How to spot fake news.

       I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news.  I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves.  So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news.  Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative.  I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.

       News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting.  Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper.  It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is.  Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer.  It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings.  This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom.  It makes no supposition as to the "why".  Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.

       News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds.  I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life.  Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not.  If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.

       News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story:  I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset.  Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.

       Anything above this point is not "Fake News".   Anything below it is.  Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness.  I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange.  But everything below seems quite familiar.  Put on your chest waders.  The manure truck is unloading...

       News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story.  An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.

       News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.

       News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard.  But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public.  The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true.  Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades.  But you would never know that, reading or watching the news.  This is the most common type of story.

       News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way.  In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws."  (section titled: "Misleading Polls").  In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades.  This may not be their fault.

       News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.      

       News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach.  But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.

       Non-News:  "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark.  If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.

       Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.

Donald, Ben, and Bernie. Why are Americans so drawn to them.

       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.

Why I shoot.

       Recently a friend on Facebook decided to organize an outing to the range.  A group of people expressed interest that could be accurately called: "diverse".  In a hobby that was, in the past, dominated by old men, I was seeing a change.  Nothing unusual to me.  I grew up with my mother embarrassing the men at both the archery, and trap range.

       Having just been to the range  myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men.  About 25-35% of the shooters were female.  About 70% were under 50 years old.  This is a change welcomed by most shooters.  The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.

       I am not a gun nut.  I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to.  I do enjoy shooting though.  Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.

       I say any means because I started with a bow.  I am not the kind of person who works at things.  I know that about myself.  If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby.  Archery was different.  I needed to be good at it.  I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.

       I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels.  They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing.  I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion.  I was their equal on my bad days.

       When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out.  Rifles, the same story.  I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.

       There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death.  This is pure idiocy.  Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal.  But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive.  Adrenaline makes you shake.  A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards.  The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.

       So why do I shoot?  I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems.  There are no concerns.  There are no other people.  There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between.  The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point.  The form is held, but completely forgotten.

       There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping.  Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier.  The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases.  This too is part of the ritual.  This too can quiet the mind.

       In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby.  Word has gotten out.  We all need a break from the chaos.  Shooting meets that need.

       It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet.  They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice.  (Almost).  They make new shooters feel welcome.  In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.

       So to the new people at the range: "Welcome.  Good to see a new face.  I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."

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.)

       

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.

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.

How to be angry: A basic primer.

       As any regular reader, anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who has ever met me knows, I am an expert on being angry.  I am well read on the topic, (One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged. -Heinrich Heine-), and I am observant enough to be an expert based purely on experience.  So I will present to the rest of you a simple review of how to be angry.
       I have often told my children not to look for things to be mad about; the world will give you plenty of reasons.  That is more true than anything I have ever written.  But simply being angry is doing nothing more than shortening your life, and diminishing the quality thereof.  You must act on it.  First though, you must know who to direct the anger toward.
       Let's say you are angry that you don't get enough respect, or make enough money, at work.  I'm guessing that is most of you.  Take that anger, frustration, and bile, direct it at the person responsible; yourself, and go sign up for school.  Or go put in resumes at other companies.  Most of you reading this live in America, which means although it might be hard, nothing is stopping you from bettering yourself.  If you fail, you failed while trying.
       (It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
       Now let's say you are angry at the government, for any of a thousand legitimate reasons.  Did you vote? Judging by the turnout numbers, no.  But if you did, was your candidate elected?  No?  Did you actively campaign for that person?  I'm not saying it's your fault they didn't win, just that the other side tried harder and you did not.  So direct that energy again toward the person responsible for your situation, which again is you, and next time try harder to campaign for your person.  (A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
       By now, since you are clever enough to have read this far, you have noticed a pattern.  Only you are responsible for your situation.  I would also point out that one thing to not do, is just complain to strangers on the internet.  Hypocritical?  Not in my case.  I also make it a point to write, call, harass, pester, and badger my elected officials to do things the way I want.  I am currently in school again.  I try to guide others to do what they know is right.  (notice I did not say "gently guide", I don't do gentle.)
       I leave you with a parting thought.  I am trying to make you mad at me, for telling you to blame yourself. Take that anger, and hate me.  It's not like I care.  But use it as a source of inspiration to better your situation.  (It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams-)  And when you do act, remember you have been trolled into doing it.  (Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance.  -Heinrich Heine-)

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.

