I've been binge watching documentaries due to a shoulder injury that has left me a bit sedentary for a number of weeks. My viewing taste varies but inevitable I find myself watching topics on what drives our societies. From the earliest records, the present and into the future, the driving force behind our evolving social strata is human nature. Currently residing in the United States, places me in a time of extremes. Our current governmental structure seems, at best, corrupted with factions on the Left and Right crafting legislation and orchestrating crimes to further their respective agenda. Who, the Left or the Right, has the answers?
On the Right, we have people whom believe that man can create, progress and thrive in unchecked capitalism. While this is true to an extent, unchecked capitalism can and does infringe on the liberties of others. Whether it be pollution, depleting resources or taking advantage of labor, capitalism needs some oversight. I do believe that we could easily accomplish this with stronger whistle-blower laws. Billion dollar fines from a government that will not use those monies to improve a situation is not the answer. Instead some well-meaning politician will spend those monies on a feel good project. One that big government sees fit to oversee, which uses 3/4 of those monies just to administer. Which brings me to another ideal of the Right, smaller, less intrusive government. This is an ideal that I think we all could get behind. When has the government done anything that has not had terrible unintended consequences? Also, bailouts for businesses should not be the job of the government. The Right regards this as both bad and good with no solid stance. It all depends on who happens to be benefiting from it.
On the Left, we have a pretty simple social ideal. People on the left want equality. Across the board equality. This is an fools folly. Why you ask? Simple, Human Nature. This quality we all have prevents us, both Liberal and Conservative from creating a perfect utopian society. We have crafted a system of government that tries to give all people a chance at the gold ring, but equality..socially, economically and judiciously will always be stratified. It sounds wonderful but it's unattainable.
Quick example: If we suddenly adopted a utopian, socially equal society, without a monetary base there would have to be some sort of system that equally distributed the resources. This system would have to be overseen by some sort of elected or appointed officials. Now, the way that this system would work would be to give resources to those who need it, but who would determine need? What happens when a resource becomes scarce? Who would be those that would work to make and provide these resources and would they be compensated at a higher rate than those that don't contribute to the work load?
You see, in a system such as this, Human Nature and Self Preservation kicks in. If resources get scarce, people start to horde them, taking more than their 'fair share'. People at the top will take the most resources believing that they are in a higher position and are deserving of more. People that work to provide the resources give up working because they get the same as those that do nothing. Society comes crashing down upon itself. We do not adhere to a hive mentality so therefore shall never be able to build a utopian society until we can quell free will and that will never happen.
So who is correct? Which ever side of the aisle you place yourself on, I don't believe either side is correct. A balanced approach is the only one that will stand the test of time. Our founding fathers knew this and addressed these issues in our founding documents. Maybe y'all ought to read them before placing yourself on the Right or the Left.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
It Won't Have the Desired Effect
We've become a nation of causes. The enviroment, phthalates in our plastic things, soft drinks, gay marriage and a living wage It's still coming up in the media, the topic of a wage increase to $15/hr for fast food service workers. Nothing the government comes up with will have the desired effect and here is why.
Here's a scenario:
On a busy street in a large city there is situated 10 restaurants. They are on both sides of the street and vary in tastes/offerings. In no particular order:
Interestingly, Great Wall Super China Buffet, Thai Express, Bagels and More and Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs appear to be operating the same. If we look a little deeper it becomes apparent why. You see, Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express utilizes undocumented workers. A handful of employees are on the books while quietly behind the scenes three times that amount are toiling away for under the table cash. I'm not just talking about illegal aliens, but also desperate people who want to work and will even take $8 cash under the table to survive. This allows Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express to appear relatively stable as compared to the businesses that adhere to the laws.
Bagels and More and Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs seem to be business as usual as well, but behind the scenes we see that Bagels and More is a family owned operation. No outside the family labor is used and they have changed to a salary model for compensation so that the $15 an hour doesn't apply. It does however put a strain on family life and what used to be a happy family business starts to cause rifts within the family. The family begins to question whether or not their collective dream is worth the struggle anymore. They are considering closing up shop. Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs is family owned as well, but because it's got a limited menu, only Joe himself and his wife Jill work there. They used to have four other employees that they utilized on varying shifts to get away from the business and do paperwork, or even a vacation or two, but now Joe and Jill are working open to close five days a week. They are putting in 15 hours a day, 5 days a week. 75hrs a week, then add up the paperwork for each week that runs up into the 10 to 15 hour range, oh and don't forget the weekly deliveries that come Tuesday and Thursday that needs someone on site at 6am open for business at 10:30am. Joe and Jill easily clock 90 to 100 hours a week each.
Across the country franchises start to fail. No longer able to offer affordable food and exceptional service, franchise owners decide to get out of the business altogether. McDonald's, Burger King, KFC/Taco Bell and Wendy's all close up. Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express continue business with more undocumented workers despite being raided by ICE several times. There seems to be no shortage of people that will work under the table now that all the national fast food places are closing. Bagels and More has closed because patronage dropped sharply after a few loud arguments within the family workers during business hours. Word gets around fast and people don't want to be part of that scene. Joe and Jill got a divorce. Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs sits empty and dark awaiting it's fate from the divorce judge.
