You may have missed the report today that 3 out of every 4 Americans are unhappy with the way we are being governed. 69% being at least somewhat angry. Now aside from the fact that between 40 and 60 percent of Americans can't be bothered to vote, or perhaps in addition to this, it shows we are not happy with our government. So why are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders so popular?
When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders. All three fit this, more or less. When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists. All three, again, fit this, more or less. Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia. Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia. Carson apparently favors theocracy.
The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC. This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation. Sanders has words, Clinton has cash. As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".
But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them. It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce. Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system. (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats). Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.
Do I have a plan to fix this? No. I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though. First, abolish the electoral college. We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century. It's well past time. Next, make all primaries on the same day. Then no one state's votes count more than any others. One person, one vote, is violated by the current process. These two steps address this.
Also, a two term limit for each office. You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions). After that, or before, you would work at the state level. Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators) Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency. The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed. These two measures address this.
There may be a better way to accomplish this. I would hope so. I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas. But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect. Something is terribly wrong here.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The invisible tax and you.
In discussing school fees today I became agitated. Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes. What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Colorado and Marijuana
I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana. I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes. I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Firearms Education
While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Why we are really shut down.
A recent (cough) debate on facebook sparked this piece. It followed the opinions of a person, clearly of a liberal bent, and another, decidedly of a conservative one. It went about like you'd expect. I threw in a few things too. Mostly because both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in equal measure.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The United Home-Owners Association of America
Everyone online seems to be using readily understood ideas to represent more complex ones. These are rarely appropriate, and always a gross over-simplification. But hey, I'll hop right on that bandwagon. I have a concept that is actually accurate however. One that will explain why the two-party system is broken beyond repair.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
A violation of civil rights.
The constitution, as it was originally worded, left allowances for slaves, chattel, and indentured servants. Not too long after this was corrected, but not before many lives were made worse, by being treated as second class citizens. Slavery was abolished but wrong-headed practices endured. People were denied rights based on their ethnicity, country of origin, and sometimes even religion.
Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this. Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights. They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected. Their civil rights were being violated.
Apply this logic to what we see today. The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon. This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle. (FBI crime statistics. 18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
That's right. The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm. This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon. The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights. The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings. If reading that infuriates you, good. Because it is no different.
The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles. Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons". Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin. The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do. You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency. Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights. The question here is why is the ACLU not involved? Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this? Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?
Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this. Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights. They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected. Their civil rights were being violated.
Apply this logic to what we see today. The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon. This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle. (FBI crime statistics. 18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
That's right. The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm. This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon. The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights. The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings. If reading that infuriates you, good. Because it is no different.
The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles. Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons". Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin. The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do. You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency. Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights. The question here is why is the ACLU not involved? Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this? Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
No requirement of truth
A recent post hijacking got me thinking. The "two parties" have done a perfect job of brainwashing America. Ask someone to define a typical Republican and they would list them as being "Rich, white guys" at best. Ask for the typical Democrat and you might hear talk of being "socialist". Why do we believe this?
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
That's pretty much it isn't it? We believe what we are being sold. We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with. We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points. Here is a fact for you. Political speech has no requirement for truth. That's right. There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney) made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way. If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement. But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase. I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying. Again, there is no requirement not to.
See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first. A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties. Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it. They don't have the money to run a counter ad. That is a bit imbalanced isn't it? If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist. Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't. Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying. Sure, we'll go with that.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
That's pretty much it isn't it? We believe what we are being sold. We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with. We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points. Here is a fact for you. Political speech has no requirement for truth. That's right. There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney) made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way. If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement. But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase. I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying. Again, there is no requirement not to.
See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first. A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties. Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it. They don't have the money to run a counter ad. That is a bit imbalanced isn't it? If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist. Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't. Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying. Sure, we'll go with that.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
In January the sale of medical devices will be taxed.
I have taken it on myself to write our senators in Illinois, about an upcoming vote to repeal a tax. This tax will begin in January of next year. It will tax the sale of medical devices. The tax will be paid by the manufacturers. Because apparently, if you are a lawmaker, you are either so daft, or so arrogant, that you don't realize the cost to hospitals will go up by the same 2.3% you have decided to tax the manufacturers. I wonder how the hospitals will make that back? Yes, folks, it is another indirect tax they are hoping we wont notice, or will blame the hospitals and not Washington.
