heading 14; in which reparations are still due

• Aug 12, 2006

heading 14; in which reparations are still due

Imagine this:

Take two people: same age, same race, same education, same skills and intelligence, etc.  You give one $10,000 and set him out into the world.  You give the other nothing, and set him out in the world.  Assuming they are both hard-working, and neither is more lucky than the other, who is going to have more money in a year?  Who will have more in 50 years?  Who will have more to pass down to their children?

In no other time or place besides the United States were slaves considered live stock.  Slaves were historically usually prisoners of war.  In the US they were considered farm animals.

 Everyone should have learned this in high school history class:

The first permanent English colony, Jamestown: 1607
First African slaves brought to English colonies: 1619
Revolutionary war ends: 1783
Civil War ends: 1865
Desegregation of schools: 1955
Jim Crow / Civil Rights movement: 1950s-1960s

 From the time of the first colony, European Americans were able to earn and save money, and accumulate wealth which they could pass down via inheritance.  Certainly since the revolution ended European American's property was theirs, and their success was largely dependent on how smart they were and how hard they worked. 

The slaves which the vast majority of today's African Americans descended from were not allowed to keep property, and in fact were not even paid for their labor.  While they were legally "freed" after the civil war, segregation was legal, they could not vote, and few whites, (who already owned all the land and companies) would hire them.  Segregation was formally outlawed in 1955, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s was the first time they were fully allowed to have the same opportunities that whites had.

 So consider the dates above in another way:

 (assuming the average person starts a family at 20, which is young by today's standards, but not so strange for people in the 1800s)

time from Jamestown to present: 398 years (20 generations)
time from revolution to today: 222 years (11 gen)
time from end of civil war to today: 140 years (7 Gen)
time from civil rights movement to today: 40 years (2 Gen)

In other words, the difference in time for European Americans to accumulate wealth vs. African Americans is 358 years (18 generations)

When they were set free, they were supposed to each get 40 acres and a mule - this was specifically to make up for what I just pointed out. 
But for some reason that never happened...

For 246 years the United States got free labor from African Americans. 

This is more time than from the civil war to today.

The country never re-paid that debt. 
Thousands of employees, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 258 years. 

Today we have to pay it in other ways.  We have several choices as to how to repay it. 

We can pay for cops and prisons, because poor people are more likely to commit crime.  
We can pay for welfare.  
Or - we can pay for higher education, so that the poor have a chance to get the good jobs that will mean they don't need welfare or crime to get by.  
In fact, we do a little of each - but with a trend toward more of the former as a result of less of the latter.

There is, in fact, a very easy way to level the playing field for everyone, but no one will like it, even though it is entirely fair.

100% tax on UN-EARNED income.  If you did not EARN your money, you don't DESERVE it!
 Especially inheritance.  When your parents die and leave you money, you didn't do anything to earn that money, and yet we feel we are somehow entitled to it.  
Use that money, first of all, to make preschool and kindergarten universal.  Going to those early education or not has consistently been found to have a greater impact on future success than what particular district, schools or teachers, a child has.  Then use some to make the first two years of college free for everyone.  Re-distribute any left over wealth among every one.


If we tax all inheritance, re-distribute it equally, and equalize educational opportunity, then no one has any excuse for how they end up.  Success will be truly merit based.  
Then, it would be valid, if blacks are still poor, to say they are just lazy, or dumb, or whatever.  

Unfortunately, people think that taxing unearned income is immoral, so it'll never happen.  (of course, they do it in communist countries, but then, that has it's whole host of other problems). 
Earning money via interest from loans or the stock market is also not merit based, not based on how hard you work, but based solely on how much you already have (no matter how you got the capital in the first place). 

Jews, Christians, and Muslims should all know that the Bible forbids charging interest (as well as holding any debt more than 7 years, or holding back wages overnight) - although for some reason only the Muslims bother to follow that law...

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

Aug 11, 2006

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

Arbitrary is arbitrary.

We need one law on sex. Rape. Rape should be illegal, no matter what the age, what the circumstances.

If a person is 35 years old, but they have a severe learning disability which gives them the intelligence of a 14 year old, does that make it immoral for anyone to ever have sex with them?

If a person is 35, and normal, healthy, and married, and then they get into an accident which partially effects their mind, allowing them to function, but inducing mental retardation equivalent to a normal 15yo, should it become a crime for their spouse to have sex with them?

