More Illinois math

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=244
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23034.html
Please reference the sites listed above before reading the following, which was excerpted from a press release.
       Illinois House Republicans introduced a major policy initiative last week to accelerate the repeal of the corporate income tax increase approved last January. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, since the $7 billion tax hike in January, 70,000 more Illinoisans have found themselves on the unemployment rolls. The proposed legislation takes a two-pronged approach to reducing Illinois’ business taxes:
1. Accelerates the expiration of the temporary corporate income tax increase. For income earned during calendar 2013, the rate declines from 7% to 6%, and for income earned during calendar 2014, the rate would further decline to 4.8%.
2. Effective immediately, the corporate income tax would be reduced by 0.25% anytime the Illinois unemployment rate increases by .3% in a four month span. For example, if the unemployment rate in January was 10% and in April it was 10.3% then this provision would take effect. At no point would the corporate income tax be less than 4.8% (the tax before Public Act 96-1496)
       Did you catch that? The tax rate in Illinois, for businesses is a flat 9.5%. Somehow the Illinois House believes it to be 7%. More Illinois math. maybe that is the rate over and above the base rate we all pay? Let's check.
http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/individual.htm
        Nope, that looks like 5% to me. So Where they get their information from is a mystery. So how do we compare? Well Iowa, is higher for some businesses. They increase the tax rate for higher income brackets. "Tax Rate: 6% on first $25,000; 8% on next $75,000; 10% on next $150,000; 12% on all over $250,000" (http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/taxtypes.html#corp) So If your business is earning $150,000 or more you are paying more than Illinois. Pennsylvania and Minnesota are higher, but have much lower costs of doing business, and lower state taxes overall, as does Iowa. That makes Illinois the highest overall tax rate by any count. Even if we are 4th in simple income tax. California and New York are both lower. Why is it we can only lead when it comes to corruption, overtaxing, and unconstitutional gun laws?
       Even the 1% reduction that is proposed would still place us in the top ten for income tax alone. Couple that with an oppressively union run business climate and the state tax rate in general and you still would list Illinois as the least favorable business climate in the country. And that is before factoring in the corruption. (How could you quantify that anyway?)
        So how do the states around us compare, besides Iowa? Indiana is 8.5%. Wisconsin is 7.9%. Missouri is 6.25%, Michigan (only water separates, count it) is 4.95%, and rounding out the states we border, Kentucky is a floating 4-6%. Notice any trend there? All lower than Illinois. Very good. So business would not even have to move far to remove a substantial tax burden.
       The second phase of the plan suggested is to adjust the tax rate down 0.25%, approximately 1/8 pittance, if the unemployment rate is .3 higher in any four month period. So we will attempt to fix our tax burden AFTER businesses have either laid people off, fired them, or fled for greener pastures. So we will fix unemployment retroactively?
       How do retail giants sell product so cheap, but still make more money than small business. They leverage their size to buy lower and sell lower, but at a much greater volume. In short, Illinois could lower the tax rate, thus ATTRACTING business, then collect more in taxes, at a lower rate, from MANY MORE COMPANIES. More companies mean employing more people by the way, so that would fix statewide unemployment numbers.
       Let's not forget that earlier this year the Governors of New Jersey and Indiana were running commercials on WGN to advertise the lower tax rates that their states presented. Yes it has gotten that bad here that the other states are circling our, soon to be corpse, like vultures. Let's get out and vote some of these fools out this time huh?

Short Christmas Missive

       We all have better things to do so I will keep this short.  In business there is a practice called "root cause analysis" that is used to find the source of a problem.  Its the equivalent of asking someone you are dating, "What's really bothering you."  (Married people have learned to be more obtuse)  Root cause analysis is useful in real life.  Like next time you ask yourself: "Why do I have so much garbage?"
       Start with buying habits.  You buy things.  regardless of how much or how little you end up with more garbage than you should.  So then turn to the manufacturers.  Most of their superfluous packaging is to prevent theft.  Avoidable by other methods, but not horrible.  Look now to the people who packed that box for the thing you ordered online.  Lots of extra space, lots of foam/air-bags/peanuts/bubble-wrap/corn foam. (real thing, look it up)(http://www.starchtech.com/?gclid=CJCWhJiSkq0CFeQCQAodjmK5lQ)
       Why do they use so much packaging?  Here is the root cause.  Because the people we charge with the safety of our packages, whom we pay for their safe transit from one point to another, are so bad at their jobs.  UPS, The Post Office, Fed Ex, and the others are careless to the point of criminality.  I know you think this is a silly over-reaction, but to compare: if package carriers were the police, we would all be required to wear class four body armor just in case one of them accidentally did something to hurt us.  So the next time you want to blame someone for the trash, blame the real culprits.
       You will note that I did not call this a "Holiday Missive"  That is because I do not celebrate "Holiday"  I celebrate Christmas.  So Merry Christmas.  If my wishing you happiness bothers you that is a reflection of your character, not mine.
       In my time I have worked in the North Shore area of Chicago.  Many times I was wished to have a happy Hanukkah.  Also Chanukah.  Depended on if they were Orthodox or not.  I never once was offended.  I never felt they were just putting my face in it either.  The fact that anyone, of any religious affiliation, wished me to have a happy anything, was heartwarming.  For the record, I always wished them one back.  See goodwill is free.  It can be freely given.  In fact, I felt it meant a bit more from those who knew I was not Jewish myself.  
       So forgive me this silly Christian tradition.  If my wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas bothers you, or in any way troubles your belief system, know that I say it not to be a troll; but rather, because I genuinely wish well to my fellow man.  It doesn't happen often.  Enjoy it.

Merry Christmas
Happy New Year

Sam.

P.S. just found a Google Easter egg.  Try googling Hanuka, or Chanuka.  You will see a garland at the top of the page.  At least today I did.

Only in Illinois.

       For those of you that missed it, on December 7th of 2011, the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, which exists (theoretically) to prevent the duplication of services, voted down two new hospitals for McHenry county.  This was a very contentious vote, as two rival organizations were asking for permission to build.
       Using the states own numbers, that show a need for more than one hundred additional beds, both sides felt certain that someone was going to get permission.  I would like eveyone to note that in any other business it is known that many businesses offering the same service, or product, results in LOWER prices.  In healthcare it is assumed that competition will result in HIGHER prices.  Supply, demand, heard of them?  You are one up on the state of Illinois.  (More than one actually as apparently you can also read.)
       Competing hospital groups Mercy Health System, and Centegra Health System were up for the vote.  Mercy Health system, of Wisconsin, was asking permission to build a hospital in Crystal Lake, Illinois.  They were voted down, for the third time, with a vote of 6-2 against.  Centegra Health System, of Illinois, was asking permission to build a hospital in Huntley, Illinois.  They were voted down 4-4.  (More on that math later.)  In either case it would have meant jobs for many contractors, who currently are sitting at home wishing someone would build something.  The requests were denied because some relatively local hospitals have available bed space.  The problem with that reasoning is that others are quite full.  Almost as if the populace were expressing a preference for one hospital over another.  How dare they exercise choice.  What do they think this is a free market economy?!
       Kiferbaum Construction was a player in a previous corruption issue involving the board.  (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/09/01/corruption-allegations-shake-illinois-government-health-care-market)  The article states that the entire NINE MEMBER board was to be replaced.  This board had initially denied hospitals permission to build, until they named a particular contractor as their choice for the project.
       Yours truly had written a letter to the local paper back then.  It seems a local politician, who is also a lawyer, was representing Mercy Health System in its first attempt to get a hospital in Crystal Lake.  He quickly distanced himself.  Mercy was shaken down by the board as well, but was found innocent of wrongdoing.
       Overall I have a good opinion of this politician, since he called me personally to discuss the issue.  We disagreed, but he made an effort to reach out to a member of his constituency who was unhappy.  He normally seeks input from the people he represents before making decisions.  It seems like strange behavior, but really it should be what is expected.
       Usually politicians only ask for input when they want to be absolved of responsibility.  Usually they don't ask at all.  Usually they don't care what we think.  This person does.  I will not use their name however, just in case there is still bad blood.  (My letter was not exactly kind, and my current opinion may not be cherished.)
       Here we go again.  Politics as usual in Illinois.  The problem is that they got caught.  The bigger problem is that nothing had changed.  While there is no flagrant demand to place a particular contractor in charge of the project, there is still a suspicion of corruption.
       For you see in the event of a tie, the request is denied.  Unlike baseball, in the event of a tie the call does not go to the runner.  In fact we should examine the entire idea of a tie.
       Perhaps you noticed that the Heath Facilities Planning Board has nine members.  Did one abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest?  No.  Was someone dismissed, or arrested?  No.  One member simply did not show up.  Hundreds of jobs on the line.  Two rival groups who are deeply invested.  Every bit of local media present and liveblogging, as well as webcasting.  All of this and one member just doesn't show.
       But perhaps I am rushing to judgement.  Maybe there was a good reason why one member of a nine member board was not present.  Maybe there was a legitimate reason involved.  It had better be a darned good one.