Things are looking up though, a Mexican restaurant has leased the old McDonald's. An immigrant entrepeneur, Jose Juarez, has begun the process of opening up! Once he wades through the myriad of governmental beauracracies for licensing and ponies up the $200,000 in start up costs, he'll undoubtedly fill his back end with a few highly skilled employees!! Of course, Jose has a very large family back in Guatamala! It would be remiss of him not to have them come to take part in his wonderful venture! Wading through the myriad of governmental beauracracies has taught Jose to stay clear of the man and encourages his family to find other methods to enter this great country.
So this once bustling street, with 10 choices for food, now gives you the choice between Chinese, Thai and possibly future Mexican. All the food service workers whom used to work on the street are all gone. A few work for the Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express for the same wage they made at the other places but under the table and not contributing to their Social Security, Medicare or taxes. The only franchise that survives is Dunkin' Donuts because, let's face it, people still got to have their Dunkin'! These three out of ten restaurants are feeling the pinch as well because of all the vacant businesses people tend to steer clear of that area. It just doesn't look appetizing anymore.
It might look good on paper, but I don't know too many liberals that run their own business. The unions would love to corner the fast food sector. It would bring great, if fleeting, power to the unions again. It took fifty years, but look what the unions have done to the manufacturing sector in this nation.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Here's a scenario:
On a busy street in a large city there is situated 10 restaurants. They are on both sides of the street and vary in tastes/offerings. In no particular order:
- McDonalds
- Burger King,
- KFC/Taco Bell
- Wendy's
- Friendly's
- Dunkin' Donuts
- Great Wall Super China Buffet
- Thai Express
- Bagels and More
- Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs
Interestingly, Great Wall Super China Buffet, Thai Express, Bagels and More and Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs appear to be operating the same. If we look a little deeper it becomes apparent why. You see, Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express utilizes undocumented workers. A handful of employees are on the books while quietly behind the scenes three times that amount are toiling away for under the table cash. I'm not just talking about illegal aliens, but also desperate people who want to work and will even take $8 cash under the table to survive. This allows Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express to appear relatively stable as compared to the businesses that adhere to the laws.
Bagels and More and Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs seem to be business as usual as well, but behind the scenes we see that Bagels and More is a family owned operation. No outside the family labor is used and they have changed to a salary model for compensation so that the $15 an hour doesn't apply. It does however put a strain on family life and what used to be a happy family business starts to cause rifts within the family. The family begins to question whether or not their collective dream is worth the struggle anymore. They are considering closing up shop. Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs is family owned as well, but because it's got a limited menu, only Joe himself and his wife Jill work there. They used to have four other employees that they utilized on varying shifts to get away from the business and do paperwork, or even a vacation or two, but now Joe and Jill are working open to close five days a week. They are putting in 15 hours a day, 5 days a week. 75hrs a week, then add up the paperwork for each week that runs up into the 10 to 15 hour range, oh and don't forget the weekly deliveries that come Tuesday and Thursday that needs someone on site at 6am open for business at 10:30am. Joe and Jill easily clock 90 to 100 hours a week each.
Across the country franchises start to fail. No longer able to offer affordable food and exceptional service, franchise owners decide to get out of the business altogether. McDonald's, Burger King, KFC/Taco Bell and Wendy's all close up. Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express continue business with more undocumented workers despite being raided by ICE several times. There seems to be no shortage of people that will work under the table now that all the national fast food places are closing. Bagels and More has closed because patronage dropped sharply after a few loud arguments within the family workers during business hours. Word gets around fast and people don't want to be part of that scene. Joe and Jill got a divorce. Joe's Hot Diggity Dogs sits empty and dark awaiting it's fate from the divorce judge.
Things are looking up though, a Mexican restaurant has leased the old McDonald's. An immigrant entrepeneur, Jose Juarez, has begun the process of opening up! Once he wades through the myriad of governmental beauracracies for licensing and ponies up the $200,000 in start up costs, he'll undoubtedly fill his back end with a few highly skilled employees!! Of course, Jose has a very large family back in Guatamala! It would be remiss of him not to have them come to take part in his wonderful venture! Wading through the myriad of governmental beauracracies has taught Jose to stay clear of the man and encourages his family to find other methods to enter this great country.
So this once bustling street, with 10 choices for food, now gives you the choice between Chinese, Thai and possibly future Mexican. All the food service workers whom used to work on the street are all gone. A few work for the Great Wall Super China Buffet and Thai Express for the same wage they made at the other places but under the table and not contributing to their Social Security, Medicare or taxes. The only franchise that survives is Dunkin' Donuts because, let's face it, people still got to have their Dunkin'! These three out of ten restaurants are feeling the pinch as well because of all the vacant businesses people tend to steer clear of that area. It just doesn't look appetizing anymore.
It might look good on paper, but I don't know too many liberals that run their own business. The unions would love to corner the fast food sector. It would bring great, if fleeting, power to the unions again. It took fifty years, but look what the unions have done to the manufacturing sector in this nation.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Climate Change re-revisited
I recently caught the show Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson and though I very much respect his stature in the scientific community, I respectfully disagree with his stand on current co2 issues as a problem. I'm not sure if he really truly buys into the rhetoric or if some how he's been recruited to 'fight the good fight' along side the many public figures that choose anthropogenic global warming as their cause du jour. It's very difficult to believe a scientist that so easily recites flawed science as fact.
