Life, Liberty and Mathmatics
By SnowMonster | February 21, 2013
Being the geek that I am, my favorite classes in High School were Geometry and Calculus. It was amazing to realize that real life problems could be expressed in Math built upon a foundation of clean, precise logic. Theorems and Proofs were particularly fascinating. You started out small with theorems that were easily proven and once proven; you used those theorems to prove larger ones. It was like building a case in court. You repeated the process until the abstract concepts of Calculus were explained and you realized why you had to wade through that entire weird math like Trigonometry and Linear Algebra. But it always started out the same; you made some observation, made a conclusion, and then set about proving it using your toolbox of previous proofs. When you were done, your toolbox was a little fuller.
Being a geek, and dealing with the harsh realities of the school pecking order, made me wish that the cool logic of math could be applied to people.
But was that possible? Could society, made up largely of illogical people, be expressed mathematically? I began to realize that it could and that these manifested themselves in what society calls ‘principles.’ A Principle is a body of knowledge gained by humanity, largely through trial and error. But could they be proven? Take the following:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Sounds like a theorem to me. It holds an observation and a conclusion. How could one prove it, mathematically?
First off, the statement includes an axiom. An axiom is a fundamental building block of knowledge. Think of it as the smallest and first tool in your toolbox of Math. It cannot be proven, but it cannot be disproven, either. It is an observed fact of reality that never wavers or contradicts itself. The axiom here is “all men are created equal.” Misogyny notwithstanding, it states that every one of us start out from the same point, mathematically; we are equal. How are we equal? We are all given life. That’s it. No more promises than that.
The theorem concludes that we are all given the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They are three separate conclusions, each a precursor to proving the next. So let’s start with the right to life.
As human beings, we face two possible states: existence and non-existence. From a mathematical point of view, this is a binary state; you either are or you aren’t. The transition from non-existence to existence is called ‘birth’. The reverse is called ‘death’. We all have performed the first transition and we will all face the second. Everything in between is called Life. It is in the nature of a human being to want to continue to exist for as long as they can. Since we are all equal, and we all want to continue to exist, an inequality would exist if one individual felt he was justified in causing another to cease to exist. This is why murder is illegal. You have the right to exist, the right to Life.
Mathematics is the science of manipulating quantities. As such, we need to quantify existence and non-existence, life and death. Quantifying death should be straightforward. If you compare all of the people who have died, does any of them appear ‘more dead’ than any other? They are all equally dead. This suggests a limit to non-existence. So a good guess at its quantity is zero. If death is zero, then life must surely be non-zero. But is life always a constant value? Examining the use of our language when describing our lives indicate that answer is no. We often talk of the ‘highs and lows’ of life. So it would seem that life consists of a value greater than zero (death) and some upper limit. This value only concerns your ‘metabolic’ value, your ‘non-deadness’ value, if you will.
Since this value changes through the course of one’s life, clearly something is driving the change. What could that be? When scientists want to answer such questions, they often take the approach of isolating the problem in a controlled environment. So imagine you are on an island with no other people. Imagine further that this island is perfect, plenty of water, food and resources to use to construct shelter, etc. The weather is constant and pleasant such that the environment is not contributing to your life’s deterioration. Would your life continue? If you did nothing, you would die. You would still need to find food and water and build shelter. This would indicate that life is constantly decreasing in value and that action is required to increase or maintain it. Therefore, action is required to live and it is primarily your action that is needed. To live, you must be free to act in the furtherance of your life. Therefore, you have a right to Liberty.
That’s two down, one to go.
We’ve established that life is a value on a scale from above zero to some upper limit. What would we call this scale? We know from experience that some actions are just maintenance to our lives, food and shelter, etc. But there are actions that seem to increase our life. There are times in our life when we think, “it just doesn’t get any better than this!” What are these actions and what do they signify? Usually, these are special moments in your life, a marriage, a birth of a child, or a really nice vacation. All of these moments were preceded by action and usually a set of actions. Given that you have the liberty to pursue these actions, what are you pursuing? Since you are happier during these times of “increased life”, it can be concluded that the standard of measurement for Life is Happiness, but you must take action to attain it. Therefore, you have the right to pursue happiness.
Topics: Essays, Political | No Comments »
America’s Trillions
By SnowMonster | November 8, 2012
When Obama won his second term on Tuesday, I thought back to a movie in the 80’s called “Brewster’s Millions”. In it, Richard Pryor, as part of a will from his Grandfather, has to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days in order to secure 300 million from the estate, while telling nobody why he’s doing it. He must not have one red cent to his name at the end of the thirty days. In one of the opening scenes, the Grandfather, played by the late Hume Cronin, posthumously explains in a video that when he was a kid, his father caught him smoking a cigar behind the barn. As punishment, his father made him smoke cigars until he was deathly ill from them. He translates this anecdote into a condition of Brewster’s inheritance. His point is that 300 million dollars is a huge responsibility and before he hands it over, he wants to be sure that his grandson develops an aversion to wasting it.
