Monday, October 15, 2012

Some of why I'm not voting for @MittRomney

How the Invisible Hand of Government works is by taxing activities that it wants to limit while incentivizing activities it wants to encourage. Taxes over and above sales-tax, such as on alcohol or tobacco are meant to regulate their use while incentives like deductions on home, work, education, and family size are meant to encourage settling down, buying a home, and having kids. It's a system of punishment and reward that's been effectively used for quite some time. You can take the red pill or you can take the blue pill, it's called free will, but I'll slap your hand if you take the red pill and tell you that you're a 'good boy' if you take the blue. It's simple training and we all respond to it.

See a toddler playing with a set of keys near an electrical socket? Dog shits on the floor? You know what to do. That's you enforcing the invisible hand of government that modifies behavior to affect the decisions of others for those moments of when someone is not looking over their shoulder's. Failure to heed these social controls can result in taxes, fines, incarceration, or even death when it's taken far enough. It's just what makes society function. Encourage. Discourage. Seriously, it's the foundation of capitalism. The person that conceptualized it is the only non-monarch or politician to be pictured on a British Bank Note. Adam Smith rivals Ben Franklin on his impact in creating the world we live in today. His writing helped inspire Theodore Roosevelt in creating the National Parks System. It was from his and the writings of John Locke that we got the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Now of course on the side of encourage and discourage, larger corporations are being encouraged to outsource work while small businesses are being heavily taxed to make up the revenue. Our government signing into free trade agreements only compounds the issue because it limits their ability to bring American industry back. Adam Smith also wrote about this.

On the individual level just as taxes on alcohol or tobacco are meant to discourage, that same discouragement is used to regulate industries in other ways through secondary means. You may smoke or drink and pay the taxes because you can afford that little extra bite in the wallet. You may speed because you're OK with getting that ticket or the increase in your car insurance premiums. Just like Paul Ryan, as an avid bow hunter, could afford the extra taxes on archery equipment when he created a law that added taxes to its cost and use. It's the same as when Mitt Romney passed a law that increased fees on horseback riding instructors. He could afford to pay the little extra because after all his wife Ann is an avid fan of equestrian events. Or even when as the Governor of Massachusetts when Romney raised gun licensing fees from $25 to $100. He could afford it, but also on its face was an attempt to limit availability of the right to carry a firearm. It's the same as Romney's secondary function would limit the amount of people that his wife Ann would be made to compete against in an event, or Paul Ryan's would limit competing bow hunters in the same forest he was hunting. It wasn't exactly poaching that got Robin Hood in trouble when he was found in King Henry's forest.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes

I hated onions as a child. I recall entering a store with my mother when I was a child of three or four years old. She'd planned to make a potato salad and some calamari for a BBQ we were attending and ran a list of items needed. I questioned their necessity in the potato salad when she read off onions. "Because it's illegal not too," was the short answer. I seriously thought there would be police involved and I continued believing this until I was about 6 or 7 when I learned otherwise.

Why I bring up this uncomfortable episode from my childhood is that it perfectly illustrates how a person in authority will effectively lie in an effort to suit their own agenda. I don’t fault my mom for this. It’s really no different from other tools of indoctrination such as Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures meant to affect individual behavior for the benefit of a community. She could have said, “Because I like onions. Deal with it.” Or, “Because everyone else likes onions. It’s you that’s different.” But she didn’t. I was a small child and my mom never really was that abrasive. Besides children that age don’t exactly have a handle on their position in the world and are oft likely to test boundaries. Thus we have Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures to fit whatever occasion.

There are literally thousands of gods, goddesses, saints, prophets, and other incarnations to choose from to suit a specific purpose. Do you want help winning the big game? Make an offering to the Greek Goddess of victory, Nike. You want to express humility for that amazing touchdown? There’s a Jesus for that. Problem training your dogs? Try St. Hubert. Need a standard of food safety in regards to pork or shellfish? The Talmud, Qu’ran, and Holy Bible all have variations on the Book of Leviticus. In fact if you see something in society that you don’t like be they the actions of a group or individual, you can take comfort in that their mortal actions will carry on into the afterlife by mechanisms of karma, being removed from the light of god, or just outright eternal damnation. What better way of manipulation is there to modify a person’s behavior short of physical abuse?