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?

The President's agenda has changed. Or has it?

       You can say a lot of things about Barack Obama.  One thing you cannot say, (at least accurately) is that he is stupid.  While I disagree with a lot of what he has attempted to do; he has been the most politically savvy President in a long time.  I have previously, jokingly suggested that his agenda for 2013 was to sell guns.  I think now I have figured out what he is really doing, and I want everyone to hear it from me first.
       He assigned the biggest fool on the left side of the aisle, Joe Biden, to head up a commission (which I'm sure was a four-star, blue ribbon panel, since they all are) to look into possible gun-control solutions.  This is significant given Biden's role in the Brady bill, and his political nearness to extremists like Feinstein.
       Examine what a farce this panel has been already.  Meeting with the makers of video games, movies and television shows to discuss whether there should be gun-control measures.  Someone said this is like asking the makers of Hot Wheels their opinions on automobile safety.  I concur.  Considering how badly Hollywood and the gaming industry botch firearms in general, it is moronic to ask for their input.
       Unless your idea is to shake up your political opponents.  Here comes the NRA, the 2nd amendment foundation, and the whole of the Republican party, riding in on their white chargers.  They are yelling that guns are not the problem.  Mental health care and schools are the problem.
       The President, while taking V.P. Biden's suggestions "under advisement", meets with the NRA and the Republican leaders.  He ponders for a while, then declares that he thinks they are right.  Education and health care are what need to be fixed, not the private business of law-abiding citizens.  He then invites the Republicans, and those in the Democrats who previously voted against reforming health care, to join him in this noble cause.  To correct the issues that were his primary platform to correct.
       He will have forced the Republicans, and the Democrats who didn't vote for those reforms the first time, to gladly join him in reforming these things now.  In doing so he will have built a bridge between both parties. Brilliant, when you think about it.

Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?

       I had heard this questioned being seriously punted around in the media, so I will present a multiple choice test here, with this as the only question.


1)  Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?

   a) Yes.
   b) No.
   c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
   d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
   e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
   f) He's too fat to run for anything.


How did you do?  Lets see by examining the possible answers.

a)  If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed.  I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.

b)  You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.

c)  Partial credit for having some sense.

d)  Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.

e)  Full credit.  being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.

f)  Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.

They all need to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

       So here we are day one, 2013.  Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff".  Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season.  This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
       To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this.  Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision.  In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort.  He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to.  The message was there though, neither side is doing their job.  Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
       So here we are on the First day of 2013.  The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect.   Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much.  A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
       So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses.  They all need to go.  None of them have done their jobs.  So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out.  Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer.  We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
       Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely.  Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.


       I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban".  I might still write one.  For now though lets go back to 1994.  Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing.  The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was.  No mechanical parts changed.  The rifle functioned the same either way.
        Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right.  Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
       You are doing it to yourselves.

       Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.

How to spot a political extremist.

       Many times, online especially, you will run across people who seem to be so far out beyond reason they cannot be reached.  Those who live inside their own distortion bubbles.  While identifying them in other countries is easy, as they tend to carry rifles and shoot at government buildings; here in America, we are a bit more tame.  We need a way to easily tell who they are, so as not to waste time interacting with them.  I have a few methods I would like to share.

       First is the easiest: they self-identify as part of a known extremist group, such as the Tea-Party.

       Second, and less obvious:  they post items online that rely on assumptions to prove "Facts".  Examples are: "working class people who vote Republican have been brainwashed because the Republican party is run by rich people." and "The Republican base fears Obama will take their guns because they are all ignorant red-necks."  

       Now before you point out the obvious contradiction, or say I'm picking on anyone, those examples were used only because I had seen them both in the last hour.  