It is clear from the election that America has reached a tipping point. The majority of Americans now feel entitled to the wealth of the minority. Historically, civilizations begin to collapse when this tipping point is reached.
America has been caught smoking a cigar behind the barn.
If America is to avoid the fate of other civilizations, it must learn this historical lesson, and learn it quickly. I propose that we feed America so many cigars that they choke on them. The Wealth of a Nation is a huge responsibility; we must foster an aversion to wasting it, by forcing them to waste a large portion of it. It may be irresponsible. It may be reckless. But if we are doomed to lose it all anyway, we need to do it within the span of a generation so that there are generations still around who remember how it used to be and maybe we can change it back.
To achieve this we, as conservatives, need to surrender to the Progressive Agenda in a controlled way. I propose that the conservatives in Congress tell the progressives they will not block their plans. That they will approve whatever they want with one proviso: any bill they disagree with in principle will expire January 1st, 2022. They have 10 years to create their utopia and prove that it is possible.
When the country lies in ruins, as is inevitable, we can re-emerge and ask the question, “Have you had enough cigars, yet?” Hopefully, the feeble minded voters from election day will remember that their lives were not as bad as they thought and give up the habit.
Topics: Essays, Political | 2 Comments »
Scrooge McDuck Syndrome
By SnowMonster | July 9, 2011
The President and his party have determined that the best way to solve our country’s financial woes would be to get the wealthy to kick in more of their hard earned income to the Treasury coffers. Their stated reasoning is that there is a revenue problem even though revenue is at historical highs and past evidence has shown that tax increases do not often result in increased revenue, in fact, just the opposite. Why is this so? Because throughout the history of the US the amount of tax revenue from individual returns, expressed as a percentage of GDP, has always been relatively flat at around 7.5%, with a low of 6.3% and a high of 9.4% (see chart below), regardless of the top individual tax rate. The thing that changes the revenue size is the GDP, which tends to retract when there are high individual rates for top earners. This makes sense since those individuals do the hiring and grow businesses. When they are taxed too high, they conserve capital and the GDP shrinks, slowing tax revenue.
When the President demagogues the “rich” to increase taxes, he is not interested in revenue, but in “equality” and “social justice” which really means wealth redistribution. To drum up popular support, he will talk about the inequality by disparaging their wealth which consists of things; yachts, private jets, and mansions, in essence, their property. The federal government cannot easily confiscate people’s property, only their income. This is why they reinstated the death tax because that is the only access to personal wealth (which sort of puts the “death panels” in perspective). This redistributive impulse is the result of what I like to call the “Scrooge McDuck Syndrome”. Scrooge McDuck is a Disney character who has 3 pesky grand-nephews, Huey, Dewey, and Louie and is portrayed in early comic books as a greedy miser (based loosely on the Dickens’ character, Ebenezer Scrooge). He lives in a huge mansion which contains a vault where all his wealth is stored as gold coins, jewels and other treasures. It is this wealth hoarding image that drives Progressive Social Policy, the view that this hoarded wealth does not benefit society. But as with most comic books, reality is different. The very wealthy are only wealthy on paper. Sure, they have huge mansions and income, but even the mansions benefit society because they require enormous amounts of upkeep, maintenance, and even servants who benefit from the rich’s income. The rest of their wealth that is derived from income is in the form of stocks and bonds which invest in new businesses that hire workers. Even liquid assets such as cash are kept in banks to earn interest, which the bank lends to others to build homes and other businesses. The rest of their wealth is most likely tied up in some business which also hires people. Society benefits from the wealthy precisely because they do not hoard it. It is out there constantly looking for opportunities to grow with ruthless efficiency as opposed government’s slovenly wastefulness. The only time the wealthy hoard their wealth is when it is likely to be confiscated or devalued. This is why there are so many companies out there hawking gold investment today. The wealthy are securing their wealth by withdrawing it from society and we all lose.
In essence, the Progressives are driving the wealthy to become the Scrooge McDucks they loathe.
Topics: Essays, Political | No Comments »
We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us
By SnowMonster | July 3, 2010
I had a discussion with my brother over the weekend about the fact that I will never see Social Security or Medicare when I reach 65 (or any age for that matter). He is a liberal and said that I wouldn’t have to worry about that because no politician would commit political suicide by ending it. I countered that they would have no choice; these programs will die by their own weight. There is no money to pay for it. Being a progressive, he naturally felt that we could tap into liberal’s favorite ATM, the ‘rich’ people. So I asked him what he thought the top 10% of earners in this country earned. He thought about it and deduced it was around a million a year, at least. So I proceeded to give him a lecture in reality.