It’s simply cheaper and easier to tell a person that they will face some unseen punishment than it is to explain the truth of a matter, thus it is easier to control an uneducated population.

Do we need institutions that reinforce morality? It helps, but whose morality and necessarily are they just compounding intolerance towards others of dissimilar faiths. Three of the religions that I referenced earlier have the same foundation, so legitimately the same god, but one split off and decided that god should have a son, and then another split saying that son was just another prophet before their current one. They sit like riders on a Bill before it’s ratified into law. Religion is a governing body with its own purposes and agendas that knows no border, though depending on where you are born more than divine planning. If you’re born in the United States, you are likely to be born a Christian. In the Middle East, overwhelmingly you’re likely a Muslim. In Israel, by law you should be a Jew. Each is culturally specific to be inclusive of the society following its edicts, and exclusionary of those devices that may challenge it. Why? Because fuck you. That’s why.

We can of course contrast and compare all day long in regards to how you are of the chosen in this divine plan while 72% of the population has been condemned to burn in hell on the day that they were born. Or that 98% of the population will await resurrection in Gehenna. Or that all but the true believers will suffer in Jahannam for all eternity. We can discuss why the first European immigrants came to the Americas, what our founding father's had to say about our Christian nation,  the sanctity of marriage, immaculate conception verses rape and contraception, contributions to contemporary culture, charitable extensions, or even that moment when you really felt alone. But let’s discuss historical fact where in American history alone we can also discuss burning people at the stake, manifest destiny, the segregation of communities, the subjugation of women, or the firebombing of clinics and the assassinations of medical personnel. Globally we can discuss 77 dead in Norway, inquisitions that lasted up until 1988, the 6 million dead at the hands of Nazi ideology, or even the one-thousand years of history called the Dark Ages.

But society is better than all that. God after all is a fluid being designed in the image of man to suit the purposes of an individual’s idea of community that are not necessarily in line with communities competing for the same resources. Whether it was yesterday, 32, 80, 400, or 900 years ago, it’s not today. It’s not here. It’s not this moment. It’s not until the next terrorist, martyr, or patriot rises up to rampage a youth camp, mixed singles event, or family planning clinic, and even then the people will bury their heads in the sand looking for ways they are different rather than seeing how they are the same.

"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"

Friday, August 3, 2012

The Forgotten Issue with Chick-fil-A


Like many, I am upset over Chick-fil-A donating large amounts of money to lobby for anti-gay legislation that is based on the faith of the company's owner, Dan Cathy.

IMO Dan Cathy (President and founder of Chick-fil-A) is entitled to his freedom of speech and is entitle to donate HIS money as he sees fit because he is a person.  Indeed people are upset over how he exercises his freedom of speech and that is sad. People should be allowed to believe as they want just as those that disagree would be doing a better public service by seeking to understand a person’s beliefs and by educating the public on the specifics of the issue. Not doing so is a failure in society.  And just like the conservative furor over Oreo's, the protesting side too forgets about the recent, and not so recent past. These protesters attacking Cathy for exercising his freedom of speech threaten the credibility of protesting Chick-fil-A supporting anti-gay legislation with criticism that cannot even withstand the scrutiny of Sarah Palin. They’ve already lost.

The issue that should be focused on here is that unlike Cathy, Chick-fil-A is not a person. It is a business and regardless of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. The FEC, corporations are not people and are not entitled to exercise their freedom of speech. Corporate influence is one of the gravest threats to the US political system.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as bad advertising which is why I am bothered that protesters have allowed the issue to be made one of free speech. It will only compel others to patronize the offending institution while still others that don't give a shit about its practices one way or the other will not change their buying patterns. Educating the both sides of the debate would be a more constructive manner of affecting change in the system rather than the planned Kiss-In that will only likely affect employees and franchise owners.

