like, that essentially we just can't focus on just writing like we can in the winter (Both of my successful NaNoWriMos were in November (of course) and my one successful personal challenge was in Jan).

I'm still planning on finishing this story ... I think I've got a good one going and it has potential of possibly being something I can refine and maybe submit. (Actually my last two NaNo's fall into this as well but still need to be finished off and then start the editing process.) To that end I'm going to start setting aside a scheduled writing time once I'm back on a 'normal' schedule. I'm still looking forward to NaNoWriMo again in November, but I think that if I try a challenge again next spring/summer I'm probably going to lighten it up more and try to be more 'casual' about writing for it.

For now I'm going to crawl back out from under my rock and return to the world of rambles and rants. I've already written more here this year than I did last year, I'm going to try and keep increasing that over the rest of the year. Up to this point I've ranted primarily about political issues and my writing, I'm likely going to expand that with discussions of my modeling hobby and video game hobbies and role-playing games ... and probably anything else that crosses my mind while I'm sitting at a keyboard and blogging.

Hopefully soon I'll also be making an announcement that we are offering some prints of some of the artwork that we presently have up over at Grimscale Studios as well as adding some new work that my wife has been working on.

For now, however, I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know how my writing went and where things are going for me.

Masters and Serfs

[NOTE - the numbers and amounts in this article are not official numbers and are used strictly for sake of argument.]

Okay ... an opinion piece in the local paper happened to catch my eye today and I just can't let slide. The letter was in responce to a writter who had asked (as a responce to another writer) that people take the time to learn about the facts of the Fair Tax bill before trying to write articles or letters against it. The writer of the letter in today's paper said:

"...its (the Fair Tax) core is a consummate cut of any obligatory federal taxes. That leaves the wealthiest in our country with no federal taxes to compensate the U.S. for the gifts showered upon them or to keep the wealth gap at a reasonable level." (bolding added for emphasis)

Excuse me? GIFTS? Most of the 'wealthiest' people in the U.S. have worked hard for their income ... it is not 'given' to them and thus it is not a 'gift' .... I suppose you might consider it a 'gift' if you believe that you are giving Walmart a 'gift' every time that you buy something there ....

The writter is technically correct in saying that it does remove 'obligatory' federal taxes .... the Fair Tax, however, does NOT leave anyone with "No federal taxes" it gives everyone the same tax ... the sales tax on the items that they buy.

Now ... lets look at something for a moment ... lets say I make 100,000 a year (Upper middle class by some definitions) ... and lets say that of that 100,000 after bills I have 50,000 (50%) that is disposable income ... and I save 20% of that ... leaving 40,000 that I spend on items ranging from food to TVs. Taxed at 23% (the estimated federal sales tax under the Fair Tax) I'll pay something like 9200 in taxes. (Less actually given the 'pre-bate' to compensate for the tax on normal living expenses ... but let's keep it simple here and ignore that for now.)

Let's take those percents and apply them to higher income levels ... 250,000 (the income level that the majority of american's consider 'wealty') .. that's 125,000 after bills ... 100,000 spent and 23,000 in taxes ... 2.5 times the income = 2.5 times the tax ... now ... lets consider the fact that the average 'wealthy' family generally has more disposable income (meaning a smaller % of their income is tied up in their monthly bills) meaning that the 250,000 household likely has more than 100,000 that is spent on items ... and more of it is likely to be on luxeries.

If we throw the 'pre-bate' into the equation ... lets say everyone gets 3000 a year (250/month) from the government to compensate for taxes on normal 'living expenses' (we're assuming here that both families have the same make up and thereby get the same amount as a pre-bate ... we'll say 2 adults no children. That brings the 100,000 a year family down to 6200 in taxes and the 250,000 family to 20,000 in tax paid ... and now the 250,000 family is making 2.5 times the income of the other family but paying just shy of 3.25 times the taxes....

[EDIT - I'm dropping a clarification here as upon re-reading this I wasn't quite clear on the assumption with the pre-bate. Under the Fair Tax each household is given a fixed amount monthly based on the number of people in the household. So in my above example where I said 'everyone gets 3000 a year' what I meant was that for the example lets say both households recieved 3000 a year. Since we're assuming that these are 2 adult no child households then that would be 1500 a year per adult ... and again, I do not know what the estimated pre-bate is actually going to be, this number is used solely as an example.]

Now let's take a 50,000 a year house (again 2 adults no children) ... thier disposable income is 25,000 (actually it's probably less) of which they save 5,000 leaving 20,000 spent ... so 4600 in tax ... BUT, when you account for the pre-bate they'll only pay 1600 in tax ... so they have half the income of the 100,000 house, but pay a quarter of the taxes ....

Oh, but rich people will just save more of their money and thus get even more money from the interest ... that's a guess and there is no research to back that up ... but lets play that game ... the rich save more (read 'invest') putting more money into the growth of business and the economy ... leading to more jobs, and better pay. But lets face it ... do you REALLY think that the 'rich' are just going to stop spending? That they'll stop buying their expensive sports or luxury cars (which will be taxed) or houses, or entertainment centers, movies, music, concerts, sporting events ... yeah ... they're just going to stop doing any of that so that they can pay less in taxes ... Riiiiiiight.

The fact of the matter is ... that the 'poor' and 'middle-class' WILL be more likely to save or invest more than they currently do because they will have more of the income that they earn to do so with.

Another writter did bring up the point that many retirees that have already paid a lot of tax on their IRAs and other after tax retirement money will then get taxed on that money when they spend it in their retirement (where they are not taxed on the 'income' of recieving it in retirement currently) ... however, it's no different than the fact that I'll get taxed on spending the money that I've already saved over the years and it's no different than the argument against private social security accounts ... I don't like it because it might hurt me a little bit ... never mind that it might greatly help my kids or grandkids ... who cares about them having it better it's all about ME ME ME MEMEMEMEMEME! Don't solve the problems that the country has, let my kids deal with it later!

Generally this kind of thinking is both shallow and selfish and it is this kind of short sighted foolishness that allows and even encourages politicians to continue to do nothing on major issues. If we can't get over such pettiness then this country is going straight to the toilet because as the tax code (along with governmental regulations) becomes more and more of a burden on the corporations in this country this economy is going to wither and die ......

Boycott Exxon

The cry goes up around the country in break rooms and email in boxes everywhere ... boycott Exxon and they'll be forced to lower their prices and that will make the other stations lower their prices to stay competitive. Sounds great, let's everybody jump on the bandwagon and start buying our gas someplace else. I mean they'll have to lower their gas prices right?

WRONG.

First off ... you would have to get a large % of gas purchasers who currently use Exxon to stop using them for a couple months for them to even notice that's not a likely situation to start with, but let's say you manage to get over 50% of their regular customers to switch to other brands ... that will lower prices, right?

