FreeSociety

Another Job I probably would not do

2010-12-07T12:25:00.000-08:00

These guys must have ice in their veins. I wonder what they do in the event of an emergency or if they need a bathroom break. The strange thing is I can't find any evidence that this type of work is highly paid. Seems to be around 50k a year at best.

Wikileaks

2010-12-05T20:13:00.000-08:00

This stuff is all interesting but where is the good stuff. I mean like whats in area 51? Were the moon landings faked? Who really shot JFK? Nobody outside of news geeks, anarchist and government officials care about this stuff. Not that they shouldn't care but they don't.

Whats wrong with Tradition?

2010-12-01T08:00:00.000-08:00

Why does every traditional story have to be updated and retold in a contemporary light? Now we have the Nutcracker 3D. You know the original story was just not good enough. Last night I turned on the TV, which I am doing less and less these days, and up popped "Shrek the Halls" and before I could change the channel my son saw it and wanted to watch. I think I am getting old. I don't want to see a Shrek Christmas special. From what I read about the Nutcracker it seems like it may have a shot at beating Troll 2 for worst movie ever. Then there is the Rapunzel movie. I'm not sure how many more fairy tale movies with rock and roll soundtracks I can take without becoming nauseous. Its not that I dislike the genre but its a little too much of a good thing. Will future generations remember the original stories? I hope so. I kinda think they will. By making stories contemporary they become fads and lose the timeless quality. It probably doesn't hurt to put a contemporary spin on old stories now and then. Shrek, a good movie by the way, is entertainment. Stories like Pinocchio, Snow White, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, and The Three Little Pigs are morality tales told and retold for hundreds of years.

In support of Hillary

2010-11-30T15:57:00.000-08:00

Everyone seems to be dissing Hillary Clinton for ordering State Department employees to do spy stuff. As best I understand it the rationale is that the state department are not spies and asking them to act as spies endangers their diplomatic status. I would bet the diplomats from most other countries do the same thing, they just don't have it leaked to the press. In many other countries the leaker would have woken up dead one morning.

I never liked the Clintons, never voted for the Clintons. I even voted for Dole for Christ's sake. But in my minor unimportant opinion, Hillary was having the state department do what it should have been doing. Its just that no one should have found out about it. Its what the Clinton's are good at. Finding dirt on the opposition, leverage. Remember the missing FBI files? Now granted Hillary was likely looking for stuff for personal gain as well that could be used to generate generous donations to the Clinton library but at least she was taking the initiative and we don't need a sunday school teacher as secretary of state, we need a shark.

TSA Big Brother Plot?

2010-11-30T08:36:00.000-08:00

So, are the recent changes to the TSA pat down procedures part of some evil master plan to dehumanize the population and get people used to baring all for the government when requested? I think this is more the effect than the design. It may be Big Sis's dream but I don't think Obama is sitting up nights thinking of ways to do humiliate people. The Democrats in general are less opposed to nanny statism than Republicans although not by much. I think the real goal of Obama is to be a one term president without much bad happening. Terrorism on a large scale would not be a good thing for him and given the people around him I don't doubt he feels this is the best way to prevent this. The reason I think Obama wants to be a one termer is because being an ex-president is a pretty good job. You get to do the things that Obama is good at, giving speeches, raising money, writing and selling books. Most of all you get to make a lot of money. Especially if you are Obama. Imagine Al Gore times 10. Al Gore is a very wealthy man, a lot of it comming after leaving office as vice president. He sits on the boards of several companies and received a lot of stock from companies such as Google and Apple. According to various sources his net worth prior to the 2000 election was around $1 million dollars and now is around $100 million. Al Gore is no Barak Obama. Al Gore may have briefly been a rockstar after leaving office, but he is Pat Boone and Barak is Elvis. So if Barak can become an ex-president in 2012 he stands to make a crap load of money. He can also take over the Jimmy Carter role, he can be the advisor, the wise one, the elder statesman that everyone listens to. He may also seek a higher office such as secretary general of the UN, a position with all the prestige and little of the risks associated with being POTUS. The catch is that he needs to come out unscathed. Being President these days is a mine field with a lot that can go wrong and very little that can go right. He needs to get out before the wheels come off in a way that can be directly attributed to him. So if you are Obama do you really want to win in 2012 and have 4 more years trying to avoid disaster? I'm not saying he will throw the towel in or tank an election but given the circumstances why not push the most liberal agenda possible and be perceived to go down fighting?

Anyway, I've gotten off track. Obama is not allowing Big Sis to push mass humiliation as a policy to prep people for the big brother government of the future, he is just doing what he thinks is best to get to 2012 without an incident that would endanger the most important thing, his legacy.

Do Atheist Ever get Possessed?

2010-11-22T05:46:00.000-08:00

Saw this this morning on Drudge and it occurred to me, when is the last time you heard of an avowed atheist being possessed? Seems like it happens more to religious people and people who believe in the occult than those who don't think there is a god. And I think that being an atheist would also mean you don't believe in any sort of magic so I don't think that Wiccans can be called atheists. Sure atheists may get depressed from time to time about there being no afterlife but we don't get processed. We may wander in search of a greater meaning for our lives but we don't get possessed. We might have a moment of terror in the last seconds of our lives worrying that we were wrong but still we don't get possessed.

Atheist Employment Opportunities

2010-11-17T10:28:00.000-08:00

Always looking for job opportunities, I found this site. Being an atheist myself, or at least an agnostic I wonder if they have an opening. I have severe pet allergies but then again if I am forced to honor the contract at some point I guess that will be the least of my worries. I wonder if agnosticism is sufficient or do you have to be a full fledged atheist to qualify for a position with this organization?

I Quit

2010-11-16T08:02:00.000-08:00

Writing this web blog that no one reads over the last few years has been a kind of therapy for me. At times I have whined about things that bothered me, written about things I liked or just whatever popped into my head. Today I am just writing about a major change in my life in an effort to sort out what I want to do.

I quit my job about 5 weeks ago. I had been with the company for 14 years and I just couldn't handle it anymore. To be honest I was forced out. I have been searching the internet lately for articles by people who did the same thing and for the most part the only thing I find are advice columns about how to quit your job properly. Well I didn't do that. I left, I didn't do it smartly, I have a family to support and no job prospects as of yet.

I'm not totally screwed. I don't have very many expenses. My wife has a job and we have enough savings to survive for a while if I don't find anything. I am not ashamed that I quit. I am a hard worker, my history shows that. I worked my way through college working nights. My first job was when I was 14 years old working for a farmer making hay. I worked all through highschool working at restaurants, construction, and farm work. In college I delivered pizza, worked for UPS loading trucks, worked security and worked in a police station.

I put everything I had into the job I just quit. I worked weekends, vacation days. I put in long hours and ignored my family. My health was affected. I was afraid to leave my job and go somewhere else. My skills were out of date and I did not think I could get a similar paying job once I left. I was a software developer but in reality I had become an overpaid support person who did some development. Out of fear I kept pushing at the same company long after I should have moved on to something else.

Finally I reached a point this year where no matter how hard I worked it was not enough. Conflicts with a manager came to a head and finally about a month ago I came home one night and realized I could not go on. My blood pressure was a constant 145 over 100 I couldn't sleep, I couldn't make the simplest decisions. I talked to my wife about it and the next day I went in and handed in my resignation.

Looking back I know that all along I should have left a long time ago but I never had he courage to do it until there was no choice. I think if I would have stayed it might have killed me. It was especially hard to quit given what my own father went through. He died when I was 15 after a 7 year battle with a disease caused by a chemical he was exposed to while working in a factory. For 6 of those 7 years he managed to drag himself to work through unimaginable pain and suffering and here was I quitting due to some emotional stress. My father worked two jobs, one at a factory and one at a youth prison. After he got sick he was fired from his full time job at the factory and continued to work at the prison. It was a minimum security prison and fortunately they allowed him to work even when he could hardly walk anymore.

Maybe my father would have done the same thing. Its hard to say. My job had become a torture in which each week I had to endure being constantly berated and threatened with losing my job. I was not the perfect employee but it was not for lack of trying. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, there were better programmers than me but I always gave it my best effort. That said I was not the worst either. Maybe my fathers job was his escape from the pain he had where mine was the cause of my pain. Maybe under the same conditions he would have done the same thing. Unfortunately I can't ask him that question.

So I quit my job. I haven't found a new job yet. I have looked but not as hard as I should. To be honest I don't know if I am more afraid of not finding a job or finding a job like what I had. When I think about going back into software development I break out in hives. First of all, getting hired in software development usually involves some lying about what your skills are. Then if you are lucky enough to get the job there is a scramble to keep your new employer from figuring out that you don't have the skills you claimed you did. A large part of software development is acting like you are the smartest person in the room even when you aren't. I have watched people with modest skills and knowledge take on the largest projects simply because they are not afraid to and they are able to convince others that they know what they are doing even if they don't. Success in programming is largely a confidence, an attitude, a willingness to go out there and fake it even when you don't know what you are doing. I don't have this. If I was cut out for this role, I would feel it, I would have a passion that would drive me. I don't.

I think that eventually I will end up in some technical support role that is not development. Or I will make it as a writer. I have been trying my had at writing short stories. I am planning on trying to get published. If I can't do writing as a profession I will do it as a hobby. I would be happy working a job for half the money I was making if I could be confident about my abilities and go home at the end of the day and not think about it.

People from the 19th century

2010-11-15T07:22:00.001-08:00

I was just thinking this morning that soon there will be no living people from the 19th century. I was wondering how many people born before 1900 were still living. A little research (very little) on wikipedia showed this article. I can't be certain how comprehensive this article is but based on this, I would guess there are around 20 people left who were born before 1900. On the oldest men list there are only 2 born before 1900 although technically 1900 was still the 19th century, the 20th century did not start until 1/1/1901. I don't know why there is not an oldest women list in this article. The top 10 oldest list consists of people born in 1896 and 1897.

Within the next 5 years perhaps sooner this will drop to zero. I wonder if there were any people before the 21st century who managed to live in 3 different centuries (19th, 20th, 21st). If so I can't imagine it was a large number. My grandparents were all born between 1905 and 1911 and died prior to 2000. All my great grandparents would have been born in the 19th century, probably in the 1870's and 1880's. The last of my great grandparents died in 1970. The 21st century has had its adjustments but my great grandparents went from being able to go to the nearest town and back in a day to being able to go across the country and back in a day. They went from 10 or 15 years removed from slavery being legal to Martin Luther King and the 1960's civil rights movement.

Pretty soon there will be on one who remembers a world before cars and airplanes. A world where most countries were their own little worlds unto themselves. That will be a great loss.

2012

2010-11-14T07:26:00.000-08:00

I finally saw 2012 last night. I have been waiting for a while now to see it. I didn't go when it was in the theaters and it was not on HBO when we still had HBO. That ended (HBO) when I lost my job about a month ago. Now I have been renting from Redbox once a week. I only rent one movie a week so that is only 4 dollars a month. Redbox seemed to be playing a shell game showing one copy available the last couple weeks at Redboxes slightly out of the range I was willing to drive. I had a hard time telling if the DVD was checked out at the boxes closest to me or if it just was not part of the inventory at those locations. Anyway I had a brainstorm last night and decided to check out Blockbuster, knowing that they had gotten into the kiosk business. Most of the blockbuster stores near me have closed and to be honest, I prefer going to the kiosk. One thing about the kiosk though. They should put a time limit or not allow you to chose movies from the kiosk itself. This keeps everyone waiting in line. Now that almost everyone has a computer and an internet connection there is no reason not to reserve your movie online and pick it up.

Anyway, I found the movie at the Blockbuster kiosk, setup an account with them like I had with Redbox, rented the movie and went to pick it up. It appears that Blockbuster has some deal with Speedway gas stations as that is where a lot of the kiosks are located. They also had some deal where you could get a discount on pop and frozen pizza if you have a Speedway card which I didn't. Blockbuster's web site seemed easier to use also and if a kiosk had a movie that was checked out, it was clearly indicated so you know maybe to check again later to see if the movie is available.

Ok, enough about kiosk movie renting. 2012, why did they only write half a movie? The first half is great mindless special affects candy. I wish I had seen it in the theater. Its funny, exciting and I highly recommend it. The science behind it is specious but the scientific babble is written well enough not to get in the way of the special effects. John Cusack does a good job even though I am well aware he only does these big money movies to fund the stuff he really wants to do. That's ok with me. The problem is about one half to three quarters through the movie it has to have some kind of "lesson" and totally dissolves into some oozing mess of a plot about people buying seats on the arks (plot spoiler) so that only the super wealthy are saved. Towards the end it takes on a Pirates of the Caribbean quality as one of the good guys takes charge and begins barking orders. The last 10 minutes or so revolve around an apparent design flaw in the ship where the engine can't start until the doors close, go figure.

The good guys are mostly minorities, the bad guys mostly white except for John Cusack of course. One of the bad guys is Russian, he has two fat kids who are brats which is a slight twist. Normally you would expect these roles to be American. In the end the evil Russian sort of redeems himself while the evil American white guy, Oliver Platt's character, does not. Oliver Platt is a good actor and kind of wasted playing a caricature role like this. They could have added more depth to his character. They did actually during the middle of the movie but that is all gone by the final scenes. Danny Glover spends the whole movie looking pathetic. Too bad they couldn't get Morgan Freeman for the president role again. Woody Harrelson is good as a lunatic conspiracy theorist radio talk show host. There are some additional subplots that are stuck on and add nothing to the movie other than length. The action is all over the top but it is pulled off in such a way that it doesn't make it too hard to suspend disbelief.

In the end, it was worth the $1.08 I spent plus the 8 mile round trip to the kiosk to get the movie. I just wish they had gone to the trouble of writing a complete script.

The Big Fitz

2010-11-11T05:37:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was the 35th anniversary of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. I told this to my wife and kids which resulted in blank stares. The Big Fitz was an iron ore boat that went down in Lake Superior in an early winter storm on November 10th, 1975. Lake freighters are called boats, not sure why, but they are huge. The Edmund Fitzgerald was 720 feet long, the maximum length that would still fit through the locks on the canals connecting the lakes.

Its easy to forget how much we are at nature's mercy in the modern age and at the time it was a shock that something as big as the Fitzgerald could be sunk by a storm. The storm of November 10, 1975 was a great lakes hurricane with sustained winds of close to 60 mph and gusts up to about 90 and up to 35 foot waves. A similar November storm in 1913 destroyed 19 ships, including 12 that were sunk, and killed 250 people.

This song by Gordon Lightfoot always haunted me when I heard it as a kid.