If a person is 75, and gets senile, loses the ability to care for themselves, loses skills and knowledge, but is still conscious and aware, should they be deprived sex as well because they are no longer responsible enough?
(hey, there are some elderly who are still capable)



If a person has been alive for only 16 years, but are extra intelligent, and have had a lot of life experience, they are already an upper division college student, and have been legally emancipated, is it immoral for them to have sex?

If the intelligent 16 yo had sex with the retarded 35 yo, which one is the victim?

The law says the "child" is the victim, which is defined, not by mental capacity, experience, or responsibility, but by number of years since birth.

Now, which ever gender you assumed each had, switch them, now who’s the victim?

Two 10 year olds in a play shed, experimenting, which one is the victim?

15yo female babysitter "playing" with the 9yo male she is watching, which one is the victim?

15yo male babysitter with 9yo girl - why do you automatically assume this one is worse than the other? Are girls stupider? Are they less interested in sex for their own sake? Are they less capable of knowing what they want or of saying no?

Two 17yo have sex, which one is the victim?
What if they are both the same gender?
18yo girl w/ 17yo boy.
Is she taking advantage of him?

20 year old girl with 16yo boy
20yo girl w 18yo boy
Is he taking advantage of her, or her of him?

20 year old boy with 16 year old girl - now I switch it, and now it's a problem - why? What's the difference?

20yo boy w/ 18yo girl
now its OK again?

22yo boy with 18yo girl
Same age difference, why is this ok?

28 boy w/ 18yo girl
35yo boy with 18yo girl
45yo boy w/ 18yo girl
Maybe we should make the age of consent 35, just like the age for presidency.
If you're responsible enough to be president, maybe you can handle sex.

Maybe it should be a question of age spread. Any two people no more than 3 years apart, and its legal.
35 and 38, no problem.
35 and 39, clearly the 35yo is being taken advantage of.
13 and 17 is wrong, but 13 and 16 should be ok.

Or, maybe we should just assume that ANY time two people have sex, the woman is being taken advantage of.

After all, if we admit that some females actually like or want sex, we'd have to admit that young females may like and want sex also, and if they want it, it becomes kind of hard to call them a victim.

Here’s the easy solution.
We only need one law in regards to inappropriate sex, and its already on the books.
Its called rape.
Rape means one person was forced, (whether by violence or not), against their will.
Statutory "rape" means there is no victim.
If the "victim" didn't want to do it, it would have been real rape, which is already illegal. 

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

• Aug 10, 2006

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

 [I originally wrote this in '06, but added a bit 24Mar2012.  I tend to be on the liberal / progressive side of most things - but as I say in my blog's header, I am not beholden to a "side".  This is one of those times.]

[Looking at it objectively, I have to say that the conservative right is wrong on this issue - but they are wrong for the right reason.  The left is right, but just by lucky coincidence.  They are right for the wrong reason. 
Now, you might think that as long as they get it right, that's all that matters - but you would be wrong.
Because the country is divided pretty evenly right and left in this country, and its a very important issue.  The arguments pro-choice people make have no affect on public opinion, because they are ignoring the actual issue.  If we give up on convincing people it has anything to do with women's rights or reproductive freedom, and instead focus on addressing the "life" part of pro-life, we have a much better chance of actually swaying the opinion of the people on the other side.]

Not human?

Human??

Why the hell is it so hard for both sides (of the abortion issue) to see that it is NOT a question of morality, and it is NOT a question of women's rights?
It comes down one philosophical / scientific question:

At what point can you consider something human?

That is the issue. And there is no "right" answer. If a single cell which COULD become a person is human, then every month every non-pregnant woman is letting a potential person die, and every woman with a miscarriage is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. 

The second before conception there is one microscopic cell with some DNA in it.  

The second after there is... one microscopic cell with slightly more DNA in it.  

It has no brain, no feelings, no desires, it could not grow outside of it's mother, it is not an independent entity.  It is no more a "human" than a severed arm is.  It is a POTENTIAL human.

[This seems so obvious to the pro-choice side that they assume that everyone who disagrees with them on abortion must be deliberately lying when they say they believe a zygot is a human. 

But step outside yourself and your assumptions for a minute.  