       A third method of spotting extremists is to look for "The Emperor's new clothes" reasoning.  "This is so obvious only a fool not worth talking to, would disagree"  (Again, from the last hour or so.)

       Any single one of these will not mark someone out as an extremist.  We've all fallen into logical traps like these before.  The idea though is to not look like a Bigfoot hunter.  Not to insult Bigfoot hunters, as a group, I am just holding them up as the standard of self-delusional stupidity.  Ghost hunters too, for that matter.  If at any point, any evidence could be perceived, in an any way to back up their claims; they stop looking for any other explanation. 

       This is the same as the "Birthers" not accepting the President's birth certificate.  "The real one is from Kenya, therefore this one is fake."  No other possible explanations are pursued, nor are they accepted.  

       Another tack you will see is the: "This is based on real numbers", yet no source is given.  This one infuriates me more than the others because, if you are online already to post something, you can take the five freaking seconds to look up a source.

       All of these methods, you will see, discourage debate, contradiction, or conversation.  Some outright punish it.  In science, any theory which has no method for disproving it, is false by definition.  We need more of that logic here.  

       What I am saying is based on real science and is so obvious, no one but a fool could see it any other way.  The rich, gun-toting red-neck hillbilly, bible-thumping, right-wingers, will obviously disagree with this.  So too will the anti-gun, entitlement-program loving, liberals who are giving our country away to the illegals.  But clearly, as they disagree with this, they are fools.

The fix for the economy

       Alexander Hamilton, (Ten dollar bill dude) is credited as being the first American protectionism theorist. Let's look at some of his ideas.

1. "Protecting duties." (Tariffs.)
2. "Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions." (Outright import bans.)
3. "Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures." (Export bans on raw materials needed for industrialization here at home.)
4. "Pecuniary bounties." (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. "Premiums." (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. "The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty." (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter and we can industrialize.)
7. "Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures." (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. "The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, .and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery." (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. "Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities." (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. "The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place." (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. "The facilitating of the transportation of commodities." (Good infrastructure.)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/america-was-founded-as-a_b_713521.html)

       The basic idea here is to make sure American industry was given preference.  We forgot about that in the 80's.  In the 90's the factory workers, who now had no factories to work in, switched to construction jobs.  In the 00's those jobs began to dry up, as an economy that produces nothing cannot support itself.  So far, in the 10's we are seeing crippling unemployment, and the jobs that are being created don't pay as well as what was lost.  What do we do about it?

       Well, we begin by reinstating Hamilton's brilliant ideas.  That action alone will not immediately fix everything, but needs to be done.  Then we begin to assist the growth of companies that make pre-fabricated and modular homes.  Our workers mostly came from factories and switched to construction, and so are uniquely qualified for this.  The homes, or modules, are the same size as a standard shipping container.  This allows easy transport by road, rail, or ship.

       But to whom do we sell?  Our trade partners in Europe have regulations about historic areas, and their own protectionist policies.  But, much of India and Africa have a need.  We could provide them expertly built and wired homes, giving them no need to develop that particular set of skills domestically, and perpetuating the need to import homes from us.

       We would have a great export business for homes going in no time.  It would be a status symbol to have an "American Style" house.  This would set up further demand for American built goods.

       Once these trade partners are cemented, longing for the good stuff America can provide them, we leverage our true strength.  Food Production.  We do it better.  We do it cheaper.  We do it so well, we pay farmers to not grow food, just to keep the prices up.  Those prices are still a fraction of what the same food would cost in Europe.  

   

       I would point out, as well, that protecting American interests should not ever be a partisan issue.  Many say protectionism is something that the right disdains, as it hurts trade; and the left embraces, because it helps unions.  If it helps unions, that is only because they are covered under the broader category of "American".  If it hurts trade, the trade being hurt was not to our advantage anyway, so let it be hurt.  American dollars for sub-standard foreign goods is never a good trade.  

       Of course this idea is expressed facetiously.  Well halfway facetiously.  We do need to protect our interests better.  

A last minute plea for civil disobedience.