Lebron's rights

2010-07-11T10:23:00.000-07:00

In the interest of full disclosure I live in the Cleveland area and I am a fair weather Cavalier fan. As such I am in the camp of those who feel that what Lebron did could have been worse provided that the censors on ESPN would have let him wipe his ass with a Cavaliers jersey on live TV. Aside from that it boggles the mind to imagine how Lebron could have done a more complete job of stomping on Cleveland's heart if that had been his main objective. Apparently this was only collateral damage arising from "the process" of doing "whats best for Lebron".

I have read a lot on the internet about how it was Lebron's right to work where he wants to. About how Lebron is not a slave and Dan Gilbert should be grateful for the 7 years he was imprisoned in this crappy little town. Here are a list of Lebron's apparent rights:

1. The right to work where you want.
2. The right to tank playoff games while collecting a huge salary.
3. The right to make plans with players on other teams while telling fans your objective is to win.
4. The right to stomp on the people who bought the tickets, jerseys and bullshit for all these years.

Lebron James' salary for 2010 is around $15 million. Most of us work a lot harder for a lot less with no MVP awards or media recognition. Many of us put in 80 hour weeks, work ourselves into heart attacks and miss important things in life just to make our employers successful so they will keep paying our salaries. With big money comes big responsibility. You don't get paid that kind of money just to put in a good effort. I have come to realize where I work that I don't want my boss's job. The people who make the big bucks at my company have no life. They eat sleep and breath the business. I have long since realized that I am not one of those people and in most cases have a sense of awe for the people that have that ability. By the same token that is why they make the big money. Its expected of them to give up their lives. Lebron makes many orders of magnitude more than the biggest big whig I know and from what I see has had to sacrifice very little. He should have left it all on court against Boston and he didn't, he just didn't.

Rescued

2010-06-12T13:02:00.000-07:00

Which one is a worse nightmare for a father, your 16 year old daughter being adrift at sea or having her rescued by ship full of french sailors?

The Special Relationship

2010-06-10T09:51:00.000-07:00

I haven't written on my blog in a while. Not that it matters, no one reads it. I have had 10 hits in the last few weeks so if you are reading this, you are among a select (small ) group. Some of those hits may have been me so its possible even fewer than 10 people clicked on my blog. That's probably less than the statistically probable amount of people who would find my blog by accident while surfing the web to find "Biggest Loser" diet tips.

No matter, I mostly just write for myself anyway.

The other night I was flipping around the channels and happened on "The Special Relationship" on HBO. To the annoyance of my wife I watched it and was absorbed in it. She lasted about 15 minutes before going upstairs to watch something else.

First of all I am curious how much of it is real. I read online that the conversations between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were fictionalized. I don't know if that means they never happened or if they are fictionalized based on second hand accounts. If they are completely fiction they were extremely believable and fit with the history that has happened since.

To my surprise I felt my opinion of Bill Clinton changing. I never liked Bill Clinton when he was in office. Loathing would be a fair description of how I felt. I have to say that my feelings about him as a person have not changed much. As a president however, he has gone up a few notches in my mental ranking of presidents. I am beginning to think that overall his presidency was less destructive than Bush 43 who I voted for twice. I mean, what came out of the Clinton administration? Don't ask don't tell? Welfare reform? An endless string of sleazy stories? White water? Travelgate? I guess that you could make the argument, and I did in the past, that the Clinton presidency led to 911 by its lax stance on terrorism. To be fair though this was not unique to Clinton and there were policy failures going back to the 60's that probably had more to do with this. Looking back on it, the scandals and the sleaze did not really have the wide ranging long lasting impact that the failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan will have in the years to come. Clinton's problems were small time relatively speaking, they began and ended with him.

My opinion of Tony Blair has taken an opposite trajectory. Not knowing much about him before the movie and maybe still not knowing much, I was surprised by his naivete. In the movie he stands by Bill and forms a personal relationship with him. He then expects the president to commit troops to Yugoslavia based on that. WTF? I'm no diplomatic expert but do any countries make foreing policy decisions based on being buddies with the people in charge of allied countries? That he expected Clinton to do this is even more surprising. Bill Clinton is a shark who would eat his young if it came down to it. To think that Clinton was going to stick his neck out without obvious benefit because he and Tony were "friends" is beyond naive, its incomprehensible. If things went down as the film has it, Clinton comes out looking like Nostradamus while Blair looks like a very polite very likable Mr. Magoo. Until that is you think about his plans to risk American lives for his humanitarian desires. I really would like to know how much of this movie is fact and how much is a hatchet job on Tony Blair.

What if Joe Stack attacked a bank?

2010-02-20T07:59:00.000-08:00

Just wondering what the reaction would have been had Joseph Stack III decided to fly his plane into the headquarters of Goldman Sachs, or Citibank or one of the other financial institutions vilified by the federal Government over the last year. Would those calling him a right wing tea bagging terrorist be more sympathetic to him? I think they would. Not that he would deserve it.

Name your Heaven

2010-02-15T05:58:00.000-08:00

If the rumor mill proves accurate, and it has a good track record, many people where I work including myself may be out of a job soon. Supposedly we lost a huge customer worth several million dollars of revenue to our division. The last time this happened there was an across the board layoff of quite a few people.

This bit of gloomy intelligence got me thinking about my sanity, happiness and what it would take to maintain it. I have spent the first 40 years of my life denying myself pleasures to save for the "future". Recently it has become apparent that the future I expected, (financial security, wealth from small investments made early and a relatively frugal lifestyle, comfortable old age and golden years) was not coming. Instead it sent its cousin (financial uncertainty, a possible return to minimum wage employment and golden years much like my early twenties living hand to mouth but without youthful health and energy). This transformation has taken place over the past 2 years. Before that I always had confidence that even though I was not the best and brightest, I was a hard worker with enough will power to avoid the common pitfalls of life. I have never borrowed much money, I have always managed to live within my means which provided a sense of well being and security that I enjoyed. This may have been the result of my childhood which was chaotic and full of uncertainty. There were times through no fault of their own that my parents could not pay for fuel to heat our house, and other hardships I never wanted to encounter again.

I'm taking a bit of a detour, what I really wanted to say is I've been thinking a little about alternative ways to be happy given that my first choice does not appear possible. This last year I started to indulge a little. I started some hobbies with my kids that I really enjoy. They are not inexpensive but I have found real joy in doing them. I think if I could find a way to keep doing them I could deal with giving up other expenses in my life. My wife and I were discussing the big what if yesterday and what our options would be. We both agreed that if necessary we could sell our house and live happily in an apartment like we did years ago. I always envisioned reaching a point in life where I and my family would be financially set. This always drove me, motivated me but now appears very unlikely to ever happen. The probability is I will spend the rest of my days scratching out a living worrying about money like I always have. But if I can have moments of happiness like the time spent recently with my sons doing things I enjoy I think I can be happy.

One of the things that recently happened was I took one of my sons skiing. The third time out we graduated from the rope pull to the chair lift slope. The first two times up he fell getting off the chairlift. The third time he nailed it and skied to the bottom without falling. Its hard to describe the sense of joy and pride and happiness I felt. It made me wonder if there really was a heaven, would the feeling be like this. I remember as a child trying to comprehend the concept of heaven and finding it a little intimidating. Like the song says:

When we've been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We've no less days to sing God's praise,
Than when we first begun.

I don't know of anything that I want to do for 10,000 years especially go to church. Even the moment I described above with my son only works for that brief instant. We are not wired for constant joy. Its the long periods of strife, effort and disappointment that highlight the joy and make it exceptional. 10,000 years of being perpetually joyful would not be a significantly better situation than 10,000 years of depression, in my opinion anyway. Even 10,000 years of life's ups and downs would be hard to take. After the first century or so you would probably run out of new ideas and new experiences. Would you then spend the next 100 centuries repeating everything over and over? In about 10 to 12 years I will be done raising my family (as far as legal obligations go anyway). I could start and raise hundreds of families in 10,000 years, enough times to actually be good at it perhaps. But my sons are unique, they are the only ones I will ever have. I can't imagine feeling the same way after having 1000 children. Life is special because it is finite, it ends. Because it has an end it focuses our attention to the few things that are worth focusing on or it should have that affect at any rate.

If Ed Begley Jr. ran the world

2010-02-08T16:23:00.000-08:00

I heard environmentalists everywhere were getting aroused during this commercial. Maybe Al Gore could get his own reality cop show like Steven Seagal.

Reality is going to bite, someday

2010-02-05T06:38:00.000-08:00

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, multi level marketing is a scam that makes a few people rich, if everyone in the world quit their jobs to make money buying houses for no money down we would all die broke of starvation in a few months, there is no practical way to make a cheap flying car for the masses, flying jetpacks do not work (cannot carry enough fuel), and it is simply not going to be possible to send a human being to Mars. All these statements are true or will likely be proven true in the future. Most come up against the cold hard laws of physics and die right there. The problem is with wrong ideas that are given longer lifespans than reality by itself would allow.

Case in point, these windmills in Minnesota. The real story is not that they don't function in cold weather but that they cost $400k a pop to make 160kw of power (when the wind blows more than 12 miles per hours and the temperature is not below 1 degree Fahrenheit). The $400k is just the startup, these things have to be maintained and to acheive the 25% renewable energy that the state is going to mandate, you will need thousands of these things. What is the cost on maintaining thousands of small generators. Granted, they will probably buy bigger turbines if they get serious about meeting the 25% requirement but still it will have to be many thousands. Looking at this site, the average coal fired plant probably generates about 500 MW of electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless of temperature or wind speed. You need 71 of these big boys running at capacity all the time to replace 1 medium sized coal fired plant. Did I mention this windmill is only a prototype? Nothing this big is currently in production. Estimates seem to range for initial cost from $1000/kwh to $2000/kwh so for 7 MW that would be $1000*7*1000 or $7 million on the low side per unit. If government was not involved and companies were left to themselves to find the most profitable way to generate electricity, this would not be it. I am not saying we should burn coal until the skies are black with soot, where I live used to be a major steel producing town and the area where the steel mills were was called the valley of fire. No one wants to go back to the days when the valley was covered in smoke and soot rained down on peoples houses. But to suggest that Minnesota is going to meet its 25% renewable energy generation requirements with windmills is like ignoring the laws of gravity which is exactly what is happening on a widespread basis.

All across the country bad ideas are not dying and not being disproved. Instead they are being put on life support by government. A certain amount of bad ideas can be tolerated but there must be a tipping point where society's delusions reach critical mass and explode. Ideas that bypass the harsh Darwinian testing of reality can be dangerous as they suck up resources and lead people down a path that separates them from reality. In nature this doesn't happen, if a mouse is born an albino the success of this change is proven or disproven quickly. Someday the government is going to build the 71 windmills and scrap a conventiional power plant (coal, nuclear, hydro, whatever). Some winter it is going to get cold and either the wind won't blow or the windmills will freeze or there won't be enough mainenance people to keep enough of them running. Depending on how far down the path the government has led us away from reality, there may not be enough capacity from the remaining conventional power plants to take up the slack and people will freeze and or starve. This is not the way to find out our ideas were wrong.

The Watchmen revisited

2010-02-02T18:36:00.000-08:00

I've been watching the Watchmen again. I didn't like it much the first time I saw it in the theater. Since they started showing it on HBO I have had the chance to watch it a few more times and I find it growing on me. The feelings of nostalgia for a universe that is 1985 but at the same time not are strange. 1985 was a significant year in my life, I've always looked back on my life as two periods, pre 1985 and post. The fraction of my life before 1985 is getting smaller and harder to remember so I suppose that will fade away.

I thought it strange at first that with one exception, the superheroes had no superpowers. Now I think the purpose of this was to focus the story on the human aspect of how real superheroes would act, what their personalities would be like.

The movie has a great feel to it. The music, the look, everything just fits. I was never a Bob Dylan fan but the opening sequence with "The Times They are a Changin" sets the tone. All through the movie the right songs at the right time keep setting the perfect tone. I just downloaded Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". Admittedly the scene with this song is a little on the pornographic side, something like you see late night on HBO. Maybe this was to appeal to the teenage boy inside all us guys, it was a comic book after all.

I don't know if the movie is great or if I am just overwhelmed by the style and nostalgia factor. The story line was original. The last time I watched it I found myself wondering if Ozymandias was right and arguing pro and con in my head. When is the last time a movie had any ideas worth debating? Every movie I have seen in the last few years has been a sequel, a remake or new variation on an old theme. Not necessarily bad things if done well but it was nice to see something original. I never read The Watchmen comics so it was new to me.

The characters are intriguing. I found myself captivated and horrified by most of them. The Comedian is a charismatic sociopath that you can't stop watching. I wish there was more of him in the movie. Dr. Manhattan is a god like being who has not yet acheived god like maturity if there is such a thing. Rohrshach who oddly enough is god like with his absolute uncompromising views on right, wrong and justice. Then there is Ozymandias, the protagonist and smartest man on earth except for Dr. Manhattan. A couple other superheroes, Night Hawk 2 and Silk Spectre 2 are along for the ride.

The key question of the movie seems to be whether or not humanity needs a god. To be honest, I wonder this myself and I don't know the answer. The greater question may be if humanity cannot exist without believing a lie, should it?

Who needs Republicans?

2010-01-28T00:10:00.001-08:00

I did not watch the State of the Union tonight but from the news accounts and commentary I have seen I can't help thinking who needs Republicans? I mean 8 years of a Republican Whitehouse, along with control of Congress for most of that time got us what? Social security reform? Control of spending? Cuts to entitlements? Real immigration reform and enforcement? Outside of a couple supreme court appointments I can't think of much else. Bill Clinton at least signed welfare reform. The last 8 years saw the government expand faster than ever. All the Republicans were able to do is shuffle to the left and convince the religious right to go along with them. Oh and they stopped gay marraige.

The Democrats are so lost in the weeds they will be lucky to get anything done. They have so polarized the country that they are not winning anyone from the middle or the right. If McCain had been elected he might have accomplished more of the Democrats agenda than the Democrats did. All Obama has done so far is pass a stimulus bill, a monstrosity sure but not all of it has been implemented yet. If the Democrats are afraid of losing power maybe they will even roll it back before long. McCain probably would have gotten amnesty for illegals, maybe done more to destroy the first amendment, probably gotten some form of healthcare reform. The Democrats may get their act together and really screw things up but so far it is looking promising.

My quotes

2010-01-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

I've decided to write my own quotes here goes:

1. Human progress is a like a car driven by a guy who thinks the glass is half full and maintained by a guy who thinks the glass is half empty. (I thought of this in the shower, I hope it is original but there is a possibility I read it on a paper placemat in a restaurant and am regurgitating it now.)

2. We age like computers, the new ones have faster hardware but our software is more developed.

Suitable Headline?

2010-01-23T07:46:00.000-08:00

I'm trying to think of a suitable headline for this story.