How to cheat a prospective employer.

       I recently read a helpful article on how to get your resume past the robo filters that most employers now... er... employ.  See, when you submit an electronic resume, or even when you don't, they are filtered by a computer program that looks for certain key words.  There are some legitimate reasons for this.  we will examine those first.
       In the early days of this technology being employed, it was used mostly for technical positions.  The filters would look for specific names, acronyms, or programming languages, so as to filter out those who did not have the required proficiency.  It then became applied to every type of position at every company, and as such, is now quite detrimental.  How can such a powerful tool work against you?  Let's see.
       We have all been there.  Surfing Youtube looking for lolcats or whatever, when you stumble on a video, usually adult, that is somehow in the mix with the "I can haz cheezburger" videos.  After the shock wears off you look at the "tags" associated with the video and see that there are many tags for lolcats, etc.  Now ask yourself: could not someone add such a list to the end of their resume?
       I bounced this off of someone with a bit more computer know how than myself, and he asked why have the "keyword paragraph" at all.  You see, you can insert something called a meta-tag to most documents.  Like the salmonella virus; it is invisible to the naked eye, and yet the hero of our story.  The computer would read these key words, and yet the person calling you for the interview could not see them.  This effectively means you could list the entire friggin' dictionary as key word set if you felt like it.
       Since the type of person who would embellish, enhance, or jargon-load their resume is likely also good at gaming any variety of rating system; as an employer you are showing a preference for the people who will do the least amount of work, but which looks best on paper.
       This will undoubtedly skew payroll in favor of those people, and away from the truly deserving.  Or as a co-worker put it:  "Numbers are b------t.  You want me to make 'em sing, I'll make 'em sing.  You want'em to dance, I'll make 'em dance."  Sound like the guy you want getting the biggest raise?  (For the record, he did exactly that.)
       What do you think the rest of us did when we saw that system working?  We had no choice.  Game the system, or be left behind, bitter about not getting a good raise.  That is what the modern American employer is buying with their reliance on filtering technology.  This is especially true when you are filtering for management buzzwords, marketing non-words, or any of the other crap you are likely to find being made fun of in the funny papers.
       As a side note, some of you no doubt, have noticed that I like to flex my vocabulary from time to time.  Honestly it is because it makes me feel like I'm better than you.  Kidding.  That's not why I'm better than you.  My point is that someone who has a big vocabulary, and is not in a field where filters should be used, may choose to employ words that the filter will not be looking for, but which a human would see, recognize, and accept.
       In short, corporate America, you are filtering out the people with a bigger vocabulary, (not necessarily indicative of a greater intellect, mind you) in favor of those willing to game your system.  Game here being synonymous with cheat.  Human Resources is the last place that computers should be used instead of people.  Also the most dangerous place to allow this level of laziness.
       Enjoy the workforce you have purchased for yourself corporate America.

American's Elect is a scam

       American's Elect (http://www.americanselect.org) is a scam.  I had, in the past, recommended those with a dissatisfaction in either or both parties, to head to their website and check them out.  That was than.  I will state, for the record, A: that the organization I recommended is a scam that had taken me in, and B: no longer exists, as such.
       You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states.  They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same.  A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
       Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by.  One of them is that they have to disclose funding.  Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it.  When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked.  Then they delayed.  Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources.  That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate.  But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
       A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers.  So, rich people playing at politics.  I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
       One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote.  Possible.  Rich guys, power, Possible.  Doubtful.  Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote.  Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful.  Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor.  Possible.  More likely.  Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
       Why do I say the lowest form of rich people.  Industrialists build things and provide jobs.  Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs.  Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs.  Hedge Funds though:

"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund)

Further:

"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"

(Ibid)

Seems we have a winner as to the motivations of this particularly sleazy group.  Recent changes to the law will regulate the back-door dealings of hedge fund managers.  We can't have that now can we?  This is not politics as usual.  This is far worse.  This is people willing to do anything, to preserve a good old boy network of legalized insider dealing, at the expense of those who can least afford it.  And they don't even feel it is worth falsifying donation records.  We are so far beneath them as to be not even worth lying to.

All or Nothing.

       No, despite the title this is not about the idiocy of the Super-Committee.  I want to discuss a topic that I have devoted a lot of thought to, that is contentious, and that might make some of you think I wear a tinfoil hat.  I have from time to time, but only for dramatic effect/Halloween costumes.  I was reminded of my need to share this when I watched a video that was posted on Facebook.  (Thanks C.P.)
       The right to vote in this country, like any of our rights, is an all-or-nothing proposition.  We all possess an equal say in who represents us in government.  Some, through negligence, apathy, disenfranchisement, or laziness choose to have less of a say by failing to exercise the right to vote.  They choose to be among those who do not participate.  Remember that distinction.  This is something they chose to do.
       Now for the tinfoil hat...  The reason everyone has a right to vote is that; say we exclude one class of people.  Not based on race, creed, color, or religion; but on something we can all agree is their own fault.  For this example we will use convicted Felons as being excluded from having the right to vote.  Now I needed time to process the argument here because, frankly, it was against what I was saying so the first few times I heard: "the constitution blah-dee blah, blah, blah.  And the founding fathers blah-dee blah, blah, blah, blah."  For the record, that is counter-productive.  You can't effectively argue against something if you aren't paying attention to it.
       The reason you can't pull voting rights from even a group like convicted felons is that one thing would occur.  (hats on)  Politicians could make all kinds of things felonies, and jail all who disagree with them.  The other side of that is to allow felons to vote, and having politician still make all kinds of things felonies, but promise the felons things that would make them vote for you.  Pander to the "prison class" you have created.  The person who promised, and delivered the greatest prize would win elections.
       There are those who argue we have been doing that for years with the "underclass" that politicians have created.  We have people who would have a lower income by working than they do by collecting public aid.  Many would point at the left for this, but I disagree.  Many times, in recent history, the Right has been in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, yet the issue persists.  That means both sides must want this.  (I told you, you would need a hat)
       Thus we have a system where those on public aid will vote for the person promising the biggest increase in payments.  Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."  There is an obvious solution, don't give people on public aid the right to vote; but as stated, the right to vote is all-or-nothing.  Perhaps, but again, there is a leap of reason that would allow such a thing to occur, even in our republic.
       Remember the people who chose not to vote.  By accepting public aid, or being convicted of a felony, you would simply be considered someone who chooses not to vote.  No one made the felon commit a crime.  The people in need of aid can go to charities for help.  At very least this would keep politicians from buying votes at the taxpayers expense.  Speaking of charities, they would have more money because tax-payers would have more money.  Freed from the burden of those who would abuse the system, those who vote for the biggest promises, they would have more disposable income.  When that goes up, so do charitable contributions.  So does wasting money on stupid crap you don't need, but I digress...
       I realize that many of you will cease reading my posts at this point.  But I encourage you, please, if you find I am mistaken, write a rebuttal.  Provided it is clean, not insulting, and above all, well reasoned, (I know its subjective, but really, have you seen what some people write?) I promise I will post it with all credit given to the author.  I would love it if someone presented a better solution, because when the only solution I see is removing someone's rights, I would love to be wrong.
      I will however, not publish; hate speech, someone parroting something they heard on Fox news, or someone who didn't realize that Jon Stewart was being sarcastic.