According to the ‘US Debt Clock’ website (here), the National Debt is a staggering $13,140,460,265,317 (as the snapshot I took while writing this, it has since increased). This means that each tax payer owes an additional $118,910. But wait, there’s more! The Unfunded Liabilities dwarf that at $109,379,556,381,216! The Unfunded Liability is what we owe Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid administrations for raiding these entities over the years. You see, when these entities were established, all monies collected (that would be the FICA column on your pay stub), were to be put into a separate account because it was generally understood that fluctuations in population would require it. Specifically, it was known that the Baby Boomers would outnumber the working young at some point so this money was to sit idle until the older generation was to collect. Unfortunately, politicians hate to see government money sit idle when they can use it to buy votes so they proceeded to raid these funds to pay for all of these other programs unrelated to Social Security and Medicare and put IOU’s into those accounts. As it sits, almost 110 Trillion (with a ‘T’) in little white slips of IOU’s sit in those accounts. That means, in addition to the $118,910 of government debt, each tax payer also owes $989,799 in unfunded liabilities, totaling $1,108,709. So in order for me to retire on Social Security and Medicare, every tax payer in the country has to cough up over a million dollars. I will be getting (in today’s dollars) $2,443 a month or $29,316 a year. If I had a million dollars (which I don’t) I could earn $40,741 a year at 4 percent, a modest rate of return. But, according to my brother, I shouldn’t worry, the top 10 percent earners should be hit with the charge, which my math says has to be around 11 million per tax payer since only 1 in ten will be paying now. I told him, that as of the 2007 IRS reporting (data to be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in05tr.xls, line 53), the top 10% earners earn $113,000 a year or more. Surprise! You’re rich! Apparently, so am I, but now I owe, not 1.1 million, but 11 million dollars! This seemed to distress my brother because now he owes 11 million too. Well, we could go after the top 5% instead, they have to be really rich! Make them cough up 22 million bucks so I can retire! Wait, the top 5% earn $160,000 or more. I don’t think they have 22 million sitting around either. I think this further distressed my brother because I think it hit him (he is older than me). For years the liberals have declared the ‘rich’ to be the enemy. Well, in the words of the liberal hero, “Pogo”, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
The top 1% earns $410,096 a year but I am sure they don’t have an idle $110,000,000 nor do I think the top 0.1% ($2,155,365/year) have $1,100,000,000 sitting around (that’s 1.1 Billion, with a ‘B’). I suppose, since I don’t have to retire for ten years, we could let those bastards off by making them pay $110,000,000 a year on $2,000,000 a year in income. That’s liberal math for you.
Perhaps I should look into my own retirement plan. Social Security won’t be there for me when I retire.
Topics: Political | No Comments »
Sacrifice, Charity, Taxes, and Fines
By SnowMonster | April 2, 2010
Today, we hear a lot about the word “Sacrifice”. As in, the wealthy must sacrifice to the needs of the poor. It should be noted that while we are asked to do this, the definition of the term is being actively changed.
The word comes from the Latin, sacrificium, derived from sacre (sacred) and facere (to make), to make sacred.
The definition being touted by Princeton University is:
- the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc.
In other words, Princeton would have you believe that you should sacrifice because of something wrong you have done or failed to do something that was right. Does this sound correct? Do you sacrifice for your children because you’ve done something wrong or failed them in some way? Most parents would say they sacrifice short term indulgences, the bigger car, that jet-ski you’ve always fancied, for something of much higher value, your children’s well-being. This is reflected in the Merriam-Webster definition:
- destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else
In ages past, priests would demand that the herders sacrifice a portion of their flock to appease some deity. Why would the herders do this? They did it because they believed that by doing so, they would secure something of higher value such as better accommodation in the afterlife. Exchanging a value for something of higher value just won’t do these days, it’s just too capitalistic, and so the word has to change.
In the proper definition of sacrifice, if you exchange a penny for a dollar that is sacrifice (you sacrificed the penny, a value, for a dollar, a greater value). If you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is not. Then what is this second case? It’s charity. By definition, charity has to be voluntary. Surrendering something of value under compulsion is either a fine or a tax. A fine is a punishment for doing something wrong, or failing to comply with what is right. A tax is payment for government service.
Progressives would argue that having the wealthy pay more in taxes is a sacrifice (the Progressives would be willing to bear) in that the value exchanged would lead to a better society, a higher value. The only problem with that statement is that every time it has occurred, society has not improved, but in fact degenerated.
So if no value is gained for the “sacrifice” of the wealthy, nor any service from the government, then we can only conclude that the wealthy are being punished.
Topics: Essays, Political, Uncategorized | No Comments »
The Basis of Debate
By SnowMonster | March 27, 2010
There is a lot of debate going on today about how things should be. It is getting to be very polarized and emotional. When emotion enters the debate, the debate ceases to exist and devolves into a shouting match and name calling.