US Govt to shoot banking industry in the head, Europe fails to follow suit

US Govt to shoot banking industry in the head, Europe donates bullets

US announces plan to make Europe the finance capital of the world
(Actually I am not sure they are not already the Capital or perhaps Asia)

Europe endorses plan to eliminate US banking industry

You get the idea.

Caprica

2010-01-22T20:36:00.000-08:00

I just finished watching the series premier of Caprica and my first impression is that it is really science fiction, something rare these days, and it is well written. The plot is woven with some very powerful themes, among them life, death, religion, monotheistic versus polytheistic religions. These themes are dealt with head on. In the premier there is a lot of discussion about what is life, what it means to be alive, if we have all the memories, thoughts, feelings, and reactions that make us well us does it matter what package that comes in? There was also an interesting exchange between an investigator and a school head mistress regarding the merrits of polytheism over monotheism. I hope this is not going to be like Battlestar Galactica where they won me over in the beginning and ran it into the ground with overdramatized over "fraked" dialogue peppered with former victoria secret models. So far, this show looks promising and for once there is a real science fiction show on the ScyFy channel, who would of ever thought of that?

Emotional Burnout

2010-01-20T19:54:00.000-08:00

This probably sounds ugly but it's the truth. I suspect it is the truth for more people than care to admit it. I don't care about Haiti. I am not glad that Haiti had an earthquake, I do not wish the Haitian people any ill will but when I search my soul for any emotion regarding the situation I find none. I don't know any Haitian people, I've never been to Haiti and I don't plan to go there in the future. I know 200,000 people may have died in the last week but this has no meaning for me other than being a number to large to imagine. As far as my opinion on aid goes it is purely based on self interest. Haiti is only a few hundred miles from our shores and sending aid there will likely keep thousands of Haitians from showing up here. We already have large numbers of low skilled workers and do not need more at this time. If I had ties to Haiti, perhaps I would have stronger feelings about what happened but I don't. Actually there are a lot of things I don't care about. The world is just too large with too much information to care about everyone We all pretend that we care to feel better about ourselves. In some cases we empathize because we see the potential to be in the same situation but rarely do we really feel emotion that we profess to. Every day horrendous unbelievably heinous things occur to people all over the world. Some of them make the news. Most thankfully do not. If we were to experience the emotional impact from each of these events we would be emotional wrecks unable to conduct our own lives. So what am I saying? I don't know. I guess my point is that for our own sanity we should not drag ourselves through an emotional meat grinder every time something terrible happens in the world.

Devil causes earthquake

2010-01-13T18:03:00.000-08:00

As an agnostic I wonder why evangelicals don't organize and choose someone whose only job is to lock Pat Robertson in a closet after any large catastrophic event.

Tales from the Cubicle

2010-01-07T19:11:00.000-08:00

It was quiet, too quiet in the cubicle cluster. Our intrepid not so young white collar worker had learned some time ago that times like these demanded caution. An uneasy peace had existed for the past few weeks and this was not the natural state of existence in this environment. "It" had not been around in some time, at least not out in the open. Oh, they felt slight tremblings now and again as it rumbled past from its office lair to the elevator to go outside and breath its smoke and fire. They heard its normal grunting and rumbling but it had remained largely unseen for several days. Then an unusual thing happened, that defied the laws of physics. As Bob had been working he suddenly felt a disturbance in the force. He slowly looked up from his work to see "it" standing quietly above him. It took all his will power to keep from screaming and fainting right there as he gazed squarely into its beady little eyes and feeling the creatures hot breath realizing at any moment it could incinerate him with the angry hot gas from its mouth and split him in half with its wickedly sharp whip of a tongue. For a moment that lasted an eternity Bob had remained completely still having learned from past encounters that it was best not to make the first move. Almost any action at all could and would often invite attack from the creature. As he sat there wondering what had drawn the creature to his lowly cubicle, and how something so massive could have moved with such stealth he suddenly heard something so unexpected that he could not identify it at first. The noise was coming from the creatures mouth but in all the years he had known it he had never heard it make such sounds. The sounds were not the harsh half growling half barked commands. These sounds were calm, almost happy. The creature was trying to communicate something so foreign that the muscles used to produce the sound were struggling to respond. Then the creature was silent. Bob sat for a long moment processing what had just happened. Suddenly it came to him in a jolt of clarity and understanding that made his blood run cold. It was a complement. The creature was thanking him. It had never happened before, he did not know what to do, how to react. He sat there in stunned silence for a moment longer before mumbling a stunned "thank you". The creature then turned and left as silently and mysteriously as it had arrived.

Nietzsche

2010-01-04T18:26:00.000-08:00

"The statesman excites public passions so as to profit from the counter-passions thereby aroused. To take an example: any German statesmen knows well that the Catholic Church will never form an alliance with Russia, but would indeed rather form one even with the Turks; he likewise knows that an alliance between France and Russia would spell nothing but danger for Germany. If, therefore, he is able to make of France the hearth and home of the Catholic Church he will have abolished this danger for a long time to come. Consequently, he has an interest in exhibiting hatred towards the Catholics and , through hostile acts of all kinds, transforming those who acknowledge the the authority of the Pope into a passionate political power which, hostile to German policy , will naturally ally itself with France as the opponent of Germany: his goal is just as necessarily the catholicization of France as Mirabeau's was its decatholicization. - One state thus desires the darkening of millions of minds of another state so as to derive advantage from this darkening. It is the same disposition as that which favours the republican for of government of the neighboring state - le desordre organise, as Merimee calls it - for the sole reason that it assumes this form of government will make the people feebler, more divided and less capable of war."

Where are the people on our side capable of this kind of manipulation? If manipulation is being practiced by anyone in the US government it is only internal manipulation of different factions of the US electorate against each other. Externally we appear terrified of acting in our own interests. As passionate as our terrorists enemies are, they seem ripe for manipulation.

Copenhagen Hectoring

2009-12-18T04:50:00.000-08:00

Just saw Obama's speech on climate change in Copenhagen. Who is this speech intended for? Are a bunch of type A personality world leaders really going to be hectored into agreement?

Extraordinary Accounting Tools

2009-12-16T16:38:00.000-08:00

I bet they are.

Insidious Bullies

2009-12-15T07:49:00.000-08:00

You know what one of the greatest evils of the world is? Bullies. Definitely within the top 3. Not school yard bullies. School yard bullies are nothing. I should qualify that, if you live in an inner city and your bullies are members of the bloods and crips then granted you have something to worry about. Run of the mill school yard bullies can ruin your day and steal your lunch money. They might make your life miserable for a while but they don't have the ability to make the lives of your family miserable. The bullies I loath, the ones that do real damage are the ones you end up working for, at least those of us who are not rocket scientists, don't have some killer talent people will kiss your ass for and never had any real ambition other than to get a decent paying skilled job that was moderately challenging. These bullies prey on us and not with threats of physical violence or verbal taunts. They prey on us with the veiled threat of hurting our careers, making us failures before our families, using their position of power to berate, bully and terrorize us because they can. We can leave anytime we want except we have taken the bait of stability and security to raise our families. We stay in a position because we don't want to take a chance, we are afraid to go elsewhere for fear of our families financial security. We also stay because after years of being blamed, abused, and terrorized we begin to doubt ourselves. How did we get into this awful position. We must be losers, we tell ourselves that is the only way to explain it. We see other people having successful careers and we blame ourselves because we have to. We can't change the boss, we can only change ourselves so it is our fault. We just did not work hard enough or smart enough. The fault has to be with us for that is the only variable we can control. "Change jobs go somewhere else" we hear. Yes our family is financially secure, uproot that and go somewhere else, take a chance. And if that chance does not work out, there are real consequences to deal with.

It didn't start out like this. If it had we never would have gone along. We started out full of excitement. We weren't going to change the world we were just going to make some decent money at something we kind of enjoyed. We weren't Michael Jordan, George Clooney or Bill Gates. We were however of slightly above average intelligence, hard working and mildly ambitious. So we went to college worked nights and then got our first "career" job. It wasn't what we wanted so we changed jobs. This one was a little better. It wasn't what we thought it would be but the money was decent and it was not bad enough that we wanted to leave. So we stayed. We had a few kids. The job became mostly mindless clerical work, our marketable skills faded, our mortgage increased along with all the other costs of raising a family. Things weren't bliss but they were ok. Somewhere in your subconscious we were thinking I'm stuck here, I can't leave anymore but every week we checked our 401k balance and told ourselves someday we would have enough security to do what we wanted. We didn't want to be managers. We liked problem solving, fixing things, figuring out how technology worked. We did not care about leading big projects and managing people. Someone did however. Someone loved managing people, loved telling people what to do and that someone would one day be our boss.

So 10 years in our life is going merrily along and then came the reorg. Suddenly one day the part of the business we support is being sold and we are given the option to leave or take a different postion. The severance offer if we leave is pretty modest since we only have 10 years in and we have all those mounting expenses at home so we take the new position and the new boss. There were some minor differences at first. This one was not as organized. This one did not keep track of things like when it was time for our evaluation. Then we started getting buried with work. We started getting request after request from many different people. So we went to the new boss and tried to work out a schedule to get everything done. Instead of working with us, the response was we needed to work smarter, work harder we were not putting in the overtime. Ok, so we have had tough bosses before. The first boss we had was a nitpicker who picked apart everything we did. We hated him at first, but he only had one goal, to get projects done the right way. As much of a pain as he was we respected him. We could work with him. This new boss has no interest in working with us. This new boss is almost as happy to have us as a scapegoat if we fail. Sometimes it appears we are intentionally setup to fail. Well that was life so we grinned and bore it. We kept up with the workload but just barely. Then during a particularly busy strecth we got behind. We worked 12 hour days during the week, and we came in on the weekend. Come Monday we were still behind and the boss called us into the office for a status update. Their mouth hung open as we told them things they should have already known. Despite having done everything humanly possible you were not going to be able to meet a deadline. Problems that came up last week that they demanded we fix put us hoplessly behind schedule. Then they turned red and started screaming at us. "What you mean you can't meet the deadline! You promised me you were going to meet the deadline! I don't want to hear it! Your going to meet this if you have to stay all night! Pull in whoever you need. Get this done! I don't care!". It went on like this, a blizzard of requests that we could barely keep track of let alone keep up with. So eventually we stopped trying to keep up. We started guessing what they were going ask us about and started working in such a way to give the appearance we were covering all the bases. We kept living in fear knowing that we would get caught from time to time for something that was not done, never knowing when this would happen. So we went on working, for years with periods of dull tedious tasks punctuated by periodic verbal beatings and beratings for things we determined were beyond our ability to control. One time, after a particular grueling couple of weeks where we worked ourselves to exhaustion only to be questioned about a project that suddenly had changed to high priority, we were accused of surfing the internet instead of working. We know this is made up since we had barely had time to eat lunch but after a few days of sheer anger bordering on filing a complaint with human resources we decide to shutup and take it. We endure miscellaneous other occurences, being accused of not doing anything right, being lazy, being stupid. We don't divulge any personal information as we see how it gets used. The one time we mistakenly confide that one of our children is having difficulty in a class at school we are told there are always "trade schools". When not being berated we are treated to long conversations with the boss about their personal problems, their childhood, their large house, the expensive colleges their kids are going to while we are wondering if this person is going to deliberately torpedo our career on a whim. We wonder if we will be able to pay for our childrens college, whether we will be able to spend time with our 14 year old at home that weekend as his own college days when he will be leaving us are just around the corner.

So we end up being 40 years old dragging ourselves to a place we hate day in and day out just hoping that today is another day we go unnoticed under the radar. We want every day to be part of the 80% or so of the time that we are not the pinata in the boss's sights while knowing like death and taxes that our time will come round again. And when it does we grit our teeth and try to get through it. You can feel your blood pressure rising, your body aging. You find yourself watching your kids getting older missing out on their lives as the stress and worry overwhelm the times you should be enjoying. So what do we get from this? 30 or 40 years of paychecks and a family that thinks you are distant and don't care? A thief takes things you can get back, bullies like this take things that can never be replaced. Whats worse is we let them.

Avatar movie

2009-12-13T07:40:00.000-08:00

I don't know anything about this movie other than what I have seen in a couple trailers. Still I feel that I already know the plot and how it ends. Boy is in the military, boy gets wounded, boy volunteers for unusual assignment that will let him walk again, boy gets sent to exotic planet that has some strategic value to the military, boy meets exotic girl who helps him become enlightened, boy aids girl in hopeless struggle against the forces of evil in the military he once loved. Maybe it is the greatest movie of all time, I just don't feel compelled to go see it. If someone does go see it maybe they can let me know if the plot is any better than I imagine it to be.

Tied Hand

2009-12-13T07:26:00.000-08:00

This is why we need to get out now. This is also why you only fight when you have to and when you have to fight you don't pull any punches. The Soviets did not handicap themselves like this and they still lost. There is zero chance of winning this war under these rules. The only way to win it is not one that would be acceptable to the American people. Declare victory and get out now.

One Child Per

2009-12-12T07:09:00.000-08:00

I saw this yesterday. It strikes me that the simplest way to do this is to STOP SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE WHO CAN'T SUPPORT THEMSELVES! For the last half century the giant welfare states around the world have been ensuring that billions of people who cannot or choose not to support themselves have food, shelter, health care and education. Capitalism and free markets are an excellent way to control population if you stop promising people that they will be taken care of no matter what. If people have to provide for themselves and their families and if they know the government is not going to give them more money each time they have a baby there will be fewer babies. Better yet, this puts the decision back on the individual. If you want to have 19 kids like the Duggars that is your decision as long as you can pay for them.

Another thing, stop sending aid to support people in foreign countries. First of all it is not going to poor people for the most part, second it prevents industry from developing in those countries, third it supports populations that are larger than what can be sustained given the local resources and abilities of the society.

The current policy of socialist governments around the world seems to be this:
1. Ensure no one starves or does without due to their own laziness, incompetence or stupidity.
2. When these natural barriers to population growth are removed, put in artificial ones.

The best that can be said about the one child policy is that it is fair. Rich and poor will have the same limit. Of course they won't, rich people will pay a fine, members of congress will be exempt, as usual. If someone is successful, innovative and able to support a large family, shouldn't they have one if they choose? Isn't that good for society in general that success is rewarded and reproduced? My guess is if the policy were implemented it would apply to anyone not in government and 50 years from now we would have a world dominated by politicians and bureaucrats. Not to worry, I don't think this policy will be implemented. It was done in China where constituencies are not that important. The only way it will happen here is if the red states start to out populate the blue states. With the lax immigration policies I don't see this being an issue for politicians to worry about for some time.