Illinois math

http://www.nwherald.com/2011/11/25/state-reaping-less-from-lottery-in-new-fiscal-year/alruvan/

       I don't normally begin with a link, but if you want to read the whole thing here you go.  Headlines are all something like: State Lottery revenues down for fiscal year.  Something like that.  Here are some excerpts.  I am using the one from my newspaper, but it was an Associated Press article, so it was everywhere.

       "The state's share of Illinois Lottery revenue dropped in three of the first four months of the fiscal year compared to the same period last year"

We are then assured this is only temporary.

"The state last year chose Northstar Lottery Group as the Illinois Lottery's first-ever private manager, promising that sales – and therefore the state's share of revenue – would increase."

A little history is presented. The comedic potential builds. Then the punchline:

"Northstar CEO Connie Laverty O'Connor said total sales are up 12 percent and instant ticket sales are up 23 percent, compared to last year"

This is odd since the State's revenues are down... Some clarification please.

"O'Connor said the company still is paying expenses incurred last spring for advertising and equipment as it prepared to take over."

So a state lottery, which has existed for decades, needed advertising and equipment? Perhaps I don't fully understand. Perhaps there is full disclosure, and this is the truth.
William of Occam was a 14th century philosopher who is credited with a bit of logic we all know and love, even if we don't know the name. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is probably correct. What would the simplest solution be here in the land of Honest Abe Lincoln? Let's read further...

"Reports show the state's share of lottery revenue dropped by $2 million in July, to $41 million; by $4 million in August, to $35 million; and by $6 million October, to $49 million. It rose by $6 million, to $59 million, in September."

       So down 2M, down 4M, down 6M, and up 6M. -2+ -4 + -6 + 6 = -6. The state of Illinois is down a net of 6 million dollars, in a year when total sales are up 12%. The article does not state what the total sales were however. But hey this is the internet folks. 3,2,1...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/illinois-lottery-breaks-new-sales-record-in-fiscal-year-2011-127726788.html

here is a good block quote...

"The Illinois Lottery ended fiscal year 2011 on June 30, with another record-breaking year – its ninth consecutive year of increasing sales. During fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the Lottery generated $2.278 billion in sales, an increase of 3% over last year. Over the past five-year period, since fiscal year 2007, Lottery sales have increased by more than 11%. "

You read that right. Another record year. 2.278 Billion, with a B, in annual sales. And the states share is 41M + 35M + 49M + 59M = 184 Million.

http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news01.htm

The lottery's own page says that 58 cent of every dollar is paid as prizes, the state gets 30 cent, 7 cent is for retailer/ vendor commissions and bonuses, and 5 cent for administrative costs.

Some math, and some double checking later and we have, assuming the total sales of 2.278 billion, as reported: Total prize payout 1,321,240,000. (1.32124 B) Admin costs of 113,900,000 (113.9 M) Vendor take as 159,460,000 (159.46 M) and the State's share as 683,400,000 (683.4 M).

I may not know how to use the square root of -1 in an equation, but I know that 683.4 Million is a hell of a lot more than 184 million. 499.4 Million to be exact. That is 499,400,000 missing from the State's share. I think that the news needs to dig a bit deeper on this one. Why are we not gathering torches and pitchforks, and marching on Springfield? Corruption in Illinois is a big friggin' joke. It's funny too: right up until you realize who it's being played on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/illinois-budget-watchdog-_n_981882.html

"In a statement announcing the report, Laurence Msall, Civic Federation president, described the state's recent budget process as "somewhat improved" over recent years, as the annual gap between revenue and expenses was significantly reduced -- from $3.9 billion to $454 million."

So the amount that the state is short is 45.4 million LESS than what they were shorted by the lottery.  

THAT IS A SURPLUS OF 45.4 MILLION.  Now that may not seem like much when the deficit is 8+ billion, but if each year we take in more than we spend we get out of the hole.  Instead, we are crawling further in.  

All numbers reported are as presented by Northstar lottery group and the Illinois lottery. All derivations are mine, so feel free to double check them. I did twice. All anger, ire, rage, and revolution should be directed toward the State of Illinois.

http://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/ContactUs.aspx

That's the address above. Please let them know how you feel. And remember this crap come the next election. Remind me: I'll re-run this post.

Thanksgiving

       Not this time.  No politics.  No shopping advice.  Today is a history lesson.  We will discuss the first Thanksgiving.  Something they should have taught in history class instead of revising what happened to fit our current sensibilities.  But that is another post.
       We know from historic records that the first Thanksgiving featured deer.  Five to be exact, provided by the Wampanoag  We know that it lasted three days.  We know that the same records indicate that four men went on a "fowling" expedition.  We know it was in 1621.
       We do not know what the "fowl" in question were.  We do not know what else was served.  We do not know much else actually.
       We can assume, infer, and suppose many things.  Since the colony was celebrating its first successful corn harvest, it is safe to infer it was on the menu.  Since they were in New England, it is safe to assume that there were clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and anything else that could be obtained from the sea.  It is safe to suppose that since sugar would have run out the year before, and the maple syrup that the Wampanoag taught the colonists to make is a springtime thing that there wasn't much sweet presented.  Unless it was provided by the already established Wampanoag.
       So remember when you are giving thanks this Thursday; that the turkey you are eating likely was not a part of the meal.  If it was, it was a small part.  Remember also that the leftovers that last two more days were a part of the first Thanksgiving.  Above all remember that this is the one holiday that unites us all as one people.  All of us American.  All of us feasting, and toasting our good fortunes.  All of us one Nation.  Not half blue and half red, but all Americans, all family.  For a while anyway.

God Bless.


P.S.  Here's a link if you want to do some extra curricular learning.

http://www.history.com/topics/thanksgiving

Why would you ever buy CFLs?

       If you didn't know you should go buy light bulbs.  Now.  Come back and read the rest of this when you are done.  Buy a decades worth, and pick me some up if they are on sale.  You will soon no longer be able to buy incandescent bulbs.  We've all heard the propaganda, good for the earth, blah, blah, blah.
       There was a government appointee on WGN recently extolling the virtues of CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent lamp) and LED bulbs (Light emitting diode).  He began by stating that the average American home, assuming 2 hours of lighting per room per day, spends eight whole dollars a year on electricity for lighting.  The host, obviously as confused as I was, asked if he didn't mean per month, or per room.  The "expert" said that no, he meany per year, but with CFL's you could cut that cost in half.  and with LEDs you could get that down to 2 dollars.
          I feel that might actually be right because you see, 100 watts of light in a room is a lot.  Your computer uses about 1200 watts.  Same for a TV.  The furnace or AC is around 4000.  But that aside lets do some math.  We all like math, right.  Most of our electric bill is spent on things that are not lighting.  Current rates are about 8 cent per KW/Hour.  That's 8 cent for each thousand watts, each hour.  So one hour of 100 watt lighting is .8 cent.  (1/10 of a KWH x 8 cent.)  2 hours per day = 1.6 cent.  x 365  = $5.84.  I don't think we all use 100 watt bulbs, so he might be right.