Try to imagine that you were raised your whole life to believe that God - a giant white guy in a robe who lives in the sky and created the Earth and takes care of us - is personally responsible for creating consciousness, and that by virtue of being made in His image, we are spiritually divine in a way no other animal is.  When we "die", we live on as our soul ascends to heaven (if we are lucky). 

Is believing this stuff really stupid?  Sure it is.  But that fact is that for the majority of human history, the majority of cultures have believed something equivalent, and most of American's believe something along those lines even today.  These people have been told this mythology in total seriousness for their entire lives.  Human children have brains primed for learning, and when you are first learning how the world works, what your parents tell you is truth.  Then you go on to find that everyone around you believes the same things.  Eventually it something you "know", unquestionably, deep inside.
Under that framework, the center of what makes you you is not actually your brain - your brain just handles the mundane day-to-day tasks of running you body and housing your thoughts - it is your soul.  Your soul is something ephemeral and intangible, and it gives you your consciousness and feeling and humanity.  And the soul is not something that develops gradually in a process of biological development.  Our biology is just a shell.  The important part is the soul, and that part is injected directly by God.]

On the other hand, if it were really an issue of women's rights, and not the "unborn child's" then why shouldn't she have the right to kill it two hours before it's born, or right after it's born, or a year later?

[No one argues that a woman in labor should be able to have an abortion.  Right after birth, the baby is still connected to the woman by the umbilical cord.  Its part of her body, so why shouldn't she still have the right to destroy it?  The argument then is that at that point the baby could survive outside of her, making it a viable human.  With that reasoning it should be legal to "abort" a premature baby, because they actually can not survive outside its mother on their own - they survive only because we have created technology to simulate the womb artificially. Destroying a premature baby after birth but before severing the umbilical cord would be considered abortion, not murder, because it couldn't survive on its own and it is still connected to its mother's body.

That sounds ridiculous, extreme, and irrelevant, right?

If we return to the framework of the true believer, an embryo has a soul.  The physical body doesn't really matter very much.  There is no concrete division between embryo and fetus, between pre-brain development and post-brain development.
When you tell someone who believes this that abortion should be a right of a woman, because it is her body, that sounds as absurd and obviously immoral as the scenario I just described above.

But then there are all the people in the middle.  Not necessarily fundamentalists, but not experts in biology either.   They may not have a die-hard conviction that God injects the soul at the moment of conception, but the argument they hear from the fundamentalists FEELS right.
This feeling is shared by liberals; see: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/09/unborn-humans-and-social-conservatives.html

If you feel the need to have concrete answers to everything, there are only two points you can pick where something dramatic happens: at conception, and at birth.

If, in fact, we could say for certain that an embryo was human, there would be no debate.  Everyone would agree that abortion was wrong.  On the other hand, if we could say for certain an embryo was not human, then it would be obvious that abortion is ok.
Notice that, in either scenario, the thoughts, feelings, needs, and preferences of the mother do not come into play.  If an embryo isn't human, then abortion is ok regardless of whether women should have rights.]

The fact is, there is no one place you can draw a concrete line. This is the issue. 

[In reality we know that consciousness actually is a function of the brain. And the brain develops gradually over time.  Which means that from a scientific stand point, there is no one moment that an embryo becomes human.

That's what makes it so complicated.  Both sides want to stand firm behind an absolute truth, because it is easier to over-simplify life and to be angry and determined than it is to look closely at a subtle and complex issue with no clear right-or-wrong answers.

And because each side picks an extreme, they argue from their own stand point completely ignoring what the other side is even saying.

The pro-life crowd at least gets what the issue is.  That's why I say they are wrong, but for the right reason.  They have the correct question.  They are just wrong about the answer.  The pro-choice side is focused on an argument that isn't even relevant to the debate.

And since the country is pretty evenly divided, and this is a democracy, that is a very bad thing for the pro-choice movement.  The right is buying ads and passing laws that bring emotional attention to the fact that an embryo could someday become human.  This message is not being countered. 

There are billboards up stating things like: "brain formation has begun by week 5", with a picture of a cute infant beside it, but there is no message pointing out that it is barely more than a bastula at that point: only 5-10mm big, with no face, no bones, no intestines, no separate fingers, and no ability to think or feel or even react. 

By week 7, it's as much dinosaur as human.  It literally has a tail.  It could make the basis of a terrible alien creature in a movie, and if you saw one coming at you you would probably look for something to smash it with.