Climategate Coverage

2009-12-09T07:02:00.000-08:00

This morning I woke up and was surprised to find CNN asking Al Gore questions about Climategate. Granted they were high hanging softballs but still. The Al Gore segment immediately followed a segment about the winter storm that just hit the mid-west and is pounding the east coast. The amount of cognitive dissonance is astounding. Tonight Campbell Brown's show will be on "Global Warming: Trick or Truth". I have no doubt it will mostly be running interference for the climate change believers but at least they are having to discuss Climategate.

Big Foot

2009-12-05T09:11:00.000-08:00

Round trip on Air Force 1 from Washington to Copenhagen and back - 57,000 gallons of jet fuel.

Backup 747 in case you need it - 57,000 gallons of jet fuel

C17 to transport limousines and other vehicles - 40,000 gallons of jet fuel.

Total fuel consumed for trip to global warming summit 157,000 gallons.

Telling the rest of the world they need to reduce their carbon footprint? Priceless

(I based my calculations on a HowStuffWorks.com article guessing that it would be an 8 hour flight from the US to Copenhagen. I also made an educated guess on how much fuel a C17 would use but I think it is in the ballpark. I did not count additional support planes but my guess is there are several.)

Random thoughts

2009-12-05T06:36:00.000-08:00

Lately I have been thinking about my life in terms of an analogy, that of a human cannon ball. I just turned 40 a few months back. When I was 20, things were just getting started, I was setting the trajectory I wanted my life to take. In my case I went to college, got a bachelors degree, found a decent paying career and boom I was off. Not that it was that quick. I was not one of those people who knows what they want to do right away. In my case after 7 years of college I finally figured out what I wanted. So the last 14 years while not completely smooth have been at least a steady rise along my intended trajectory path. Now I'm 40 and looking at the landing net off in the distance as I near the apex of my trajectory. I find myself wondering if I set the cannon trajectory right all those years ago. I set my cannon for modest goals that I thought I could achieve. Should I have set it higher? I find myself wishing that in the early years of my career I had played it less safe, taken more chances, changed jobs when I felt comfortable and did not want to sacrifice that comfort. People a lot older than me would probably laugh and say you are no where near the end and I certainly hope not but I keep looking at the landing net wondering if I will come up short.

Afghanistan cnt'd

2009-12-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

A brief video montage of various news sources on the Afghanistan war strategy.

Climategate conversions

2009-12-02T07:15:00.000-08:00

Millions of people have just have their climate belief called into question. If all is true about the cover ups and the fraud and CNN, ABC, and CBS were to start going wall to wall with coverage, would people in mass start to question their beliefs on climate change? How do you do that if you are Ed Begley Jr. and have staked your very existence on climate change for the last couple of decades? Can you really face yourself and say everything you did, all the composting, all the spartan sacrifices, windmills and solar cells you installed on your house count for absolutely nothing. Well in his case it was not nothing, he got a TV show for his efforts. At least I think Ed is a true believer unlike Al Gore who I think is just an opportunist. But if you are not Ed or Al and have spent years putting around in a golf cart size car, buying carbon credits, reusable grocery bags, and experiencing untold other little inconveniences telling yourself and anyone who will listen how you are saving the environment, how do you suddenly tell yourself it doesn't matter. Most people won't be able to do this. It will be easier to say it is a conspiracy of some mysterious "them".

I'm not saying global warming does not exist. Frankly I don't know. Its just a thought experiment. For the last 20 years there has been a steady drumbeat on the environment from teachers, movies, television and pretty much everywhere. Its pervasive. If we were to suddenly find out that global warming was absolutely false how would people react? Whether global warming is real or not I am more concerned with how the issue has been used and abused by politicians. I like John Derbyshire's take on the whole thing actually.

Afghanistan

2009-12-02T06:32:00.000-08:00

The new policy is send 30k troops for 18 months. Tribal leaders, Taliban leaders you only need to keep your head down for 18 months.

Actually I don't fault Obama for this. Our whole society both left and right are wrong headed about this. The right version of victory is send as many troops as needed, pacify the country like we did Japan and Germany in WWII. The left version is... actually I don't really know what the left wants other than to withdraw alltogether. Probably the main difference between my view and the view of the left is I don't profess to care much about Afghanistan. I am for getting out and I don't particularly care what happens to Afghanistan after that.

What I don't understand is why we are staking our success, our reputation and our ability to inspire fear in those who might want to attack us on whether or not Afghanistan becomes something better than what it is. It is sort of like the top down approach of the central planners in the current government who want to make us all better people with government policy. This is ridiculous. I can improve myself, I can have some effect on my family but making believe we can improve people through government policy is silly. Our Afghan policy is a bit like you or I staking our reputation on whether we can make the methamphetamine dealing family down the street better by sending your son and daughter to go break up their fights. When they get shot are we going to say they died for a cause? Their death was not for nothing?

18 months from now, 18 years from now Afghanistan is still going to be a mess. There is one way Afghanistan will not be a mess 18 years from now, maybe two. They could spontaneously change their ways and become a modern enlightened people. Quantum physicist will tell you virtually nothing has a 0 probability. The second and more likely (but still next to 0% chance) way for this to happen would be to send half a million to a million troops and garrison the country for 20 years or more until people begin to forget their current ways of living. Tens of thousands of american soldiers will die but in the end something will have been accomplished. Whether it will have been worth the cost is another matter. The current policy will mean probably hundreds will die until the insurgent forces make occupying Afghanistan unpopular enough for american poiticians to withdraw. At that point will we say they died for a worthy cause and that because of their sacrifice the world is a better place?

Climategate continued

2009-11-26T21:36:00.000-08:00

Here is a good editorial from the Wall Street Journal on this. It kind of says what I said earlier, if the science was so good why was any of this necessary. When Eddington tested Einstein's theory of simple relativity the results were what they were. Once it was proven, there was nothing to hide from and no fear of other scientists verifying the results. One difference here is we are dealing with probabilities and not solid facts, but something strong enough to act on and to take drastic measures based on, should be strong enough to survive a certain level scrutiny, don't you think?

I have just been wondering as this starts to unravel if more people may come out of the woodwork. For years AGW proponents have been intimidating people who might otherwise speak up questioning AGW. Skeptics risked being labeled as "deniers". As these cracks have been forming it may encourage others to reveal what they know. I don't have a lot of faith that this will turn the tide of the AGW debate. People who control government funding are still going to fund studies favorable to AGW. There is so much momentum behind AGW belief in popular culture that I don't think it can stop on a dime. To tell you the truth I don't know for certain what is real with regard to AGW and from what I have seen in the last week and a half neither does anyone else. What I do know is many people have jumped on the AGW train in the last decade without much concern for examining if it is real or not. There has been almost a religious fervour that has shouted down any real debate. Absent also has been any cost benefit analysis as to what level of global warming could be acceptable. No level of global warming is tolerable and all steps need to be taken regardless of the outcome or cost. If this means spending trillions of dollars with negligible affect, slowing our technological development, lowering our standard of living then so be it. If it means developing nations be prevented from reaching the standard of living of the US and people die due to lack of electricity and all that it brings then so be it. This is not acceptable. Millions may die as a result of AGW policies, that have not been been debated, and are based on questionable scientific evidence.

Maybe India, China, Russia and some other contries who have basically said up yours when it has been suggested they jump on the AGW train as will take an interest in disproving AGW. My personal opinion is AGW actually worked in their favor. If your competitors (us) want to run a race with weights tied around their ankles, why stop them. The populations of these countries were either more concerned with economic development or the leaders were in a position not to care what their citizens wanted.

Anyhow, I don't think this is going to be over just yet.

Meanwhile in another Universe

2009-11-26T07:09:00.000-08:00

Steven Seagal is a cop?

In real life?

This seems to prove the theory of multiple Universes with different outcomes. So how do I get back to mine?

Climategate

2009-11-24T12:05:00.000-08:00

I have been all over the internet reading about climeategate today and one thing has me puzzled. Here is a sample of what I found. One of the arguments, one of the more popular arguments anyway is that this is isolated and whatever happened East Anglia is only data that has been tested and verified by other scientists at other research centers. If this is the case then why the need to; a. hide data from FOI requests that would have been tested elsewhere and b. "hide the decline"? Was East Anglia the only research center that found a decline? If no other centers found declines then why not? If East Anglia had bad computer code, bad data or bad tests, why were they not concerned to cross check their results with other research centers. It just seems

Nothing Penetrates

2009-11-21T19:29:00.000-08:00

You know, if they found emails from Christ discussing with his disciples how the water to wine thing was a simple trick with food dye, I think Christians would be quicker to lose faith than these global warming believers.

Taggart Transcontinental Waffles?

2009-11-21T06:35:00.000-08:00

Don't tell me Rand was right and it is going to begin with waffles? Not sure what the production problems are but I find it kind of chilling in a way.

What could happen?

2009-11-20T17:26:00.000-08:00

I'm sure nothing can go wrong with this. I saw a scientist on the History Channel talking about the LHC and how the risk is minimal because mini black holes evaporate much to quickly and eat to slowly to be a danger. This comforted me for about the expected lifespan of a mini-black hole until I realized no one has ever actually observed one and measured its lifespan or how fast it eats including the guy telling me all this in great detail. All speculation is based on theory and theories are never wrong, right? If we new definitively how mini-black holes worked we probably would not need the LHC to tell us that. Well, if they are wrong at least we may get the answer to another question, why no other intelligent life has been detected given the predictions of Drake's equation.

Bow wow

2009-11-17T07:42:00.000-08:00

Everyone on the right seems to be going nuts over the Obama bow. Mostly concern seems to be that we are appearing week. Bow or no bow we are weak. Incredibly week. Everyone knows this. We are in debt to China for huge sums of money. I know we bowed to the Japanese emperor not the Chinese. Do you think the Chinese will be jealous? Not sure but I think we owe the Japanese some money also, just not as much. I wonder what the money the Chinese lend to us buys them. Seems to me they have a very strong hand in any negotiation. They can simply (probably not a simple as it seems) stop buying our debt. Or worse, try to call us on it. If we never bow again, does it matter?

2012

2009-11-14T06:49:00.000-08:00

I've been looking forward to seeing the movie 2012. I might try to talk the wife into going this weekend. She is not much into disaster movies so it will be a hard sell. Personally it doesn't bother me. I like watching movies and shows about the end of the world.

Part of the reason is we are all going to die at some point. Going out with everyone else in an end that has good special effects doesn't seem to me to be any worse than wasting away with a horrible illness or gradually watching everthing being taken away from you as you die from old age. Death is usually a solitary thing so going out with everyone else might not be so lonely. This is not to say I have a death wish. Far from it. My goal is to live long enough to see science make death optional. Then to live long enough to experience everything I want to experience, to gain all the knowledge I want or can and then when I am satisfied to simply decide ok I am done.

As for end of the world scenarios, I guess I would want to avoid those that have long prolonged painful deaths possibly involving starvation. Gamma ray bursts, asteroid impacts if you are not at ground zero, likewise super volcanos, robot revolutions (I have no illusions about our chances against advanced AI despite all the Terminator movies), basically any end that cannot be observed with a final glass (or bottle) of scotch and a pack of cigarrettes (I'm a closet occasional smoker). Advanced warning would probably not be a good thing either, months or years of waiting watching society unravel as our impending doom approached might be like hell on earth. I'm not sure what this leaves as an option. The sun suddenly exploding, a rogue planet appearing out of nowhere and smashing into earth, suddenly discovering the laws of physics are not as permanent as we thought as we all go drifting out into space. Hey it could happen, we only know the effects of the laws of physics, not the cause.

Anyhow, I was saying I kinda want to see this movie.

Bad Grades

2009-11-11T19:48:00.000-08:00

I heard about this story on Leno then saw it on Drudge. I think the only problem is it is not progressive enough. What about poor students who can't afford to buy better grades. I think it should be changed. Here is what I would propose:

1. Students from households below the poverty line automatically get a one letter grade bump.

2.Students from households above the poverty line must pay $20 to prevent their grade from dropping one letter grade. Paying an additional $20 will increase their grade by one letter grade.

3. Students from households earning more than $100k a year must pay an additional $20 to raise a poor students grade before they can pay to have their own grade raised.

Problem solved and best of all it is a life lesson in how the world really functions.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

2009-11-09T22:06:00.000-08:00

Anyone else think that Jeff Bridges should do a movie as W.C. Fields? I keep seeing commercials for Kia where he does the voice over. I can almost imagine him saying "get away from me kid, you bother me".

I saw this morning that General George Casey cautioned against a backlash against muslims. That was my first thought too. It reminded me of the time after the Oaklahoma city bombing when President Clinton cautioned against a backlash against militias and talk radio.

I saw or seem to remember, at various points during the day, various people blathering on how diversity is part of the military's strength. If we get any stronger, we are going to need more bullet proof vests.

I had an idea this morning that I don't think has any chance in occuring. How about a constitutional amendment barring the federal government from preventing people from buying their own healthcare. Not health insurance, healthcare. If you want some treatment or medicine that the government will not pay for, the government cannot stop you from paying a doctor to treat you. I think most people would support this. It would kind of put the shoe on the other foot. Voting against it could be painted as being for the government denying people healthcare.

If or should I say when healthcare reform passes with the public option, the next step should be to try and create ways to circumvent the process. I believe in England they have allowed private medicine where people who can afford it can opt out at least on the benefits side.

Are Youth for Human Rights and Scientology linked? How come I always see their commericals together on TV?

Oh well, can't keep my eyes open, time for bed.

Why the world seems insane

2009-10-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

Each day I read or hear of things that make no sense to me. Most recent examples include a 6 year old boy suspended for bringing Cub Scout camping utensils to school, a teenager suspended for having a pocket knife in his car at school, a six year arrested by the police for having a temper tantrum at school. My responses have changed over time from "that can't be true" to "what, another one?"

What makes this all unbelievable is I don't know anyone who would behave like this. I can't imagine being a teacher and calling the cops on a child. I can't imagine turning in a child who I knew did not intend harm and knowing in the process I would be causing incredible harm to the child. Of course I don't know all the circumstances. Maybe the teacher was young and naive. I'm 40 years old, have a couple of kids and have enough experience to know better. Some young 23 year old just of college by the book teacher has not had enough life experience to know when to ignore the book.

So why is this happening? I think society is becoming more of a machine. The thinking requirement is being removed from individual affairs. Think of the industrial revolution. Prior to industrialization you had many more artisans. Much of the industrial revolution was about process, about simplifying jobs, taking the thought out of tasks and standardizing them. Instead of having a craftsman building a piece of furniture from beginning to end you have a low skilled worker performing one specific task according to a well defined process. A similar shift seems to have happened to society at large. It appears to be partly voluntary, people do not want to think about things and partly by mandate or threat. In some cases it has become risky to go outside of process and take on responsibility. It becomes easier just to follow the process and avoid the headache.