Very few people understand what emotion is or its purpose. Emotion is sort of like a dashboard gauge of what our perception of reality is, but it is calibrated by our value system. Happiness is when our perception of reality is aligned with our value system. Guilt is when we do something to compromise our values which lead to sadness when our perception of reality becomes misaligned with our values. This brings on anger when we perceive the imbalance and know how to correct it. If we do not know how to correct it, this leads to fear. This is why we fear the unknown because something has altered our perception of reality that conflicts with our value system, but we don’t know where. We use our reason and intellect to identify the new piece of information that makes up our reality. Once identified, we place a value on it and we are either angry (we want to correct it), relieved (it’s not such a bad thing), happy (it’s a good thing), or resigned (it is out of our control)..
So if a value is a calibration for our emotional status, what is a value? A value is anything you wish to keep. Virtue is that action taken to keep it. A set of values is called a code of morality. I am not talking about the sky fairy version of morality. That is only a set of values established by religious diktat. A proper value is determined by our reason. It is a response to the question, is this good or bad? To answer that question, one must have a standard of existence.
A rock is what it is and has no standards. As such, it cannot have any values and is therefore amoral. It has no choice as to its existence. Only organic life has an ability to alter its existence. It either lives or dies. As human beings, we have volitional choice in regards to our standards. Animals and plants do not. Their standard is fixed and that standard is life.
A plant values water, nutrients and sunshine and has no choice in the matter. In an environment where those values exist, it lives, otherwise it dies. An animal has a fixed set of values that we call instinct. It does not have the capacity to expand its knowledge so if it encounters an environment that is beyond the scope of its instinct, it dies. An animal has a mode of existence that is defined by its attributes. A bird can fly. Break its wings and you weaken its mode of existence and it will probably die. The human mode of existence includes our mind and we must use reason to survive. The first humans when they were cold realized that this conflicted with their standard of life, that it was bad to be cold. They observed that a bear was not cold and reasoned it was because of its fur. This led to the invention of bear skins, all through observation of reality and reason, and man survived.
Throughout history there have been people who have tried to stop mankind from thinking. You could not question kings or popes. The times we called the dark ages were times when men were not allowed to think and humanity suffered. The Renaissance was a time when men were free to think and humanity prospered.
Communism – do not question the state – suffering
Industrial Revolution – freedom to think – prosperity
Islam – do not question Allah – suffering
Information Age – freedom to think – prosperity
Obama – healthcare is a no-brainer, you don’t even need to think about it – ????
The priests of ages past told their parishioners, do not think, God told me what’s best for you.
The intellects of the modern era have told the people, do not think, I’ve figured it all out for you and you can’t possibly know what I know, so don’t bother.
Both have told you to sacrifice. One tells you to sacrifice this life for one after you die. The other tells you to sacrifice for the good of society. Neither wants you to think about it. If you were a bird, they’d break your wings.
You are a being of volitional choice and your mind is your only means to attain your standard of existence. You must define your values, by choice. You must establish your code of morality, by choice. You must attain your virtues, by choice.
My standard of existence is life. I wish to live. As such, my values are life, liberty and property. I attained these values through reason, the cause, not emotion, the effect. Anything that adds to my life is good, a positive value. Anything that takes away from my life is evil, a negative value.
My existence relies on my observation of reality and my reasoning to identify enhancements (values) and threats (negative values). I can rely on no one else to do this for me. You shouldn’t either. However, I am not perfect. My reasoning can be flawed or I am missing important information. This is the purpose of debate, and it is a selfish one. I wish to extend my knowledge so that I may better identify reality. One’s opinion is a summation of their perception of reality regarding their set of values. We can differ in opinion only when our perceptions of reality conflict or our values conflict. We cannot change each others’ values. We cannot change reality. But we can fill in each others’ missing gaps of our perceptions or correct flaws in reasoning.
What is your standard of existence? What is theirs? If yours is to live, we can have a debate. Otherwise, we are both wasting our breath
Do you want to debate?
Do you want to live?.
Topics: Essays, Political | No Comments »
Are We There Yet?
By SnowMonster | September 16, 2009
Utopia, Nirvana, Xanadu, these are visions mankind has strived for since the beginning of time, the notion that humanity can exist in peace and have no wants. Clearly, we are not there yet, but are we closer? If you follow the path of history, you would have to conclude we are moving that way. It is definitely a one-step-forward-two-steps-back type of affair and we have a long way to go. Today, there is an ideological battle over how to get there.
One side views the route to Nirvana as one of regulating it into existence by forcing society to adhere to perceived notions of paradise. They view it as a management exercise where the community must be defended against self-interested individuals because once all have the same access to resources and wealth, Nirvana will be achieved.
The other side believes that society can only improve when you defend the individual from the whims of the community. That if this is accomplished, mankind will lift itself out of its plight and someday, Nirvana will self-organize.