       What I am proposing is a little ridiculous, but if you are someone I have ever met, this will not be surprising.  See, being a "Third Party Voter" most of my life, in a solidly blue state (Illinois), I have come to despise the electoral college.  In Illinois, unless you vote democrat, you may as well stay home.
       The problems are legion with our current, electoral, approach, but let's recap.  Electors are not required to vote as instructed.  Districts are drawn by the party currently in control of the state.  (gerrymandered).  The two major parties have everything so figured out with polling, that they already know where to bother throwing money.
       It all adds up the same.  Your vote does not count.  Not directly.  Not even if your state or district votes your way.   
       So What I am suggesting is this:  If you are in a state that is "in play", vote your conscience.  Sleep the sleep of the just.  But if you are in a very red state, vote for Obama.  If you are in a solid blue, Romney.  Even if you are voting against your conscience.  Even if it will make no difference.  (It won't)
       Even states that "split their electorate" can participate.  In those states just apply the same rule at a district level.  (Blue districts vote red; red votes blue).
       The idea is for as many states as possible to have the slimmest possible margin of victory.  So that no matter who wins, the popular vote will not be the same as the electoral vote.  Maybe, if we do this enough, things will change.
       Maybe I'll win the lottery.  Maybe the tides will stop because I say so.  Maybe, in the long run, if you look at voting records rather than rhetoric, the two major party candidates are so similar it won't make a difference anyway.
       So get out and vote.  If you are in Ohio it might even mean something.

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)

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

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

Welcome to Illinois, your vote doesn't count.

       I feel compelled to do some coat tugging about a subject near and dear to me.  The fact that my vote, and the majority vote in my district, means absolutely nothing.  You see, McHenry county has always been a Republican county.  Odd in Illinois.  Especially this close to the Peoples Republic of Chicago (Thanks Gobbie).  Now the election before last, a Democrat was elected because the man filling the seat was... worthless.  (trying not to curse) He was the stereotype of a Republican and worse, didn't show up to his job.  Sadly, the woman voted in to replace him was just as bad.  So last election we found ourselves with a hotly contested race with a dark horse Republican eventually winning.  In fact they won a few seats out here.
       But this being Illinois, the majority party in the state creates the districts, and this is a redistricting year.  They made no pretense about ethnic, or socio-economic shifts.  They flagrantly Gerrymandered the districts to put the freshmen Republicans in other districts, against incumbent Republicans for the next elections.  So no matter who wins the Republicans will lose some seats.  This is Chicago machine politics at its lowest.
       I apologize to any Democrats who may chance upon this as it does not paint a pretty picture of the party.  I do not mean to identify these corrupt toadies with any persons who simply have a politically left ideology.  The Illinois machine is not a fair representation of the Democrats.  It is an analogue of the dark ages in Europe.  People kept intentionally poor, ignorant, and powerless.  Being told it is their lot in life and someone else's fault.  And being victimized by the very people purporting to help them.  But I digress...
       Back to McHenry.  The people have voted.  a narrow majority in one race, and a wide one in many others, chose to have Republicans represent them.  Their votes are being subverted by a corrupt power-brokering machine.  You need not side with the right or left to see that when this happens the people's will is not being acted on.  The people of this county do not have a say in their own affairs.  I would say we should annex to Wisconsin, (I actually have said that before), but given their current climate, I want no truck with that either.  I'm trying to remember; what did people here do the last time an oppressive government subverted their will?