For the foreseeable future, this seems to be the way of things. Gradually less will be left for us to decide, to think about. Bad decisions will become harder to make. Today I heard an advertisement for a Ford Taurus that can be configured for teenage drivers. It will limit what kids can do, limit speed, force them to wear their seat belt. This is not developing trust that your child will be responsible, it is just preventing them from being irresponsible. I suspect some of these features will be applied to all drivers eventually. Our lives will soon be nothing more than a series of processes where the process will dictate all our actions.

Thinking about it though some bad decisions will still be allowed. Gambling will be encouraged, a sort of "stupidity" tax. I guess you could have noticed I don't have a very positive outlook and you'd be right, I don't. Could be because I just finished reading John Derbyshire's new book. Actually what Derb wrote is just a confirmation of what I already sensed. We have been on this path for a long time. I have been looking for signs that we are slowing or changing direction but I don't see any. The welfare of the least of society is driving us forward. Those with the least ambition, least intelligence, least desire to have freedom and responsibility for their lives. Society is being rebuilt to serve an individual with no desires other than not having to think to much and be entertained. The ideal citizen of the future is one to which nothing much matters. Work, don't work it does not matter because your security is guaranteed. Your food, your health, your safety, your self esteem will all be guaranteed by the government. Don't feel like working, don't. If you do work you won't have more than those that don't. Everyone will benefit equally no matter their contribution. Don't feel like being a parent, the government will take over where you leave off.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but government is breeding us to be milk cows. Not too bright, controllable and supplying an endless supply of votes. About the only sin you can commit is not following the processes that are being designed for us. Having milk cows that are smart, responsible, ambitious, or actively involved in raising and educating their calves does not seem desirable from the point of view of the farmer. It does not help government much either to have people who can manage their own affairs.

After reading what I wrote I notice I refer to the government a lot. It is like some mysterious "they" that conspiracy theorists use to refer to the Mr. Bigs who are running everything and pulling all the strings behind the scenes. I don't believe what is happening now is a conspiracy as much as it is human nature. I guess the question that is playing out now is what side of our nature will prevail and for how long? Is this the end of history?

Multiverses

2009-10-12T21:56:00.000-07:00

A little off my usual subjects but sometimes I like to let my mind wander a bit. I remember watching TV shows on the Universe and how there may be many Universes. As I recall, one theory was that a new Universe formed for each possible outcome of a given situation. I began to wonder if the decisions we make in our lives would move us from one Universe to another. For instance if you come to an intersection and must decide to go left or right, are two Universes created where in one Universe you go right and the other you go left? At that point wouldn't you be deciding which Universe you would be going to? Sometimes I wonder if the decisions we make move us to Universes we create for ourselves. For instance I am an agnostic when it comes to religion. Could my belief or lack of belief move me into Universes where God does not exist? On the other side, could believing in God move you into Universes where God does exist? I don't know just idle thoughts. Hey, its 1 in the morning and my mind has to do something while I am not sleeping.

Selective Nannies

2009-10-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

One of the defining features of the nanny state has been to protect us from making bad decisions but is this really the case? We see endless PSA's about not doing drugs, wearing seatbelts, eating healthy but the same government that discourages these sorts of bad behavior encourages bad behavior that it likes. The state I live in, for example, has been trying for years to get legalized gambling for the purpose of funding the government. There are advertisements all over TV for the lottery.

The government wants to protect us sometimes when it suits their purpose. As a libertarian, or a conservative with a strong libertarian bent, I don't think the government should ban gambling. Legalizing gambling for the sole purpose of funding government is a separate issue though. I wonder if the people who are so worried about a kid eating a happy meal are as concerned about the health effects on the family when dad or mom blows their paycheck on the poker slots.

The recent and ongoing housing bubble collapse is another example. The federal reserve with strong support from the government kept interest rates low to encourage home ownership. People were encouraged to borrow too much spend too much. The effect of this bad behavior on people and society at large has been horrendous but you don't see the government encouraging responsibility in this area. At least you do not see it consistently like the constant incessant hammering of environmental issues, and health care issues.

So the government cares about your welfare when it suits their purpose as in when it increases their power but not so much when it comes to filling their coffers.

Does Obama think he is right?

2009-06-29T19:44:00.000-07:00

Up until recently, say a year or so ago, I always had confidence things would be better in the future. The technological advancements I have seen in my lifetime lead me to believe that nothing was beyond human innovation. I read Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near" about the ever increasing rate of technological development which reinforced my belief that the future was going to be fantastic. I have always thought I was born at the right time in history, when knowledge about anything was at my fingertips. The future was going to be great and all I had to do was work hard and save enough money to get there and I would be set. I did not even have to become super wealthy, just put enough money aside that I could live off my wealth by the time I was in my 60's or perhaps later. By that time medicine would advance to the point where I might live for quite a while after that without the necessity of working full time. My mind would be free to explore and study things that I don't have the time or energy to do now. Perhaps even death might not be as inevitable as it once was. I don't think I ever had the illusion that I would live forever or maybe I did. Now I see a dismal future in which the future of my labor will be snatched from me, harvested like a crop. My future prospects limited by a government that views the private sector as livestock to be slaughtered.

Does Obama firmly believe he is right? I just don't get it. Private industry has given us everything we have. Private industry and innovation are the only hope we have for miracles in modern medicine and it is being killed. Where will the next wonder drug come from, government? Modern medicine, cars, computers, the internet, cell phones all of this was built by private industry. I know the internet evolved from the Arpanet but that was just the starting point, they didn't create the web and would never have figured out how to utilize it on their own. Sure people hate the greedy capitalists, the doctors, the drug companies. But they don't hate the results. They don't hate viagra, antibiotics, non invasive surgery, cancer treatments that are effective, they don't hate the fact that HIV is no longer an automatic death sentence. Yet they want to kill the spring from where these innovations come. I don't get it. Obama lives in the same world I do. Like the rest of us he faces the risk that some day we all may need a miracle cure. Yet he wants to kill the one source of the miracles. Does he think government can do a better job of inventing? Where is the evidence for this? I know, we put a man on the moon so we must be able to solve all the other hard problems.

Bullshit

2009-06-29T19:20:00.000-07:00

This sounds like total bullshit to me. First of all, I have been using compact florescent lights for years for most of the lamps in our house. Most of the people I know use compact florescent lights in at least some of their lamps so it is not like everyone is using inefficient lights already. Second they throw around numbers with the implied precision of a neurosurgeon. Save as much energy as is produced by 14 coal fired plants. As much pollution as166 million cars. Save enough energy to run your house for 10 months? Illumination only accounts for 7 percent of average energy usage according to President Obama. Eliminating all energy for illumination would be less than 1 month per year so you would have to go without illumination for 11 or 12 years to save 10 months worth of total energy consumption. Not too mention that compact florescent bulbs require more energy to produce. I know if you get a smaller TV you could save energy, wonder when President Obama is going to suggest that? Why not a smaller refrigerator, hell why not smaller houses? It is for the good of the environment after all. We should trust our leaders when they tell us this.

Iran, so what?

2009-06-22T19:19:00.000-07:00

Iran's elections were rigged. So? Is this news to anyone? The people of Iran know it, we know it. End of story. The conservative punditry seem to be upset that Obama is not paying more lip service to supporting the protesters in Iran. I don't know, maybe he could be more supportive but what more can be done beyond lip service? Okay, so President Obama comes out and says all people everywhere have a right to live in a free democratic society and that the Supreme Leader has no right to silence them. Then what? Are we willing to back that up? With what? Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon soon and I don't see any indicators we have the stomach, will or desire to stop this from happening. Isreal might if only out of self preservation. If we had any sense, we might too. It's put up or shut up and I don't see how standing on the sidelines shaking our fist in the air strengthens our position. I felt the same way last year when President Bush was making a lot of noise about Russia and Georgia. He even put our Navy in close proximity to the Russian Navy. This was a bad idea. We were not going to war against Russia over Georgia and we should not have pretended we would. The best we could do was to chastise and complain and reveal how powerless we really were. Sometimes, maybe silence is a good thing. Does anyone really know what is in the Iranian heart. I thought the Iraqi people wanted democracy but now I am not so sure and I would not claim to know what Iranians really want. Then there is the message that backing an unsuccessful and bloody revolution would send. Maybe an overwhelming majority of Iranians want a Jeffersonian democracy. I would love for that to be the case but I just don't know.

Victim of our own success

2009-06-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

I was reading this post the other day on National Review by John Derbyshire and it got me to thinking that maybe the problem with government in America is that we are victims of our own success. Since 1969 we have heard over and over "if we can put a man on the moon then we should be able to ...". Maybe if we hadn't put a man on the moon there would not be much confidence that we could do anything else. Last century we won two world wars, moved from an agrarian to an information based society, became dramatically less helpless in the face of random diseases that have always plagued us, created air travel for the masses along with inumerable other advances. Since the American government is inextricably linked with the greatness of America, in many peoples minds, any credit for the great successes of our society goes correctly or incorrectly to our government as well. Not sure where I am going with this other than to say people have come to have great expectations and confidence in our government to accomplish great things. Perhaps too much confidence. I am glad we walked on the moon though.

Cash for Clunkers

2009-06-18T19:04:00.000-07:00

Lets see, how can we solve an economic crisis brought on by years of overspending (both government and consumer) and borrowing money to buy stuff we didn't need? Hmmm, cut government spending and refuse to bailout those who lived above their means? No that would never work. How about something else? I know, we'll borrow more money and pay people who bought big cars they no longer want to buy smaller cars. We can create artificial demand in the economy (that never causes problems) and best of all we will put the debt on all tax payers including the ones who bought cars they are perfectly happy with. Wasn't there some guy named Santayana who once said something like...?

Superheros

2009-06-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

I've never really liked the concept of superheros despite being a fan of comic books. The idea that society needs a protector, one guy or gal to right the wrongs and protect us from evil seems rather fatalistic. Is this situation supposed to be permanent, how long would someone want that job? Well some people live to be needed by others I guess. Societies succeed or fail by the actions of large portions of their members, not the actions of one or a small group of individuals. If a community is made up of hard working, productive, moral people then most likely it will be successful and no hero is needed. In case the opposite is true, a hero would be pretty busy with little in the way of long term results to show for the effort.

I saw "The Watchmen" the other night with my wife (actually it was a few months ago and it took me a while to finish this post), knowing nothing about it other than the trailers I had seen. Turns out the movie was far different from what was advertised. To give this movie an "R" rating is stretching that category a bit. It probably should have been rated NC17. I can't say I liked the movie. The violence was so extreme it was pretty hard to watch and the sex scenes reminded me of soft core porn. The story did not make much sense, super heroes without super powers operate until they were put out of business by a new law. Apparently acting as vigilantes was perfectly legal until that point.

What makes super heroes without super powers seem silly? In normal superhero story lines, a superhero has powers normal people do not, giving him the ability to fight average criminals with little or no risk to himself and making him the only one capable of fighting super villains. Law enforcement supports or at least tolerates some vigilantism because it has to.

In the Watchmen's universe, only one of them has super powers, Dr. Manhattan. The rest appear to the highly skilled incredibly fit individuals. All have a screw loose and one, the Comedian, is an out and out sociopath. One curious thing, Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian agreed to go to Vietnam and fight for the US. The Comedian was apparently able to join the army and wear his own superhero costume. That must have been an interesting recruitment interview. Dr. Manhattan, a big blue guy who can crush tanks and explode people with his mind can wear whatever he wants which in most cases is nothing.

Despite all it's failings, the movie did manage to ask an interesting question in the end. The whole movie appears to be an allegory of religion, or more specifically Christianity. The world is on the brink of nuclear war and the smartest man in the world who was also a member of the Watchmen decides it is better to kill a bunch of people though much less than the number that would be killed in a nuclear war to prevent an actual nuclear war. He then puts the blame on Dr. Manhattan who in the end accepts it and leaves Earth with the threat that he may return and finish the job if humanity does not get its act together. He then goes off to become a god of his own world some place.

The question seems to be is peace worth the price of believing a lie and sacrificing a relative few to save the many. I guess it depends on your view of the value of human life. If humans are a commodity like cattle then basic math is sufficient to support the premise. My own view is that we are not a commodity. We are not so many units of humanity. We are individuals, each of us valuable to ourselves. Lying to avoid self destruction seems like each individual avoiding their own responsibility in making society work. Maybe this is the key to what I dislike about superheros. Responsibility is taken from the masses and placed on the few.

In a similar way I resent the government. In a lot of ways my life has been more challenging recently. Work is very competitive and I have to run to keep up. Some days I'm overwhelmed and some days I overcome the obstacles in my path. I may be unemployed soon, I may not. On the days when my efforts pay off though, I never feel more alive. The risk of failing makes succeeding worthwhile and I don't want government to take that from me.

Fed war on cigarrettes

2009-06-11T18:28:00.000-07:00

The Feds are increasing regulatory control over nicotine levels in cigarettes. Now is a good time to sell your GM stock and invest in criminal organizations trafficking high nicotine no tax smokes. And for you terrorist organizations hard hit by the economic downturn, here is an excellent opportunity to raise some operating capital. I'm sure any number of gangs would also be interested in developing new revenue streams.

A blog neglected

2009-05-21T19:17:00.000-07:00

Forgive me for it has been many months since I blogged. I kind of got away from it. I think the main reason was an effort on my part to focus my energies on pumping life into my day job which could loosely be called software development. I don't really develop software anymore, my activities consist of long spans spent shuffling paperwork interspersed with brief moments writing programming code, that is, when you can invent a reason for doing so instead of handing it off to the offshore contractors. But hey, who's complaining, I am still employed at any rate.

I have been following the story of the 13 year old boy with cancer and I must say I have mixed emotions. On the one hand I feel the parents and the boy are being extremely foolish but on the other hand, in this climate of government intrusion, is this an opening for more government oversight in the health care of our children. Many nanny statists view childhood obesity as an immediate health threat. It is not a great leap to imagine government going after parents who fail to adhere to proper dietary restrictions with their children. From what I have read it was implied that there may be some religious beliefs involved in the decision to seek alternative treatments. Not being a religious person my self, this seems to be one of the times where blind faith has serious consequences.