Just as where many were already afraid to speak out against their employer, and in this case, franchises speaking out against corporate policy, the issue is made a bit more complex in today's uncertain economy. Affected employees my find prospects of finding new employment a bit scarce, especially for the people with only a high school diploma or less that makes up a the majority of the unemployed population. This of course emphasizes the problem of downward mobility and a shrinking middle class.

Beginning with an organization that Chick-fil-A made donations to, Exodus International, they went beyond shaping American politics to shaping politics in countries that are noted for human rights violations and acts of extreme cruelty such as Uganda that made it legal to execute homosexuals for being homosexuals. That's not supporting free speech. That's supporting state terrorism.

Exodus International is partly funded by the charitable arm of Chick-fil-A, the WinShape Foundation that also donates to several other anti-gay groups that also lobby here in the US and around the world. Exodus International though is the one that got the ball rolling on the Kill All Gays legislation based on a March 2009 presentation by Exodus International where they outlined the connection between homosexuality, child molesters, and HIV transmission. Based on the information they provided the Ugandan government felt that it was prudent to pass an anti-homosexuality bill that penalized behavior with either imprisonment for life, or execution depending on the severity and mitigating circumstances of the crime. The law was passed in October 2009 and there was a call to boycott Chick-fil-A because over their support in the matter and there has been inconsistent pressure in that regard since.

It wasn't until five months after the passage of the Uganda's Anti-Homosexual Law, following public outcry and a possible threat to their status as a 501(c)(3) in a March 2010 that Exodus International publicly distanced themselves from the Ugandan government with an open letter to the President of Uganda by saying, "Exodus International believes that every human life, regardless of an individual’s sexual behavior, is of inestimable worth to God and that defending this principle is foundational in offering a Christian response to any issue."

It's amazing how easily a God made in man's image changes his mind. The Biblical God would have stood by the Ugandan law requiring execution as it pretty much mirrors His own.

Just as in 2009 with Exodus International, it will take an all-around effort of educating the public to influence the corporate policy of Chick-fil-A. At the same time the invisible hand of government may do well to encourage Cathy to start a private foundation through which he can support anti-gay groups on his own.




Monday, July 30, 2012

The Police State Act: An Issue With Which Everyone Should Be Concerned

It would seem that the Large Capacity Magazine Ban has been inserted into the Cyber Security Act of 2012 in Section 2575 as a compromise move with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and is set for a debate tomorrow with a push towards a vote being made for later this week. Of course compromise is good. It's what politics are about in ensuring that we are equally represented, but this compromise is at the detriment to the people. Left or right, everyone would be equally disfranchised by this legislation.

I'm assuming of course that we are all aware of CISPA, but let's cover the finer points of the Large Capacity Magazine Ban in the Cyber Security Act of 2012. It's important to note that the magazine ban would ban the sale or transfer, public and private, of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Law enforcement or military? Let me repeat that, to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Take as long as you need to think that one over.

Law enforcement or military, but not you.

That being said most double stack magazines hold around 14 rounds so this ban would include popular concealed carry firearms like Glock, Beretta, and CZ. In turn I've read that many police departments require their officer's service weapons to be large capacity magazine and that is why you don't see cops carrying a Colt 1911, which is a combat tested gun. In fact the Colt 1911 is so popular with the military that the US Marines recently put in a $22.5 million order for their armories. This of course is not connected with the Department of Homeland Security March 2012 order of 450 million rounds from local manufacturer ATK. The ordered rounds were .40 caliber while the 1911 is a .45.

The more common civilian caliber is the 9mm for the estimated 80 million private owners in the United States. So let's say that you were one of these owners and you passed away. What happens to your semi-automatic? Better question, what would happen to your family?

Well...whoever would be heir to that firearm would be a felon since the private transfer of not the weapon, but the magazine would be illegal. Your wife your husband, your now adult child over the age of 21, anyone who comes into possession of that magazine after you would be a felon thus making them ineligible to own a firearm. I assume you would be expected to call the police so they could come collect it, thus it becomes a legitimate war of attrition.