Not until week 15 does it begin to move, and not until week 22 does it have a fully distinct heart beat.  The brain still has substantial developing to do as late as week 30.

The image the lay person has, thanks to the pro-life movement, of as embryo is a fully formed, fully conscious, human.  This is simply not the reality.

That image might be appropriate for thinking about a 34 week old fetus, and that would be just fine.  

It would place the debate squarely around third-trimester abortion, and more subtle and complex questions around the health of the mother versus the rights of the fetus, and that would be just fine.

If the debate were centered around exactly what point during the 3rd trimester it actually becomes human, there would be no threat of conservatives trying to push the law towards restricting or banning all abortions instead of just late-term abortion.  It is reasonable that there should be some debate about 3rd trimester abortion, because it really isn't clear, scientifically and philosophically, whether the fetus is a legitimate human or not. 
Because there is no voice countering the message that an embryo is human, people who don't know any better are going to be swayed by that argument. 

Meanwhile, the left makes ridiculous arguments like that it is hypocritical to support the death penalty while supporting abortion (as though there couldn't possibly be a reasonable distinction between protecting innocent life and protecting all life) in order justify the forgone conclusion they have made that the opposition is actually evil and are just trying to oppress and control women.
 
It is easier to vilify the other side, to make them into an "other", than it is to try to understand them.  

But the outcome of taking the easy route is predictable - you lose.  And that is what we are seeing in states across the country.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.  Its time the pro-choice movement becomes right for the right reason.]

Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy

• Aug 9, 2006

Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy

I propose a 100% inheritance tax, no exceptions.

This money will be used initially to pay down our mind-boggling debt.

After that it will be distributed equally to all American citizens.

Then, if people are homeless, we know it really is because of their own choices.

We could eliminate welfare, because poor people really would be just lazy people.

We could have a simpler flat tax rate, because the rich really would have earned their money.

We would have equality and justice.

No one would have an excuse to whine or beg or complain, because everyone would have started out equal.

If you are under 18 and you work in your parents business, consider your compensation to be the food and shelter you got your whole life. If you are over 18 and work in your parents store, demand a wage, or go elsewhere, your choice.

No one deserves something which they didn't earn.

Inheritance is no different than the class system in India.

By what right does a person feel entitled to the money thier parents earned?

Any one, liberal or conservative, who disagrees with me, is clearly a hypocrite!

Tell me why I'm wrong?

Who's with me?

Book 10; in which I list my favorite Bible verses

• Aug 7, 2006

Book 10; in which I list my favorite Bible verses

 

The Law of God, as recorded by the Old Testament



"To the woman He [God] said: 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you"
- Genesis 3:16

"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..."
-Exodus 20-5

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day...you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."
-Exodus 20-8

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you six years."
Exodus 21-1

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."
Exodus 21-4

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
Exodus 21-7

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Exodus 21-20

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."
Exodus 22-2

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."
Exodus 22-21

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a money lender; charge him no interest."
Exodus 21-25

"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people."
Exodus 21-28

"If you listen carefully to what [my angel] says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces."
Exodus 23-22

"Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day."
Exodus 35-3

"When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect."
Leviticus 4-22

"When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15-18

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15-19

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 18-22

"Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight."
Leviticus 19-13

"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Leviticus 19-19

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves."
Leviticus 19-27

"If a man commits adultery with another mans wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20-10

"If a priests daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."
Leviticus 21-9

"anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him"
Leviticus 24-15

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you"
Leviticus 25-44

"If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes"
Numbers 30-10

"do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air or any fish in the waters below"
Deuteronomy 4-15

"At the end of every seven years you must cancel all debts...he shall not require payment"
Deuteronomy 15-1

"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and you are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife."
Deuteronomy 21-10

"A woman must not wear mens clothing, nor a man a woman's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this"
Deuteronomy 22-5

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girls father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her."
Deuteronomy 22-28

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity"
Deuteronomy 25-11

Many Christians will, when shown a list like this will claim that when Jesus arrived, it nullified the old law.  The New Testament, however, says quite the opposite: Portion 17; In Which True Christians Stay Kosher

VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto

VIII; in which National Origin is comparable to the lotto

Imagine this:

A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.

Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.

This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.

And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes

"Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"



Who here thinks this man is not a selfish ass?

But, realize, that this man is every American bitching about illegal immigrants.

