Trucks

I keep saying this but i don’t ever put it down. Of I owned the car companies, specifically those that make trucks, there are a few things I’d do a little differently.

• I wouldn’t bother painting the bed. I’d buy out rhinoliner and spray that on at the factory.
• I’d make the body out of the same thing as a Runbermaid garbage can and impregnant it with the color pigments so that if it got scratched by a tree limb or shopping cart you couldn’t see it.
• I’d put the dimmer switch back in the floorboard where God intended it.
• Everything, I mean everything, from sports cars to hybrids, everything that came off the assembly line would have a place on the front end designed to tie a chain to.
• If you wanted carpet in a truck, you’d have to write a 5 paragraph essay giving good reason why you qualified for this unnecessary complication.

Bathroom

The point of signage is to be convenient.

If your customers have to look back and forth between the bathroom decals a few times to figure out which one is in a skirt, maybe you shoulda put her in an ankle length dress.

Just sayin.

Mardi Wall Street

Yet another reason I could never get elected. Ya know how they clean off Bourbon street at the end of Marti Gras? They line their horses up all abreast and push the mob off the street.
If I were in charge that’s what I’d do to these Useful Idiots in Occupy Whatever when they stayed past the terms of their permit.
Unwashed eco-terrorists rioting in the streets, shutting down local businesses, vandalizing property, urinating and defecating in public/on cop cars/inside uncooperative businesses, committing rapes, committing assaults and who knows what else. Yet, our so-called elected leaders sit by and watch them. Just because these losers parents never gave them a spanking doesn’t mean the rest of us are bound to put up with their spoiled crap. (no pun intended, but…)
They are a disturbance to peace and order and have passed the limits of their permits. They should be treated the same way the Tea Party would have been and be run out of town.
Giddy up.

Culture

The hippies have a famous saying, “what if there was a war and no one showed up?”
Then Gary Larson, in The Far Side had a Military General ask, “what if we had a war and everybody showed up?”
I’ve got a new question, what of we had a war and everybody showed up but only half of them knew it?
Every year around Halloween (which you might hear me refer to as the “pagan death festival) a debate starts up around my house/family/church… well around me. Truth be told Halloween is not the real problem, it’s just the spark, because it kicks off the season including Thanksgiving,  Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas and New Years.

How much should we participate in “holidays”?

Keyne in the Gulf

President Obama and many of his inner circle have subscribed to the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes’ little catch phrase used to describe his thought process is that even if the government spends money paying workers to dig holes and then other workers to fill them, it will benefit the economy by getting money in the hands of the workers.

Perhaps you can see the effects of this thought in our current political policies. The full scope of Keyens’ influence and the administration’s misaligned economic policies are beyond this article; I want to address the reaction to the oil crises in the Gulf. Before I have used an analogy to punch a hole in Keyen’s theory. I’m going to resurrect it here and expand upon it.

The biggest problem I see with those that follow the the government injection model is misunderstanding or mis-defining The System. Think back to your physics classes. You had a closed system in which you would examine the exchange of energy. A cake and oven form a system, where the oven transfers heat to the cake. Expand it, and the electrical grid is supplying power to the oven which is heating the cake, etc.

In our economic example, lets have George and Jim. Jim has $100,000 in cash and George has $100,000 worth of labor. Jim pays George and his crew of legally documented foreign workers $50K to dig some holes and $50K to fill them in. Keyensites will rejoice that now $100,000 is in the hands of the workers to spend as they wish, furthering the greater economy. (Come to think of it, socialists, communists, union bosses and college professors will rejoice as well.)

But what about The System? The workers have the cash but what does Jim have? Nothing. He has filled in holes. The error is in assuming that the system began with $100,000. It didn’t, the system began with $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in potential labor. That labor has been wasted and now the system only has $100,000 in cash. The System has lost half it’s value.

Now, lets look at a different scenario. Jim pays George and his crew to build him a house. When it is finished the workers have the cash, but Jim has $100,000 worth of house. The system has remained equal, there is still $200K in total value.

Expand the system outward, now. We have men cutting down trees and selling them for an amount of cash equal to the value of the trees. Another business will take the tress and sell them as lumber for a price equal to trees +labor. On goes the process until a house is built.

But there is a problem. Once the trees are cut down, they are gone (in the immediate sense). All along the way these workers are eating (and paying for) food. Once that food is eaten, it is gone. These products are all being delivered by diesel fuel; once burnt the diesel fuel is gone. Our system is constantly reducing the products that are in it. So how do we go about increasing our system? How do you grow an economy?