Wrong again. But why not you ask ... simple economics. If you're buying gas somewhere else you're increasing demand for their product ... so Exxon's demand falls by 50% demand across the board is unchanged and other stations see an increase in market share ... they have higher demand and therefore no motivation to lower prices ... in fact if the demand increased substantially they're more likely to INCREASE their price, not lower it ... as a result Exxon has no strong motivation to lower the price and even if they do lower it slightly to try to pick up a bit in sales, unless people come back (driving their demand up and thus making it more likely that they'll just bring their price back in line with other retailers, not the other way around.) there's no motivation for the other retailers to match the drop.

The other thing is ... the only people you're going to hurt at all with this is the local retailer ... not Exxon. Exxon will just sell their gas unbranded to non-affiliated stores, just as they do currently. The Exxon retailers ... who have already PAID for the gas in the tanks (and have to be able to afford to fill the tanks again) are the only ones that are going to potentially take a loss in the situation.

If you want to lower gas prices ... boycotting any SINGLE oil company won't work ... you will have to lower consumption (and thus demand) DRASTICALLY across the board to all companies. And when you're talking about lowering consumption you're going to have to get the big fleets to do it, not just Joe Average American. You're also going to have to get people to use less heating oil and/or any other oil product that is refined from crude oil ... and to cause any drastic change in the cost of gas you're really going to need to do this all on a global scale.

If you want to do it faster ... get Congress and Local and State governments to repeal the various taxes rolled into the costs. Exxon, for example, paid more last year in taxes than it made in profits .... yes that'd right, the government made more off of Exxon's gas than Exxon did. (I've seen the exact numbers for that, but I can't find them at the moment ... if I do find them I'll add them as an edit to the article later.)

Add to that the cost of compliance with various governmental regulations (all of which gets passed on to the consumer) and all of the various different blends required by different states meaning that they have to split production and try to match their demand as closely as possible running 10 or so different batches ... increasing their production costs through waste if nothing else.

Which brings me to the California nutcases that are trying to further increase their fuel and automotive standards even further beyond the current federal regulations (increasing production costs further) ... personally I think that fuel and automotive manufacturers should give California the one finger salute and say 'if you want to require that fine ... we just won't sell in California' ... see how Cali likes not having gas for their cars ... or any new cars for that matter.....

Anyway ... I've got work and writting to get back to ... until my next ramble ... be alert! The world needs more lerts. (nope, not original ... but hey that's life. :p)

April FOOLS!

The post title comes from the writing 'event' in April is officially titled 'April Fools' not because this post is an April Fools day joke or hoax.....

*BANG* goes the gun and off the wife and I go into another writing adventure of epic proportions.... okay maybe not but we are off and writing again. This will be my first attempt at a project in this new 'novel' software and we'll see how things go with that ... On the one hand I'm hoping that it will help keep me organized and on task by tracking my word goals and keeping my plans organized and outlined. On the other I'm wondering if it's organization will hamper my writting and flow....

I'm actually going back and making a second attempt at last summers failed novel ... starting from scratch of course (well ... I have my notes and I am looking those over for character info as well as story flow ... but I had most of that in place before we started last summer's failed project). Wish us both luck as we dive into the insanity of writing once more....

I had some other things I was going to ramble on about ... but at the moment I can't think of them and I've got a word count goal to shoot for, so I'll either post again later or catch up later in the week....

School of hard knocks...

Today's rant is brought to you by the story of a young 13 year old girl who, upon arriving at her school after going to the hospital the day before for a knee injury had the school nurse take her crutches away.

This story is completely insane ... and one of the rare instances where I feel that a lawsuit is justified. This is a serious case of a school nurse who simply didn't think about what she was doing or what the consequences of her actions might be. As a result this young girl has had to have knee surgery and as with any such operation there is a chance that she may not recover 100%. (She's young so she likely has pretty good odds on the recovery but at best it's going to be a while before she gets back to playing sports, if ever.)

The school nurse, at best, showed poor judgement. There was no official policy to back her actions ... there was an email from the Supervisor of School Health that had said that students must 'produce a doctor's note to use crutches or a wheelchair' which, of course, implies that if a student doesn't have a doctor's note then the crutches or wheelchair must be taken away ... of course it could also mean that without it the student would not be allowed to attend classes which would mean that the school nurse should have sent the girl home.

And there in lies the whole issue ... the email, apparently, said that students 'must' have a note ... but doesn't actually create a policy ... it implies one ... but, technically a policy should define the actions to be taken in the case of something outside the policy. I mean, lets look at the options here ... 1-hold the student in the nurse's office until a doctor's note is provided, 2-send the student home as a 'un excused' absence until a doctor's note is received, 3-contact the parent (the nurse did this and was told by the mother that the crutches were prescribed, but when the note was not faxed she took the crutches from the girl) and tell them that a note would be needed tomorrow or choice 1 or 2 would occur and then let the student go to class, or 4-take the crutches (or wheelchair ... yeah THAT will fly). ALL of these possibilities would potentially satisfy the 'policy' of the email.

Number 4 is the absolute worst of the options because any injury that requires crutches is likely to be worsened if they are removed. This girl was wearing a knee brace for crying out loud ... it's not like she had an Ace bandage wrapped around her knee ... if she's faking it she's going through a lot of friggin trouble to do it.

It was mentioned that the school is concerned about the injury of other students due to students using crutches (and wheelchairs) ... the answer to that is simple ... kids (with a doctor's or parent's note) using crutches (or wheelchairs) either 1) leave class early (to get to their next class before the halls fill up) or 2) leave class late (and get to their next class late) so that the halls have emptied before they are moving through them.

Claims have also been made that crutches can be used as weapons .... oh give me a flippin break. If you're going to use that excuse for taking them from the girl then you'd best be making sure that students aren't carrying book bags with books in them, pens, pencils, protractors, rulers, or anything made of wood, plastic, or metal .... better take all shoe strings, necklaces, and don't forget to remove the forks, knives, and probably spoons from the lunch room ... and make sure that the tables and chairs are bolted to the floor. Almost ANY item can fit the description of a weapon so let's save ourselves a headache and not go down that road.

In other words, none of these are compelling reasons to take the crutches from the girl ... or ANY student for that matter. The supposed email could be blamed but it's fault is that it is too vague ... it doesn't account for the sheer idiocy of many of the people employed within the governmental school systems ... the way I see it things break down like this ... 1) the nurse is at fault for her judgement in interpreting the email 'policy', 2) the Supervisor of School Health is at fault for not clearly defining the intention of the email and or making a full official policy before sending that particular email, 3) the school board/district because the fact of the matter is that what most people like to forget is the fact that ultimately a boss or employer is responsible for the actions and behavior of anyone under them.