Atlas Shrugged

2008-08-18T16:44:00.000-07:00

After 6 months I finally finished "Atlas Shrugged". I know that I'm about 51 years late in joining the party. I liked it. Probably most people have strong feelings toward this book, either positive or negative. I am not 15 anymore so I like to think that I don't blindly embrace anyone who spouts ideas I find appealing. As far as literature goes, I would not say it is the greatest book I ever read. The dialog does not exactly flow. The speeches and the characters inner thoughts are filled with one superlative after another. The best this, the highest ideal that etc.
I wanted to read the book with an open mind so I decided to wait until after finishing the book to read the Whitaker Chambers review on National Review online. After reading Chamber's review, I was surprised that the review did not do much to argue against Rand's themes. The main objection seems to be that the novel is written in an operatic fashion with simplified characters that are either completely good or completely evil. I would agree with this, but I think Ayn Rands objective in writing the novel was to promote her philosophy of "Objectivism". Creating a good story and well developed characters was secondary to this. Just for fun, this should teak some people, but the Bible does the same thing in the parables that Jesus told. The characters were stereotypes to illustrate a lesson, not created for their literary value.
Whitaker Chamber's chief criticism was with Rand's notion that Capitalism was an end in and of itself and that mans pursuit of happiness his only morality. Chambers argued that happiness without religion could degenerate into a pursuit of pleasure. He seems to be arguing for the desirability of religion. As an agnostic, I don't believe in a God as the bible describes that is highly involved in our everyday lives. I also don't believe in a God who would give us an intellect and then expect us to find our way to him without using it. The God who created us would not expect us to base our knowledge of him on faith, in my opinion. He gave us the ability to reason I think he would expect us to use it. I don't know if it is better for humanity to believe in God than not to. If God does not exist and we chose to believe in him because we think that faith is the better choice for humanity then what path are we taking for humanity's future? Can deluding ourselves into believing something that is false for the betterment of humanity really make humanity better. I think this is what appeals to me the most about Rand, her point that you cannot escape reality. Now I could be wrong about God or the nature of God but my reasoning and logic leads me to believe that I am not and those are the only tools I have to figure out the universe or understand the nature or lack of nature of God.

Death of the Hummer

2008-06-14T10:30:00.000-07:00

Last week GM announced that it would consider selling its Hummer brand. Immediately shrieks of joy could be heard from Hummer haters everywhere. Amazingly there are people out there who think this will have a positive impact on their life. From what I can tell, GM has produced less than 200,000 of these things since they started selling them. This is compared to some mass marketed vehicles that might sell a hundred thousand a year. Sure they get crappy gas mileage and I don't see them as very useful or practical but they don't make up a very large percentage of the vehicles on the road. Where I work there are probably 150 cars in the parking lot each day. There are probably a dozen Camry's, 10 or 20 minivans, a few Ford Escapes, various other compact cars and 1 Hummer. Thats it. Yet, there seems to be an undercurrent of anti-hummer sentiment by people who view them as obnoxious and ostentatious. I don't really care as long as they aren't tailgating me. As a side note though, if you want an example of an obnoxious vehicle, look at Harley Davidson's. When there were not so many of them a person could be seen as an individualist. Now, with everybody and his brother buying one and customizing it to make as much noise as possible, they are just part of a group of loud obnoxious people. Try enjoying a peaceful day at the park without a herd of orthodontists and accountants thundering buy on these things. But I digress.

I think the real thing that gets people is the way Hummer owners seem to defy gravity. Most of us have a hard time paying for a normal car and the costs associated with it. Then they see this huge monster of a vehicle that cost close to 50k and takes 3x the fuel of most cars to fill up and they wonder how are they able to do this. It does not make sense. It upsets their perception of the world. We all get this, especially those of us who live conservatively below our means. When we see someone living so far above our means it gets to us. It makes us wonder what are they doing that we are not. Are we idiots? Then the average person not wanting to believe himself an idiot says no, I am not an idiot, that guy driving the Hummer is and I don't like him. Now many people driving Hummers are living above their means. Not all of them but some are. The free market society that we live in has a way of dealing with people who live above their means so the rest of us should just chill out. By the same token when the market inflicts consequences on people who buy houses they cannot afford either, the government should chill out and not get in the way.

In the past couple months, the free market has demonstrated itself to be far more affective at modifying human behavior than a democratic government could ever hope to be. The number of miles driven is down 4% this year. With the huge plunge in truck and other full size vehicle sales I have to believe gasoline consumption for transportation is down more as many vehicles are being replaced with smaller ones. The free market will never let us run out of oil. It will gradually shift the price to a level that will force it to be used only for applications where it is economical to do so. Too often people expect immediate change by government decree. They ignore the real power of the free market that can do what governments cannot.

$200 Oil

2008-05-07T22:02:00.000-07:00

I should be working on my house and finishing the job of laying laminate wood flooring but I'm kinda tired after working all day. I've found that when I am tired, it is a good time to stay away from doing things that require accurate measuring and cutting. So I started thinking about the price of oil and how some are saying it might go to $200 a barrel. I don't know if it will. Who knows, it might. I just think it is interesting that a government that wants us to believe it can cure all our problems won't be able to do much about this one. Not like the "mortgage crisis" bailouts that are ongoing. This is not a problem that government is going to be able to make disappear with smoke and mirrors. With the mortgage problems the government can and has been doing things like assuming a lot of the risk from lenders, something that does not have an immediate downside. Sure you are removing the consequences from bad decisions resulting in more of the same behavior that will one day cause a much bigger problem. That, however, will occur down the road a bit, and no one will remember then what happened now. Some of us will bring it up and say "Remember in 2008 when they..."If anyone actually listens to the end of that sentence, they will remember what was said for about 30 seconds or until their next rant about how the government is not doing enough.

$200 oil is another thing though. Not much that smoke and mirrors can do there. The government could allow more drilling and maybe the political climate will change to allow that but I wouldn't bet on it. Even if they did open up drilling, it would be years before that oil was available, definitely not soon enough for our ADD electorate. The strategic oil reserve could be tapped for a while. I am sure no one would horde the temporarily cheaper oil. Price caps are a quick fix. The gas price would be cheaper and if you are lucky enough during the resulting shortage you might be able to get some. Gasoline rations would be popular. If oil goes to $200 a barrel things will change and the government won't be able to do much about the consequences we will all experience. Maybe people will build neighborhoods with corner stores and butcher shops like existed prior to the 1960's when it became easy and cheaper to drive to the local mega mart. Just idle speculation. I know people who are already downsizing their cars. Funny that the government wants to keep people living in houses they can't afford. Maybe $200 oil will remove the illusion that these snake oil salesmen politicians can fix all the wrongs and give you everything you want.

First cigarettes and alcohol

2008-05-01T07:53:00.000-07:00

New Jersey wants to tax fast food. First it was alcohol and cigarettes. Then it was a bunch of other things to numerous to mention. Now it is fast food. What is considered fast food. Seems to me it will be difficult to nail this down and some restaurants will change their format just enough not to meet the definition of "fast food" under the law. Every Friday I walk in to our local pizza place and get two large pizzas and jojo potatoes for 11.97. Is that fast food? In the food court in the mall, there is a McDonald's and a Chinese place where I like to go. Are they both fast food, is it only McDonald's that is fast food, why? Sadly enough I now some people who will think this is a good idea.

Gangsta Rap Invented by Rich White People

2008-04-12T07:58:00.000-07:00

When you thought you have heard everything. Apparently "Gansta Rap" was invented by the governemnt according to Alicia Keys. I have not researched this much beyond the news clip I saw on Drudge but I guess that Keys is suggesting a bunch of rich, white, probably republican men sat around writing "Gangsta Rap" songs. Then, I guess they got some unsuspecting young black men to record them. I wonder which songs Dick Cheney wrote? It explains a lot though. I never understood the tendency of black rappers to refer to themselves using the "N" word and call black women "ho's". Now I can see that this was actually a plan by the rich white power structure in this country to undermine the black race. Maybe Obama can comment further on this as soon as he parks the bus that he has been driving back and forth over his white grandma.

Food Health Studies Hazardous to Health

2008-03-27T10:45:00.000-07:00

After years of being harangued daily about how the food I eat is killing me I decided to do my own scientific study into the effect of scientific studies on the health aspects of various foods on me. I chose myself as a subject since I have in depth knowledge of me and doing research on others would involve well, work.

Background

For last 20 to 30 years I have been told on a regular basis that various foods were bad for me. I am 38 now and I use the range of 20 to 30 years because I don't recall hearing this too much when I was a child. The studies that I can recall were on the following things:
Coffee and caffeine
Pop
Eggs
Red Meat
Fish
Wheat Bran
White Bread
Sugar and Starch
Alcohol
Saturated Fats
Un-saturated Fats
Trans-fats

Findings

Each of the above mentioned items have been taken their turn on the enemies list of the health food nannies. Yet each has at some point been found to have positive affects on health.

My studies have shown that we are bombarded with an endless stream of warnings day after day about how we are fat, lazy , stupid and destroying our health. If the warnings are to be believed, there are entire industries whose sole mission is to make us unhealthy and kill us.

Negative effects

From personal experience, the negative affects I experienced early on were a persistent sense of guilt and worry. A general reduction in self esteem that arose from a feeling of weakness when I would indulge in things that I enjoyed.

I have observed that as a result of these guilty feelings many people resort to a form of self flagellating masochism in an effort to perform some sort of penance for their perceived sins. One example would be the "Biggest Loser" show where teams of people participate in the most degrading humiliation imaginable at the hands of sadistic "trainers". Granted, these people are playing a game for money, but one can't help but get the impression that these people feel helpless to control their own lives. They feel guilty, inferior, weak. Decades of being constantly told that they are eating the wrong things, that they are lazy, that there is something wrong with everything they are doing in their lives have taken their toll. They go to these priests of physical fitness looking for absolution. And the priests tell them that only through working out, at levels inhumanely possible to maintain unless you are unemployed, and abstaining from all enjoyment of food, they can achieve eternal happiness.

For most of us we experience this to a lesser degree. We feel all of the feelings already mentioned. We decide to do something about it. We diet and workout like madmen and for a time it works. Then reality sets in that it is just not possible to maintain this regimen. We slip and slide back into old habits and we sooth ourselves with the food we crave. Meanwhile we are filled with self loathing. We have weighed and measured ourselves by an impossible standard and found ourselves wanting.

Industries harmed

Many industries have been harmed over the years by these periodic health scares. The baking industry for one has been been affected several times, first when white bread was considered bad and then when people were jumping on the low carb high protein train. Remember the Alar scare of the late 80's. Many fast food companies changed their cooking oils as a result of the supposed dangers of saturated fats, now these same companies are being told the oils they switched to are just as bad. Look at how the fishing industry has been hurt over the years with repeated scares regarding mercury, a naturally occurring substance that we have in our own bodies. These are just a few examples.

Long term consequences (legislation, loss of freedom)

The long term consequences are scary. We are seeing a steady increase in government control. Many cities such as New York have already tried to regulate the restaurant industry to ban trans-fats. The likelihood is that we will have some form of federally subsidized national health care in the near future. Government will use this to claim authority in regulating your personal habits. The government's position will be that we are paying for your health care and therefore it is the government's right and responsibility to regulate those activities which are determined (whether true or not) to increase the cost of health care. When the people belong to the government and not the other way around we are in trouble.

People will willingly turnover control to the government. After being brainwashed into believing that every indulgence they allow themselves is a sin, they will feel helpless in running their own lives. They will gladly turnover their lives to the government so that these decisions are no longer theirs to make. People will on the surface complain that the government has no business telling us what to eat, but, these are the same people who spend their days feeling guilty about everything they eat. The "know" in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong and subconsciously they will be thinking "I am a sinner and it is impossible for me to lead a sin free life". They will consciously or subconsciously look to the government to remove that temptation that causes them to "sin".

What possible conclusions can be drawn from this

1. These studies are an evil plot by SPs that are really PTS/SPs bent on the destruction of Tom Cruise and Scientology.
2. Nanny statists are endangering our health by subjecting us to endless studies and warnings telling us that what we are doing is wrong.
3. Nanny statists are endangering our freedom by undermining our confidence in our abilities to manage our own lives, thus inviting further government intrusion.

Proposed actions

Find ways to be happy. Happiness starts from within. Find things that work for you. The idea that you are going to spend 10 hours a week working out for the rest of your life is and eat only wheat germ and yogurt is preposterous. Stop looking for silver bullets. For Gods sake stop feeling guilty every time you take a bite of ice cream or pizza or whatever your favorite food is. Enjoy that food. Life is not meant to be lived in a perpetual state of guilt. Realize that not all of us are going to have six pack abs and that is ok. I love food. I find ways to enjoy it without guilt and still maintain my health reasonably. There is nothing wrong with me.

Why we will never go to Mars - additional thoughts

2008-03-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

After I posted "Why we will never go to Mars" I saw this article on glasses that can find things. This is a perfect example of a technology that will profoundly change our lives. This goes way beyond finding lost items. Technology like this will record our lives. Every event from birth to death will be recorded and available for instant access. What is the next logical step for this? A smaller camera? Maybe no camera, just learn to interpret the signals from the optic nerve and auditory nerve making your own eyes and ears the camera. How will this impact criminal justice, privacy? 300 million cameras walking around recording everything? I would imagine criminal activity would become less common provided corruption of the criminal justice system does not increase.

Of course with increased regulation of the smallest details of our lives, the potential for corruption will increase. As more and more things become illegal, people will need protection from law enforcement. This is largely what organized crime does. My guess is that increased government regulation of everything from smoking and alcohol to trans-fat regulation to whatever other nanny state garbage they come up with will increase the number of people who will need some form of protection and be willing to pay for it. But I digress.

Another thing I got to thinking about regarding my original post is what will define intelligence in the future? I am strictly speaking in the ability to recognize the different intellectual abilities of people. What do we think of as characteristics of intelligence? Knowledge, skill sets, learning ability, ability to apply knowledge?

Consider, for example, this unverified quote by Alexander Fraser Tytler:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Before the internet, how many people had ever heard of this quote? Outside of academia, I would doubt very many. Knowing who it was attributed too would have required access to a library and a significant amount of research. Now it takes me a couple minutes to find out everything I ever wanted to know about Alexander Fraser Tytler. If everyone has access to information, knowledge will no longer distinguish intelligence. All the classic works of literature, especially those not protected by copyright will be available to everyone. And people may start to use references to these works without fear of being considered pretentious because the effort to understand the reference will be considerably less.

What about skill sets? Advanced trigonometry. Take the handy dandy glasses mentioned before. It should be relatively easy to make them recognize mathematical equations. Math was never my strong suit. Look at the most complicated trigonometric function and instantly see the solution. Want to read Spanish, look at a sentence in Spanish and get instant translation. Want to measure the size of counter top you need for your kitchen remodel, look at your kitchen where you want the counter to go and presto.

I am curious about the impact of the magic glasses on family "discussions". "I told you to get milk when you were at the store, well let me replay the conversation, oh wait , I guess I didn't. Why didn't you remind me to check if we had milk"? Don't worry guys it will still be your fault.