Which view is correct? It depends on how we quantify a utopian society. What would the characteristics of such a society be? Here is a short list that both sides could probably agree are important:
- Everyone is housed, clothed and fed
- Everyone can balance their work life with their recreational life
- Everyone respects one another
- There is no war
The first two are quality of life, which is on a historical uptick in the US, and the second two are quality of society, which seems to be losing ground. Even the poorest in our nation has widescreen TVs. In order to figure out how best to get there, we should examine how we got here.
How did mankind rise up from the plains of Africa to dominate every quarter of the globe? Every technological advance from fire to the wheel to the airplane were done because humanity was in competition with nature and wished to subdue it to gain advantage. As humanity progressed, individuals sought to gain advantage of their neighbors, to get more food, better shelter, a pointier stick.
Progressive liberals rail at this self-interest, forced competition amongst ourselves. They view self-interest as a barrier to an enlightened, egalitarian society. It precipitates winners and losers, which by definition, is not egalitarian. Indeed, unchecked self-interest is bad when it allows some to subjugate others. That is why the Founders of this nation put the framework of the Constitution in place to allow the individual to pursue his or her interests to gain advantage on his neighbor without subjugating the neighbor. They did this because they knew that the by-product of this competition for resources instigates advancement of society as a whole. It created wealth and opportunity for all, if they applied themselves. This in turn freed up parts of society to ponder what the next step for mankind would be. Since the advance of the printing press, most of those ideas came from literature, science fiction being the most prophetic. Nearly all scientific advances were preordained in the pages of Jules Verne, H.G.Wells, and Isaac Asimov. So if we can conceive it, we will one day have it, nuclear power, walking on the moon, and computers. What then, will our future be?
The barrier to Nirvana, explains the Liberal, is that resources are finite and we must share them all equally if it is to be achieved. Capitalism has demonstrated that it is most efficient at managing scant resources. If a resource becomes too dear, technology seems to find a way to press another into service that is more plentiful, economical. Matter cannot be destroyed so all of the resources available to us are still here, just in different form. Technology is the only answer to unlock them for reuse.
Technology cannot thrive without capitalism. Compare technological advances made by non-capitalistic societies. The Soviet Union’s only notable contribution was the space race and that technology was largely stolen from the West and pressed into the service of the military. China merely re-uses western technology but has no major claims to new technology.
Manufacturing is progressing to the point where human labor is becoming less necessary to the process. At some point it will advance to the place where a person need only conceive of something and some machine will spit it out, like the replicators on Star Trek. And when the replicator replicates another replicator, everyone will have one. What impact will that have on equality in society? If we can conceive it, we will have it.
As a species, if we are to survive, we must one day leave this planet. Our sun will one day die or a comet may threaten the Earth. So we must look to the day when we can roam the stars. When that happens, the issue of finite resources will be solved. Competition for resources will no longer instigate wars. Humanity, freed from the drudge of eking out an existence by hard labor will devote that time to intellectual pursuits and discovering the cosmos. Ironically, man’s only existence will be to pursue his self-interest.
That would be Utopia.
It is only achievable by conservative principles of allowing the individual to prosper at his own pace, gaining advantage where he can, and precipitate the technology that will solve all of mankind’s current needs. If we pursue the egalitarian goals currently being discussed in the halls of power, it will stifle innovation and condemn us to a life of drudgery. We will still go to war over the scant resources consigned to us by not reaching for the stars. Many will go hungry, until one day the sun explodes or our planet is obliterated by some cosmic threat.
Does that sound like Nirvana?
Topics: Political | No Comments »
DC Tea Party at Capitol Building on 9/12/2009
By SnowMonster | September 14, 2009
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
Warning: unixtojd() expects parameter 1 to be long, string given in /var/www/tomblog/pel-lib/PelEntryAscii.php on line 313
The family and I made the trip to DC to join the 9/12 Tea Party March on DC. The wide pictures below are mosaics of several pictures using the Photoshop “merge” feature. They are by no means perfect and it is given that they are “doctored” (because of the merge issue), but they are true representations of what was going on. I didn’t alter the people to inflate numbers or anything. The individual pictures are in the picture blog at the bottom so you can examine each ‘frame’ to verify that I didn’t do anything unethical. You can click on each and they will open up to full size in another browser window.
It is hard to convey just how moving the whole affair was. We stayed the night before in a hotel in Alexandria, Virginia. The hotel was fully booked with several busses sprawled about the parking lot. The following morning we set out for the Metro at Pentagon City. We waited for several trains as there were many of us on the platform and the trains that showed up were 90% full.
When we came out of the Metro Station at Federal Triangle, we joined up with the march in progress around 12th Street and Pennsylvania (the march proceeded along Penn from Freedom Square to the Capitol Building). There have been many estimates given to attendance. Anywhere from “thousands” to 2 million have been quoted. I don’t know for sure, there were loads of people, but I’ve done a little math. Here’s how I figure it:
- There were four lanes of traffic and 2 lanes for parking on Pennsylvania Ave.