But then again ... this is a governmental program we're talking about ... expecting logic, reason, common sense, responsibility or any level of professionalism is something beyond delusional. I'm sure I had some other points to make ... but I've lost my train of thought at this point so I'll let you figure 'em out.

Wandering Minds...

... Okay ... I'm a putz. I had a nice long ramble typed out and went to copy it so that I could run it through the spell checker and ... I erased it completely. Turns out that had I thought about it at the time I could have used ctrl+z and recovered it ... but well we're back to that 'I'm a putz' thing. Ah well I'm sure it was needlessly boring and wordy anyway probably better that the random whims of the Internet have spared you all the torture of reading it....

And so I'll have to rewrite it all and as a result you'll get the shortened version ... maybe...

Taxes suck ... 'nuff said. Pass ... Fair ... Tax ... NOW!

Actually I didn't talk about taxes in the original ... but I haven't hit you all with a 'Pass the Fair Tax now.' in a while so I figured now ... as we approach tax month ... was as good a time as any.

In listening to news talk radio on Friday morning, I heard a caller call in that had been doing some research about the deficit and the Clinton and Bush administrations.(keep in mind that I don't have the research and am too lazy to look it up ... as such any numbers are from memory from the caller and should be taken with a grain of salt and researched for accuracy) His question in particular was about the last 3 years of the Clinton administration ... the administration (and media) had reported budget surpluses all three years, however, despite this fact the federal deficit grew during those three years by between 1 and 2 trillion dollars; how could that be?

The answer seems to be that the amount of the surplus did not cover the interest due on the already existing deficit. This, however, would seem to indicate a fundamental flaw in the federal budgeting process ... namely that they aren't budgeting to pay the interest on their existing debt. Gee ... wish I could do that and get away with it....

But then again that is completely in matching the thinking of congress and the government in general ... wait long enough and it will be someone else's problem. If a private citizen or business tried to get by without accounting for the interest on the debt that they had they'd soon go bankrupt and/or out of business completely. The government, however, just keeps on trucking ... just roll that interest into the debt ... and someone else will have to deal with that note later.

I bring this up because I am sick of hearing people parroting that Clinton paid down the deficit ... no ... he slowed it's growth but he didn't pay down a dime.

Not to say that "W" hasn't been bad or even worse than Clinton in that respect ... he's nearly doubled the 5.4 Trillion dollar deficit he inherited in his 8 years (iirc at last report the deficit was just under 10 trillion at this point ... much of which is accumulated interest) and as a result the annual interest on that debt is just shy of 500 billion a year ... even in terms of the federal budget that's not an amount to sneeze at.

The deficit is one of, if not THE biggest drag on the American economy ... and speaking of the economy the government just needs to butt the heck out and let it correct. The only thing that they are doing in propping up and bailing out these businesses and investment firms that made high risk choices and are now paying the price of those choices is 1-rewarding bad behavior and decision making, and 2-prolonging the situation giving us farther to fall once it does ...

The economy itself is not in terrible shape ... the market is unstable ... yes ... largely due to several factors resolving around the uncertainty in a couple of markets due to bad investment and loan choices by some very big players. This (combined with constant reporting on how bad the market and economy are doing) has the effect of making both lenders and borrowers very leery of things as they stand and employers and small businesses get antsy about increasing their expenditures in such times (meaning a slowing of growth, lack of raises, lowered spending on the business front) ... which directly translates to a lowering of consumer confidence and spending.

Other factors in the economy are, on the other hand, showing good numbers. Un-employment (while much hyped as being a 'horrible' 5%) is actually not bad, and though it did go up that % is actually considered pretty good by a lot of economists. There is a point of 'minimum unemployment' (and that may not be the correct term it's been a long time since my basic econ classes) ... the point at which an economy will start to suffer from unemployment being too low, and this is, if I recall correctly, in the 3-5% unemployment range. The reason being that once an economy starts to get much below that it becomes significantly more difficult for employers to find qualified employees that are not already employed (leading to wage inflation which stifles expansion and growth of businesses).

So basically it would likely be a lot better in the long run for us to just go ahead and let this correction happen and get it behind us rather than trying to keep it at bay only to have it hit us harder down the road.

Of course the fact that we are in a Presidential election cycle doesn't help the uncertainty in the economy. The fact of the matter is that investors, both domestic and foreign, get twitchy during Presidential elections due to the uncertainty of the future leadership and direction of the country. This year's election is likely worse than normal as a result of the fact that we do not have an incumbent President or Vice-President running for the office .... essentially we don't have a 'devil you know' candidate...

Okay you could argue that Hillary is a 'devil you know' candidate ... but then again, at this point it is still far from certain who will get the Democratic nomination ... or a Vice Presidential offer from Obama if he should manage to get the 'nod'. In fact I'd say the democratic nomination uncertainty in general is probably adding a whole new layer of waves and unease to the market....

And since it's a quarter to one in the morning ... I'll leave it at that for now....

New Toys!

Okay I'm taking a short break from the political ranting and ravings of my normal madness and instead taking a bit of time to unwind and revel in my new toy, and as such this will be my first posting from my brand shiny new laptop.

Admitedly it's not a screaming new gaming system .... but it should certainly be able to handle what I got it for - writing. The goal being that I can more easily keep my writing together and not end up with 10 versions on my system at home and 15 or so on my PC at the office. Now I'll just do all my writing here on the laptop.

I've also started using a new 'novel' writing program: yWriter 4 ... no it doesn't write the novel for me ... what would be the fun in that. But it does help me break down my scenes, establish goals, track characters, locations and items, along with help keep my notes organized. It's also designed so that scenes and chapters can easily be moved and rearranged in the editing process. For NaNoWriMo writers it also has an 'export as Nanowrimo obfusicated text' ... not that I ever bothered going through all that trouble, but I understand that some people are paranoid about the issue. I also found it hard to argue with the price ... free is hard to beat.

On top of this the wife and I are considering doing an extended novelling project next month ... would be from April 1 - May 31st with a goal of 80,000 words. While on the one hand this should, technically, be easier than a 30 day NoWriMo (50,000 words in 30 days is 1667 words a day, while 80,000 in 61 days is only 1312 words a day) I suspect that managing an 80k word work may well be a challenge in itself .... also 61 days of that kind of writing while keeping the internal editor locked in the closet will certainly be a test.

Also, a while back I got my wife a new drum kit ... her first ... a nice Simmons SD7K electric drum kit. (I think we would both have prefered an accustic set, but those take space we don't have) and she's been learning fast. So I also just got us both a bunch of sheet music so that we can practice playing songs together ... we've played together a bit with her playing the drum lines from some of my bass lessons and we've had a lot of fun with it.