I recently read a great article in the July/August 2014 issue of Analog: Science Fiction and Fact. The article was 'Spanking Bad Data Won't Make Them Behave, by Michael F. Flynn' that goes on to discuss how facts are postulated through theory and how those facts can be interpreted differently by others. It really lays out a good argument against the global warming theory. The author makes a pretty good case that all theories are subject to dismissal if put in context against dissenting data of a conflicting theory.
There are several ways to collect data, but all collection methods can be subject to issues given the parameters of the sample set. You see if you were to take climate change numbers for example, CO2 being the one always quoted, the numbers currently seem to be on the rise. A sudden sharp rise from about the 1960s to now. If we look at how those samples were taken we also see a direct correlation with the evolution of transistors, a key component in the measuring equipment of CO2. Kind of makes you think does it not? Could the meteoric rise in measurable CO2 actually be a function of more efficient measuring equipment? Which brings us to 'Operational defintions'. The act of changing equipment, method and even operator can change the data. I would be very curious to compare notes with some of these climate scientists who champion CO2 as a deciding factor of this change.
Every 100,000 years or so there is a noticeable spike in CO2 levels that is followed by a cooling period. Guess how many years ago the last spike occurred? They like to point to this data and jump up and down at their 'EUREKA!!' moment because of the 100ppm higher spike than the fossil record. This is where the issues with data comes into play. There are several ways that data can 'behave badly'. Usually this behavior is driven by the collection methods. Judgement and Convenience samples are sometimes what skews the data. It's be proven that global warming data has been subject to both of these data killers. According to the data they have used there have been swings from a high of 7000ppm to a low of 180ppm. It is near impossible to measure past CO2 levels accurately because all samples are subject to 'Convenience' data contamination. You can't just fly back a million years ago and take a measurement at the Mauna Loa Observatory can you? So all of the samples are samples of convenience. They had to get them where they could and it was not a broad spectrum analysis. Currently we are using data from a near volcanic(source of CO2) equatorial site and the fossil records are all from polar regions. It's very difficult to put these data sets in the same column.
s
To quote the article from Flynn, "Probabilities depend on statistical model applied, and for an unstable process there may be no model. Even for stable processes, the appropriate model may not be the normal; yet many folks use the good ol' Bell Curve as a substitute for thought." There are too many variables to use strictly CO2 as deciding factor of climate change. We do not completely understand the other factors being that our knowledge of how our climate works is still in it's infancy. Best models peg water vapor at being the largest contributor to global warming and the percentage swings from 36 to 70%. Quite a variation huh? How can you build a reliable model on a 100% variation? I don't expect my views to change the world. I do expect it to broaden horizons, to spark dialog and question the status quo. The question we should be trying to answer isn't how do we stop global warming. The real question should be, "Who profits from it?".
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
I recently read a great article in the July/August 2014 issue of Analog: Science Fiction and Fact. The article was 'Spanking Bad Data Won't Make Them Behave, by Michael F. Flynn' that goes on to discuss how facts are postulated through theory and how those facts can be interpreted differently by others. It really lays out a good argument against the global warming theory. The author makes a pretty good case that all theories are subject to dismissal if put in context against dissenting data of a conflicting theory.
There are several ways to collect data, but all collection methods can be subject to issues given the parameters of the sample set. You see if you were to take climate change numbers for example, CO2 being the one always quoted, the numbers currently seem to be on the rise. A sudden sharp rise from about the 1960s to now. If we look at how those samples were taken we also see a direct correlation with the evolution of transistors, a key component in the measuring equipment of CO2. Kind of makes you think does it not? Could the meteoric rise in measurable CO2 actually be a function of more efficient measuring equipment? Which brings us to 'Operational defintions'. The act of changing equipment, method and even operator can change the data. I would be very curious to compare notes with some of these climate scientists who champion CO2 as a deciding factor of this change.
Every 100,000 years or so there is a noticeable spike in CO2 levels that is followed by a cooling period. Guess how many years ago the last spike occurred? They like to point to this data and jump up and down at their 'EUREKA!!' moment because of the 100ppm higher spike than the fossil record. This is where the issues with data comes into play. There are several ways that data can 'behave badly'. Usually this behavior is driven by the collection methods. Judgement and Convenience samples are sometimes what skews the data. It's be proven that global warming data has been subject to both of these data killers. According to the data they have used there have been swings from a high of 7000ppm to a low of 180ppm. It is near impossible to measure past CO2 levels accurately because all samples are subject to 'Convenience' data contamination. You can't just fly back a million years ago and take a measurement at the Mauna Loa Observatory can you? So all of the samples are samples of convenience. They had to get them where they could and it was not a broad spectrum analysis. Currently we are using data from a near volcanic(source of CO2) equatorial site and the fossil records are all from polar regions. It's very difficult to put these data sets in the same column.
sTo quote the article from Flynn, "Probabilities depend on statistical model applied, and for an unstable process there may be no model. Even for stable processes, the appropriate model may not be the normal; yet many folks use the good ol' Bell Curve as a substitute for thought." There are too many variables to use strictly CO2 as deciding factor of climate change. We do not completely understand the other factors being that our knowledge of how our climate works is still in it's infancy. Best models peg water vapor at being the largest contributor to global warming and the percentage swings from 36 to 70%. Quite a variation huh? How can you build a reliable model on a 100% variation? I don't expect my views to change the world. I do expect it to broaden horizons, to spark dialog and question the status quo. The question we should be trying to answer isn't how do we stop global warming. The real question should be, "Who profits from it?".