With regard to applying knowledge, I am not sure how that will turn out. Take the "Theory of Evolution" for example. I happen to believe there is a lot of evidence to support this and very little to support "Creationism". Some people will look at the exact same information and say only an idiot would believe in Evolution. Knowing the answers to complex trig functions and being able to apply those answers practically may be two different things. Without improving a persons mind, I don't know if you are going to be able to improve their ability to apply knowledge beyond a certain point. Improving our minds though may be an option on the table in the future at some point.

Why we will never go to Mars

2008-03-14T07:22:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, at work, someone for fun sent me an instant message with an obscure reference to a movie. I did not know what he was talking about so I googled the phrase and in 10 seconds had a reply. He said he would have to try something more obscure next time. I replied that it would be difficult with the almost unlimited information available at my fingertips.

Why is it that almost every prediction about the future is completely and obviously wrong? Everyone focuses on flying cars, trips to the Moon or Mars and ignores completely the most obvious thing that will change. It is going to be us. We will change dramatically in the next few decades. I predict we will merge with our technology or we will be wiped out by it.

I am going to make this prediction with one caveat. I don't know how government will try to control it but I am sure it will. The future will be instant access to information. Not through your keyboard but by direct connection to, well, the internet if we still call it that. You will be able to know the name of every person you meet as well as any personal information about them. Different languages will probably no longer be a barrier. Anyplace you go, you will have complete information about the history, culture, customs, food. This is not the distant future either. We have most of the ability to do this now through our cell phones. We are beginning the next step where your cell phone is worn and responds to voice commands. The next step after that will probably be a device that is worn and responds to thought patterns. The next step after that will likely be an implanted device that responds directly to your mind bypassing your hearing. Possibly it will even bypass your vision and provide visual signals directly to your optic nerve. I am sure there will be a battle over control of information. People with means will probably have access to better information than poor people. The people who desire power and control will want to limit or control the flow of information. It is hard to predict how this will affect society. There will be very few secrets. Information known to one will quickly be available to all. How will this affect learning? I had to memorize "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in 6th grade. Would you need to memorize anything if you could instantly reference it whenever you want? What about politics, you could instantly fact check anything. This is where I think there will be a battle over control of those facts. If someone tells you that the average temperature was .5 degrees warmer last year you can know instantly if they are correct or not. Will this be a tool of instant and total information or mis-information?

Last night I saw a show on asteroids striking the earth and possible solutions to prevent this type of catastrophe. One of the silliest things I heard was the plan to send manned missions to an asteroid on a collision course with earth instead of machines because astronauts could explore and react to the environment better than robots. Please. By the time we mount such a mission, the state of robotics and artificial intelligence will have advanced to a point that it will be no contest. If the Earth is really in peril, are you going to send one or two manned missions with people who are totally inadequate to function in those environments, at enormous costs I might add, or are you going to send a bunch of unmanned robotic spacecraft on much less expensive missions with redundant missions for backup in case one fails. The idea of sending manned missions for this is so silly it is laughable.

We are never going to go to Mars. It won't happen. Our bodies are not designed for space travel. Could we send people to Mars? Probably. Could you make your car into a flying car? Probably with enough money and time. But would you if the result is a very expensive poorly performing airplane? You could take humans to Mars but it is hard to imagine a more poorly designed space traveler. Our bodies are designed for Earth's gravity and 14 psi atmospheric pressure. We require fuel in the form of food that is bulky and perishable and oxygen. We require lots of maintenance from personal hygiene and exercise to entertainment. And travel in space is no picnic. With the technology likely to be available over the next few decades a trip to Mars will likely take 5 months inside a tin can eating dehydrated food and drinking recycled water. This will be followed by several months on Mars doing much the same thing and 5 months returning to Earth. It is hard to imagine there are more than a handful of people willing to go through an ordeal like this. Our machines and technology will go to Mars, we will not. We might get back to the Moon. It is 4 days away, maybe less. There is not much scientific or economic reason to go but it is doable and with the amount of pork spending that would be involved, congress would support it. Space tourism to the moon might be a viable industry, who knows.

I think the future for us is going to be less in the physical world and more in cyberspace. You will be able to see, touch and experience Mars from Earth. In fact I doubt in the future we will do as much physical traveling on Earth as we do now. Travel for business will be less and less necessary. Travel for leisure will exist for a while yet but this will diminish if full immersion virtual reality develops. Maybe it will be possible at some point in the distant future to send our consciousness where we want to go but that is just a wild speculation at this point. It is pretty predictable though that we will be able to experience much more without leaving home in the very near future and that is not wild speculation.

You may not be conservative if

2008-02-14T19:04:00.000-08:00

With all the talk about how talk radio does not think John McCain is conservative enough, here are some things that may indicate if you are a conservative or not (not all apply to John McCain):

1. If you think the founding fathers did not intend issue adds, run within 60 days of a general or 30 days of a primary election, to be protected under the first amendment, you may not be a conservative.
2. If you think the key to this country's success is spending more money on public education, you may not be conservative.
3. If you think that there are "some jobs Americans just won't do", you may not be conservative.
4. If you think that our energy independence depends on subsidies to wealthy agricultural businesses to use our food supply for fuel, you may not be conservative.
5. If you have ever seen a fat person eating at McDonald's and thought it was anyone's business but theirs, you may not be conservative.
6. If you have ever been faced with a terrorist attack or natural disaster, and your first response was to create a new bureaucracy to deal with it, you may not be conservative.
7. If someone said you work well with democrats and you didn't respond by uttering a profanity, you may not be conservative.
8. If your National Director of Hispanic Outreach is the former head of a Mexican government agency whose mission is to help as many Mexicans as possible get across the border into the US, you may not be conservative.
9. If you have a National Director of Hispanic Outreach as part of your presidential campaign you may not be conservative.
10. If you think spending trillions of dollars to stop the temperature from rising 1 degree in 100 years is a good idea because who knows, global warming might be true, you may not be conservative.
11. If you think it should be government's responsibility to keep us from making stupid decisions, you may not be conservative.
12. If you think it is government's role to protect us from the consequences of stupid decisions, you may not be conservative.
13. If you only believe in capitalism and free markets when the economy is doing well, you may not be conservative.
14. If you think no one has the right to smoke a cigarette in a bar, you may not be conservative and I hate you.
15. If you don't believe that people for the most part can manage their own lives, you may not be conservative.
16. If complain about the vehicles your neighbors drive as wasting too much gas, you are probably an annoying sanctimonious pain in the ass and you may not be a conservative.
17. If you pick and choose the amendments in the bill of rights that you support, you may not be a conservative.
18. If you go on and on about how the most vile and disgusting forms of expression possible are "art" protected by the first amendment yet don't think that certain political speach is, you are an idiot and may not be a conservative.

Don't Call the Cops

2008-01-20T13:49:00.000-08:00

I have a neighbor who's dog tends to bark a lot. Sometimes they let him out at night and he barks for long periods of time. It hasn't bothered me too much, I can close the windows on the back side of the house in the summer which usually blocks out the noise. I suppose if I got sufficiently annoyed I would go over and knock on their door and tell them that their dog was barking too much and ask them if they could try to keep him in at night. So far it has not aggravated me enough to do much more than complain about it to my wife. Some people would call the police and complain but I don't like to do that. I don't believe in involving the authorities in my life unless it is really necessary.

I ran across this article linked on The Agitator. The story leaves out a lot of details but apparently this 13 year old girl was reported to have touched two male students inappropriately. As a result the police were called and the girl was arrested. We don't know what the exact nature of the touching was and it is difficult to judge the seriousness of the situation from the article. Still, I don't understand why the police were called in. As a parent, my first response would have been to talk to the school about what happened. If I were a school administrator I think I would want to talk to the girl and her parents to find out what was going on and how to put a stop to it. If the girls behavior could not be stopped then for the well being of the other students I would bar the girl from riding the bus and if necessary try to have her expelled from school. Also I think I would be talking with the girl's parents to try to determine if she needed some help and I would be generally concerned for her well being in addition to the well being of the boys involved. In this case, apparently the best option was to call the cops have her thrown in jail.

In my view, police are not here to handle every problem that can occur in our dealings with other people. In general, police can only provide police solutions (arresting people, writing citations, using deadly force against those who are endangering others) so you should not call them if you are not willing to accept a police solution. Police are necessary and do a job most of us are not willing to do. They spend their days dealing with people on the worst days of their lives getting grief for enforcing ridiculous laws we allow to get passed. They should not be called on to settle problems outside the normal scope of police work. If you call the police you should do so realizing that certain things like arrests are within the realm of possibility. If this is not something you are willing to accept, maybe you need to deal with the problem another way. If someone is breaking into your house, call the cops. If two kids get into a fight on the playground don't. That is a job for parents and teachers, not cops.

Most of the time, people can come up with better solutions than government on their own. Government has to treat all individuals and situations equally when they are not all equal. Government prevents the use of discretion. Government's solutions tend to say that problem x always requires solution y. Look at this case. A 10 year old girl brought a steak knife to school, the police were called and a police solution was the result. The girl was arrested. This is an extreme case and one wonders if the police could not have used some discretion but none the less, arresting people carrying "deadly weapons" is a potential police solution to a problem. School administrators should know this is a potential outcome and should question if this is a desirable outcome in this situation. Several years ago, one of my kids drew a picture of a gun at school. Thankfully his teacher had been teaching students since I was in kindergarten and new a little bit about what normal behavior is for little boys. A simple "do not do this again" was sufficient. If this had been the wrong sort of teacher, we might have been bailing him out of jail as a result of some zero tolerance policy nonsense.

And zero tolerance policies are nonsense. We should expect school administrators, principals and teachers to use discretion and good judgement on a case by case basis. It should be part of their job, what we pay them for. Anyone can read the rules and apply them exactly as written. A professional is paid to do more than that, they are expected to use their experience and training to make decisions.

The less we are willing to manage our own affairs and dealings with other people, the more government will be willing to step in and do so for us. Chances are we will not like the outcome or solutions provided any better than if we solved the problem on our own. The difference is, what government does is much harder to undo.

Ghoulishly Greedy Government

2008-01-15T19:16:00.000-08:00

This last weekend I was helping my mother roll her 401K into an IRA when I learned something rather disgusting. Many people of retirement age probably already know this but I am a young guy at 38 so I don't think too much about retirement yet. Anyway, when you reach age 70.5 you have to start drawing money out of your retirement accounts. This I knew. What I did not know was the method the government uses to determine how much you need to draw out. They estimate when you are going to die and create a schedule of withdrawals so your account balance will be 0 on that magic date. Is it me, or is there is something wrong with a government estimating how long you will live in order to extract as much tax money as possible before you die.

I used to think 401Ks were great. Stick with me, this is not going to be a finance column. I have been putting money into mine since I was in my twenties. I used to think it was wonderful, I get to save this money, reduce my income taxes, and I don't have to pay any taxes on it until I withdraw it. The last few years however, I have come to view it as a trap, a prison for my money. I put money in because the company I work for matches contributions so not doing so is like leaving money on the table. But that money is then held hostage. I can't take it out without paying penalties or borrowing my own money and paying interest. Worse yet, I have no idea what the income tax rate will be when I do take it out but I bet it will be higher than it is now, much higher. According to the Social Security Administration the "trust fund" will only be able to cover 75% of its benefits by 2041. Add to that Medicare possibly running out of money in 2020 and you would have to believe the government is going to be pretty desperate for cash long before I can start making withdrawals from my 401k. The government is going to be looking at my big fat 401k like a hungry lion looking at a juicy steak.

Now, you can argue that the Roth 401k addresses the concerns about income tax on withdrawal and it does. The problem is that it is still the government telling you what to do with your money. You can draw out the principle after 5 years I believe but there are restrictions on withdrawing the capital gains until 59.5 as I understand it. Also you have to invest post tax dollars which many people will have a harder time doing.

Lately, all I hear is scaremongering about the economy. The housing bubble, the prime rate crisis, the weak dollar. A number of financial "experts" are predicting a recession, or a depression. I don't buy into it but what if? What if I lost my job? What if there were no jobs and things got real tight? I mean real tight as in selling things to buy food? I've got a decent (by my standards) chunk of change sitting there that I can't tap into without losing a significant portion of it. Most people have money in retirement accounts and very little liquid savings and you know why? Liquid savings is EXPENSIVE. You have to pay income tax on that money just so you can have it in your savings account. That means social security tax, federal income tax, state tax and in my case city tax and 15% a year in capital gains on any investment returns. So the savings people do have is tied up in retirement accounts that are difficult to get at. I am not saying its a good idea to tap into your retirement willy nilly but if a depression were to hit along the lines of 1929 where are the reserves going to come from to keep people afloat?

And don't get me started on the taxing the rich nonsense. The rich don't get taxed the way the people trying to get rich are taxed. The rich don't have income for the most part, they have capital gains. You don't pay social security tax on capital gains and the current long term capital gains rate is 15%. In many cases there are no capital gains if you invest in tax free instruments such as municipal bonds. The really rich don't have to jump through the hoops that we do trying to become rich. They don't care what the income tax rate is, and they have access to their money while the rest of us have to lock our money up so we can't get to it even if we need to. The highest income tax bracket is 35% in addition to 6.2% in social security tax on the first 100K (actually 12.4% counting the employers portion) so if you are upper middle class working your ass off making say 250K a year you get soaked. If you are Warren Buffet, not so much. The rich people in this country put up roadblocks to becoming rich and tell lies about taxing the rich to help the poor. If you want to help everyone, eliminate capital gains and decrease the income tax so people can save for retirement in a way that allows them to control and access their money as needed.

And Uncle Sam wants to make sure I pay all the tax they can squeeze out of me before I shuffle off this mortal coil. So when I turn 70.5 they will send me a letter telling me when they expect me to die. At least when I reach 70.5 the age should be higher than it is now. I wonder, will they consider me irresponsible if I don't oblige and drop dead on time? I mean, I will no longer be paying income tax on my 401k withdrawals and God help us if we have universal health care where the state will view me as a drain on their resources at that point.

The point of all this is that we don't have the freedom to manage our own money. Taxes have become so predatory that we have to protect ourselves from them and in doing so we put our finances in a straight jacket. Imagine what this country would be like if capital could flow freely. We could invest for retirement and have access to our money for real emergencies. There would be a buffer for economic downturns.

Its my money, my life and when I will die is none of the government's business.

Surveillance no substitute for responsibility

2008-01-12T11:33:00.000-08:00

A couple days ago I saw this article on breathalyzer tests being mandatory for all students at a New Jersey high school. A few days later I saw this about speed cameras being installed on mountains in Switzerland to catch people skiing to fast. It occurred to me that people are no longer expected to act responsibly because it is the right thing to do. They are expected to act responsibly because they are under surveillance and they might get caught.