Given our first amature attempts at one of the songs, don't be expecting to hear audio files of us jamming on the blog any time in the near future .... unless we're recording us playing Rock Band ..... audio only of course. ;)

Tax Cuts and the Economy

Lately both Clinton and Obama have charged up their campaigns by attacking the 'rich' and the dreaded 'evil' corporations. Playing on the economic ignorance and class divisionisim in this country (and by and large a product of the governmental school system). One of their main targets have been the Bush tax cuts which they claim were 'only a benifit to the rich'.

How in the heck are they defining 'rich'? I saw a benifit from the tax cuts and I am far from any reasonable definition of the word 'rich.' I would say that I'm firmly within the Middle Class ... but that begs the question 'what is the middle class' ... and so I found this report to the the Congress which places the Median annual household income at $46,326 and defines a narrow middle class as $36,000 to $57,000 with a broader 'middle class' as $19,100 to $91,700 ... all of which confirms my belief that I'm in the middle class but not what could be considered 'upper middle class'.

Neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid ... they know that these tax cuts have helped many middle class Americans. They are playing on the economic ignorance of the majority of the American people ... on the fact that most of them don't know what they paid in taxes THIS year, much less what they paid last year and what the difference was due to the tax cuts....

The repeal of these cuts within the context of the current economy, however, is asking for another round of middle class bankrupcies and foreclosures ... with the extra added benifit of taxes being non-dischargeable in bankrupcy. In addition to raising taxes on many middle class households it will (of course) raise taxes on small business (the largest 'employer' in the contry as something like 70% of all jobs in this country come from 'small' businesses rather than large corperations). This would, in turn, lower the funds available to those businesses to expand, hire new employees, or even give raises to exsisting employees.

I believe that it was Abraham Lincon that said "You cannot help the poor by hurting the rich." Meaning that by taxing the rich ... by punishing the drive to improve you don't help the poor ... you lessen the available jobs, the available pay, and ... ultimately ... their drive to better themselves.

This does not help them ... it hurts them. It changes nothing .... at best the government can, by re-disributing what they take from the 'rich', bring the 'poor' back up to where they would have been had the taxes not been levied against the rich to start with.

Realistically I've been over that point before, but it again underscores some of the economic ignorance in this country. People seem to fail to realize that 'stuff flows down hill' ... even if you only tax the 'rich' that tax ... that draw of funds ... is going to effect everyone down the economic structure even though the 'rich' (or corporations) are the only ones technically being taxed.

Pure socialisim as a whole fails for ultimately the same reason ... there is no incentive to work harder to achieve more because it is all collected by the government and distributed equally ... why am I going to work 10 hours when in the end I'm going to get the same as the guy in the next office that cut out after 8? Oh ... that's right ... for the good of the country that's it ... yeah ... right. The human animal doesn't work that way ... we ... and all animals really ... are programmed to do the minimum possible to achieve our goals; if working harder isn't going to get me more return then the additional energy is wasted effort. In the end any such enthusiasim will quickly errode and cease until finally everyone is doing the minimum allowed by law to collect their pay ... we already see this in a majority of welfare recipients in this country ... meanwhile supply will slow down to a minimum, but demand will continue to rise ...

But then Obama has been attending a church for the last 20 years that centers itself on 'economic parity' ... that's a fancy way of saying everyone is supposed to have the same amount of 'stuff'. (This is seperate from this issue from the racially divisive and anti-american statements that his mentor and pastor Rev. Wright has been saying in the pulpit ... but I think that has been covered fairly well by other sources.) Clinton has fairly much been open in her socialist views and goals with regard to leading this country ... so should we really be surprised that either of them want to increase the income re-distribution program in this country.... taking more from those who earn it in order to give it to those too lazy to earn it themselves.

Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican and the author of the famous 'square deal' had this to say when asked about his 'square deal':

"When I say I believe in a square deal, I do not mean ... to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall be no crookedness in the dealing."

Clinton and Obama, however, want to try to appeal to the masses by offering them, not 'no crookedness in the dealing', but rather 'to give every man the best hand' ... or at least ... the same hand.

Can't

I have several issues that I intend to ramble about we'll see what actually comes pouring out through my fingers to the keyboard. But we're going to start with the word can't ... or cannot to be grammatically correct. People often missuse this poor word to mean won't or will not ... they will say that they 'can't' do something even though there is nothing actually preventing them from doing so ... or that the only thing preventing them from doing it is their own laziness or lack of desire to do it.

This brings me to our former First Lady, New York Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, and her statements that Iraq is a war that we "cannot win".

Now I will say that in some ways, she is right, but not in the way that she means. She means of course that we won't win because she (and many in this country) don't have the will to do what is needed to win. We CAN succeed in Iraq (and in the middle east as a whole) if we are willing to and have the desire to ... if we have a commander that is willing to accept what must be done and do it regardless of the political landscape ... saddly I don't see one of those lining up for the job.

How is she right? Well for one, we can't win because we already did. The 'war' in Iraq is over and has been for years ... we are currently in a police and reconstruction effort not a war. Does that mean that the fighting is over? No, not at all. The people we are fighting now, however, are not the Iraqi government ... and in many cases are not even Iraqi people, but rather insurgents and radicals from other middle eastern countries inciting various radical elements against the fledgeling Iraqi government.

Secondly ... in regard to the 'War on Terror' again ... we can't win and in that she is also correct; but this isn't how she meant her remarks. We can't win a war against terror because we can never 'defeat' an amorphous opponent that can dissappear for 5, 10 or 20 years until we lower our guard and then return just as unfathomable, insane, and dangerous as ever.

Over the weekend I listened to an Audio Drama of the book World War Z (Great story, very well done and the voice acting was outstanding) in which humanity is faced with annihilation by zombies (see the democrats really do take over!) and is essentially faced with the same situation - a single surviving zombie, or even a fresh outbreak unrelated to the original infection, can start the whole thing over ... they can never be positive that it's really over for good.

So, yes, in some ways we "can't" win the war. That does not mean, however, that we need to give up, that we need to withdraw our troops or our support in the region. We are no longer 'invaders' over there, but rather there at the request of the young Iraqi Government. If we withdraw now what message are we sending to those people ... what message are we sending to the terrorists ... to the world?

I've also came across a comment on another site to the effect of 'America needs to return to the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' attitude' and yet I'd be willing to bet that the person that made it is also in favor of drastic reductions in military spending, and has no concept of what that phrase means in global politics.

First off the 'big stick' in question would be the strongest most capable military on the planet. A military capable of striking a decisive blow anywhere in the world at a moments notice in order to protect american interests. And I don't mean air strikes and missles ... I'm talking conventional assault and invasion to isolate and eleminate the threat.