America's Ruling Class

       I was sitting in the cafeteria at work the other day talking with two co-workers.  One is an unabashed socialist, the other an eco-nut.  Then there's me.  We were discussing politics, as is our wont, because the three of us feel that thinking people can have a discussion about politics, while firmly disagreeing, and through such discourse reach an agreement, based on common ground.  Which explains why we are a technician, a carpenter, and a painter, and not a Senator, Representative, and a President.  Or talk show hosts.  As we covered many and varied topics we decided that there hasn't really been a good president in our lifetimes.  We all agreed that the both the economic system and the political system were broken, and oddly on several fixes.  The main fix for the economy we decided on is to adopt protectionist trade agreements.  If  we are the only country putting the needs of the world ahead of our own, we are doing it wrong.  Not a ban on imports mind you, but rather a legal framework to put American interests ahead of all others.  Essentially adopt the same policies that have served the European Union and others so well.  Fixing politics would involve setting all primaries on the same day.  Simple enough.
       It was at this point that another co-worker, sitting nearby, chimed in with: "It's good to see that so many people qualified to run the country work here with me."  Without missing a beat I answered with: "We are all qualified, that's how it works in this country.  We are all qualified for the presidency, even you."  But this exchange got me thinking, this person is not the first to utter those words.  Nor will he be the last.
       Aside from the fact that the Painter, Carpenter, and Technician have a higher aggregate I.Q. than the Actor, the Philanderer, the Oil-Baron, and the Man so Bland he has no distinguishing characteristics (Including, sadly political opinion); we are all qualified to run the country just by being citizens.  But the common consensus is that the "common man" is not a fit leader.  That only those born to privilege, or those who own sufficient wealth through their own efforts, are fit to hold political office.   This belief persists despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite our founding fathers having fought a war over just how idiotic the idea of a ruling class is.
       I was saddened for a long time about this, not because one man is so ignorant, not because he is far from being alone, and not because my message didn't seem to sink in.  I was sad because he was choosing to be a subject.  I say choosing because we have the means in this country for anyone to elevate themselves as far as they are willing to spend the effort to go.  We are loosing that quickly though.
       We let Wall Street pick our leaders.  We let our patent system devolve to the point that only companies can acquire them.  We allow government to decide what rights we have, and when.  We divide ourselves along "party" lines when most of us share the middle ground.  And we do not act to fix these things because we aren't "qualified".  I leave you with a question, for I love the Socratic method: What college, trade school, or apprenticeship, offers a degree in "Running the free world"?

Watching the wrong hand.

       One of the things most people don't know about me is that I can change shape.  It's true.  A few weeks ago I Changed into an eagle and flew to Washington D.C.  Once there I changed into a fly.  (you have to do these things in stages.)  I found myself in a room with some prominent politicians.  Would you like to know what I overheard?  Of course you do.  I will use false names to protect their identity.
     
       (clever disguises, no?)

Bainer:  Are you sure he told you he was coming?
Reede:  Trust me he wouldn't miss this historic occasion.
Bainer:  Wow, you said "trust me" without even blinking.  I'm impressed.
Reede:  Practice man.  Years of practice.
Bainer:  Here he comes.
             Door opens silently, gliding on the lubrication provided by years of politicians being greased in        
             this room.
O'banna:  Did you gentlemen have something you wanted to share with me?  Something productive this
                time.  I'll throw your asses under the bus again on national TV.
Reede:  Yes mister President.  You see we have finally reached an agreement on the debt ceiling thingy.
O'Banna:  Thingy?
Bainer:  Yes, you see in the course of our debate one thing began to become abundantly clear.
O'Banna:  and that is...
Reede:  Well you see sir, both parties had been backed into a corner where we had to back up all the    
              B.S. we had been piling up on our constituents.
O'banna:  You two need to talk faster, I promised the old lady we'd fly to Alaska for some king crab,
                 then over to New York for a play, then Chicago for Cheesecake and coffee.
Bainer:  Well sir, both sides were looking pretty bad, so we agreed on a solution we feel you can get
              Behind.
O'Banna:  And that would be...?
Reede:  We will put off actually making a real decision until after the next election.
O'Banna:  That's a long way off.  Won't the American people notice?  They're not stupid.
Reede and Bainer:  (laughing)  You are new at this aren't you?

At that point I flew away.  I was stunned by the audacity of the people running this country.  I could not believe, they felt so sure no one would see right through their half-baked plan.  Surely our ever-vigilant watchdog media would call them out.  Weeks passed.  No one seemed to mention it.  We have all moved on to other things.  But I can't let it go.  I know what I saw, as a fly on the wall.