- Each lane is 33 feet wide (standard lane widths) for a total of 198 feet (this does not count sidewalk)
- Average density of the marchers was around 8 people per 100 square feet (8 standing in 10×10 square “block”)
- So per mile of march (5280 feet by 198 feet) there are 83,635.2 people – 19.8 “blocks” wide, by 528 “blocks” deep with 8 people per “block”.
- Average walking speed for a human is 3 miles per hour. That means 250,905.6 people enter the Capitol Building grounds per hour
- The march started a 8 AM (it was supposed to start at 9:30, but too many people showed up)
- The march ended around 12, a total of 4 hours
- That works out to 1,003,622.4 people
- I’m an engineer by training, so knock off 10%, just because we are conservative in our estimates
That’s still about 900,000 people. You could add more by adding in those who walked on the sidewalk or didn’t march and went directly to the grounds. You could also remove some by figuring that the last hour’s density dropped off.
While there were mostly white people, there were also quite a few Blacks and Hispanics. There was an event at the other end of the mall for the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) called the “Black Family Reunion Celebration” which have the event each year. Some folks from there came over to either look us over or join us. I won’t speak for them either way, but they were welcomed by all. There were no clashes with any anti-protesters and I didn’t see anyone from the liberal side (unless you count the media).
I spoke with a policeman who said they have seen crowds of this size before, usually anti-war protesters. They didn’t need as many policeman to cover us as those folks because, as he put it, “they cause nothing but trouble.”
The event was well run for the most part. The only problem was that they didn’t expect so many people. As a result, the sound system wasn’t able to reach the entire crowd and they had to open all of the museum lavatories to the public to take up the slack of an insufficient number of porta-potties.
For some reason, there were no vendor permits issued (they were all denied) for our event. The NCNW had plenty. So we were unable to get food and drink unless we went away from our event. It seemed to me a political decision. Since most vendors are low income minorities, you have to wonder why they were denied access to a group of capitalists with big wallets. I guess they don’t believe in redistribution of wealth through free market principles. How’s that “hope” and “change” working for you?
The media coverage (except for FOX) was non-existent. I didn’t see any of the major networks there except Fox and CNN. CNN didn’t start covering the event until around 4PM. Since most of the buses that came from as far as Florida and New Hampshire departed around 3 to be able to get home at a reasonable hour, I guess CNN wanted the numbers to dwindle first before taking pictures.
I saw one sign that said “Hitler made great speeches too” and another of Obama with the Hitler mustache, but that was the only ones I saw. Oddly, the latter was not visible until a news crew came around (I had taken a picture of the same spot moments before and it wasn’t there). Even if it wasn’t a plant, that’s still a good ratio of idiots to the rest. We met a friend of ours that came up from Virginia on a bus package and she showed us the leaflet on expected behavior. Hitler references were taboo.
Ninety five percent of the signs carried were hand made. This is definitely a grass roots movement. Nearly all were respectful, but expressed the following:
- Joe Wilson was a hero
- Desire for Term Limits
- Objection to Abortion
- Objection to reduction of faith in God in our society
- Objected to Healthcare reforms planned
- Felt that government was getting too big
- Spending is out of hand
- Worried about the future of the country
- Desire to return to constitutional roots
- Displeasure with socialism
- Displeasure with Obama
- Displeasure with Congress and Senate
- Displeasure with Pelosi
- Displeasure with RINO’s
Bottom line is that we want to throw all of them out (Dems and Republicans). There is too much corruption and waste. If DC doesn’t wise up, we’ll be back next year to remind them.