Some people seem to think that the phrase is some sort of isolationist ideal ... that we shouldn't meddle with other countries ... but look at it again. That's not what it's about ... it's about diplomacy and specifically how diplomacy is best applied ... speak softly (try diplomacy first) but carry a big stick (but be prepared to kick some tail if and when diplomacy fails.)

The key thing in diplomacy is, of course, that you not only have to have a 'big stick' ... you've also got to have the will to use it. It doesn't matter if you've got the biggest stick in the world; if you don't swing it at the dog rushing you you're still going to get bitten. We're no longer dealing with a world in which it takes our enemies weeks or even months to strike at us. With easy world wide travel and communications (phone, video, internet) we can not rely on having any warning or indication that a strike is coming ... in such a world if you wait for the dog to start charging you you may find that you've been bitten long before you could swing your stick.

Of course I'm not saying that we should run out and attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with us, but a known enemy who has weapons of mass destruction (and Iraq had them and had used them in the past, and had provided no proof that he had destroyed them as mandated by the UN treaty), who had gassed their own people, supported (verbally and monitarily) terrorist organizations, defied international (UN) mandates and threatened international peace can be deemed a rabid dog that can, for the sake of safety and peace, be put down.

The fact is that we can argue until the end of time about 'should we have gone in' and 'was it the 'right' thing' ... it's one of the great things about this country that we can have such discussions and arguments ... At this point, however, we are there and we need to do everything in our power to see that the new government in Iraq flourishes and becomes a strong ally in the region; free to make it's own decisions and mistakes, whose people are free to live their lives with their own rights, privledges and the responsibilities that freedom affords.

There were some other issues I had wanted to cover in regards to the economy that I had planned on covering as well, but I think that this article has rambled on longer than is good for it so I'll leave the other stuff for an entry later tonight, or maybe tomorrow.

What we need

A primary to the primaries ... that's it ... we need to draw this whole mess out about another year to a year and a half longer. We should have the candidates to be candidates in the primaries start running in early 2005 for the 2008 election season ... THAT would make this system perfect. Wait ... maybe it would be better if we had primaries to get into the primary primaries ... oh hell let's just start with every registered voter on a ballot for their state ... top 1000 in each party go into a run off ... then the top 100 of those run and then we take the top 5 of those and they run for their state ... then we take those 50 and they run a national capaign ... and we take the top 5 of those and hold the primaries ... taking the top of those 5 to give the party nomination to.

For those that have failied to recognize my subtle writting styles that would all ... in fact ... have been sarcasim.

What we REALLY need is for these idiots that want to be President (the desire for which should pretty much disqualify them and grounds of mental instability) to stop posturing and running popularity contests and define their stances on the issues and tell us what ... EXACTLY ... they plan to do. (Or at least what they plan to attempt to do.)

Screw the primaries ... just let Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Paul ... let the lot of 'em conduct a National campaign for the Presidency ... do away with the national party nomination (in fact I'd say do away with the national parties completely) and let each of the state parties choose a delegate to back durring the course of the race ... that way the Florida Democrat party can back ... say ... Hillary ... while the Vermont Democrat party backs Obama, the Georgia Republican party can choose to give their support to Huckabee while the Texas party gives the support to McCain ... only one rule ... no backing out ... if you're in ... you're in until November.

No primaries ... no party delegates ... just a straight up bar brawl for the office of the President ... let's really see who can capture, hold, and lead the American people without thinning the field. Let them each choose a Vice President to run with (if 2 candidates want the same person as a running mate then they have to convince to run with them or find someone else.) stake their positions on the issues and go....

Individuals, of course, could still choose thier own candidate to back and vote for, let them all go at each other ... regardless of party affiliation ... and see who is still standing when the smoke and mud clears.

The National parties, of course, would never go for that ... it takes away a good bit of their power and their 'cohesive' party line and breaks it up into smaller state party lines ...

As it stands now it looks like the Democratic primary may well go till the bitter end ... which is, if I'm reading this list right, early June. This means that we're not likely to get any meaningful discussion of issues between the candidates until late June or early July .... less than 6 months before we vote. Sounds like a lot ... but in a reality where it can take 2-3 weeks to schedule, plan, and have a single debate it means that we aren't really going to have that many opportunites to see the candidates and even see them on their own ... there's not as much chance for things to move in the world so that we can potentially hear how THEY would handle a situation if they were in the office.

The job of the President is ... in the end ... not to make law ... the President is simply the final 'check' in that check and balance ... but to maintain the security of the nation and handle international relations ... and that's what we need to see them react to is real world international situations.

To be certain we need to know where they would 'direct' us internally ... while the President can't make law, they can propose it and use their influence to direct Congress to address certain issues. They can also appoint Supreme Court Justices, and that's not a power to be given lightly ... since one can assume that they will seek to appoint like minded people to the bench.

And now I've forgotten where I was going with all of this ... so I'll just say that ... as others have said before me, politics is a race to define yourself before your opponent can define you. To that end I think that John McCain has a great opportunity here to select his VP and get out there and define this campaign and their postions on the issues ... show some leadership and set the groundwork for how this Presidential campaign is going to go. However, I agree with most of the analists that say that he'll likely hold off on that, raise money, get some photo ops to stay in the news here and there, and wait for the Democrats to choose thier runner so he can pick the VP most likely to help him against that specific opponent. In other words he's telling all of America that it's politics as normal.

It's the Economy

No ... it's not as bad as some people would have you believe ... but we do have a correction due and it's going to be a biggie, and I doubt that who we put in office is going to do much to help.

As a country we have, for the last 9 or more years, spent more than we make. I myself can attest to that to some degree.

According to one report, since 1990 the number of people who held credit cards grew 75% (from 82 million in 1990 to 144 million in '03) while the amount charged to those cards more than trippled from 338 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars over the same time period. This means that people have charged more and more on their credit cards ... and while Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that aggregate U.S. personal income in that timeframe did increase roughly 188 percent that doesn't nearly cover the additional spending.

In fact the report shows that the average carried ballance rose from $2550 in 1990 to $7520 in 2003 approximately a 200 percent increase. (Keep in mind, however, that this is average carried balance so anyone that paid off thier credit card bill every month was not accounted for in this figure.)

That figure, of course, is an average ... meaning that a few people on the extreme ends can really skew the numbers. What isn't skewed, however, is that of those that carried more than $10,000 in debt, 36% of them made less than $50,000 a year ... and 13% of them made less than $30,000 a year.