In a change of format, I will provide the text of the message I sent to our Senators. The House has already voted 270-146 to repeal this tax so, for now, they are in the clear, on this issue.
Message below:
I have already written on behalf of my company to you. I am speaking now as a private citizen. A 2.3% tax on the sale of medical devices, paid by the manufacturer, will only be added to the cost of the sale. Hospitals, who can least afford it, and are currently being pressured by new regulations, an increase in the percentage of non-paying clients, and pressure from the insurance companies, (also caused by Washington), will end up paying this indirect tax. This type of indirect tax should be made unlawful. It is dishonest and insulting to our intelligence. In this case it will also either cause the collapse of our healthcare infrastructure to accelerate, or the loss of even more U.S. manufacturing jobs. I would say thanks for listening, but there is little chance you will ever directly see this. So to the staffer who does read this: please relay my profound displeasure over this tax. I understand there is a vote coming, naturally after the November elections, to repeal this. This unfair, unscrupulous, and frankly immoral tax should be repealed immediately, regardless of the winner of the Presidential election, or the political climate.
End Message
Here are some web pages that allow you to message the staffer who might eventually summarize what you have written into a thumbs-down. (Or thumbs-up, you might want to pay more for healthcare. I'm not you. I don't know.) At any rate, here is how to futilely attempt to have your voice heard.
http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=comment_on_legislation For Mark Kirk
http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact For Dick Durbin.
Feel free to copy-paste my message. It might be taken to mean a level of organization, and maybe even scare them into doing their jobs for a change.
Thanks for listening.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Too f-ing far.
I was made privy to knowledge that I ordinarily remain ignorant of; my daughters' school supply lists. One daughter needs 7 (seven) dozen pencils, and the other 5 (five) dozen; in unbroken, new packs. Pencils come in packs of 10 (TEN). The reason they need so many, I have been told, is to supply the kids who don't have any. The list always asks for a ridiculous amount to be supplied and then they send them home with most of them at the end of the year, so I don't think they are being used to redistribute the wealth, but seriously, why 7 dozen?
Last year they needed dry erase markers, so when asked, they could write on the board. God forbid they use one that someone else had touched!? But the king of all stupidity, the straw that broke the camel's back, is the ruler. (pun intended) One child is required to have a wooden ruler. You can tell me my child needs a ruler. You can even say it needs a straight-edge on it. But to specify the material? What the f#@% difference does it make?
If an inner-city teacher specifies plastic only, out of fear that the metal on the edge of the wooden ones could be sharpened, I would understand. If a mechanical drawing class requires an architect's scale, I get it. But this is crossing the line. I will only be nannied so far.
Mind you this is not the same for each child. Different grades require different tools. I get that. No problem. But your child's list depends on your child's teacher, (not state, not district, not school, not grade) and that is another point where I call B.S. The teacher's individual preference should not decide how much my child's school supplies cost. The argument is, of course, teaching is facilitated by standardization. Fine, but it starts with the teachers. The teachers for each grade need to get together and decide, grade-by-grade what is needed.
Of course I have the option of placing my children in a private school, and paying twice for the privilege. Also I could home-school them, at the expense of social growth. But why should any of us put up with such petty intrusions. I'm not angry about this despite how petty it is, I'm angry BECAUSE of how petty it is.
There is a basic issue at the heart of this. This issue is one that is touching every corner of our country. A consummate lack of accountability. When I didn't bring in enough pencils, I suffered. My bad planning was related to my parents via a note sent home to be signed, and I learned to be responsible.
What message is being taught here. You (well, your parents) pay for things that are turned over to a government appointee; who will distribute them back to you on an as need basis. No personal accountability. Dependence on "authority", to provide for your needs. You can't be trusted to be accountable for yourself.