 Picture #1: On the Pentagon City Metro stop, waiting to get onto a train into DC for the march. It took us several trains to be able to get on. The incoming trains were packed. The only way we got on was to pick up on the fact that the ends are less crowded, so we scooted to the end of the platform to get ahead of this crowd. Even still, we had to stand as there were no seats and only room for the four of us. |  Picture #2: On the Pentagon City Metro stop, waiting to get onto a train into DC for the march. It took us several trains to be able to get on. The incoming trains were packed. The only way we got on was to pick up on the fact that the ends are less crowded, so we scooted to the end of the platform to get ahead of this crowd. Even still, we had to stand as there were no seats and only room for the four of us. |
 Picture #3: After getting off the Metro at Federal Triangle, we joined the march, underway, around 12th & Pennsylvania. This is the crowd in front. |  Picture #4: After getting off the Metro at Federal Triangle, we joined the march, underway, around 12th & Pennsylvania. This is the crowd in front. |
 Picture #5: After getting off the Metro at Federal Triangle, we joined the march, underway, around 12th & Pennsylvania. This is the crowd in back. |  Picture #6: The crowd under the watchful eyes of the "man" |
 Picture #7: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #8: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #9: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #10: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #11: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #12: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #13: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #14: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #15: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #16: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #17: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #18: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |
 Picture #19: A number of us climbed up onto wall to take some pictures of the march go by.; This is a series that I plan to meld together to get a panorama |  Picture #20: Marching along... |
Topics: Picture Blog, Political | 3 Comments »
A Discussion on Health Care
By SnowMonster | July 8, 2009
I work with a woman from Germany. She and her husband left Germany years ago and it was never clear to me why (other than they could make more money in the US). We got into a discussion around Health Care. Naturally, as a product of European socialized medicine, she favors a national health care system, even though she is happy with her current coverage. In full disclosure, I should mention that I am over weight and smoke. Our discussion went along the lines of:
|
Me: |
So you view health care as a right? |
|
Her: |
Yes. Everyone should not have to worry about getting treatment for their health. |
|
Me: |
A right like “Freedom of speech” or the right to vote? |
|
Her: |
Exactly. |
|
Me: |
Well then, what kind of right requires someone else to pay for it? I mean we have the right to bear arms, but the government does not supply me with a gun. And what about the Doctor? Essentially, the doctor will become a civil servant, pressed into service for his country. Is that fair? |
|
Her: |
He doesn’t have to be a doctor if he doesn’t think it is fair. It is unconscionable to let people die because they don’t have money for health insurance. |
|
Me: |
I suspect there will be many doctors who take that route. This will decrease the already limited supply of doctors. But why am I responsible for someone else’s health care? |
|
Her: |
Because we should be obligated to support those who are not as fortunate as us. |
|
Me: |
Ok. If that is the case, why then in the UK, there is rationing and one of the ways to reduce costs is to deny smokers and overweight people treatment? |
|
Her: |
I don’t think I should have to support someone’s bad behavior. |
|
Me: |
So it should be a crime to eat a twinkie or smoke a cigarette? |
|
Her: |
Umm, no, not really, but I shouldn’t have to pay for someone’s lung cancer if they smoked all their lives. |
|
Me: |
So we are in some sort of agreement, we shouldn’t have to support other people’s negligence. |
|
Her: |
Yes. |
|
Me: |
But health care no longer sounds like a right to me. The only time a right can be taken away is when someone commits a crime, but you say that some people should have the right of health care taken away when they haven’t committed a crime. |
|
Her: |
Well, I’m not so sure about that… |
|
Me: |
Ok. We’ll dwell on that another time, but we do agree we shouldn’t pay for the consequences of someone else’s reckless behavior? |
|
Her: |
Yes. |
|
Me: |
So we shouldn’t include treatment for AIDs patients? |
|
Her: |
What? No! We must treat victims of AIDs! |
|
Me: |
But isn’t AIDs contracted by engaging in reckless behavior like unprotected sex with strangers or sharing heroine needles? |
|
Her: |
But that is being homophobic! |
|
Me: |
I didn’t say anything about homosexuality, just engaging in unprotected sex. |
|
Her: |
But most AIDs patients are homosexual. |
|
Me: |
Obtained through risky behavior, just like the over-eater or smoker and we agreed that health conditions as a result of reckless behavior wasn’t to be paid for by the state. |
|
Her: |
Yes, but we have to cover AIDs patients. |
|
Me: |
Because the patients are most likely gay? |
|
Her: |
Yes. |
|
Me: |
So no we’ve gone from health care being a Human Right to it being an instrument of social policy. Gays are OK, but over eaters and smokers are not? |
|
Her: |
Hmmmm. I think you are being over simplistic. |
|
Me: |
I think you are being over complicated. Who decides who gets what coverage? |
|
Her: |
We do. We vote for these things. |
|
Me: |
Did you ever vote for taxes? |
|
Her: |
No, but that’s not the point. |
|
Me: |
That’s exactly my point, we don’t control anything once we give control of the health care system to a bunch of bureaucrats. |
|
Her: |
But we must help those who can’t get health care! |
|
Me: |
Unless they’re fat or smoke? |
|
Her: |
Well… |
|
Me: |