All of this is, of course, on top of car loans, home mortgages, and home equity loans. The average debt in this country has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Sooner or later the books are going to have to balance out ... at some point all that debt must be repaid ... and when you have people sitting on debt equal to 20 percent or more of the annual income sitting in high interest credit card accounts ... well it's not going to be a pretty sight.

Bankrupcies have hit record numbers the last two years at least ... and the number is expected to keep rising ... foreclosures are at an all time high ... more and more people have borrowed a lot more than they can afford to pay back ...

So what needs to be done? People need to get back to basics ... learn to live within what they can afford. Learn to spend money on what they NEED and to save money again. No ... we don't need the government to step in and 'fix' the situation either to protect the consumer or the banks ... either method is only going to prolong the issue rather than fix anything.

To an extent people NEED to have thier spending habits snap back and slap them down hard, and the banks and credit companies need to take those losses and learn to better manage thier risk. Who is to blame when someone making less than $30,000 a year is carrying a credit card ballance of over $10,000? Both the person buying items that they can't afford to pay for ... and the bank that gave him a credit line of over 33% of his annual income ... and yes I think that blame falls in equal measure.

Credit card companies and banks have a solid idea of an individuals debt to income ratio .... and yet they consistantly choose to continue to extend credit well beyond the 'safe' ratio in the pursuit of the potiential revenue that can be generated before the individual collapses under the weight of bills ... hoping that they can collect enough in interest and fees before the individual folds and is forced into bankrupcy.

And the American consumer thrives on it all ... buying expensive cars and houses well beyond their 'need' in order to appear wealthier than they are. Buying luxury goods and services beyond their means not out of any 'need' but out of a desire for something 'more' than they have now ... until the time comes to pay the piper.

Out of control governmental spending ... however ... is a topic for another time.

The Politics of Education

When I spoke last about how 'boring' politics was little did I realize the perfect example was sitting in my own backyard. (well ... okay ... really it's across town in a completely different county, but geographically speaking.....)

Clayton country is in danger of loosing the accreditation of its public schools. 'But what does that have to do with politics being boring?' Everything.

Because this is not the beginning of the issue, but it's conclusion ... the school system has been in danger for over 5 years. Either under direct threat of loosing the accreditation or in a probationary status with the accreditation board. In all that time there has been no outrage or public attempts like the one that the angered parents and students put forth last night when 2500 or so of them rallied to call for the resignation of the school board members.

Where was has this public involvement been over the last 5 years ... or even before that?

It was being blissfully entertained and therefore either completely ignorant of the situation, or too bored about politics to care.

Don't get me wrong ... I am sure that there are those members of Clayton County that have been trying to get this taken care of in the last 5 years ... some maybe even before that. And those people that have been trying to do something deserve some recognition for being aware of the issue and trying to correct it. Saddly so few people in any community get involved or pay attention to such issues even when they can directly effect them.

Because this issue effects every single resident of Clayton county ... not just the over 52,000 students whose future diplomas may be worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Certainly those students stand to loose a lot ... their shot at any scholarship, and their ability to attend many universities in general ... their eligibility for student loans and potentially their ability to get jobs. But the school system loosing its accreditation has effects beyond the students ... property values are likely to be greatly affected as a result of the local schools loosing accreditation, the area would also become less attractive to business and potential employees that may be considering relocating to the area.

There are, of course, more issues than just the blatant disinterest in politics involved here ... ethics issues relating to the members of the school board, parents not being as directly involved in their children's educations as they should, government school ineptitude in general, and the underlying need for a comprehensive voucher system available to everyone; but the fact of the matter is that, ultimately, most of those issues boil down to the same underlying cause ... politics.

Politics effects everyone ... and local politics often has the greatest impact on our lives, but is often the most neglected. I know I'm guilty of this myself ... I know very little of my local political situation as I tend to focus more on the national arena ... loosing the trees in the forest, so to speak ... but that doesn't mean that I can't see the valuable lesson to be learned in this story: what you don't know CAN affect you, and failing to understand politics and its potential impacts on your life will not save you from the harm it can cause.

Boring, but important.

In talking to a co-worker while flipping through the news I mentioned that I was looking for some political info to talk about on my blog ... and they asked me 'why would you want to talk about politics ... it's boring.'

I just sighed and shook my head. If someone in the middle of their life hasn't figured out why people talk about politics I'm not sure I can explain it. I look at the news and I just shake my head ... finding anything about the issues can be a major undertaking ... but want to know the latest on Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, or the most recent episode of American Idol and you can find it and a littany of other celeberty or sports news.

The latest NBA brawl will likely get more play time than a candidate talking about the issues .... but put a hint of a scandal in it and the news media will be falling all over itself to get the candidates responces to that.

A lot of people, or at least it seems at times that it's a lot, find that politics is just too boring to pay attention to. Frankly the world could fall to pieces around them and as long as they got their weekly dose of 'Survivor: New York Subway' they'd be perfectly content. Most of the time it seems like a bomb could drop on down town Detroit and most people would be more upset about the fact that 'American Idol' was interupted than what happened. (yes I know I'm most likely exagerating there ... or at the least I'd like to think that I am)

And yet ... who wins American Idol will have no bearing on the lives of ... probably 99% of the people out there. (Aside from possibly bet pay offs) while what is going on in their state, and federal government, and in the world as a whole ... in short 'politics' ... will effect pretty much 100% of those lives in some form ... be it taxes, employment, medical care, retirement, education, money .... even potentially what you can see on TV.

And yet, politics is 'boring' ... people actively avoid learning about what's going on because they would rather be entertained than informed. Prefering to base their decisions off of 30 second sound bites or which candidate looks better in their commercial. Never giving a thought to the fact that ... ultimately ... the people that they put into power with their votes .... the laws that they pass on the ballot .... every vote that they cast .... is going to effect them ... and their children.

And we wonder why more and more people are looking to the government for the answers .... oh I don't want to worry about how I'm going to afford retirement I'll just live off my Social Security .... man I need better medical coverage the government should pass a federal health care plan to take care of that ....

In a speech at Vanderbilt University, in May 1963, John F. Kennedy said, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Today, just 45 years later, I'd wager it's a good deal more than one voter that walks into the polling place ignorant of the issues and the consequences that will lay before him on the ballot ....

because politics is boring .... the way the politicians like it.

Time and Clouds.

No ... not going to make any excuses ... I haven't put down my thoughts here in ... what ... 8 months or so. Combination of being lazy and just not having anything to say. Haven't even really done all that much to keep me away from my rambling rants ... I did do NaNoWriMo last November and 'won' for a second year. Time just seems to fly away from me lately though ... even at work it feels like I turn around and it's 10pm and time to drive home (not that I'm complaining about that part).

