A somewhat less controversial posting on Science

Some rambling thoughts.

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

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

Intelligent human beings are in short supply.

Another health care proposal

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

The current health care system has the following failures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The failures of creationism

The failures of hard line creationism

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

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

How’s that for circular reasoning?

Taxes, Public Flogging, and the public option

I have three separate issues to discuss in this post.

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

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

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

DRP

Religion and human accomplishment

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

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

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

DRP

We are lazy, misinformed Americans

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

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

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no insoluble government problems.

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

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRP

Some Science opinions (random and unconnected)

Random science opinions volume I

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

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

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

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

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

Party politics is ruining our country

Party politics is ruining our country.

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

DRP

My personal health care story (all true)

How the lack of health care affects me personally.

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

DRP

Re-visit some of my older posts

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

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

The president’s speech to school children

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

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

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

Personal Attacks on Barak Obama

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

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

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

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

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

DRP

A short letter about handgun laws.

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

Guns in parks

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

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

D. Page

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

Senator Edward Kennedy's passing

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

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

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

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dRp

I cannot stay away from the healthcare debate

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

Something other than health care

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

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

DRP

Why we need reform and not lies or accusations.

Once more I am inspired to comment on healthcare reform.

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

Socialized Medicine Scare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raising taxes vs. letting people die.

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

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

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

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

DRP

Cap on Executive Salaries and bonuses.

Caps on executive salaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRP

Health care compromize and More Professor Gates

Healthcare compromise, Partisanism, Racism again visible

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

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

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

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

"Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man"

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


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

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

DRP

New thoughts about Professor Gates' arrest.

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

Harvard Professor Arrested

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

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

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

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

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

DRP

anti-reform ads point to Canadian socialism

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

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

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

California snubs the people rather than raise taxes.

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

drp

More on Health care reform

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

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

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

drp

Jury Nullification: the reason juries are needed.

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

Let the poor die - we don't need them

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

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

DRP

California is loosing its collective mind

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

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

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

DRP

Some thoughts about religion and conflict

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

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

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

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

Finally some real financial sense in Washington

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

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

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

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

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

D. Page

Healthcare vs. Greed (its all of us!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRP

Just want to let everyone know

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

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

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

Government shutdowns due to budget issues #2

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

Government shutdowns due to budget issues

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

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

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

WyoKnott

Observations about guns and related issues.

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

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

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

WyoKnott

The connection between UFOs and the Mayan Prophesy

UFOs and 12/21/2012 (Huh?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come (I hope)