       On Amazon I found 60 watt, or 60 watt equivalent bulbs of each type.  Using the cheapest I could find I came up with: A 24 pack of incandescent bulbs for 11.87.  We'll go ahead and call that 12 dollars.  That makes them 50 cent per bulb.  (49.4 cent, actually)  (http://www.amazon.com/SYLVANIA-10489-60-Watt-130-Volt-Household/dp/B000BQPXFK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579431&sr=8-3)  Found an off-brand for 42 cent per, but I wouldn't buy those.

       Next is the CFL, darling of congress.  8 pack for $8.75.  That's 1.09 per bulb.  These particular bulbs will not quite get you to the four dollar a year mark, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt.  (http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU/ref=sr_1_1?s=lamps-light&ie=UTF8&qid=1321579377&sr=1-1)

       Now lets look at the LED bulb.  One for $16.00.  Easy math at least.  (http://www.amazon.com/LED-Standard-Screw-Replacement-1020wh/dp/B004ORFCVM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1321579471&sr=8-4)

       So for each year the cost is, assuming 8 bulbs (artificially low) , Standard: $11.92.  (8 bulbs plus cost/year)  CFL cost would be $12.72  Since they seem to last about as long as an incandescent that means they cost MORE.  Also the more bulbs you have the worse it looks for CFLs.  (Note: they are supposed to last longer but I have just not seen it.)  Next the LED bulb at $130.00 cost per year.   Now they are supposed to last a long time and for that price, they damned well better.  Like 11 times as long.

        I would also like to point out that all of these options have been available for a while.  No one was forcing us to buy incandescent bulbs, we did it because we liked the color of the light, and WE CAN DO MATH.  Unlike congress.

       We now come to the reasons why CFLs and LEDs are bad, other than the cost.  You see CFLs and LED lamps take more material to make.  Most CFLs are mercury vapor lamps, and technically have to be disposed of by a special waste handler, SINCE THEY ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.  And the color of the light they put out is an atrocity.  Also the flicker of a fluorescent can induce headaches in some, and migraines in others.  You can't put a CFL in your oven for a light, nor can you use an LED.  Neither is able to be used around some medical equipment (MRI scanners for example)   Congress, is there a plan "B" for that?

       But at least we FEEL like we are saving the planet.

The growing list of reasons I will never again buy anything made by GM

       My love affair with Buick came when a buddy sold me his '69 LeSabre.  Wrap around bumpers, six and a half feet wide, ugly dead GM green paint.  It had been in an accident and had a side dent as a result.  The windshield was cracked, it smelled like mold and exhaust inside.  That was because the exhaust manifold was also cracked.  The hood needed to have deck pins installed because the current latch, a bungee cord, was worn out.  The engine, I found out after trying, unsuccessfully, to replace the thermostat, was from a '73 Century.  If you want to see it, it looked a lot like the car in "My Hooptie" by Sir Mix-a-lot.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKF0o42F7yw)   The rear end looked different on the LeSabre, that one is an Electra.  I loved that hunk of crap.
       When it came time to but my first new car I wanted another Buick.  The one I could afford was a Skylark, '95.  It ran well but certain things were off kilter.  I had to explain to my, then girlfriend-now wife, that the brake trouble light was nothing to worry about.  It went off all the time in wet weather, just turn off the car and restart and it went away.  Also the GM belt noise.  I see some of you nodding your heads.  The thing that bothered me most though came one mid-January day when I had to change a headlamp.
       I went to the local auto parts store, I always went to Murray's back then, and matched up my new headlamp from the computer.  "Oh good" I thought looking at it in the shiny new blister pack, "it's a twist out, five minutes and done."  I see some of you laughing.  Yeah, I found out that day.  See in order to get to the twist out, easy to replace lamp, you needed to remove the battery on one side, or the radiator overflow tank on the other.  So I needed a socket set.  And I froze my sorry butt off because it took about half an hour.
       Years later I owned a GM Sonoma, but was expecting my first child.  My wife did not like the idea of no back seat, so I was looking for a new car.  My brother was working at a dealership at the time and scored me a low mileage trade-in from a retired reporter who lived nearby.  10,000 miles, 10,000 dollars.  Three year old car.  Power everything, and I mean everything.  The passenger seat is six way power adjustable.  I was glad because my last Buick was trouble free for many years except for that idiot headlight.  Surely they had corrected such an egregious oversight in the last six years.  Also the LeSabre is a much larger car, surely they didn't need to compact the components so tightly.
       Tonight I noticed a headlamp out.  Wait for it.  I again got the new one from the store, then attempted to install it in the parking lot.  Twist out, unplug, plug in new, twist in.  Five minutes.  NOPE!  This time they made it so you have to take out the headlamp assembly just to access the lamps.  Please excuse the following caps lock.  HEY GM!  THE ENTIRE POINT OF TWIST OUT COMPONENTS IS QUICK REPLACEMENT!
       Also there is the whole government bailout, and you jerks at GM owe every single American Citizen a free frickin' car of their choice.  But that is another post.

I have never been shot at. Thank you Veterans.

       In my lifetime, nearly forty years on this earth, I have never been fired on.  I have never been subject to tyranny.  I have never been governed by someone who derives power from violence.  I have never been exposed to the horrors of war.  I have never so much as had to ration things so our soldiers had enough.  When I hold my rifle, it is at a rifle range, for the purpose of punching holes in a sheet of paper, for recreation.
       My point is: not only do I owe all veterans a debt of gratitude, I owe more than I can repay.  Unlike most of my whining blogger cohorts, I realize that the only reason I have the latitude to be able to communicate a message of my choosing, and only my choosing, subject to no regulation, is because of the sacrifice of others.  (Also I am aware of the difference between Veteran's day and Memorial day, unlike most of our politicians and media.)   In fact, you veterans have done such a good job protecting the rest of us, that most of us have never known the harsh realities of war.         
       My uncle, my Godfather, returned injured from service.  He was missing part of one leg and required a prosthetic.  I won't lie and say he never let it bother him.  I won't say he maintained his faith.  I will not sugar coat the truth of what happened.  I never knew him before then, but everyone who did says he was very much a changed man.  He died a few years ago.  The world is worse off for it.
       My Father returned from the same war physically whole.  He still doesn't talk about the fighting.  He shares many stories about the days in the Motor pool, but is silent on the rest.  My brothers and I asked him once why.  He said that someone who has seen combat simply has no frame of reference to the rest of us.  No amount of reading books, or watching movies, and certainly not playing video games, will ever give the rest of us an ability to relate. 
       I like to pretend I understand what he means.  I get what he's saying, but I have never experienced something that could not be explained to someone who hadn't also experienced it.  My Father is quite articulate when he wants to be.  So if he says he can't find a way to tell us about the things he experienced, I have to assume no one could. 
       So when, on this day devoted to you and the sacrifices you have made; I say "Thank you" to all of the veterans, it is with the full knowledge that everything I have, everything I am, and everything I have the right to achieve is because of you.  No matter what else you have learned know this: at least one person appreciates what you have done, what some of you still do.  Even if I am not capable of fully understanding it.  Thank you, and God bless.