I've been trying to come up with a good rant about politics but geeze there isn't a single good option in the mix ... no mater which party you look at. The result is just a whole lot of 'meh' when it comes to coming up with a rant. Maybe once we get past the primaries and on to the heat of the election I'll be able to rile myself up to finding something with some meat to ramble on about.

Of course it is tax time again ... and that usually brings on my normal 'pass the Fair Tax already' rant ... but while I still put my support into trying to bring awareness and spread the word about the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org .... there's a webinar coming up on March 6th iirc as well) I'm sure my 'regular' readers have heard it before and I just don't have anything new to add to the debate at this point.

Now ... we're working on the fourth paragraph and some of you are probably like 'what in the world does any of this have to do with clouds?' .... Nothing really ... and everything.

Basically it boils down like this ... I was getting out of my car the other night and happened to look up into the sky to see what stars I could find and ... there was a cloud that looked, to me at least, to be a big dog jumping up after a ball. And I thought to myself you know ... I never look at clouds any more.

Of course this comes at the tail end of a lot of 'I never do...' lines so I suppose it's not that odd really. But the fact is that it's true ... I don't read any more ... I don't paint or draw like I used to all the time ... except for NaNo I rarely write even to blog ... I haven't picked up a camera in a long time and the last time I used a camera wasn't for 'creative' photography. And a dozen or so other things that I used to do all the time ... and that I still enjoy doing but somehow never seem to actually do anymore.

I thought it was just me .... or maybe just me and the wife ... but two co-workers have recently made the same comment to me lately, and a client at the office said 'you know I haven't picked up my guitar in years, I used to play every night' when we were talking about hobbies.

I don't know ... maybe I'm reading too much into it ... and really it is just me.

Anyway ... enough of that ... it's getting depressing and that's not what I came here to write about ... well okay some of it was ... but just as clouds seem to change shapes and become something else so do my rants on occasion. And there you have a nice cloud of thought ... doesn't mean much ... it's kind of murky and ill defined ... neither a heavy grey storm cloud nor a high wispy summer cloud .... just a shifting image of a dog leaping up to catch a ball ....

Civil War

I don’t know if I’ve discussed this before or not … If I have, well figure out which one’s written better and ignore the other one, if I haven’t then we’re good.

As some of you know I’ve recently been playing EVE Online, a sci-fi MMO in which the human race, after being cut off from earth and one another by a dark age, have re-developed space flight and made contact with one another. I mention this, not because I plan on writing a full long piece about EVE and the depth of the game, size of the universe, or differences or similarities of the various ‘races’ in the game to modern earth philosophies or governments, but rather because it got me thinking about the American Civil War.

No … I haven’t gone off the deep-end, and in all honesty it was a conversation in the game that got me started thinking, but elements of the backstory of two of the ‘races’ in the game that kept me going. People often look for those ‘turning points’ in history … those points where the directions of things change. And it is by studying those points that we can get an understanding of where we are and where we’re potentially headed.

So … what does this have to do with the civil war … or a sci-fi computer game for that matter?

In short, nothing and everything.

The civil war (yes, I know it’s incorrectly titled, but I’m going to be typing it a lot and ‘civil war’ is shorter and easier than ‘the war between the states’ … and at this point I think that certain battles are already lost and the term civil war is one of them ….) was one such turning point for the United States. So the question is, was it a turn for the better or for the worse?

Before I answer I want you to read the WHOLE answer before flipping your lid and calling me a bunch of nasty names.

As you can probably guess by the preceding sentence, my answer is that, in many ways, it was a turn for the worse in this country. Those of you yelling and screaming and calling me names can now leave the page and I’ll ask you not to return until you can learn to follow directions.

Why the worse? Well to understand that we need to examine a few things … the first of which is why the civil war was fought. No, it wasn’t slavery, it really wasn’t even about ‘preserving a way of life’ which you’ll also hear (since this usually refers to slavery) … that was an issue focused on and used to vilify the south, not the reason for the war.

The civil war was fought over the issue of State Rights …. That is the right of the state to govern itself and its citizens as opposed to being governed by the federal government. The original concept of this country was government on a local level where the further removed from the people the government was, the less power it held directly over those people. Cities towns and villages governed themselves; if a dispute came up between people from different cities then it went to the county or state level, if an issue came up between states then it went to a federal level.

The federal government, however, was starting to encroach on that system on several issues, of which slavery was one, seeking to pass laws that had a greater effect on individuals within the States than was technically within the granted powers of the federal government; with the northern states, which held a population majority, having the balance of power and, thus, effecting the rights of the southern states who didn’t have the political power to oppose them.

So a contingent of southern states withdrew from the union, at first it was a couple of states, and then as the debate increased more withdrew as the federal government said ‘you don’t have the RIGHT to leave, you must abide by our rules.’

Our forefathers must have spun in their graves … had people already forgotten? Did they no longer remember that the war for independence had been fought for the very right for people to govern themselves?

The war itself was, realistically, inevitable … The US Federal government was not going to remove it’s troops from the Confederate States, the Confederate States weren’t going to just roll back over and return to a government that was essentially telling them ‘you’ll do it our way and like it’. In that powder keg of a situation it was only a matter of time before someone blew the top off ….

States rights, however, died before the first shot was ever fired … sure they’ve sputtered up here and there, but ultimately it had already been decided … the states have no rights and, in turn, neither do the citizens of those states. Because, you see, the federal government has set the precedent … you don’t have the right to leave the union unless they let you.

Would things have been different had the war ended differently? Certainly different … better or worse no one can really say. So why did I say better earlier? Look again … I said that the war was a turning point for the worse, not that we would be better off had the outcome been different. The turning point was not the war, but rather the decision to place the power of the federal government above the rights of the States, and to enforce that power through force against an unwilling citizenry.

Since then the federal government has grown ever more powerful taking on more and more of the duties of the state and local governments … directly affecting the lives and liberties of people of whom they have no knowledge nor direct answerability. [Yes, your Senators and Representative are marginally answerable to you, but that’s 2 (of 100) Senators and 1 Representative (of about 430) …. Heck even the voting power of a single State realistically holds minimal pull within the view of the Federal machine.]

This has become considerably longer than I had intended, so I will tie this back into EVE in order to complete the train of thought and bring the discussion full circle. We had been discussing the civil war in Corporate chat one day when it struck me how similar the beginning of the civil war was to the break away of the Caldari State from the Gallante Federation … The Caldari, unhappy with the Federation rule sought the right to govern themselves and when confronted by the Federation declared their independence. A long and bloody war followed with the Federation only withdrawing because of an encounter with another race that threatened to divide their forces. Now the Caldari live, ruled by their mega-corporations with each of the controlling corporations (states) independent of the others but with an equal say in the governing of the whole.

Could it be that the programmers of CCP in Iceland have a better understanding of the American War Between the States than most Americans?