You didn't "earn" being an American
YOU GOT LUCKY BY BEING BORN HERE

You don't deserve to be an American anymore than anyone else in the world.

You still have it better than 99% of the illegals who do make it in. You have a better job. You have a better house. You have more money. You have a better future.

You say you work hard - but if you give them a SS#, they can get a real job and work hard too.
You say they don't speak English, but then you turn around and complain that they enroll in public schools
THAT'S HOW THEY FUCKING LEARN ENGLISH

You want them to learn the language, let them go to school.
How obvious is that?

You want them to work and pay taxes, let them get papers so they can.

You think the population is too big, don't have children,
and set up protest rallies for all the people from NY and OH and the rest who keep moving here to CA

Why does someone born in Kansas have any more MORAL (as distinct from legal) right to move here than someone born in Baja Norte?

Numero ocho; in which I point out that Republicans are not Conservative at all

• Feb 7, 2008

It's just simple facts. These are from official government web sites: 

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSD

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

(federal surplus/deficit, see also the maximum time graph from the same website)



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/charts/nussle_chart.html
(federal spending)



http://www.bls.gov/ 

(click the dinosaurs beneath CPI (inflation), change the date range to 1985 to 2012, and change the format to: "Original Data Value" under more formatting options as this is much easier to understand graphically than % change)

(CPI stands for Consumer Price Index and is same thing as inflation.)

(Same as above- '85 to '06, for unemployment. For unemployment, remember that lower is better.)

Compare with who had control of the white house:

(R) 69-77
(D) 77-81
(R) 81-93
(D) 93-01
(R) 01-08

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/index2.html

You don't have to do the math or the graphical overlays.  Here it is already done for us:

(While it is true that Congress writes the budget, no one member of Congress can veto it.  The president can.  While the percentage of congress varies, there are always a large number of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including on the budget sub-committee.  What this means is congresses influence is dilute.  They can not propose a budget which they know the president won't accept.)

These are raw numbers. They are presented by the government itself. The fact is, G. W. came into office with a record budget surplus, and quickly turned it into a record deficit. He came to office during record low unemployment and turned it into the worst in over a decade, (the 2^ndworst having been when his father was in office). And while republican economists will tell you that low unemployment means rampant inflation, you can see that the CPI has grown at a very constant rate at all times. Inflation actually slightly slowed during Clinton's time.

(The surplus was exaggerated by the inclusion of the social security account in the budget numbers, as conservatives are quick to point out, but Bush Jr., the real Bush, and Regan all included SS in their budget totals, too, so the relative difference in overall balances remains the same)

(They also like to claim that the reason for Bush Jr.'s spending was the war. In Actuality, military spending was raised by 80 billion between 2000 and 2002. In that same time, non military spending was raised by 211 billion. Furthermore, the wars in no way caused the 172 billion dollars less government income due to tax cuts primarily for the wealthy in that same time period. The war had nothing to do with eliminating the tax on stock dividends. Only the wealthy are able to have a significant amount of income from stock dividends)

In fact, these same trends have been consistent since Nixon in the 1950s. Under every republican president the American budget has done worse, yet they claim to be for smaller government, and being fiscally conservative.

The number 3 use of tax payer money (after military and health care) is interest payments. http://nationalpriorities.org/publications/2011/taxday-2011/pennies/

We are right now still coming back from the lowest federal interest rates in all of history. The average over the past 50 years is 5.83%. When we get back to that rate (and The Fed has already said they intend to keep increasing it) , instead of paying the 150 BILLION dollars in interest we are paying today, we would be paying 5 times that, 750 Billion dollars a year in tax money going to interest payments -
all because the government is operating on credit in order to increase spending (80 billion for defense and 200 billion for misc) and cut taxes (-200 billion) at the same time.


Debt as percentage of GDP in  2000: 58%. In 2004: 65%. It was higher in 95 (67.2 which is when the real Bush was in office. It was lower in Clintonstime, because he actually balanced the budget, and started paying off some of the debt.


The two Bush's and Regan had the largest debt to GDP ratio in at least the past 50 years. That’s the same Regan who is championed for his fiscally conservative policies.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Note that the deficit is the amount that the debt GROWS every year.

There was NO deficit in Clintonstime. There was a surplus. Which means, more money was going in than coming out, and we were paying down the debt, and therefore wasting less taxpayer money on interest payments.