Occupy this.

       The directionless masses forming the "occupy" movement have recently started wearing masks, as a symbol of their movement.  It was reported by the Ass-ociated Press that it is a "V for Vendetta" mask.  To those of us with an education it is a Guy Fawkes mask.  Not surprisingly named for Guy Fawkes.  Guy Fawkes was part of a group who attempted to bomb the House of Lords with casks of gunpowder placed beneath their chambers in 1605.  He was caught there, guarding the gunpowder on November 5th.  The plot, quite obviously, failed.       
       Which brings me to the main thrust of this missive.  Appropriateness.  See the mostly peaceful sit-ins of the occupiers, which amounts to nothing more than noisy complaining, is the exact opposite of a violent bombing of an entire branch of government.  One of these things is an action, the other whining.  On another note, were I to pick someone to represent a political movement I were a part of; I would pick someone who succeeded in what they were doing.  Guy Fawkes failed.
       Another group had taken to wearing Guy Fawkes masks.  You may have heard of them.  The Tea party.  Now I will not begrudge anyone a fashion statement, but given how politically disparate the two groups are, it is amazing they both feel a connection to this character.
       One positive to come of this though is the mask wearing.  If only we could get every idiot extremist to wear a Guy Fawkes mask...

Ron Paul stabs Joe Biden in desperate bid for attention.

       In an effort to get any billing at all despite winning yet another Republican straw poll; Ron Paul fatally stabbed Vice-President Joe Biden in the neck with an uncooked lasagna noodle that had been sharpened, according to anonymous sources.  Paul, who is consistently listed as an "also ran" by the media despite winning nearly every straw poll was apparently in a rage over the attention being received  by Herman Cain.
       "I just don't understand," Paul was quoted as saying. "something might have happened 20 friggin' years ago and this becomes an issue.  I thought we still had high unemployment.  I mean, What the hell?"
       Paul was detained by capital police for most of an afternoon before being released on his own recognizance, since members of congress are incapable of wrongdoing.  He was referring, of course to the flap over allegations of sexual harassment dating to when Cain was in charge of the National Association of People who Spit in Food.  In a news story broken by politico, it was disclosed that perhaps there was something that happened resulting in a settlement, which included a gag order.  One alleged victim, apparently completely ignorant of what a gag order entails, said she will come forward with her story anyway.
       This just in, apparently, not to be outdone, Rick Perry has challenged Mitt Romney to settle the Primary election "Texas Style."  Apparently this entails the two contenders taking turns kicking each other between the legs until one gives up.  Mr. Romney the current leader in every way except those involving numbers or math, could not be reached for comment.  Michele Bachmann, ever the voice of reason, stated "I don't believe that's how it works, but I guarantee a Bachmann victory if that is how it has to be."  She further stated that she looks forward to running against Mrs. Clinton in November.

       If you need me to tell you this was satire you are a sad, sad individual.

Rapid Fire

       I know I promised lengthy discussions on topics, but sometimes there is a lot of ground to cover in a short time so hang on and close your eyes if you have to.  Remember, my views are mine.  I only speak for myself, and sometimes my dog, but never anyone I have ever worked for, or whose schools I have attended, public or private, real or imagined, dead or alive.
   
       In my former fair city of Chicago there is currently a movement led by alderman Danny Solis to make the possession of marijuana a misdemeanor, punishable by a ticket, rather than jail time.  Rather than focus on what may or may not be the positives and negatives of this move in terms of legalization, lets focus on the alderman's argument.  That argument is that police spend 89,000 man hours arresting, booking, and jailing offenders.  That is just the police in Chicago.  No other city, not counting court time, etc.  This alderman feels that the officer's time would be better spent on more important things.  Good point.
       Alderman Tom Tunney is suggesting a crackdown for ordinance violations in the city ranging from dog licencing, and handicap parking to using camera technology to enforce speed limits and sidewalk shoveling.  I like that, enforce speed limits with robo-tickets.  That is the point when you stop pretending it is about safety.  A police officer giving you a warning enforces the speed limit.  An electronic ticket, aside from violating due process, is only about revenue.
       So Chicago news is summed up as:  Marijuana possession, decriminalized.  Not shoveling snow that you did not put there: criminalized.  See what I did there.

       At work we had a teleconference where some upper level executive was proudly telling us how CEO's of other major companies are approaching our company with basic problems, and asking for solutions.  He was rather happy because this clearly meant more money for our company.  What's not to like?  It does point to a sad truth though.  The CEO of a hospital does not know enough about running their business to know what equipment, or professionals they need to treat patients.  At that level this is actually expected.  They also don't know enough to ask the Doctors and Nurses and Technicians who already work there, and would know this information.  Likely they would know it better than the sales team of a single company.  Just sayin'...

       The Gross Domestic Product is up.  That is pointing to a recovery, or at least the end of the downward slide.  This is great news.  Unless you are unemployed.  See the current 9 percent rate is only those collecting unemployment.  The actual rate, which counts people who are no longer looking, no longer eligible, and the people with advanced degrees working the drive thru., is around 30 percent.  If you are a teacher, a nurse, or in any field where governments' bad decisions affect your ability to find employment, then the following does not apply to you.  With unemployment so high, and growth occurring anyway, there is only one interpretation to be had.  Those currently unemployed, with the exception of those listed above, were not really needed.

       In the paper today some buffoon wrote in bashing the tea-party.  I will not defend the Tea-Party, or their practices.  This buffoon's letter, though was not attacking their beliefs or practices.  Rather she was attacking the fact that these people are "half-educated, non statesmen".  Perhaps it is time for a civics lesson Martha (redacted) of Crystal Lake.  Our founding fathers were half-educated non statesmen.  Our country is founded on the belief that half-educated non statesmen can run it.  Until recently you would have been laughed out of the room for such an asinine moronic inaccurate statement.  Since we mostly have Ivy-League-educated statesmen running government now, and given the complete wreck they have made of it we should give the half educated non statesmen their shot.
 
       The true crime here isn't that the GOP has a splinter group of half educated outsiders that are winning elections.  The crime is that the Democrats don't.

In Defense of Herman Cain: A progressive, flat, regressive tax.

       I was listening to the news on the way home from work, as is my wont, and they were discussing the oddly controversial 9-9-9 plan that Herman Cain has cooked up.  For those unfamiliar with it, his plan is to have all taxes boiled down to a nine percent income tax, a nine percent corporate tax, and a nine percent sales tax.  You know like in Sim City.  This post is not about whether I agree or disagree, or even what a valid opinion might be, or even if he stole the idea from Sim City.  Rather it is a vocabulary primer for the obviously under-educated media.
       You see they were calling Herman Cain's plan a "Regressive" tax.  Now I may not be the sitting chair of the political sciences department of a university; but I do know that a tax that is equal to nine percent of earnings, regardless of income, is not regressive.  It is flat.  One light argue that it is a regressive tax since the rich would miss that nine percent a lot less, but while that may be true, it is a misnomer.
       A regressive tax is one like they had in medieval times.  the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.  In this example of course the rich, being lords, pay nothing.  But this does illustrate what a regressive tax is.  Conversely a "progressive" tax is one where the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor.  This is the type that most Americans would consider "fair".  This is based on our long held belief in the "ability to pay principle".  The rich can afford to pay a higher percent because they have so much.  Ten percent tax on one million still leaves you nine hundred thousand.  Ten percent tax on one thousand dollars leaves you only nine hundred.  Don't be offended at these simplifications, remember this is for journalists to read, and if they could understand simple concepts, they would have useful occupations.
       Now it wouldn't bother me that this taxing plan was mis-categorized; except that Rick Perry's plan to have a "flat" twenty percent tax was called exactly that by the same media, in the same news story.  Possibly they like Perry better because he provides more sound bites.  I don't know.  I do know that the percentage involved does not matter unless it changes up or down by income level.  Nine percent for all is nine percent for all.  Twenty percent for all is twenty percent for all.
       So let's review:  if you plan to tax people at a flat rate of nine percent it is somehow a "regressive" tax, but if you raise that by eleven percent, up to twenty, it suddenly metamorphoses into a flat tax.  It must be the media's bias in favor of people who provide good audio clips.