You see? Once you take the national health care route, you don’t solve the problem, you just redistribute it. You give the problem to people you don’t approve of. Who’s next? Those who don’t belong to the Party don’t get treated? You, being German, surely can see that’s a slippery slope? |
|
Her: |
Again, I think you’re over simplifying it. |
|
Me: |
I prefer to refer to it as prescience. But you’re right, I believe in simplicity. In a free market system, everyone would be responsible for their own health. If they smoke or are over weight, their health care premiums should be higher than those who are responsible with their bodies. |
|
Her: |
But not everyone can afford health care! |
|
Me: |
I agree, but why do you think that is? |
|
Her: |
Greedy doctors and insurance companies! |
|
Me: |
You think they get too much money? |
|
Her: |
Of course! |
|
Me: |
Do you know any doctors, socially? |
|
Her: |
No. |
|
Me: |
I do. Do you know how much they take home? |
|
Her: |
Probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. |
|
Me: |
Yes and no. The doctor I know will take in about 600K a year in billings. After he pays the 300K for malpractice insurance, the cost of his offices, and employees, he draws a salary of about 120K. |
|
Her: |
Really? That’s less than mine. But that still means the insurance companies are too greedy. |
|
Me: |
I’m not saying they aren’t out to make a profit, but I don’t think the problem is greed. Say your child has broken their arm and the bone is sticking out of the skin. What do you suppose a doctor is to do? |
|
Her: |
Take an X-Ray, set the bone, and put on a cast. |
|
Me: |
That seems pretty straight forward, but why the X-Ray? |
|
Her: |
Hmmm. To see the broken bone? |
|
Me: |
It’s sticking out through the skin, seems pretty visible to me. But the real answer is to avoid a malpractice suit, or more to the point, to defend against a potential suit. If he didn’t take the X-Ray and something weird happened, you’d sue him for malpractice and he’d lose millions because he didn’t take that picture as proof of his diagnosis. So the insurance company has to pay for an X-Ray that 999 times out of a thousand wasn’t needed. So they have to collect more money from the insurance premium to recoup the cost. And for that 1 time out of a 1000, where the doctor gets sued, they charge him for malpractice insurance, the cost of which he passes on to you. |
|
Her: |
But you need to keep doctors honest so they don’t make mistakes! |
|
Me: |
But they are human, they will make mistakes. They don’t want their patients to die or get sicker under their care, but sometimes, stuff happens no one could foresee. Still, incompetence exists, but surely there is a more efficient way of handling that. |
|
Her: |
But the government would ensure competency. |
|
Me: |
How many times have you dealt with the government, the DMV or the Post Office, and walked away being impressed by their competence? |
|
Her: |
Uhhh. |
|
Me: |
Precisely. What kind of car do you drive? |
|
Her: |
Huh? A Honda Accord. |
|
Me: |
Why did you buy it? |
|
Her: |
Because it is known to be reliable and cheap to maintain. But what does this have to do with health care? |
|
Me: |
Why didn’t you use the same process to choose your Doctor? |
|
Her: |
Well, my insurance provider has a list of doctors in my area. |
|
Me: |
But wouldn’t it be nice if there was some sort of Better Business Bureau type thing for Doctors and that your doctor would have to be paid by your insurance company, regardless of any affiliation? |
|
Her: |
Well, yes. |
|
Me: |
So a good way to reduce costs would be to apply tort reform to stop the senseless suing and some sort of method to measure a doctor’s competence before you use his or her services. Wouldn’t you agree? |
|
Her: |
Yes. |
|
Me: |
So in reality, the government is not the answer, but the free market, if properly applied would solve a lot of problems. |
|
Her: |
But we have to help the poor! |
|
Me: |
Write them a check and leave me out of it. |
Topics: Political | 1 Comment »
Is Marriage a Human Right?
By SnowMonster | May 13, 2009
There are many on the left that feel gay marriage is a human right. I disagree. Marriage, gay or heterosexual, isn’t a right. If you don’t agree, try marrying your sister (I don’t condone that). The debate has been poisoned by rhetoric on both sides. Marriage is a sacrament and a contract. The Left harangues the Religious Right of intolerance when they oppose gay marriage, some of it deserving, but the religious want to ensure their institutions aren’t forced to perform services for members of the community that don’t hold their beliefs. Often churches won’t perform services for non-Christian, heterosexual couples for that same reason, and I believe that’s the Church’s right. They should not be charged with a hate-crime if they believe that same-sex marriages are not sanctioned by their god.
Everyone has the right to enter a mutually beneficial contract. I have no problem with two people of the same sex going down to the courthouse, declaring their love for each other and binding their futures together. I don’t take issue with them sharing healthcare, property, and survival rights because that aspect is the contract portion of Marriage. I also think that it’s a pointless exercise because those contractual aspects can be managed by other legal means (power of attorney, wills, etc.).
So what is the point of a marriage license? There are two reasons, the one-stop legal service to bundle those contractual obligations, plus a possible name change and also a way for government to ensure the health of society through blood tests and lineage checks. It also ensures that a person is not contractually obligated to another (polygamy). The lineage issue is moot and contracts already have avenues of enforcement. Are homosexuals fighting for the right to have a blood test? No, they are fighting for universal acceptance. I don’t know of any group that has it, so deal with it.
A civil union is not a “dodge” but a compromise of pragmatic convenience. Let gays have it, stop fighting, both of you, and let’s get on to more important matters.
Topics: Political | 3 Comments »
« Previous Entries