The U.S. economy is HUGE. At trillions and trillions of dollars it encompasses every product or service known to mankind. Yet as big as it is, there are only 3 ways to introduce new items into the system. 1) Your sweat (labor). Labor may be ultimately limited, but you can give more or less of it. 2) Growing it (agriculture) and 3) digging it up (mining/drilling).

Think about it, everything in your possession was either grown or mined. The steel in your car was mined, the leather for the seats was grown on a cattle farm. Throughout our economy we have invented multitudes of ingenious ways of transferring, transforming and bettering these products for further sale. But every bit of it starts with those 3 ingredients.

Herein lies the error of the Administration in the Gulf. They seem to be laboring (pardon the pun) under the belief that the System will remain neutral on it’s own accord. The oil being produced by all those rigs President Obama has shut down is not just a way for some greedy oil baron to get rich. It is not just an ancillary product on the fringes of our economy. That oil is a vital input to our System; one needed to keep it from collapsing inward.

The same goes for the jobs of all those workers on the oil rigs. Thousands upon thousands of (highly skilled, specialized) man hours are being wasted, pulled out of our economic system. In effect we are being robbed of the input from these men.

These rigs, the oil they produce, the man hours of the workers will all end up being acquired/ spent in another system. China, Brazil or whoever can will pull them into their system. We will have given a system we are in competition inputs that should have been going into our system.

Continuing along President Obama’s economic path will lead to the eventual implosion of our economic system. The Gulf response is just one example.

Decentralizing

The Great debate of our Republic’s history has been one of centralized or decentralized control of government. We were declared to be a government of the People, by the People and for the People, but, of course, everyone wants to gain and keep power. To simplify the debate, do we invest more power in the People at large, or a small group near the Capital.

In recent years the concentration of power near Washington has been undeniable. Many citizens have been appalled to hear their representative say they know their constituents are against a particular bill, but they are going to vote for it anyway. And we have all seen Congressmen come home for a session break to attend townhall meetings and be aghast at how differently the people of their district see the things that are going on in Washington.

Groupthink has taken over and We the People are being pushed farther and farther to the sidelines. The following is a proposal for a three pronged strategy to move power back towards the citizens and away from the herd mentality that infest the Capital.

1) Use a version control software system for Legislation proposals.

When modern software is being written, it is done so by programmers in various locations (often around the globe) using a version control system. The entire large program is stored in this database and sections of it may be checked out by a programmer to work on it. When it is checked back in, the entire program is updated for everybody.

A similar system should be used for bills being proposed to the Congress. Each congressman could check out the section of the bill they wish to re-write and then check it back in when finished. There would be numbered versions of the bill culminating in the final, approved version. These software packages even allow for voting on different updates and putting competing proposals side-by-side for comparison. This would modernize the “meat-grinder” process of crafting legislation.

Other benefits include

• Easily post bills on the Internet for public viewing
• Bills can be hidden from non-authorized viewers until it has reached a certain stage of maturity
• Updates are dated and signed. Researchers would know when an update was made to a bill and who did it.

2) Move the various representatives out of Washing and back home.

Everyday there is a new commercial that shows people in different countries talking and collaborating as if they were in the same room. There is truly no reason for our elected officials to be sequestered together in Washington DC. Again and again we are told that the Public just “doesn’t understand how things are done in Washington.” The truth is we do know and we do not like it. That phrase is just a cover for those that want to wheel and deal and try to get the most of the tax dollars for their own benefit.

The general populace does not like the way Washington works and does not agree with most of what goes on there. The group collective in Washington protects the elected official, however. Around Washington everyone they meet is connected to the central government in some capacity. The media caters to them. Lobbyists flock to them like sharks to a kill. It is a self perpetuating cycle that leaves out one very important thing: We the People.

Having our elected officials set up their offices in their home district would put them back in reach of the very people that voted for them. It would keep them in the loop of local happenings and keep them closer to the tide of opinion in their districts. It would also be cheaper, but lets not get carried away.

3) Repeal amendment that allows popular election of Senators.

The phrase “follow the money” is no where more applicable than in politics. Since the introduction of popular election of Senators, money from out of state sources has flowed into close elections. Senators are beholden to the ones that got them into office and the perception is that was not the People of the State but the money men who delivered them.