If it seems like I'm reading a lot into this; it is because I am. But this story is just used to highlight the flaws in a system that I have been cataloging since my oldest began school. Don't worry though, they are being taught important things like: "You have to do something nice for the Earth every day." (and God, I wish I were kidding.) If I want my children indoctrinated, I'll send them to church, or I'll do it myself. I don't need public schools, that I pay for, to indoctrinate my children into a credo, to which I do not subscribe.
Last year they needed dry erase markers, so when asked, they could write on the board. God forbid they use one that someone else had touched!? But the king of all stupidity, the straw that broke the camel's back, is the ruler. (pun intended) One child is required to have a wooden ruler. You can tell me my child needs a ruler. You can even say it needs a straight-edge on it. But to specify the material? What the f#@% difference does it make?
If an inner-city teacher specifies plastic only, out of fear that the metal on the edge of the wooden ones could be sharpened, I would understand. If a mechanical drawing class requires an architect's scale, I get it. But this is crossing the line. I will only be nannied so far.
Mind you this is not the same for each child. Different grades require different tools. I get that. No problem. But your child's list depends on your child's teacher, (not state, not district, not school, not grade) and that is another point where I call B.S. The teacher's individual preference should not decide how much my child's school supplies cost. The argument is, of course, teaching is facilitated by standardization. Fine, but it starts with the teachers. The teachers for each grade need to get together and decide, grade-by-grade what is needed.
Of course I have the option of placing my children in a private school, and paying twice for the privilege. Also I could home-school them, at the expense of social growth. But why should any of us put up with such petty intrusions. I'm not angry about this despite how petty it is, I'm angry BECAUSE of how petty it is.
There is a basic issue at the heart of this. This issue is one that is touching every corner of our country. A consummate lack of accountability. When I didn't bring in enough pencils, I suffered. My bad planning was related to my parents via a note sent home to be signed, and I learned to be responsible.
What message is being taught here. You (well, your parents) pay for things that are turned over to a government appointee; who will distribute them back to you on an as need basis. No personal accountability. Dependence on "authority", to provide for your needs. You can't be trusted to be accountable for yourself.
If it seems like I'm reading a lot into this; it is because I am. But this story is just used to highlight the flaws in a system that I have been cataloging since my oldest began school. Don't worry though, they are being taught important things like: "You have to do something nice for the Earth every day." (and God, I wish I were kidding.) If I want my children indoctrinated, I'll send them to church, or I'll do it myself. I don't need public schools, that I pay for, to indoctrinate my children into a credo, to which I do not subscribe.
Monday, August 13, 2012
S 3414 Cyber Gun Control.
http://votesmart.org/bill/15638/41248#41248
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Healthcare: A Uniquely American Solution.
After much thinking, and more discussion, (yes, that was intentional) I have arrived at a solution, agreeable to both sides, for the problem with America's healthcare system. Again, this is why it is important to think before you act. (ahem, Congress, Mr. President) I hope that whichever person wins the Presidency, and the new Congress, will see this and at least think it over.
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/ (1)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Link Card Accepted at Market Day
For those of you from another state, Illinois uses something called the Link Card in place of food stamps. This saves people who need government assistance from the indignity of not using a credit or debit card, like everyone else.
Since, despite the taxes we pay, we don't have enough money for the schools to use on things they should have, we have Market Day sales. I will not take anything away from Market Day. I have tried many of their items, and found them mostly superior in quality. This post in no way maligns or impugns (those words look weird, don't they), the products or character of the Market Day company.
By now you're wondering if I've lost it. How can these two items be tied together. Link cards and Market Day. One is a pay in to the system, the other a pay out. Well my gentle reader, there is a way these two things are linked. (pardon the pun)
The flyer sent home with my children for, Market Day, states that they will be accepting the Link card as a form of payment. This is yet another example of Illinois circular reasoning. And it's circular math.
We under-fund schools so they need to have fund raisers. We give people Link cards with some of the tax money that could otherwise have gone to schools. (OK, its mostly lost as graft, but bear with me.) They are then allowed to use those Link cards to purchase food from Market Day, with proceeds going to the previously mentioned, under-funded schools. Like all perpetual motion machines this one will not stay running long without an outside force providing additional energy. That would be our tax money; which feeds this great wheel both top and bottom.