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Arrogance or Calculated Propaganda?
The government has released new data on the 'global warming' problem. (See here) As a non-believer in all things government, I ask myself is this an example of man's arrogance at an attempt to understand a non-existant problem, or is it calculated propaganda? Quite possibly it's a mixture of both.
For 1000 years Venice Italy has been 'sinking' according to historians. Now the sea level appears to be rising over the last 100 years according to current climate scientists. Who is right? And if Venice is sinking, what about the rest of the world? Is the sea level rising or are we all just sinking? It's pretty hard to believe any science that is trying to find a pattern to an unstable macro-environment by sampling microcosms of said enviroment. Science is founded on reproducibility of a theorem. The climatologists would have you believe that drought, tornados, hurricances, record highs, record lows are all part of a bigger picture that supports their claims. We're talking about a 2 degree change over the course of a hundred years! We only have accurate record keeping for a couple hundred years and yet IN OUR ARROGANCE profess to understand our role in global climate.
What are we supposed to believe? They bring out colorful charts and graphs, samples of air quality, water quality and make a wonderful case that we need to change our ways. Then when someone comes along and finds out they have been cherry picking their numbers that support the science for their colorful charts and graphs they attack that person or entity with as much enthusiam as they can possibly muster. Terrible behavior from the scientific community against any who question them. Scientists with information that would help to debunk the theories behind climate change in fear of their future and very lives. Threats of harm both professionally and phyically. Is this the behaviour of a consortium trying to understand a common problem or protectionism of their livelyhood?
I look at it from a different stance. Whom profits from the science? Who benefits from the environmental initiatives pushed by the self-appointed global saviours? The same people who profess to be champions for the environment are the same people behind the scenes trying to profit from it. Trillions of dollars up for grabs. Scientists vying for grant money, companies building 'green' cars that no one wants and have a larger 'carbon footprint' than most conventional vehicles and politicians. That's right the politicians are probably the biggest winners of this whole mess. They get a 'hot button' issue that eats up news time and gives them even more control. In the great words of Winston Churchill, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". This is one fabricated crisis that they are getting all they can get out of.
To believe our brief recording of the climate as compared to the age of the Earth means anything of importance is Arrogant. The length of record keeping equates to a literal blip on the Earth's 4.54 billion years of existence. Continued outcry by those who directly or indirectly profit from the rhetoric amounts to calculated propaganda.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
For 1000 years Venice Italy has been 'sinking' according to historians. Now the sea level appears to be rising over the last 100 years according to current climate scientists. Who is right? And if Venice is sinking, what about the rest of the world? Is the sea level rising or are we all just sinking? It's pretty hard to believe any science that is trying to find a pattern to an unstable macro-environment by sampling microcosms of said enviroment. Science is founded on reproducibility of a theorem. The climatologists would have you believe that drought, tornados, hurricances, record highs, record lows are all part of a bigger picture that supports their claims. We're talking about a 2 degree change over the course of a hundred years! We only have accurate record keeping for a couple hundred years and yet IN OUR ARROGANCE profess to understand our role in global climate.
What are we supposed to believe? They bring out colorful charts and graphs, samples of air quality, water quality and make a wonderful case that we need to change our ways. Then when someone comes along and finds out they have been cherry picking their numbers that support the science for their colorful charts and graphs they attack that person or entity with as much enthusiam as they can possibly muster. Terrible behavior from the scientific community against any who question them. Scientists with information that would help to debunk the theories behind climate change in fear of their future and very lives. Threats of harm both professionally and phyically. Is this the behaviour of a consortium trying to understand a common problem or protectionism of their livelyhood?
I look at it from a different stance. Whom profits from the science? Who benefits from the environmental initiatives pushed by the self-appointed global saviours? The same people who profess to be champions for the environment are the same people behind the scenes trying to profit from it. Trillions of dollars up for grabs. Scientists vying for grant money, companies building 'green' cars that no one wants and have a larger 'carbon footprint' than most conventional vehicles and politicians. That's right the politicians are probably the biggest winners of this whole mess. They get a 'hot button' issue that eats up news time and gives them even more control. In the great words of Winston Churchill, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". This is one fabricated crisis that they are getting all they can get out of.
To believe our brief recording of the climate as compared to the age of the Earth means anything of importance is Arrogant. The length of record keeping equates to a literal blip on the Earth's 4.54 billion years of existence. Continued outcry by those who directly or indirectly profit from the rhetoric amounts to calculated propaganda.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
We all want to be on the winning team.
We all want to be on the winning team, even if it's the team that's cheating to stay in the game. We have become slaves to a two party political system that capitalizes on our need to be part of a group. The problem is that there is no clear line, no consistent ideal that either party adheres to. They merely pick and choose the issues that they believe will keep them in power, then vote for the powerful people and entities that pull their strings behind closed doors. Many of the discussions I have with people of both sides takes on an air of confrontation. All to protect people of the same political persuasion, not necessarily the same ideals. What I'm going to say might shock you, but the Republicans and the Democrats are playing for the same team and it's not the one that your necessarily rooting for.
In the years before and during the American Revolution, it's estimated that less than 40% of the populace of the colonies were Revolutionaries, 20% Loyalists and the rest kept quite about their respective affiliation. This great nation we now call the United States was born on the backs of less than 40% of the population. Currently the estimated breakdown of political affiliation is about 35% Republican, 34% Democrat and 30% that could really give a shit. The levels are pretty much equal today and for some reason we're on a path to self destruction. How did 40% of a populace create a government that has stood the test of time only to be shaken to it's very core by a perceived even split of the populace now? Because it's all smoke and mirrors. Both sides are playing the same game. The fix is in.