Just a note

Actually don’t really have anything to rant about, but I’ve got some time while this project is rendering to drop some notes here about what’s new.

In all honesty, not much really. H and I are going to attempt another ‘Novel in a Month’ next month so I sense much sleep deprivation and hectic weekends in the near future. But I’m sure that I’ll enjoy it as much as I have the last ones. (This will technically be our 4th run and hopefully my 3rd successful finish.) I’m not sure what I’m going to write about this time, but as usual it’s not because I don’t have any ideas, but rather that I have several ideas and I just haven’t settled on any specific one to load in the barrel.

On top of that, H and I have recently started returning to our artwork, some of which can be seen on our Deviant Art (DA) page Grimscale Studios right now we are still in the early stages of setting things up and getting some material out there. Eventually we plan to offer prints of some of our work and using DA as well as our own website (as yet undesigned) for selling prints, painted models, photographs, and possibly a webcomic of our own. The creative process is something that we both enjoy and hopefully some people can enjoy the fruits of our efforts.

And … if that wasn’t enough … I have recently been bit by the urge to learn to play guitar … bass guitar specifically, but I plan on learning a bit of 6 string as well. I’m taking it slow … I’m not going to be a master bass player in a month so I’m taking my time and trying to get good solid basics down before I move on. I think H was a bit surprised … not that I wanted to start learning since we were playing Guitar Hero on the PS2 when it came up and learning to play was a natural impulse, but that I’ve stuck with it and play (even if I’m just playing around and not practicing) a couple times a day. (My new axe: Ibanez GSR 200 4 String Bass)

I have found, however, that music … specifically playing music … is a relaxation that I’ve been missing for years. I look back now, at how much I’m enjoying learning guitar (and part of it is because I’m learning something new and that’s always stimulating), and wish that I had the patience to stick it out and get back into band after we moved to Miami. While I don’t think that I’d have gone for a career in music, maybe at least I’d have kept playing as a hobby and I wouldn’t need remedial sheet music reading classes.

Things have also been very busy at work lately … learning new applications, designing new rooms, installing new gear and going through all the growing pains of adapting to new technology. The general manager of the company complains constantly about all of the problems … but then again we’re using the systems and doing things that very few other places in the country are doing (in fact some of the ‘big’ houses in New York say that what we’re doing ‘can’t be done’ and anyone that says that they are doing it is lying … but I can assure people that we are not lying … and when you’re on the cutting edge … you’re going to bleed.

Now … if we could just get some rain to keep my yard from dying….

Why DO we?

“Why do they always send the poor?”

Song lyrics from System of a Down’s ‘B.Y.O.B’ …. And a sentiment that I’ve seen in various forms in documentaries and blogs for a while as well as at ‘peace rallies’ and war protests … a certain segment of the population would like to have you believe that there is a conspiracy in this country to send the poor … oh, sorry … the ‘less fortunate’ (see my December 2004 entry ‘It’s the holiday season’ if you want my opinion of that particular term) … off to fight and die.

The fact of the matter is … it is based on a false premise to start with … the United States boasts the largest all volunteer military in the world. The key word there being ‘volunteer’ … there is no draft … no one is forced into the service … they are there because they chose to be there.

Now … can it be said that a majority of the troops come from the ranks of the ‘less fortunate’? Yes, but lets think about why that is…..

First … let’s look at the motivation. The young adult from a family that is scraping by with two parents working minimum wage jobs … To many of these the military represents their best hope of earning a good wage, learning a trade, and coming out with a student loan option that is one of, if not THE, best available to anyone. This is the type of person that has a very large motivation to join the military; it’s likely their only shot at college (unless their grades are exceptional or their sports ability in the top percentage) and even without that the skills learned in the service will likely give them a good advantage in the job market … or they can go career military which also has it’s benefits. Starting pay is likely better than what their parents are making and the benefits are really good.

Now … let’s look at a middle income household. College is more likely option without the military help, though the GI bill is still a consideration. Pay scale is likely less attractive, however, and benefits, while still good, are more likely to be considered ‘average’. There is still some motivation for joining the military, but unless they are from a military family that ‘pull’ is likely to be less than the pull of college and ‘professional’ life.

Now … someone from upper middle or upper income family … college (assuming they have the grades for admission) is almost definitely a ‘given’ without the military assistance, starting pay is unattractive; and benefits are likely to be considered ‘sub-par’ in their experience. There is likely to be very little motivation to join the military; the incentive just isn’t there.

Now … this isn’t scientific by any means … just observational data … but it would make sense to me that the lower the income of the family situation to start with the higher the incentive to join the armed forces … meaning, that a volunteer military is almost certainly to be made primarily of those coming from lower income households with middle income households having the next best showing and upper income households to be virtually absent.

Adding more incentive to the middle and upper income brackets is going to add even more incentive to the low/no income households and therefore likely maintain the relationship between the three brackets.

The only way that you are, realistically, going to get a military that is an even representation is to instate mandatory service; at which point it has ceased to be a volunteer military and become enforced servitude.

Now … let’s look at this from a different angle … let’s assume, for a moment that there is some conspiracy out there to send our ‘poor’ off to war ….

I’m going to be called a cold heartless monster for this, but what’s the problem? Should we take our ‘producers’ and put them on the field of battle? The poor represent the greatest drain on social resources while providing the least benefit to said society. Yes, some of them are hard working and just can’t manage to get ahead, some are truly victims of circumstances beyond their control. Certainly some of the young individuals from these poor households will rise up and become the producers of tomorrow … most of these, however, will distinguish themselves in other ways; either in school or early in their military career (should they volunteer).

Now … I don’t advocate rounding all the poor up and shipping them off to Iraq … that’s not my point. My point is simply that, the military is generally made up primarily of lower and lower middle income families because they are the most likely to see service as a substantial benefit. We are not ‘luring them into service’ we are offering an incentive to serve … anyone has the opportunity to do so and many do. I do not believe that there is now, or ever has been, a president that would wantonly put those that serve in our military into harms way … regardless of the backgrounds of those servicemen. And I would like to think that ‘we the people’ would have enough sense to not put someone into power that would, but maybe I’m too optimistic about the aptitude of the voting public…..

The people questioning the ‘exploitation’ of the poor by the military need to take a step back from their political agenda, stop thinking with their hearts, and use the grey matter between their ears for a change. Do they want a no exemption draft, or maybe 4 years of mandatory service for every high school graduate? No … they don’t want that nor would it be a good idea to fill our military with people that don’t want to be there … it is, however, technically what they are arguing for every time they point out the fact that the military is largely filled with young adults from lower income households….

Okay … I think I’m done rambling on this issue … it’s odd what a song on a radio station will start….