I will not speak out against Link cards here. (That is another post. They are readily abused) I will certainly not speak out against Market Day. I will say that it makes no kind of sense to allow Link cards to be used for Market Day purchases, since by their very nature, their products are priced higher than necessary. Else there would be no proceeds to forward to the school system.
While I would love nothing more than to rant against the people abusing their state paid food plan, I cannot. Not out of any sense of sympathy for them, but because they are not operating outside the rules that were set down. It's cheesy, no doubt; but completely legal. And really, why shouldn't we all be abusing the state's coffers. Our "Leaders" do.
Off topic: the President's recent comments about being in favor of Gay Marriage are as insincere as they are brilliant. I say insincere because if he were in favor, he would have spoken out months ago, when fist asked. Instead, he waited until it was politically expedient. Which is why it is brilliant. He won't lose any votes for saying he is in favor of it. However his opponent, in an effort to differentiate himself, immediately went on record against it. This will cost him votes. Brilliant, but insincere.
Since, despite the taxes we pay, we don't have enough money for the schools to use on things they should have, we have Market Day sales. I will not take anything away from Market Day. I have tried many of their items, and found them mostly superior in quality. This post in no way maligns or impugns (those words look weird, don't they), the products or character of the Market Day company.
By now you're wondering if I've lost it. How can these two items be tied together. Link cards and Market Day. One is a pay in to the system, the other a pay out. Well my gentle reader, there is a way these two things are linked. (pardon the pun)
The flyer sent home with my children for, Market Day, states that they will be accepting the Link card as a form of payment. This is yet another example of Illinois circular reasoning. And it's circular math.
We under-fund schools so they need to have fund raisers. We give people Link cards with some of the tax money that could otherwise have gone to schools. (OK, its mostly lost as graft, but bear with me.) They are then allowed to use those Link cards to purchase food from Market Day, with proceeds going to the previously mentioned, under-funded schools. Like all perpetual motion machines this one will not stay running long without an outside force providing additional energy. That would be our tax money; which feeds this great wheel both top and bottom.
I will not speak out against Link cards here. (That is another post. They are readily abused) I will certainly not speak out against Market Day. I will say that it makes no kind of sense to allow Link cards to be used for Market Day purchases, since by their very nature, their products are priced higher than necessary. Else there would be no proceeds to forward to the school system.
While I would love nothing more than to rant against the people abusing their state paid food plan, I cannot. Not out of any sense of sympathy for them, but because they are not operating outside the rules that were set down. It's cheesy, no doubt; but completely legal. And really, why shouldn't we all be abusing the state's coffers. Our "Leaders" do.
Off topic: the President's recent comments about being in favor of Gay Marriage are as insincere as they are brilliant. I say insincere because if he were in favor, he would have spoken out months ago, when fist asked. Instead, he waited until it was politically expedient. Which is why it is brilliant. He won't lose any votes for saying he is in favor of it. However his opponent, in an effort to differentiate himself, immediately went on record against it. This will cost him votes. Brilliant, but insincere.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Center for Science in the Public Interest. BS called.
On the way to work today I heard a comment from a representative from the "Center for Science in the Public Interest", say that a medium movie theater popcorn was as bad for you as "three quarter pounders with twelve pats of butter". You know what that means kids; time to call BS on someone.
(http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-mcdonalds-quarter-pounder-cheese-i53977)
(http://citygirlbites.com/blog/archives/399)
(http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20091119/movie-theater-popcorn-a-calorie-bomb)
(http://fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/butter?portionid=29480&portionamount=1.000)
(http://www.storyofwellness.com/2011/11/03/like-eating-3-quarter-pounders-with-12-pats-of-butter/)
So first we tally the claim. Three Quarter Pounders = 1530 calories, 78g fat, (36g saturated), and 3570mg sodium. Plus 12 pats of butter at: 432 calories, 48.72g fat (30.816 saturated), and 12 mg sodium. This totals to: 1962 calories, 126.72 g fat (66.816 saturated), and 3762 mg sodium.
Now they were comparing to the worst case they could find, but let's use their example.
Regal Cinemas medium popcorn: 1200 calories, 60 grams of saturated fat. They don't list the sodium for that particular one but the other worst case was 1500mg. (that was a large BTW) Also I should point out that their numbers, as tested, were significantly higher than what was reported by Regal Cinemas.