In the past, it was common for local elections to receive more votes than national elections. Voters were only interested in the elections that they perceived to effect them. Now, the national elections will garner votes, while local elections are ignored. Making the outcome of the state elections have national consequences will but a larger emphasis local elections, thus moving political power to a more local level.

Beyond this, the Senators are supposed to represent their State, where Representatives stand for the people of a district. The centralization of power has taken our collective focus off of our states and onto the Federation. It was always intended by our Founders that the States be more important to our every day life than the Central government. Bringing Senators back to their original role will bring power back to the People.

Encoded Tax Code

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written (and I paraphrase) that judges have a responsibility to write their opinions in a way that the average person can understand, because it is the average person who will have to live by these decisions. I only disagree with Justice Scalia on one account: this edict is not limited to the judiciary.

I believe it is immoral for those in power to write laws they expect the citizenry to obey, which the citizenry cannot understand.

Tomorrow each of us are going to be subjected to a thing known as Title 26 of the United States Code, or the Tax Code. It is thousands of pages long (13,000+ at one source). It cannot be found complete at one source, and must be accessed in parts. It is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. And there is no human on this planet that fully understands the code.

Everyone complains about the confusing nature of the tax code, the orneriness of having to comply with it. Most complain about the amount of money lost to businesses trying to stay current with the ever changed code. But like the weather, no one does anything.

The pressure, however, is building. On tax day (normally referred to as thieving day around here) there are going to be hundreds of “tea parties” around the nation. Officially these are to protest the rampant spending of the government. Our tax code and our spending are explicitly linked.

If you feel the way I do, try to attend one of these rallies, or contact your congressmen. Let your voice be heard. We are approching the tipping point.

Politics and Science – All Manure

Either President Barack Obama is a dumbass or he thinks we are. I’m leaning toward the second, but I’m willing to accept it is a combination of the two.

Obama announced today that he is going to divorce politics form scientific decisions made by the government. And tomorrow I’m going to divorce the green pigment from the paint on my wall. To claim that either anything done by the government or that any policy set forth in science can be removed from political consideration is – you’ll forgive me for this – patent bullshit.

The announcement came on the heals of reversing the Bush administration policy of not using federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Are we to understand that making this decision was not politically motivated by the Barack of Obama? A certain and large segment of the population (including the immediately preceding President) held that destroying embryos holds strong moral implications. By allowing the embryonic research to go forward, Obama is making the (political) decision that destroying an embryo is not tantamount to murder. Agree or disagree, that is not a scientific decision, it is a political one.

Has this man never seen a science fiction movie? Let me summarize the basic plot to 99.6% of all sci-fi movies. 1) Use a new scientific technology that looks cool on camera. 2) Create a situation where the characters have to make a moral decision about using the new technology. 3) blow things up (this is for the people who might vote for Obama; they won’t get #2) All technology is just a tool. Where, when and how to use the tool is a political and moral decision.

So, as we continue down this road where political considerations are removed from scientific decisions, what will our future look like? How will the Obama administration proceed from here?

In the brave new world of national heath care that President Obama has called for we will come to the point where elderly people will be sick, but their life expectancy and contribution to society will not equal this cost. Scientifically it would be easy to conclude that it is not worth spending the money on them. The next logical step is that if we are simply going to let them die, shouldn’t we proactively put them out of their suffering? Please, Mr. President, explain to me how you are going to approach this topic without bringing politics into the mix?

Or what about the other end of life, Mr. President. If we are going to provide the health care for the entire populace would it not be prudent to make sure that the people entering that populace were healthiest they could be? We have it within our scientific power to limit who can reproduce with whom. Only allowing those deemed, scientifically, fit to have children could be allowed. This would ensure that the children born would have the best genetic chance to remain healthy and not burden the health care system. Should we allow science to simply run its course, or should we use politics to decide the morally correct direction to take this tool at our disposal?

Or how about the tact the entire DNC is taking on global warming? While there are plenty of scientific minds that believe in global warming there is also plenty of evidence and plenty of scientists who reject the premise. The party has, however, deemed the debate to be over and is plowing ahead with, ahem, political actions without regard for the scientific debate about this topic.