So why is a country that is supposed to be the model of Democracy for the world being run like a company headed for bankruptcy? Why are we on the verge of trading our liberties for government controlled safety? Because of the two party system. Because people like me can't enter the political arena. Because I use a lot of profanity, because I can't follow a narrative put forth by the corrupt party that I'd be forced to choose, because I have skeletons in my closet that I know people will dig up that I don't care about but will be used hurt my family. We've elected a admitted stoner that professes that his dream job is to be an ESPN sports analyst, that shirks his responsibility daily and apologizes for everything that makes this country great, but stays on point. Allows the real power players to pull his string. Reads all of his lines off the teleprompter with a charisma that rivals Al Pacino. A willing puppet. Being outspoken has become a bad thing. Every word is choreographed carefully and he's one hell of an actor.
We've been taught that winning is joyous, that being on the winning team feels good. I agree, but politics shouldn't be treated like a team sport. It's this state of mind that we've allowed ourselves to pushed into that's killing our country. There is no team. These people on both sides of the isles in Washington go to work together every day. They eat together, they vote together, they call each other friends. WE MAKE THEMWEALTHY VERY FUCKING WEALTHY (there's that profanity I was talking about). We send these folks to Washington to do the peoples work. To make sure our country has laws that are clear and concise to insure domestic tranquility(ObamaCare is unreadable even by our elected officials and our homes are fair game under terror legislation, FAIL), to provide for the common defense (from foreign invaders FAIL), to promote general welfare (cell phones, health care, CASH BENEFITS? FAIL) and secure the blessings of liberty (under constant attack and scrutiny by various elected and unelected entities of the government FAIL.)
We can't settle anymore. We can't just lie down like dogs and allow them to fundamentally change our country. That's right, I said OUR country. It was designed by our forefathers to be controlled, by force if necessary, to be a country by the people, for the people. I do not call for violence, but we need an abrupt change. If the time comes to take our country back I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my fellow brother and sister patriots. Armed and ready to protect my constitution from those who would do it harm. The very people sworn to protect it are enemies of my liberties and if called upon would stand in peaceful, armed protest.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
In the years before and during the American Revolution, it's estimated that less than 40% of the populace of the colonies were Revolutionaries, 20% Loyalists and the rest kept quite about their respective affiliation. This great nation we now call the United States was born on the backs of less than 40% of the population. Currently the estimated breakdown of political affiliation is about 35% Republican, 34% Democrat and 30% that could really give a shit. The levels are pretty much equal today and for some reason we're on a path to self destruction. How did 40% of a populace create a government that has stood the test of time only to be shaken to it's very core by a perceived even split of the populace now? Because it's all smoke and mirrors. Both sides are playing the same game. The fix is in.
So why is a country that is supposed to be the model of Democracy for the world being run like a company headed for bankruptcy? Why are we on the verge of trading our liberties for government controlled safety? Because of the two party system. Because people like me can't enter the political arena. Because I use a lot of profanity, because I can't follow a narrative put forth by the corrupt party that I'd be forced to choose, because I have skeletons in my closet that I know people will dig up that I don't care about but will be used hurt my family. We've elected a admitted stoner that professes that his dream job is to be an ESPN sports analyst, that shirks his responsibility daily and apologizes for everything that makes this country great, but stays on point. Allows the real power players to pull his string. Reads all of his lines off the teleprompter with a charisma that rivals Al Pacino. A willing puppet. Being outspoken has become a bad thing. Every word is choreographed carefully and he's one hell of an actor.
We've been taught that winning is joyous, that being on the winning team feels good. I agree, but politics shouldn't be treated like a team sport. It's this state of mind that we've allowed ourselves to pushed into that's killing our country. There is no team. These people on both sides of the isles in Washington go to work together every day. They eat together, they vote together, they call each other friends. WE MAKE THEM
We can't settle anymore. We can't just lie down like dogs and allow them to fundamentally change our country. That's right, I said OUR country. It was designed by our forefathers to be controlled, by force if necessary, to be a country by the people, for the people. I do not call for violence, but we need an abrupt change. If the time comes to take our country back I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my fellow brother and sister patriots. Armed and ready to protect my constitution from those who would do it harm. The very people sworn to protect it are enemies of my liberties and if called upon would stand in peaceful, armed protest. That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
A short take on climate change.
As I sit here on March 26th in my warm living room with the temperature outside hovering around 21 degrees Fahrenheit and the threat of several inches of snow bearing down on the great state of Maine, I'm left to ponder...global warming real or myth? Do I trust the people who tell us everyday that we are effecting our climate and we need to buy their products to help prevent a cataclismic change to our world, or do I follow my own instincts that have proven over time that man's arrogance has no boundaries? On one hand I'm like "We haven't seen a winter like this in years!" on the other hand, "This is Maine, I remember snowmobiling in April!" I'm more apt to rely on my instinct.
Looking at it from a purely scientific stand point is near impossible because it's been proven that the science behind climate change has been tampered with. For years the data that was spoon fed to the media which in turn glamorized it for us, was hand picked to support their thesis. Wild swings of the environmental historical record were omitted from their carefully crafted timelines and graphs to create non existent trends. These 'climate scientists' have been exposed fabricating supporting data and still they push the agenda. (See the details here.)