European Union

       I will not be using any of my space to complain about the spectacularly self-serving removal of troops ordered by our President.  There are many others doing that, and this is a space for deeper lines of thought.  Instead I will be offering this little aside, roughly based on a conversation I had with my brother-in-law.  It is intended as humor, despite any facts presented.

G:  "You know why the European Union was created, right?"
Me:  "No, why?"
G:  "To keep an eye on Germany."
Me:  "Yeah, speaking of, they are one of the only countries in Europe right now with any financial success."
G:  "True, and they don't seem to care for that."
Me:  "Yeah, they might feel like there is an unfair subsidy of Europe, with German-earned money.
G:  "Also they don't much care for the influx of immigrants that began when the Euro was adopted.
Me:  "What?"
G:  "Yeah, apparently the floodgates opened and now there are a lot eastern Europeans in Germany."
Me:  "So Germany has a lot of non-Germans working in the country, and a lot of people they might consider  'undesirables'."
G:  "Yeah, that's about right."
Me:  I wonder if we, in the rest of the world should be concerned."
G:  "What about?"
Me:  "I wonder if there is some 'historical precedent' of anything similar that happened with Germany.  Some point in history where they were sending a lot of money to the rest of Europe, and had a country full of non-Germans."
G (laughing):  "None that I can think of."
Me (also laughing):  "Me neither."

It is what it is.

       OK.  See that bit of idiocy up there.  The title.  Worst bit of tautology ever conceived by the English speaking world.  Lets begin our forensic disassembly of this moronic bit of language.  First, if course "it is what it is".  What the hell else could it possibly be.  It goes without saying that this expression goes,... without saying.  It not only is a statement of the painfully obvious, it is also...

       Untrue.  The primary argument people raise against M-theory (its string theory, science stuff, you don't actually need to know anything about it, just play along.)  Anyway, the primary argument against it is that it cannot be proven false.  Therefore, reflexively, it cannot be proven true.  Much like the canned idiocy that is, "it is what it is".  Aside from being obvious and untrue it is also...

       Passive aggressive.  There are ways to express that further action will not help that do not place the blame nowhere in particular.  One might say, "Oh, well, what can you do?"  That phrase places the onus for action on the person hearing it.  Also there is "Que sera, sera."  or in English, "What will be, will be."  This at least places the inevitable in the future where it may or may not be acted on.  But moreover these phrases are used in particular ways, to achieve effect.  "It is what it is" is a phrase used in a host of inappropriate ways.  "Why aren't I getting a raise this year?"  "Well there's no money left in the budget so, it is what it is."  It adds nothing to the conversation except a second.  That is a second you will not get back.  

       A coworker once used that banal idiocy in a conversation with me and I told him, "Stop.  Don't use that moronic phrase, man.  You're better than that."  He agreed.  (Although I did catch him saying it again)  Certain phrases, like this one should be avoided at all costs, because it tells the world they are dealing with an idiot...

       Who is not worth talking to.  There's the silver lining.  I no longer need to wonder if the person I'm talking to is the sort of person who when being asked about the average level of intelligence replies, with no sense of irony, "I think most people are smarter than that."  (actual conversation.)  "Than average"  I said.   "Yes"

"You are saying that most people are smarter than average?"  I condensed.  "Yes"  They replied.  

       But if they had replied with "it is what it is" I would have known them for an idiot without the need for clarification.  (Most people may be smarter than the average level, if there are more profoundly retarded people than geniuses.  But such things are beyond the grasp of the person I was talking to, and not within the scope of the conversation.  Just for clarity's sake).  By the way, I have sworn off ever uttering such ridiculous drivel as that cursed phrase.  The only time I have employed it is here, and it will be the last.

Ron Paul has lost my respect.

       Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows that I am an ardent supporter of Ron Paul.  They also know that I have been since before I could vote.  The man has made some brilliant points about the need for less government intrusion in our lives and again, anyone who knows me knows that I feel much the same.  I have backed his efforts.  I have voted for him.  I have explained his positions to people, since the media seems to have forgotten that occasionally people with an ounce of brain run under one ticket or the other.  Or in his case, until recently, a third party.
         If you hadn't heard, we have recently fired a missile at, and killed, a terrorist leader.  There are those who would argue that this was a military action, not an assassination.  I am not one of them.  I will not shrink away from what this was.  I also will not pretend that it is somehow morally superior to have troops march in, at great risk to their own lives, and kill him with a bullet.  The end result is a dead terrorist.  How we killed him is academic.
       In referring to said removal of the newest terrorist leader by a long distance missile, there was his recent quote:  "and now we are told that assassination of foreigners, as well as American citizens, is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people.  It is my firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth."    
       Let's dismember that particularly asinine statement, just for fun, shall we.  Firstly, an American citizen who removes themselves from the country and leads an organization against America is by definition, an enemy combatant.  Otherwise Abraham Lincoln is our country's preeminent assassin.   Remember that Civil War thing.  Blue guys, grey guys, lots of guns.  Yeah that was a group of American Citizens who made themselves enemies of America.  (that's the way it's taught up here anyway.)  But assuming that Mr. Paul is right, then honest Abe is our greatest villain.  (He is not the good guy we were taught, by the way.  That is for another post though.)
       Moving on.  The assassination of the enemies of America is acceptable.  I could make an elaborate moral justification of this, but I do not need to.  If we can eliminate the enemies of America by a method that does not endanger the lives of Americans are we not obligated to?  That aside: If we have the ability to plant a missile in someone's teeth from so far away that they don't even know where it came from, should we not?  (I never know if question marks are appropriate for rhetorical questions.)
       Let's face it, the weak will of the American public and the consummate lack of testicular fortitude of our government has crippled the greatest military the world has ever known. The only thing we have that everyone fears is our ability to remove a threat to our way of life from a distance.  We should be able to, as the worlds foremost military power, cause a sudden eruption of liquid flatulence from every terrorist in the world, at the mere mention we are coming for them.
       So let's review.  Foreign or American born terrorists are enemy combatants.  Assassinating them is not only "legitimate and necessary", but preferable.  Ron Paul is not fit to lead, because he is not able to separate the idealism of his morals from the reality of running the free world.  So when Mr.Paul says that this was an assassination I say, "You're damned skippy it was."
     
   

If you don't have a door, don't use speaker phone.