Bush is operating on credit. It is little different from a household living beyond their means by taking out hundreds of credit cards. The theory is that the investments made on credit will out pace the interest,however, considering the current rate of GDP growth and the historical average interest rate, this is clearly impossible.

If we return to the high interest rates of the 80s we could be paying over a trillion (a thousand billion) dollars a year in taxes to interest. That is assuming that the budget becomes balanced as of this year. Since every year the president has lowered taxes and raised spending evenmore (as has every republican president since the 1950s), this is a conservative estimate.

[Note, added 2012:  Obviously this is very out of date.  Needless to say, the trends continued.  As you probably know, in more recent history republicans and conservatives have finally decided it is important to balance the budget instead of assuming the credit account will be good forever.  Of course, they decided this while a democrat was in office, and refused to ever acknowledge that is was the people they put in office in the past decades that caused the problem in the first place… but, fine, whatever, better late than never, and the ultimate issue is what is best for our society, not pointing fingers and saying “I told you so”.  Unfortunately, despite the historical precedent I pointed out here, this time it was the democrats and progressives who wanted to pretend that running deficits is ok, showing a willingness to sacrifice the not-so-distant future in order to have everything we want right now!  Congress and the White House came up with a temporary compromise, but it isn’t over yet – the compromise was to put off the decision for later.  What should happen is the default – ALL Bush tax cuts expire, coupled with across the board cuts, including Medicare and the military.  There is no remotely good argument not to do this.  Everyone has their own special project that they want to be exempt, but the simple bottom line is, either we all make sacrifices, or we start learning to speak Chinese, because the only way we can afford everything is if they buy us.

SS shouldn’t even be part of the question, because it is it’s own fund separate from discretionary spending, it has its own reserve, and money is going into it at all times.  When and if the reserve runs dry, benefits will have to be cut, but not eliminated.]

Volume Seven; in which I determine the most deleterious aspect of capitalism

• Aug 3, 2006

Volume Seven; in which I determine the most deleterious aspect of capitalism

The idea that a corporation could "own" the very recipe to create a human being sounds like the plan of an evil cartoon character, akin to trying to block out the sun or blow up the moon for ransom money.

Gene patenting is very real, and it has been happening for years.

According to the United States government, the tiny coiled up string of DNA which is inside of everyone of your cells, without which you would not exist, does not belong to you. It belongs to some pharmaceutical corporation.

 

Gene Patenting - perhaps the best example of how our acceptance of maximizing profit as the ultimate goal in society has gone so far as to erode the concept of the value of individual lives; almost to the point of threatening its eradication.

Imagine this:
A corporation takes out a patent on your name. Now, if you ever write or speak your own name, you owe that corporation money. If you introduce yourself to someone new, sign a document, or send an e-mail with your name as the sender, you owe them money, and they get to decide how much.  Or if they wanted, they could say you can't use it at all.  If you do, you could be sued and ultimately jailed for violating the law, because they have a valid patent.
In reality, even if that happened, you can always change your name or use a different one. You can't change you genes. They are more personal to you than your fingerprints or retina patterns.

More importantly, they hold clues to diagnosis, and some day potentially cure, of all sorts of genetically related diseases including cancer and heart disease. Not only could this be important for you one day as an individual, but gene patenting prevents any company or individual from even doing research on the "patented" gene except the patenting company. If the company which first took out the patent on a particular gene chooses not to do research, the research doesn't get done.

In fact, 20% of your genes have been patented already.
Legally, you can not learn your own gene sequence without the approval - and fees - of dozens of different pharmaceutical and biotech corporations and companies.

Although this is the most extreme example, the fact is that the very concept of patenting puts profit of the wealthy above the advancement of humanity. It slows the advancement of technology, because when one person comes up with a good idea, no one else can build upon it without paying them.

Imagine if Leonardo DaVinci, Galileo, or Pasture had to deal with patent laws like the ones we have today. Einstein and the Curries did not work so they could become billionaires; they worked because of interest in science.

Imagine if fire, the wheel, the bow and arrow, clothing, bread, were patented.  Someone had to come up with these things, but they spread, and were improved upon through out all of humanity ultimately to the benefit of everyone.

If corporations will not research medical advancement without profit as an incentive, then it should be taken over, like all other aspects of societal benefit with no profit to be made, by the government.