They push 1 or 2 degree temperature changes over time, but no one (except this study) has done a credible study on the effect of pavement on global warming. Sitting here in my warm living room realizing that my baseboard heating elements, a relatively small surface area that is heating my entire house, is much like the pavement that runs around the world. Wouldn't this create a corresponding 1 or 2 degree fluctuation? Why hasn't a credible study been done about that? The only thing I could dredge up was studies on how the use of the natural resources effect climate change. This short-sighted, ideal driven type of inquiry leads me to believe these people are daft.
So, I like to think I'm a deep thinker. So I got to thinking, what if? What if our goings on as humans was creating a change in our environment. I don't buy into the greenhouse effect, after delving into the science I'm pretty sure if it wasn't FOR the greenhouse effect our species wouldn't even be here. It's a self perpetuating cycle. It's what heats and cools our world. All of the gases in the air come, in abundance, from natural sources, not only us. Believe it or not it's a pretty good balance. This is what they don't want you to know. Anyone been to Detroit lately? Do you realize that 50 years ago the smog in Detroit rivaled that of some industrial areas in China, now it's relatively clean living. The population has shrunk and manufacturing dried up. The Earth heals itself.
These are the lies they want us to hang on to. They powers that be rely on our fears to herd us in directions they see fit. Climate change is just another one of those fears they use to prey on us. Aside from population change, I've seen little to support the data they put forth.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Looking at it from a purely scientific stand point is near impossible because it's been proven that the science behind climate change has been tampered with. For years the data that was spoon fed to the media which in turn glamorized it for us, was hand picked to support their thesis. Wild swings of the environmental historical record were omitted from their carefully crafted timelines and graphs to create non existent trends. These 'climate scientists' have been exposed fabricating supporting data and still they push the agenda. (See the details here.)
They push 1 or 2 degree temperature changes over time, but no one (except this study) has done a credible study on the effect of pavement on global warming. Sitting here in my warm living room realizing that my baseboard heating elements, a relatively small surface area that is heating my entire house, is much like the pavement that runs around the world. Wouldn't this create a corresponding 1 or 2 degree fluctuation? Why hasn't a credible study been done about that? The only thing I could dredge up was studies on how the use of the natural resources effect climate change. This short-sighted, ideal driven type of inquiry leads me to believe these people are daft.
So, I like to think I'm a deep thinker. So I got to thinking, what if? What if our goings on as humans was creating a change in our environment. I don't buy into the greenhouse effect, after delving into the science I'm pretty sure if it wasn't FOR the greenhouse effect our species wouldn't even be here. It's a self perpetuating cycle. It's what heats and cools our world. All of the gases in the air come, in abundance, from natural sources, not only us. Believe it or not it's a pretty good balance. This is what they don't want you to know. Anyone been to Detroit lately? Do you realize that 50 years ago the smog in Detroit rivaled that of some industrial areas in China, now it's relatively clean living. The population has shrunk and manufacturing dried up. The Earth heals itself.
These are the lies they want us to hang on to. They powers that be rely on our fears to herd us in directions they see fit. Climate change is just another one of those fears they use to prey on us. Aside from population change, I've seen little to support the data they put forth.
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Finding Balance
This is probably going to be a bit long, for those who subscribe to an end all be all government please avert your eyes. With that said, this is a rough draft of what we as a nation, We The People, can do to fix the current state of our country. It's not perfect the, Constitution of the United States isn't perfect, but it was a damn good rough draft that got us this far. Here's my solution:
An Act To Balance The Power Of Government
We the people of the United States have come to the realization that our elected officials, charged with being stewards of our defense, and general welfare, have twisted the system to suit their own agenda. A system of laws that no one man can understand, a system of taxation that is rife with inequalities, a judiciary with lifetime appointments of men and woman who judge with an slant towards personal ideals rather than law and elected officials that vote in laws that they do not have to adhere to. We will therefore need to make some changes to balance the power and return it back to the people where it belongs.
Anyone that has a better idea feel free to make changes!
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
An Act To Balance The Power Of Government
We the people of the United States have come to the realization that our elected officials, charged with being stewards of our defense, and general welfare, have twisted the system to suit their own agenda. A system of laws that no one man can understand, a system of taxation that is rife with inequalities, a judiciary with lifetime appointments of men and woman who judge with an slant towards personal ideals rather than law and elected officials that vote in laws that they do not have to adhere to. We will therefore need to make some changes to balance the power and return it back to the people where it belongs.
- Revue all laws and regulations so that they can be understood by the general public and therefore easily adhered to. Make all laws, rules and regulation equally applicable to all citizens, elected officials, visitors and political guests to the United States and United States Territories. State law will trump federal law.
- Replace our tax system with a easily applied flat tax not to exceed seventeen percent (17%). At this writing with current GDP numbers at or about $15.68 Trillion dollars, 17% would translate to $2.6656 Trillion dollars. This tax applies to all goods, services and corporate income.