So the popcorn is all saturated fat, so that is easily enough compared. Let's do some math.
1962 - 1200 = 762 calories less for the popcorn.
126.72 - 60 = 66.72 less g of fat
66.816 - 60 = 6.816 less g of saturated fat and
3762 - 1500 = 2262 mg less sodium. (one metric crap-ton)
The short story is the popcorn isn't doing you any favors if you eat the whole damned tub yourself. But it is hardly as bad as eating three quarter pounders with twelve pats of butter. In fact, it seems they overstated their case by a whole hamburger, (510 calories), plus several shakers full of salt.
Also apparently they expected you to swallow the big shovel of fertilizer they were passing around.
(http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-mcdonalds-quarter-pounder-cheese-i53977)
(http://citygirlbites.com/blog/archives/399)
(http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20091119/movie-theater-popcorn-a-calorie-bomb)
(http://fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/butter?portionid=29480&portionamount=1.000)
(http://www.storyofwellness.com/2011/11/03/like-eating-3-quarter-pounders-with-12-pats-of-butter/)
So first we tally the claim. Three Quarter Pounders = 1530 calories, 78g fat, (36g saturated), and 3570mg sodium. Plus 12 pats of butter at: 432 calories, 48.72g fat (30.816 saturated), and 12 mg sodium. This totals to: 1962 calories, 126.72 g fat (66.816 saturated), and 3762 mg sodium.
Now they were comparing to the worst case they could find, but let's use their example.
Regal Cinemas medium popcorn: 1200 calories, 60 grams of saturated fat. They don't list the sodium for that particular one but the other worst case was 1500mg. (that was a large BTW) Also I should point out that their numbers, as tested, were significantly higher than what was reported by Regal Cinemas.
So the popcorn is all saturated fat, so that is easily enough compared. Let's do some math.
1962 - 1200 = 762 calories less for the popcorn.
126.72 - 60 = 66.72 less g of fat
66.816 - 60 = 6.816 less g of saturated fat and
3762 - 1500 = 2262 mg less sodium. (one metric crap-ton)
The short story is the popcorn isn't doing you any favors if you eat the whole damned tub yourself. But it is hardly as bad as eating three quarter pounders with twelve pats of butter. In fact, it seems they overstated their case by a whole hamburger, (510 calories), plus several shakers full of salt.
Also apparently they expected you to swallow the big shovel of fertilizer they were passing around.
Friday, February 10, 2012
So insulting it causes physical pain.
I will question why this is being sent. If you need flood insurance, and have a mortgage, (Like your's truly) your lender tells you in no uncertain terms that you'd better have this type of insurance. So this is a sales come-on. From the government. Indirectly of course but... seriously? I think this particular truth is so "self-evident" that I need not even state it.
Someone mentioned something about debt, and some soldiers still deployed in some filthy sandbox. These concerns clearly pale when held to the light of marketing flood insurance to people who don't need it.
We more money put into space exploration. I want off.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
You don't say!
Keeping this one short and sweet, as its been a while.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0207_sodium_food.html
This recent press release by the CDC (Continuous "Derp" Commission) says we are all eating too much salt. That is still debatable. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is true. There is one culprit on the list that is not one of the usual suspects. Bread. Apparently we eat too much.
Remember this guy? 11 servings of bread is considered NORMAL by the FDA. (Federal "Derp" Agency.) Bear also in mind, that the higher the protein content in the bread (Higher fiber) the more sodium it needs to rise. So the "Healthy" bread is packed full of salt.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0207_sodium_food.html
This recent press release by the CDC (Continuous "Derp" Commission) says we are all eating too much salt. That is still debatable. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is true. There is one culprit on the list that is not one of the usual suspects. Bread. Apparently we eat too much.
Remember this guy? 11 servings of bread is considered NORMAL by the FDA. (Federal "Derp" Agency.) Bear also in mind, that the higher the protein content in the bread (Higher fiber) the more sodium it needs to rise. So the "Healthy" bread is packed full of salt.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
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."
"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]"
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."
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)