Oh, wait, how about this one!? In those science fiction tales referenced before, science breakthroughs happen in mere minutes with the result of tests seen within a few scenes. But here in the real world science advances take time and are often found wrong. Recent enough to be considered modern history, the predominant scientific theory held that people with darker skin color, like, oh say… the President’s, were inferior due to being less evolved. The sentiment in the scientific community was that these inferior persons should not be allowed the same rights and privileges as more evolved persons. I’m pretty sure it was political arguments that railed against this line of thinking until it was scientifically proven wrong.

The thought of removing political reasoning from scientific processes, especially involving the government is ridiculous. Hey Barry, next time you want to announce something this outrageous, don’t make a general public announcement; save it for the Democrat National Convention. You’ll get more acreage out of your fertilizer.

Yes, Virgina, There is a Jesus Christ

It is the Christmas season. A local church is advertising on the radio that Santa Clause will be coming to visit on a certain Sunday. When I arrive at my own church it is filled with men wearing Santa ties. As I go about my day, good Christian people ask me if Santa is ready to come to see my daughter. I suspect nothing I have said is new to anyone reading this article.

On the flip side we have a story related in Sunday school of a woman objecting to “Rudolph” being played in school because it is too “Christian”. Apparently she came to this conclusion, because the movie uses the word “Christmas” too often. And then there is the very public spectacle up in Washington state where the governor has allow the agnostics1 to put up a declaration of the “myth of Christmas” right beside a nativity scene on the state capital steps.

We are embracing the Santa Claus myth at every turn and the agnostics are attacking even the words that contain “Christ” at every turn. Might I dare say that the Agnostics know more about our Holy Day than we do?

You may say that having Santa in our homes is a personal family choice, but not so. Think about the effort to which we go to keep the Santa myth alive. Macy’s and CBS do their part with in store Santa’s and re-runs of Rudolph.But it does not end there. The neighbors ask the kids about Santa, the post office takes letters, the meteorologists track the unholy elf and his possessed reindeer. All the members of family, including older children are in on the joke, pretending for the benefit of the younger children. All for the purpose of keeping the little ones happy with a myth of a jolly fat man.

What if we spent this kind of effort on teaching them about the truth of Christ? How would the agnostics respond to that kind of resolve from the Christan community?

But the story of Santa Claus is nice / cute / teaching the joy of giving…” You keep telling yourself that. The story of Nicholas the Priest was a good story. A man with little means himself, throwing money in the shoes of the poor children to teach them about the undeserved gift that God gave us when he sent his own Son. The monstrosity that has become the Santa myth is far removed and has divorced itself completely from the story of Jesus and his miraculous birth.

As Christians our purpose is to worship our Lord and tell others about Him. To do so would include telling the story of the birth of Christ. The Jolly elf and his magic reindeer with the endless bag of toys (built by elves but looking very much like Sony products) doesn’t quite seem to fit. We are called to be holy, as this day is a holy day (holiday). The word means to be set apart.

When this time of celebration comes around, should we be joining the atheists in defeating the true meaning of our holiday or should we be standing apart and standing for the true story of Jesus’ birth? When we run into each other at Wal-mart, should we say \is Santa Claus ready to see you?” or should we say “are you ready to celebrate Jesus’ birth- day?”

Yes Virginia , this really is a Jesus Christ.

Thank _______ !

We will soon celebrate the day of Thanksgiving. It is a good think to be thankful in general for our blessings and our good fortune. But to be simply thankful is, in and of itself, hollow and incomplete.

The word “thank” is a verb, it requires a subject and an object. When we receive a gift, we say “thank you.” This is the shortened form of the entire sentence “I thank you.” The subject is understood; the object is often left hanging, open for interpretation. If you just say “I am thankful for…”, to whom are you thankful?

Imagine receiving your shinny new Red Rider B-B gun from your parents. Then you say, “I am thankful for this B-B gun.” Wouldn’t your parents be a little miffed? Instead we say “Thanks mom and dad!” We declare whom we are thanking.

How often do we go around the table on Thanksgiving Day and say what we are thankful for? It is good to be thankful, but if you are not thankful to someone, something, your thankfulness is unfinished. It is like a transfer truck which is not pulling a trailer. The verb needs its object; your thanks needs a target.

Consider the original Thanksgiving Day proclamation by George Washington:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; … to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be;¹

The Day of Thanksgiving was originally set up for us to give thanks to God for his blessings on us. Let us all remember this as we declare what we are thankful for.

1 – Full proclamation text here – In many of our founding documents, an “F” is used where you use an “S” now.