       Today we will again delve into the world of office ignorance.  There are times when using a speaker phone is appropriate.  Such as when you are on a conference call, or are listening to voice-mails that were left for the whole office, or the entire office is crowded around one monitor and phone for a we conference.  If you are an executive with your own office and a door, then it is OK to use speaker phone, provided the door is closed.  That is not today's topic.
       Today we will be discussing when not to use your #^<!^@ speakerphone.  Such as, when you share an office with other people.  We don't give a rat's ass what your messages are.  Also, we are trying to do our work, you inconsiderate moron, so please pick up the ever-loving handset.  The same rules apply to cubeville.  If someone is listening to their messages it is definitely not OK to use your speakerphone.  those sour looks; not because we all had the same bad bagel for breakfast.  We all hate that you can't see how ignorant you are being.
       If you have a job that requires waiting on hold with technical support, such as IT; then you may use speakerphone, with the volume low, provided you are doing other work while you wait.  It is still ignorant, but it is acceptable.  If, however, you are just sitting at your desk complaining about the music, you may not use speaker phone.  Unless you wish people in your office to begin doing unholy things to your coffee mug, chair, water bottle, and handset.  (For those rare occasions you use the thing.)
       There are many companies that manufacture headsets if you require hands-free operation.  I hear that in this wireless age there are even ones with no cords.  Now I have a solution for correcting the ignorance of others, and surprisingly it does not involve violence.  Wait until they are checking voice-mails, (of course on speaker) and make an important call.  The other person will likely ask what the "noise" is.  Apologize for the noise and say that you have a co-worker who has an earache and cannot put the handset to their ear.  Or just say "I'm sorry, I work with a self-important moron, I'll call back when they are done using their speaker phone at full volume."
       I would recommend just putting a call on speaker every time they do, but experience shows that the caliber of idiot who does this sort of thing is: A, immune to irony  B, unlikely to notice, and C, not likely to learn.  I would not recommend cutting the wires with their own scissors while they are using the phone.  Nor would I recommend Unplugging the cord, applying super glue to the contacts and letting it dry, then plugging it back in.  Those sorts of thing will get you in trouble if you are caught.  And after all, we can't have that.  

Chicago's Inspector General

       The inspector General made some recommendations to the Mayor to achieve financial stability for the city.  I was not aware that such things fell within the auspices of his job.  No matter.  I am optimistic.  Not because some grandstanding appointee, politician makes idiotic statements.  Not because some of these ideas were clearly contrived simply to make the others appear sane by comparison.  (Yes, I mean the toll on Lake shore drive)  Not because of this flagrant wagging of the dog.
       I am optimistic because within minutes, both the media and the people were saying that this was clearly done for the reasons listed above.  The people of Chicago, despite a history of being assumed to be stupid, are becoming quite a bit harder to put one over on.  I will stop short of saying that the people are wising up; but at least they have become so jaded and suspicious of government that they see past the more obvious smoke screens. Making the few of us still working pay higher taxes and fees, only makes class warfare the norm. 
       What no one seems to realize though, is that there is only one way out of this financial mess.  You see the welfare economy we have put in place after WWII relied on constant exponential growth in order to function.  We allow our jobs to be outsourced, and the people who used to work in factories all transitioned to construction.  This is something we all should have seen coming.  The solution, you see, is to bring back manufacturing.  Also, unlike what the President and his cabinet say; building roads, schools and bridges are not real jobs.  The true wealth of America is not our schools roads and bridges.  Those are symbols of our (now former) wealth. 
       The true wealth of America has always been that each American was allowed to work as hard as they want, to achieve what they want.  Our wealth was that we built what the rest of the world needed and wanted.  The only road back to that level of prosperity is protectionism.  Our jobs are more important than Chinese jobs.  That is the way every other country works: by treating their interests as more important than anything else.  Why are we not doing the same?  It does no good for me to yell for everyone to "BUY AMERICAN!", because we would only be able to buy food then.  And we would need to check sources first. 
       We need to set ridiculously high tariffs on imported goods.  Completed or not.  We need to set in place a 51% ownership rule like every other country.  (All companies, or subsidiaries operating in the country must be at least 51% owned by citizens thereof.)  We need laws that protect the American worker.  Corporations only outsource because the law allows it.  Change that and we will fix our entire economy.  Then, and only then, can we help the rest of the world.

Office how to. Or: have some damned Post-it notes.

       You do not have a receptionist.  You do not have a secretary.  You have an office, or a cube, a telephone and a computer.  Maybe not a computer.  Not everyone has their own on their desk.  What you do not have is Post-it notes.  Or a notepad.  Or a pen cup.  Or tape.
       You need these things.  They are not for you.  Say, for example, I have just found out something important that you need to know.  I pop in to your office, but there you aren't.  No problem, I'll just leave a note and... Damn.  Where is does this fool keep their notepad.  It's OK, I have a receipt in my pocket.  I'll just borrow a pen and... no pens either.  Sheesh.  How does this chump get any work done.  Let's see, what do we have on this desk.  Dried up highlighter, coffee ring, crumbs, empty stapler, stack of outdated paperwork.
       Not really presenting a good face there are we.  Also, you just missed being told about the mandatory event that there will not be a memo, or an email for.  See now I walk back to what I was doing, likely forgetting about the important thing.  Even if I remember to send an e-mail when I get back to my computer I wont do it.  I'll just claim I forgot.
       Now lets play that out the other way.  The CEO walks in and you are out.  They quickly identify which desk is yours because it has a business card holder on it.  Maybe they take one.  Feeling a need to "touch bases" with you for a big project, they reach for your pen holder, remove one (you never put the bad ones back in), and write a quick note on your stack of Post-its.  It is important so they stick it to your monitor.  (or phone).  You have now made a good impression without even being there.
       Or it could have unfolded differently.  Same CEO, same need to leave a message.  They have to hunt for clues as to which desk is yours.  They then need to go through your drawers to find paper and pens... and anything else you keep there.  Nothing unprofessional I hope.  No movies, no risque photos, no want ads... not in your desk.  Of course not.
       I'm not saying to have an immaculate desk.  Just place certain things where they can be easily found.  You are not the only person who might need them.  You just might benefit from it.

Free Appropriate Public Education

       Section 504 of the Rehabilitation act of 1973, guarantees the right of students with disabilities to a free appropriate public education.  Free being either provided by, or reimbursed by the school district.  Appropriate, being; as required by the assessed needs of the particular individual student.  Public, meaning; meeting the ever so stringent requirements of public school requirements.  Education is self explanatory.
       This is a great thing that shows our compassion to those who are unfortunate.  But it is backward thinking.  I would never say that we should not help the disadvantaged.  But I will demand parity for the gifted.  Just as I could argue that being too tall is as much, if not more of a handicap as being too short, I will go on record as saying that we are not providing Free Appropriate Public Education for our country's gifted.
       I once worked with a man from China.  He told me that in China you are tested, at quite a young age, to determine your mental abilities.  If you do well enough you go to a gifted school for your entire educational career.  This is to ensure that the people who could most benefit society receive Appropriate education.  At the risk of being called a communist, I feel perhaps they have the right of it on this issue.  Why would we leave the next generation's best and brightest in a classroom where they will become bored, and possibly give up on pursuing education.  Did you learn anything between fourth grade and college?  I damn sure didn't.
       In major cities there are special schools, and special programs for the gifted.  Go outside of them by so much as a foot, and there are none.  Within the cities, these programs are not conveniently located.  Nor are they able to take all of the students who would benefit from this type of program.
       My brother, who has a teaching degree, said he was taught  that teachers are supposed to "aim for the fairway".  Teach to the middle.  Well that is fine if you are in the middle.  If you are behind, the schools are mandated to help.  But the gifted students are just left to their own devices, bored, miserable, neglected, and misunderstood.  Is it really any wonder the smart ones never go into politics.
     