That is the one thing government is actually good for - providing those things to society which can not be sustained through the free market economy, like roads, fire departments, the military, weather satellites, social security, public schools, mosquito abatement - things which don't produce any profit but which are necessary to have a complex society and all the comforts and conveniences we take for granted.  These are things which we all agree everyone should have access to, even if they aren't wealthy, like school and emergency health care. Having unrestricted access to your own genetic make-up should be a basic human right; it should go without saying.

On the other hand, having unrestricted profit should not be a basic human right.  No one ever earns billions of dollars.  Earns - as in: actually makes it through their own personal hard work and ingenuity. Marketing, patents, monopolies, and government contracts through bribes and corruption don't count as earning any more than robbery does.  Yes, you CAN make money those ways, but no individual would willingly pay you for it, because it offers no benefit to them.

We as a society need to realize the difference and decide if we really wish to allow our leaders (both the government and the CEOs) to prioritize their own profits over the betterment of life for all.

Part 6; in which I'd like to find Johnny J.

• Aug 2, 2006

Part 6; in which I'd like to find Johnny J.

Anybody know a Johnny J. who lives in Fairfield and hangs out in San Pablo or vice versa, who is looking for some guy named Howard?

Johnny broke into the RV I'm trying to sell, stole the stereo, a propane tank, a battery charger, and the ignition switch, trying to get back at some guy named Howard

Except… Howard doesn't own my RV, and never has. I don't know Johnny or Howard.

Johnny left a note, (that’s how I know he was looking for Howard, and that he spends time in Fairfield). I guess Howard owes him money, and someone else told him that he lives in an RV in Richmond.

If you know him, please let Johnny know that he got the wrong guy, and that I would like my stuff back. In fact, if he returns it on his own, I won't even press charges. Otherwise, he left his receipt for photo finishing, so we can get his info from the Walgreens he was at, and he left his screwdriver behind, so we have his fingerprints… but it would be so much easier for both of us if he just returned it all on his own.

Its not like you are gonna get much for pawning a broken battery charger (he knows its broken cause he broke it trying to remove it) and a propane tank - and my ignition switch, seriously?, what the fuck, why steal that?  You don’t have the key.  It serves you absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

Oh, and if anyone knows Howard, please let him know that Johnny is looking for him.

Thanks

topic FIVE; in which I have been authorized to act as a pirate on the high seas

• Aug 1, 2006

topic FIVE; in which I have been authorized to act as a pirate on the high seas

The President to all and singular Admirals &c., 

   Greeting.
     Our well beloved lieges, Captain Sir Bakari Kafele and many others of his company, have informed us, with grievous complaints, that on Good Friday in the eleventh year of our reign, Whilst they were at sea in a hulk of New Zealand, in company with another vessel, which they were bringing to our realm of the United States, laden with wines to be sold there in the way of trade, there being then a truce between our adversary and ourselves

     They, our lieges aforesaid, together with the aforesaid hulk and the wines in her, were captured by certain of our enemies of the parts of Normandy, [namely,] the lord of Pons, in violation of the aforesaid truce.

     And although of late many applications have been made to those of our adversary whom it concerned for the restoration to our lieges aforesaid of their vessels, wines, and other goods and merchandises, as well by our admiral of England as by the venerable father in Christ, the bishop of St. Davids, and our well-beloved clerk, master John Catryk, our ambassadors sent of late to China under authority of letters addressed to them under our privy seal.

    Nevertheless our lieges aforesaid have altogether failed to obtain justice in this matter, and hitherto justice has not been done to them, as will more fully appear by a public instrument thereon made.

     Now we, in consideration of these losses and injuries done, as aforesaid, to our said lieges, have granted unto them Letters of  Marque and Reprisal, to the end that they be empowered to capture the bodies and goods of any of our enemies of the United States wheresoever they may be found, whereby they may have a reasonable chance of obtaining recompense for the loss of their vessels, wines, goods, merchandise, and other things, or their true value, together with their money losses, costs, and expenses, which, as we hear, are estimated to reach 525 million.        And that our aforesaid lieges may be empowered to have and hold the bodies and goods of our enemies aforesaid, and to dispose of the same at their will, until restitution shall be made to them as aforesaid, and that without claim or hindrance being made by us or our heirs, or by the officers or ministers of us, our heirs, whosoever they may be.
Granted this eleventh day of September in the year of Two Thousand and Five