- Require a balanced budget. While it is understandable that number 2 would prevent us from paying off our debt with a balanced budget, require that 20% of all tax revenues be applied to the debt, with the first payments used to pay back the Social Security system and Medicare until it is paid up. From that point on Social Security and Medicare monies collected shall be separate and UNTOUCHABLE and can not be borrowed from by any other government programs. The budget shall then be considered balanced with no less than 5% annually set aside as a 'rainy day' fund. If said fund exceeds 30% of yearly budget, then that money shall be returned to the people in the form of a TAX REDUCTION to overall tax base rate. Any future monies collected for Social Security and Medicare CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO ANY CURRENT BUDGET.
- No lifetime appointments to any public office. All elected and appointed offices shall be held no longer than 2 (two) terms and shall not exceed 10 (ten) years.
- Any elected or appointed official found to have committed a crime this included inproprieties that may arise from holding public office such as, but not limited to, voting on laws and rules that directly benefit the elected official, voting on laws that benefit directly family of the elected official, voting on laws that indirectly benefit the elected official (ie:investments), while in office shall be immediately removed from office and forfeits any and all future benefits from his/her government for self and immediate family. This includes, but is not limited to, retirement, insurances and government assistance federal,state and local.
- No elected official shall be paid more than the median wage of his/her home district. Stipends for travel and lodging will be exclude but be subject to scrutiny by his/her home district, if found to be excessive by a panel of 12(twelve) citizen picked at random (not unlike jury duty) bimonthly, said elected official will be required to cover the discrepancy.
- Elected officials shall be subject to normal rules of retirement that all government employees are subject to. No longer shall they be given full retirement after such a short tenure.
- Public assistance can not exceed 50% of the budget. Priority will be given to the elderly and children.
- Immediately disband any and all entities of the United States Government that is/has collected information on any citizens of the United States and its territories in all forms without consent or court order. All information garnered from these unconstitutional activities shall be destroyed immediately.
Anyone that has a better idea feel free to make changes!
That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
We are lost.
I've been absent for quite some time reading things and watching documentaries on various topics. One thing lead to another and another and so on, so forth. Originally my focus was on the Obama campaign's use of psychoanalysis to engineer a win in the presidential race. It morphed into something that brought me to an epiphany. They are using our ideals against us...we are unknowingly playing right into their plans. My friends, we are unknowingly willingly being controlled by a subversive tyranny.
Starting out with the Obama teams use of a group of behavioral scientists and statisticians, I began a long journey through what I originally thought was going to be answers on how our election system has become 'fixable'. What I've deduced, in my own opinion, is that the system is more 'fixed' than I could have ever imagined. Through information garnered through something as simple as the census, tax returns, job reports even school testing scores, behavioral scientists can postulate data in ways that map how a sector of our populace will respond to certain stimuli. This goes well above what we've see from the focus groups of political pundits.
What I believe is happening is that they are using our ideals to prevent us from forming a cohesive message. Fracturing "We The People" into "We The People who support this" or "We The People that support that" but keeping those groups from coming together to complete a common goal.
I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist and this is basically one man's opinion, but what if? The area of behavioral science has expanded with the use of computer modeling. Information is but a mouse click away. The people in power, nay, the people who want to keep that power, have control of that mouse. I don't expect a gun totin' redneck to suddenly start hugging trees, but take a deeper look at what these attacks on our ideals are doing to us as a nation or for that matter the world. We are a people divided. Divided by the very ideals we hold dear that are consistently threatened by the people who want to remain in power. I don't believe these attacks on our liberties are driven by a need for change, but a continued need to keep the people in a hyper vigilant state. It allows them to hide in plain sight, to sway our vote, to prevent us from forming a cohesive attack against an unseen foe that is right under our collective noses but out of reach due to our fractured state.
Every day it plays out in Washington D.C. when they get in front of the cameras. They state for the record that they are strategically forming policy to 'better' our lives. To improve something or protect something. Republicans and Democrats alike professing to hold our ideals at heart. Democrats fighting for the less fortunate, Republicans fighting for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or so they say. What I postulate is that they are both on the same team. They make back room deals to stay in power. They don't care about the other sides ideals nor do they care about their own. They are drunk on power. Why else would they spend millions to get that power? Why would they fight so hard to retain it?
What I'm about to say is a prediction of what is to come. We are lost. We are no longer at the precipice of disaster. We have gone over the edge and it's only time before reap what we've sown. Our government has made promises that it can not keep. Our economy will pay the price. The shell game that is our debt and unfunded liabilities will come to bear pretty soon. We only need to look to the past to see what happens when an economy falters. The past examples pale in comparison to what we will see when our economy has the inevitable reset when the burden of the last 20 years of promises finally breaks the system. The patches they've placed on the system do nothing to fix the overall problem. The left would have you believe that they just need to tax the rich more, the right...well I'm not sure what they are for anymore. Already there isn't enough productivity to pay what we've promised. They make cuts to Medicare and Social Security, both ENTITLEMENTS (ie: we've paid for these with money from our own pockets through work) because these are FUNDED. These are revenue streams for the bastards that are playing the shell game.