Don't Call It Patriot Day

       Something terrible happened.  I still can't discuss it without raising my voice and getting angry.  But on this terrible day, some attempted to do right.  They made the hard choice.  They risked, and ultimately lost, their lives trying to take back the control of a hijacked plane.  "Let's Roll" became the rallying cry of a country.  They were heroic.  They should be remembered.  They fought the good fight and lost.  I will not disparage their efforts, and I can only hope that if presented the same circumstance, I would have the guts to do the same.
       But when you decide to call a tragic day something positive, you are turning your back to the truth.  December seventh was called "a day that will live in infamy".  It was called Pearl Harbor day.  It was called December seventh, because to those who lived through it, that was enough.  They all knew, sure as the day is long, what it was.  It was not called hero's day.  Though undoubtedly many heroic actions were taken.  It was not referred to as "Nationalism day", although I guarantee every American knew who's side they were on right then.  What made the greatest generation great was that they faced that ugliness for what it was.  They didn't mince words, nor did they sugar-coat it.  They knew something that we have apparently forgotten.
       So when we choose, in our ignorance, to call a day of tragedy, that should be marked with black armbands, "Patriot Day" and celebrate with flag waving; we turn our backs to the truth.  Call it "New York day".  Call it "World Trade Center day".  Call it "Twin Towers day".  Call it "a day that will overshadow the day that will live in infamy".  Simply call it "9/11".  But if you only ever commit one act of civil disobedience, refuse to call it "Patriot Day".  It does not honor the sacrifice of the fallen, when we turn our backs on the reason they fell.

Agenda for America

       I will admit it freely.  I have an agenda.  Not a unabomber-manifesto type agenda.  Or a tea-party agenda.  Certainly not a socialist agenda.  I am a centrist.  By that I mean I hold x- number of reactionary /libertarian views, and an equal number of socialist views.  So they kinda balance out.  (example, pro gun, don't care if gays marry)  In other countries, such as the Nordic Socialist- democracies, they have names for that.  Here we do not.  My agenda is simple, and detailed below:
       Keep them from f-ing it up.  By "them" I mean politicians.  You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate.  An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
       You may be asking, "Why is that good?"  I'll tell you my friends, right this way.  The eternal dance we call a representative democracy.  You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government.  They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years.  Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
       This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will.  No I have not been drinking.  Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
       Equal opportunity bashing:  The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year.  3 for 3 as I recall.  For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it.  (I know, bad grammar)  Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will.  Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
       Now for the righties.  Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech.  Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks.  Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong.  Especially if that were part of my job description.  But then I'm no congressman.  The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong.  Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass.  Just sayin'.
       To the (ahem) neutral media:  Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners.  Bachman is last in almost every poll.  Put Ron Paul on the television.  He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate.  Perhaps the only one.
       Never wanted to be this guy but here I am:  I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites.  For the record, it was narrated by a white male.  Presumably affluent.  That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism."  (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first".  I have been that guy.  Low income, Republican voter.  I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone.  Although if a candidate promised world domination...
       It all starts with assumptions.  We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right.  We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
       "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."  -Henry Ford-

Re-engineering government.

        Governor Quinn recently line item vetoed the funding away from regional school superintendents.  His reasoning is that they are unnecessary bureaucrats.  While I would advise a former Lieutenant Governor not to throw stones at useless bureaucrats, I can't say he is wrong.  This really is not even a good start on eliminating useless positions in Illinois government.
       Having been victimized by it more than once, I have read many books, articles, and 'zines on re-engineering companies, workers, and management.  A quick show of hands: who here, at some point, has been re-engineered right the hell out of a job?  Everyone, I see.  That is part of my point.  We all face the prospect, daily, that some re-organization or re-engineering will put us out of work.  But then, we do not work for the State of Illinois.  The workers there, as in many bloated, corrupt, good-old-boy-network, employers feel entitled to a job.  Even if it has no duties or responsibilities.
       I would humbly suggest to our august Governor that he perform a corporate style re-engineering.  And by that I mean, start at the top.  Ask first: what needs to be done?  Then: who do we have that can handle that.  Next: Assign those people to those positions.  Then proceed to the next level down.  Include in your assessment any existing or emerging technology.
       Illinois spends more than any other state, per student, on education.  Now if we had the best educated students, I would not mind one bit.  The sad fact is we have very dismal student outcomes.  Some seventy plus percent going on to college and only 26% that do not require remedial courses on arrival.  How does this happen.
       The teachers union points the finger at the bloated administrative level, and calls them unnecessary.  The Administrators say the cost overage lies with the cost of new equipment, like computers, that the students need.  The state, who mandates these, say the teachers unions and administrators earn too much.  They all point in a big circle at one another and all are right.  Despair.com has a poster depicting a drop of water hitting a pool.  It says: "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood"  That is truly the case here.  All of these groups are right.  They are all to blame.  Illinois teachers do earn too much relative to the outcomes experienced.  The no-bid contracts to supply electronics exceed the cost of simply giving each student a computer.  The administrators are both unnecessary and overpaid.
       I use the schools as an example only because they are in the news.  I would much rather overpay a teacher than a sign holder on a construction crew that makes more than said teacher.  Also I would rather have too many teachers than sign holders.  I do not mean to pick on the education system.  It is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.  We have more districts than any other state.  We have more levels of government than any other state.  This does not buy us better efficiency.  quite the opposite.
 

Why would you ever buy canned mushrooms.

       I have two brothers.  One has stated he will occasionally fill in here, the other recently said I should do a blog asking why in the hell anyone would ever buy canned mushrooms.  Why not?
       I began with some research.  Which produces better results.  This really does not depend on the application as you might expect.  (For clarity's sake I am talking about the mushrooms not the research, but hey, that applies too.)  I used a standard of sliced mushrooms because they are available in three forms at your local grocer-tech.  The aforementioned canned, the also mentioned fresh, and one I was plainly ignorant as to the existence of, frozen.  Now the benefits of canned are; they are ready to go, and have a longer shelf life.  If that can does go bad though, it will not always swell, and you may be introduced to the hero of our story, botulinum toxin.  The downsides; waterlogged, sodium filled, slimy nastiness.  Frozen mushrooms have the benefit of a long shelf life, and barring any power outages, no risk of botulism.  They produce a better result every time, compared to canned, and suffer only minimal cell breakage from freezing.  that said, mushrooms suffer a lot from very small amounts of cell damage.
       Our good friend fresh mushroom has the benefit of being fresh, they do actually keep quite a long time in a dry crisper drawer, and being fresh, have the nutrient content preserved.  Don't get me wrong I do love me some canned goods, and subsisted many years solely on processed foods.  But that was because I was broke, and herein lies the punchline.
       One cup of canned mushrooms, not that they come that way, but using a measurement standard we all know, consists mostly of water weight, and costs $0.89.  There is no way to compare by weight, as the fresh ones are dry, and the canned quite water-logged.  Frozen comes in at $1.78 per cup.  Fresh comes in at $0.62 per cup for sliced.
       So the frozen mushrooms are the most expensive way to go, with mediocre results.  The canned is the next most expensive, with the worst results, and lowest nutrient content.  The fresh mushrooms are the cheapest, about 30% less than canned, with everything in them that is supposed to be there, nothing that isn't and better taste.
       Also for those of you who do not watch the food network; mushrooms are grown in sterile dirt and are ready to use right out of the container.  Also, the water absorbed by washing them, if you feel some pathological need to, (I do) barely registers on a digital kitchen scale for one whole pound.  So no excuses.  In this case fresh is cheaper and better.  Check:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FruitVegetableCosts/vegetables.htm

If you don't trust me.  Holy crap! a blogger citing a source!

As a footnote, fresh broccoli is $0.63 per cup and frozen is $0.62.  No real difference there unless you eat it raw.  But totally worth the extra penny.