Whether you are for or against the private ownership of guns, this is an important issue. Think about this quote from one of the key framers of the US Constitution, "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson said that. He also said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." But best of all he said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." He also said something about the "Tree of Liberty," but that is a conversation for another time.

Now I don't know about you, but I know quite a few liberal minded protesters that are pretty concerned with the government, today. Last night one even dropped the F-word, fear, and when a liberal fears the policies of a Democrat President, it's time to start having some frank conversations with your politicians. Here is a list of Utah's current Congressional delegation. Feel free to contact them regarding this issue. If you are outside of Utah, then you can lookup members of your own delegation HERE.

Tell them NO on CISPA, S.3414 and NO on the Large Capacity Magazine Ban, S. 2575. In the same call, tell them YES on another measure in the bill, the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before tracking your movements surreptitiously.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Washington DC: 202-224-5251
  • Salt Lake City: 801-524-4380
  • Provo: 801-375-7881
  • St. George: 435-634-1795
  • Ogden: 801-625-5672
  • Cedar City: 435-586-8435

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Washington DC: 202-224-5444
  • Salt Lake City: 801-524-5933
  • St. George: 435-628-5514

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st District)
  • Email
  • Washington DC: 202-225-0453
  • Ogden: 801-625-0107
  • Brigham City: 435-734-2270
  • Salt Lake City: 801-532-3244

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd District)
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Washington DC: 202-225-3011
  • Salt Lake City: 801-486-1236
  • St. George: 801-627-0880
  • Price: 435-636-3722

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT 3rd District)
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Washington DC: 202-225-7751
  • West Jordan: 801-282-5502
  • Provo: 801-851-2500

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

ObamaCare and You

“Obamacare is socialized medicine,” says the Republican Party. No, no — excuse me — socialized medicine is what we have now! People without insurance can go to an emergency ward or throw themselves on the mercy of a doctor, and the cost of all this uncompensated care is shared by all those who have insurance, raising your rates and mine. That is socialized medicine and that is what Obamacare ends."
~Thomas Friedman, May 26, 2012, New York Times

As an unemployed, uninsured single-father, I had hoped that the US Supreme Court would strike down the Affordable Care Act, but they didn't, so now it's time to adjust. The Affordable Care Act, or as the wags would call it, ObamaCare does nothing to help those in need of coverage that don't qualify for federal assistance, and in fact penalizes them for not being covered. This will only further erode an already suffering middle class.

Yes if you're younger than 26, you can get on your parents insurance, but how many in that age group have kids of their own? And yes if you have a pre-existing condition, you cannot be denied coverage. That is if you have access to health insurance. While relative unemployment sits just above 8%, real unemployment in America is around 15% combined with scores of the populations, just under half, living barely above the poverty line of $23,050 for a family of four making them ineligible for state assistance. People in that group will be on the hook for their own coverage. People in that group are going to be penalized. The President gave the insurance company customers, but he gave a huge chunk of America nothing!

The insurance companies only agreed to drop the pre-existing condition in exchange for agreeing to everyone being required to be insured. There is a voucher program being implemented for those making up to 400% above poverty level, but that voucher will only be equal to the monthly portion of the cost of the eligible employer-sponsored plan which would have been paid by the employer if you were a covered employee. Medical insurance can be expensive when you're working. Imagine if your not working, but still paying that same premium. When you're already covering housing, transportation, and food, then add one more obligation, that "and" could quickly become and "or," and you're forced to choose which one you don't need so much of.

Add to these concerns that a $2,000 penalty to employers that do not offer coverage to full-time employees and you'll see an accelerated push to already alarming employment trends. For one the penalty  in many cases will be the cheaper option for the employer over providing membership in a group policy. What exactly defined full-time employment may also change to further exclude employees to avoid the penalty altogether such as 36 hour work weeks just avoid full-time status, longer probationary periods for new employees, or as what's becoming popular in some sectors, contract 1099 workers with an option for a permanent position after one year making them their own entity responsible for everything that the employer would normally manage, except the workload that is.