Who is poised to suffer? We the people. The poor who think they have it pretty good with all the government BENEFITS (ie: things they get that THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR) will suffer the most. They spigot will run dry and hit them the hardest. Next the middle class will be hammered. Think about it, the Federal Reserve has been printing money at a staggering rate. Nearly a Trillion dollars a year that they just add to the United States economy. Where did that money come from? From thin air that's where. It had no value when it was added to the economy but the economy did not reset the value of the dollar. What does that mean to us? I think we are about to find out. We are going to see a crash that'll make the last one look like a fender bender. Mark my words. If you don't have a skill or stuff to barter with, your toast. We think crime is bad now? Wait until bread is $12 a loaf, gas $15 gallon and other essentials sky rocket. This is not something I just made up, our own government has written contingency plans for just such a scenario. Do you think the people that currently sit in power will suffer? I think not. The government is going to profess they can fix it. They will step in and freeze prices on some things, but that will just make the companies that sell those things to stop offering them. Sorry lefties, I know some of you will say the government can fix it, but show me one thing they have fixed.
What can we do to prevent this? Nothing. The wheels are in motion, every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. We've had a run of perceived prosperity and now it's time to suffer. We can easily blame the politicians for this but we've become complacent. A nation of people that expect instant gratification. We reacted to their stimuli exactly how they modeled it. We traded our liberties for comfort. Now the only way we'll get it back is to trade that comfort for self reliance and I don't see that happening. We are a nation divided into fractured factions easily plied by the people in power.
Prepare for it people.
That's my two cents and it ain't worth a damn.
Starting out with the Obama teams use of a group of behavioral scientists and statisticians, I began a long journey through what I originally thought was going to be answers on how our election system has become 'fixable'. What I've deduced, in my own opinion, is that the system is more 'fixed' than I could have ever imagined. Through information garnered through something as simple as the census, tax returns, job reports even school testing scores, behavioral scientists can postulate data in ways that map how a sector of our populace will respond to certain stimuli. This goes well above what we've see from the focus groups of political pundits.
What I believe is happening is that they are using our ideals to prevent us from forming a cohesive message. Fracturing "We The People" into "We The People who support this" or "We The People that support that" but keeping those groups from coming together to complete a common goal.
I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist and this is basically one man's opinion, but what if? The area of behavioral science has expanded with the use of computer modeling. Information is but a mouse click away. The people in power, nay, the people who want to keep that power, have control of that mouse. I don't expect a gun totin' redneck to suddenly start hugging trees, but take a deeper look at what these attacks on our ideals are doing to us as a nation or for that matter the world. We are a people divided. Divided by the very ideals we hold dear that are consistently threatened by the people who want to remain in power. I don't believe these attacks on our liberties are driven by a need for change, but a continued need to keep the people in a hyper vigilant state. It allows them to hide in plain sight, to sway our vote, to prevent us from forming a cohesive attack against an unseen foe that is right under our collective noses but out of reach due to our fractured state.
Every day it plays out in Washington D.C. when they get in front of the cameras. They state for the record that they are strategically forming policy to 'better' our lives. To improve something or protect something. Republicans and Democrats alike professing to hold our ideals at heart. Democrats fighting for the less fortunate, Republicans fighting for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or so they say. What I postulate is that they are both on the same team. They make back room deals to stay in power. They don't care about the other sides ideals nor do they care about their own. They are drunk on power. Why else would they spend millions to get that power? Why would they fight so hard to retain it?
What I'm about to say is a prediction of what is to come. We are lost. We are no longer at the precipice of disaster. We have gone over the edge and it's only time before reap what we've sown. Our government has made promises that it can not keep. Our economy will pay the price. The shell game that is our debt and unfunded liabilities will come to bear pretty soon. We only need to look to the past to see what happens when an economy falters. The past examples pale in comparison to what we will see when our economy has the inevitable reset when the burden of the last 20 years of promises finally breaks the system. The patches they've placed on the system do nothing to fix the overall problem. The left would have you believe that they just need to tax the rich more, the right...well I'm not sure what they are for anymore. Already there isn't enough productivity to pay what we've promised. They make cuts to Medicare and Social Security, both ENTITLEMENTS (ie: we've paid for these with money from our own pockets through work) because these are FUNDED. These are revenue streams for the bastards that are playing the shell game.
Who is poised to suffer? We the people. The poor who think they have it pretty good with all the government BENEFITS (ie: things they get that THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR) will suffer the most. They spigot will run dry and hit them the hardest. Next the middle class will be hammered. Think about it, the Federal Reserve has been printing money at a staggering rate. Nearly a Trillion dollars a year that they just add to the United States economy. Where did that money come from? From thin air that's where. It had no value when it was added to the economy but the economy did not reset the value of the dollar. What does that mean to us? I think we are about to find out. We are going to see a crash that'll make the last one look like a fender bender. Mark my words. If you don't have a skill or stuff to barter with, your toast. We think crime is bad now? Wait until bread is $12 a loaf, gas $15 gallon and other essentials sky rocket. This is not something I just made up, our own government has written contingency plans for just such a scenario. Do you think the people that currently sit in power will suffer? I think not. The government is going to profess they can fix it. They will step in and freeze prices on some things, but that will just make the companies that sell those things to stop offering them. Sorry lefties, I know some of you will say the government can fix it, but show me one thing they have fixed.
What can we do to prevent this? Nothing. The wheels are in motion, every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. We've had a run of perceived prosperity and now it's time to suffer. We can easily blame the politicians for this but we've become complacent. A nation of people that expect instant gratification. We reacted to their stimuli exactly how they modeled it. We traded our liberties for comfort. Now the only way we'll get it back is to trade that comfort for self reliance and I don't see that happening. We are a nation divided into fractured factions easily plied by the people in power.
Prepare for it people.
That's my two cents and it ain't worth a damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)