Question. Does providing 24 hour surveillance of your children make you a good parent? Well, if your criteria for being a good parent is that your kids never get into major trouble and you deliver them to adulthood without the chance to ever screw up then yeah, I guess so. If you want to make sure your child never takes a sip of alcohol before they are 21 and you breathalyze them everyday I guess you could in theory make sure that this does not happen. But what have you accomplished really? Have you taught them how to use alcohol responsibly or have you just avoided having to deal with the issue on your watch? You can pat yourself on the back and say my kid never drank in my home meanwhile that kid is suddenly an adult learning about alcohol without any helpful guidance from you.

This isn't really about alcohol or people speeding on snow, but these stories are good illustrations of how people are no longer expected to act responsibly. As surveillance becomes more common, people think less about right and wrong. The focus becomes not getting caught. The difference seems small but is huge in terms of attitude and outlook. An individual looking to do what is right has a positive goal. They are using their moral framework to make a decision that will benefit first themselves and, as a result, society. Trying not to get caught results in decisions made out of expediency and any morality is coincidental. Worse it does nothing help develop one's moral framework. Society has little expectation for people to do the right thing anymore.

As parents we should be raising our kids to be adults and finding ways to trust them more, not less. People rise or fall to the expectations that you have for them. When I say trust, I don't mean blind trust. I don't mean saying "here's the keys to the car, see you in the morning". Trust takes work, it has to be built and it requires parents to take risks. It is simpler and becoming easier all the time to monitor our kids. If you don't believe me, here is an article about devices to monitor your kids when they start driving. Here is an article about parents buying breathalyzers to test their kids. You can monitor their location with GPS enabled cell phones. You can give them credit cards a monitor their purchases. In short we as parents have the ability to monitor our children far greater than our parents ever could and this will only increase as technology advances. Pretty soon there will be few decisions our kids can make without our knowledge. If we are relying on surveillance alone in raising our kids, we are only doing part of the job.

The real problem is we are raising a generation that is accustomed to being watched, to having guardrails in place to protect them. Individuals with morals, with a motivation to go out and build a life for themselves will make the right decisions out of a desire to do what is right. And when they are in situations where the guardrails don't exist they will be better equipped to handle it. It is part of our job as parents to help our children develop the tools to make the right decisions. This has to be done through experiencing life, not hiding life from them. Our goal as parents should be to produce an adult who does not need to be breathalyzed to see if they have been drinking, who does not need 24 hour surveillance, in short an adult who is responsible.

Our civilization has only two paths it can take as I see it. The first path, the one we are on now will gradually diminish our individual responsibilities to the point where we will have few or no decisions to make in life. What you eat, drink, think and do will be determined for you. This is not hyperbole. The guardrails will gradually become fences. As our decision making decreases and technology increasingly has the ability to make its own decisions, the value of humanity will diminish. The second path, the one we need to be on involves increasing individual responsibility and control over our own lives. Individuals are responsible for their own survival. As much decision making as possible is put back on the individual as well as the consequences of those decisions. Ultimately we will become more responsible for our individual existence or we will cease to be individuals and become a nameless faceless mass of humanity for whom the decisions are made.

There's no crying in baseball

2008-01-07T19:09:00.000-08:00

There's no crying in baseball. Someone needs to tell Hillary there is no crying in elections either. Its self indulgent, narcissistic and weak. In this case it is probably calculated too. Undoubtedly the result of a focus group polling saying Hillary needs to be more human. There is so much wrong in this video.

"I have so many opportunities for this country" what does this even mean? Its gibberish that loosely translated means that Hillary when elected will be like your fairy god mother who will use her wand (the power of the government) to grant you magic wishes and take credit for whatever good happens because you are too stupid to do anything on your own without her. The fact that people are choosing Obama over her obviously means that they are too stupid to know this undeniable truth.

"Some of us put ourselves out there against incredible odds because we love our country." And some of us do it because we are power hungry, controlling, manipulative control freaks who want to rule the world and everyone in it.

How Hillary sees herself as president:
1. If you got up this morning and went to work you need to thank President Hillary because she is the reason you have a job.
2. If you were able to buy food and feed it to your kids, you need to thank President Hillary because she made sure the food was safe and not too expensive.
3. If you were able to buy clothes for your kids yadayadayada... thank President Hillary.
4. If you are lucky enough to have a house, it is only through the grace of President Hillary and her hard work against the evil mortgage lenders.
5. If you have a car and can put gas in it, see number 4. but substitute oil companies.
6. If you have healthcare, see number 5, substitute HMOs, doctors, drug companies.

The country succeeds because of the people doing the actual work, not because of who the president is. The best a president can do is get the government out of the way so people can go about the business of making things work. The worst a president can do is be a glory hound who thinks they alone are responsible for the sun rising every morning.

"This is one of the most important elections America has ever faced". This always irritates me no matter who says it. Every election I hear this. I guess this election is more important than the elections of 1788, 1860, 1932, and 1960 just to name a few. If it is more important than most elections, it has a lot to more do with the welfare state and the nanny state than anything else. Immigration, weak dollar, education issues, budget concerns all can be tied to the rise of the welfare state.

If our country's success is wholly dependent on the right person being elected president every 4 years lest the whole thing fall apart then we are toast anyway. Its not going to happen. There are going to be good presidents and bad ones. Its the people who keep things together and work to keep government in its place.

Conflicted on Ron Paul

2008-01-01T11:18:00.000-08:00

I just saw Ron Paul speaking on CNN and man do I want to vote for the guy. The man is passionate, and he has a vision! Not sure I completely agree with him but hearing him speak there is no question in my mind what he believes what he is saying and knows what his vision for the country is. That is hard to ignore.

I have supported republicans in the past but honestly republicans and democrats are headed in the same direction, the democrats just want to waste less time in getting there. Ron Paul is the only one offering something truly different. Smaller government, less interference in peoples lives, music to my ears. I am going to try and read up more on what he wants to do as president.

What has me conflicted is his ideas about national defense. I think he wants to bring the troops home immediately from Iraq and from other spots around the world. Even that has some appeal, letting other nations run their own lives, but is that just a naive fantasy? Could we stay out of the middle east and leave them to their own designs? What about the oil supply? I don't see us being able to drill our own oil here anytime soon. What about nuclear proliferation? Then again I don't think it is possible to stop nuclear proliferation anymore. I doubt we will stop Iran from going nuclear. We can probably slow Iran down with air strikes on key facilities but are we going to go in with ground troops the way we did in Iraq? I don't think so. Then there is the issue that our intelligence agencies appear to be so severely crippled that I doubt anyone has a clear picture of Iran's capabilities are.

Would Ron Paul have removed a Saddam Hussein from power? I am starting to wonder if rebuilding Iraq is in our interest but would we have been better off leaving him in power? I don't think so. At the very least we have forced terrorist to commit resources to fighting our troops in Iraq. A Saddam controlled Iraq might have gained enough strength by now to threaten Iran and provide more motivation for them to acquire nuclear weapons. Last but not least, the intimidation factor. Kicking the crap out of Saddam instilled fear in some regimes. Khadafi in Libya suddenly saw the light and handed over his nuclear program. Anyone attempting to pull a 911 type stunt would have to be concerned that a provoked US would be willing to act again. Yes, I know Saddam was not behind 911 but taking him out has caused problems for Al Qaeda in many ways.

So what would national security policy look like under Ron Paul. Would we draw back our troops within our borders and tell our enemies this far and no further? Would we abandon trying to build a functional democracy in the middle east? What would be the response to a future 911? Would it be a more limited kick the crap of whoever did it and let someone else worry about picking up the pieces? I don't know, maybe that is how we need to act. Perhaps nation building is not enough in our nation's interest to justify it or perhaps it is not a realistic goal.

So much else about Ron Paul appeals to me. His interest in following the constitution, smaller government that is not there to solve everyone's problems, genuine concern with government spending instead of lip service that every other candidate gives it.

Oh well, my conflict will probably be short lived. I doubt he has a chance in hell of winning, you have to be able to pander to do that.

Humans as Pets

2007-12-27T11:39:00.000-08:00

A thought keeps recurring to me every so often. We have always been at the top of the food chain, as Homo Sapiens anyway. We displaced other human type species such as Neanderthals before us (disclaimer: I am not an anthropologist so if I am using these terms incorrectly forgive me). We are smarter than all the other animals and up to now smarter than any machine. This is about to change.
I have been trying to think of jobs that humans do that could not be done better by machines and I have a difficult time coming up with much. Everyone knows the obvious examples. How often do you deal with bank tellers anymore? Supermarket cashiers (the automated checkout has never gotten distracted by a call from her boyfriend)? These are the most noticeable examples but it is only the beginning.
My background is in computer programming. Not rocket science designing killer application type stuff but mundane business related database reporting type stuff. Still, I understand logic and how computers think. The early computers were used by the military for computing trajectory tables for artillery. They required highly trained, extremely smart people to communicate with them. These computers required exactly the right input and could only do very specific tasks. They could do those tasks faster than humans but they could not gather data, make decisions or learn. Humans were more useful than computers because they could learn, adapt, and deal with uncertainty.
If you tell a human, go move that box from room a to room b, a normal human will do it with no further instruction needed. A computer needs detailed instructions for every step in the process and if something changes, say the defined path from room a to room b is blocked, the computer is stuck. A human, a reasonably intelligent one, would look for another path and would adapt. Computers in the past could not deal with uncertainty.
Now computers are starting to think. Since 2004, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has been holding annual contests for unmanned vehicles. In 2004, the race was held in the Mojave desert where none of the vehicles finished the race and the farthest went a little over 7 miles. The 2007 event was an urban setting where the vehicles had to obey traffic laws and react to other vehicles. 6 of the 11 teams completed this course. In 60 years, computers have evolved to a level that took millions of years in biological evolution. Pretty soon computers will be able to drive cars and do it better than a human. There will be programming errors and accidents but with computers those bugs will be fixed and once it is fixed for one computer the fix can be applied to all. We have not been able to fix human bugs such as falling asleep while driving, or being distracted by the beautiful blond jogging on the sidewalk.
If you think it won't be accepted by humans, it may be demanded by government the way seat belts and airbags are mandated today. There is little doubt that cars that drive themselves will be safer than humans driving them. Even with equipment failures that might cause some accidents, the number of fatalities would be minuscule compared to the 50,000 or so that are killed today. Trucks that can drive themselves would never need to stop other than for fuel. They could be kept moving 24/7 365 days a year. Today a driver can only drive 11 hours before they have to rest for 10 hours. If you want to keep the truck moving, you have to send two drivers.
Do you think jobs of computer programmers will be safe? Pretty soon the computers will be intelligent enough to deal with end users directly. The end user will be able to describe what they want to do and the computer will be able to design and setup a system faster and more efficiently than any programmer could. Programmers constantly make mistakes and learning a programming language is a slow process. Most of the time programming is spent testing and debugging the mistakes made. Besides that, a lot of the programming code needed is already written and reusable.
How about investment professionals, stock pickers? How many variables can you keep in your head at one time about a company? How many companies can you analyze at one time and compare with each other? Computers are already doing this and presenting results to users to make decisions. Eventually computers will be making these decisions themselves.
So where does this leave humans? I am not a doomsday prophet. I am not painting some kind of "Terminator" movie scenario. These are legitimate questions. The main question is this: Will hiring a human to do a job become some form of charity or welfare mandated by the government to keep people employed? In the coming years in every job it will make more sense to use a machine instead of a person. How will this affect humans knowing they have a job, not for their expertise and ability but because the government has mandated it to keep the economy going. My guess is that as the capabilities of machines increase the government will step in and mandate certain employment levels of humans. They will have enormous support for this from workers and from business. This will become a cost of doing business. It will also probably result in competition to lobby government for reduced employment quotas in certain industries.
This is almost like observing a black hole. In physics you have the theory of General Relativity which has equations that can be used to make predictions about the universe. These formulas break down however when applied to singularities (black holes) and are not relevant. I love capitalism but how will capitalism function in a society where humans are no longer needed to exploit resources and produce goods. Capitalism and free markets are the best ways of distributing finite resources that humanity has come up with. It is capitalism and free markets allow us to have individual freedom. Will technology eliminate or endanger this?

Universal Health Care vs. Dangerous Activities

2007-12-23T15:00:00.000-08:00

Today I was watching some YouTube videos, with my wife, of something called Parkour. Not sure exactly what this is but it appears to be people jumping all over the place, climbing walls jumping across roofs, sort of like a Jackie Chan movie. While I was watching this it occurred to me that this is a dangerous activity and prone to cause injuries. By the way, I am new to blogging so I probably should add some YouTube link here but I don't know what I'm doing so that may have to come later.
Anyhow, my thoughts wandered to smoking and obesity. Now we have all been told what a drag smoking and obesity are on health care costs. There is an obesity "epedemic" supposedly. Many justify banning smoking or taxing smokers based on the added cost to the health care system. Now maybe you can see where I am going with this. If the government wants to regulate smoking and ban foods that make us fat (allegedly) on the basis that it will cost taxpayers money, what about risky activities? Have you seen the shows on TV such as MTV's "Scarred"? Here is a whole show dedicated to extreme sports injuries. Expensive injuries that require surgery and months of rehabilitation.
Now if some form of Universal health care were to get passed in this country, would the government seek to regulate or eliminate certain activities that drive up the cost of health care? There are already attempts to pass legislation banning trans fats in cities like New York. Once health care becomes the sole responsibility of the government, will it seek to limit costs by controlling our behavior? Perhaps we will form health care task forces that will enforce ordinances against risky behavior. Children riding bikes without helmets, skateboarders and inline skaters who are not wearing the appropriate safety gear could be issued citations their parents would have to pay. Better yet, to offset the costs to the taxpayers we could tax products related to risky behavior the way cigarettes are taxed. Bikes, skateboards, roller skates, soccer balls etc. There is no end to the amount of government regulation that could be imposed. This sounds silly but then again I never thought smoking a cigarette in a bar would be illegal or that the government could tell McDonald's what kind of oil to cook their french fries in.
Universal Health care is going to give government a way to bypass the constitution in the name of health. Your body which you thought belonged to you will become the governments responsibility and therefore they will get a say in how it is maintained and used. This may not bother everyone and if government plays its cards right it won't tick off enough people at any one time to raise a big enough fuss over it. It can pick the low hanging fruit the way it did with smokers. Maybe those skate boarders hanging out on the corner with the baggy pants are the real cause of health care costs some will say. We should tax skateboards to cover the costs associated with skateboard injuries. There ought to be enough older people who actually vote who don't like skate boarders with baggy pants to go along with it.