The Affordable Care Act is a back-handed attempt to appeal to the masses that will hurt more than it helps, and will ultimately serve to further marginalize the middle-class. It's time to legitimately socialize medicine already and to start taking care of the people. The healthcare system as it stands or even as Obama has designed it to become, even with emergency care is far from a socialized system, and frankly it's a display of, for lack of a better term, proletariat ignorance and a slap in the face of 143 million Americans to suggest otherwise! Health care in America is one of the best, but it's the healthcare system that is a horrible representation of our society, and serves as an embarrassing reminder that we are incapable of taking care of our own people.

On June 27 I checked my Facebook and found a notice from a person on my Friend's List advertising a fund raiser for a person's cancer treatment. This is the forth such notice to cross my Facebook account since January, all for different people. One is for cancer treatments, and two are for traumatic brain injuries, and another for a chronic condition. All four are high-school graduates, one holds a middle management position, and two are unemployed. One that I know of does have medical insurance, but the coverage is inadequate which caused much of his therapy to end after 30 days and leaves the quality of his long term care in limbo. So if there is going to be any substantive insurance reform, how about we start with these four people?

TBI
Cancer
Chronic Condition
Follow me on Twitter @snokedawg

P.S. To add insult to injury,  one in three Americans is unable to visit a dentist and you realize that we have a real problem that making it illegal to not have insurance won't fix. Our leaders sold us out. Proud to be an Amerikan, yo...

P.S.S. Damn, post this article a few times in reply to people celebrating the Supreme Court decision and I get reported for spam? It's the online equivilant of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Lalalalalalala." That's a fine defense to your argument.

Today's lecture with Baleigh: Reality Shows

So I'm scrolling through Hulu seeing if there's anything interesting.

Baleigh: Hey look, they have the new season of Punk'd!

Me: What? No! I hate the show. Well I don't hate it, but rich people playing pranks on rich people is not something that I want to watch.

In fact, do you know what would make a good reality show? If they took away Ashton Kutcher's home, his cars, drained his bank account and set him on the streets of America just to see how he'd handle it. We'd get to see Ashton Kutcher in the homeless shelter. Ashton Kutcher in the food line. I'd watch that. Hell, I'd watch the shit out of that!

Baleigh: You're mean. </sarcasm>

Me: No, it's just that people like him make me sick. There are three types of wealth: acquired, inherited, and given.

Acquired wealth is when someone comes up with an idea and markets it, which makes money for them.

Inherited wealth is when someone is left money by the person that acquired it. Sometimes they do well with it. Other times they don't.

And then there's just the given wealth for people like Ashton Kutcher who really did nothing to earn it beyond being pretty. He was a Calvin Klein underwear model before anything else, and people gave him money for it. It's not like he has talent anyway.

Baleigh: Like Paris Hilton?

Me: No. Her's was inherited wealth, and the only reason she got famous was because someone thought it would be a good idea to take two untalented, spoiled rich girls and put them on TV.

Baleigh: Remember when we watched House of Wax just to see her die?


Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Today's lecture with Baleigh: Music and Politics

So we're in the car listening to Public Enemy.

Me: So you didn't know that Flava Flav came from Public Enemy?

Baleigh: No.

Me: Ugh. OK, let's take it back. What did Ice T bring to the hip-hop scene?

Baleigh: I don't know.

Me: A hype-man! That's what Flava Flav did.

Baleigh: I don't care. Well, I knew that, but I don't care.

My poor child gets frequently lectured on the socially significant music of late 20th century artists like Public Enemy, Ice T, Beastie Boys, NWA, et.al. Occasionally others like Slayer, Megadeth, and early Metallica get thrown into the mix for their relationship to politics and the American war fetish. She says that doesn't care, but she listens.

It's at this point that we should maybe feel bad for her teenage self.