Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Something I Can Agree with Obama On
The White House is proposing cutting the ATF budget by 13%. While I would like to see an abolishment of it (and the corresponding regulations), I can certainly support this kind of a cut as a first step.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Shooting Saturday
Four friends went to the firing range on Saturday near where Grant Wood painted his "American Gothic." There was enough armament to take over a small Central American country. After 3 hours of shooting, ammo boxes were considerably lighter. They went out to eat and three of the four had a beer with their lunch. By some miracle, not a single one became enraged and opened fire on the patrons in the restaurant. I'm not sure how this didn't make the news.
In an unrelated report, a prospector found a large deposit of lead and copper in the side of a berm. "This could be one of the richest veins on record," he was quoted as saying. Development is expected.
In an unrelated report, a prospector found a large deposit of lead and copper in the side of a berm. "This could be one of the richest veins on record," he was quoted as saying. Development is expected.
These are Mutually Exclusive Concepts
Sometimes even the politicians come up with statements that are absolutely amazing in their complete disdain for logic.
"If the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, then he's going to have to be willing to cut up the credit cards" - Speaker Boehner
Let's see how this works. Pretend for instance that I make $210,000 a year and I have credit card debt of $1.4 million, partly because for the last few years I have been spending close to $400,000 a year. Now my wife decides to put her foot down and say enough is enough. I beg and plead for her to have our credit card limit increased to $1.6 million, because if we don't then we will have to declare bankruptcy. She capitulates as long as I cut up the credit card.
Huh? So if I cut up the credit card...how then does increasing my credit limit to $1.6 million stave off bankruptcy?
This is the exact situation that Boehner finds himself in (just add some extra zeros to my numbers above). Perhaps Congress and the President could use a little refresher course in budgeting 101, maybe even a session with the Consumer Credit Counseling Service.
For those of you who had hoped that the Republicans were going to turn things around, you were sorely mistaken.
"If the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, then he's going to have to be willing to cut up the credit cards" - Speaker Boehner
Let's see how this works. Pretend for instance that I make $210,000 a year and I have credit card debt of $1.4 million, partly because for the last few years I have been spending close to $400,000 a year. Now my wife decides to put her foot down and say enough is enough. I beg and plead for her to have our credit card limit increased to $1.6 million, because if we don't then we will have to declare bankruptcy. She capitulates as long as I cut up the credit card.
Huh? So if I cut up the credit card...how then does increasing my credit limit to $1.6 million stave off bankruptcy?
This is the exact situation that Boehner finds himself in (just add some extra zeros to my numbers above). Perhaps Congress and the President could use a little refresher course in budgeting 101, maybe even a session with the Consumer Credit Counseling Service.
For those of you who had hoped that the Republicans were going to turn things around, you were sorely mistaken.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Education in America: The Farce
When I read an article like this one, I am not the least bit surprised. Being a trained engineer (we actually take science classes in college), a devote Mormon, and a firm believer in evolution (and not just the micro-evolution schtick that creationists make up; I am talking the full blown macro-evolution cat gives birth to a dog spiel that they try and dance around), I am usually appalled by the treatment of science in schools. Mostly thought I am appalled at the whole "qualifying teachers" aspect to education.
Study after study has shown that colleges of education have the lowest performing students of any of the colleges at universities. Go to any university campus and I guarantee you that there will be plenty of jokes among the student body about the education students. At Texas A&M, the joke was you went to college as an education major in order to find a husband. Does this mean that every one with an education degree is a blithering moron? No, there are quite a few smart ones that I have met (coincidentally, none off of the top of my head are actually teaching school).
To compare to the college of Engineering at Texas A&M, when I started as a freshman, probably 80% of the freshman in my dorm were engineering majors. By sophomore year that had dropped to less than 50% and by junior year it was down to 25% where it remained fairly stable through graduation. I never heard of anyone (not saying it didn't happen) who transferred into engineering from the business college or the education college. I did know one person who got a degree in psychology and then came back and got a degree in engineering after realizing that she didn't like her job options. Of course, if she had have started in engineering she would have been successful and saved herself $20K and 4 years.
So why the drop in numbers? Because some people can't hack it. It may be they aren't smart enough, it may be that they don't have the work ethic, it may be that they don't like dealing with fractions. That's OK. Unfortunately, we have turned education (at least on the public side) into a game of the lowest common denominator. If we know that the majority of our biology teachers are waffling (for whatever reason) on a scientific theory that is widely accepted and has been thoroughly debated to the point that those who dismiss it are seen as crackpots by the scientific community, then what hope do we have for English, math, and history.
Lest anyone try to say that Einstein was considered a crackpot with his theories, let us remember that he proposed something new that the scientific community had not had time to investigate. After years of investigation, we have come to realize he was right in many things and wrong in a very few (and those things he was wrong on were usually due to oversimplification of the issue).
Evolution is not some new theory, although based on the training the colleges of education give, it may very well be.
And if you think that evolution entails cats giving births to dogs, you are either dishonest or need your head examined.
Study after study has shown that colleges of education have the lowest performing students of any of the colleges at universities. Go to any university campus and I guarantee you that there will be plenty of jokes among the student body about the education students. At Texas A&M, the joke was you went to college as an education major in order to find a husband. Does this mean that every one with an education degree is a blithering moron? No, there are quite a few smart ones that I have met (coincidentally, none off of the top of my head are actually teaching school).
To compare to the college of Engineering at Texas A&M, when I started as a freshman, probably 80% of the freshman in my dorm were engineering majors. By sophomore year that had dropped to less than 50% and by junior year it was down to 25% where it remained fairly stable through graduation. I never heard of anyone (not saying it didn't happen) who transferred into engineering from the business college or the education college. I did know one person who got a degree in psychology and then came back and got a degree in engineering after realizing that she didn't like her job options. Of course, if she had have started in engineering she would have been successful and saved herself $20K and 4 years.
So why the drop in numbers? Because some people can't hack it. It may be they aren't smart enough, it may be that they don't have the work ethic, it may be that they don't like dealing with fractions. That's OK. Unfortunately, we have turned education (at least on the public side) into a game of the lowest common denominator. If we know that the majority of our biology teachers are waffling (for whatever reason) on a scientific theory that is widely accepted and has been thoroughly debated to the point that those who dismiss it are seen as crackpots by the scientific community, then what hope do we have for English, math, and history.
Lest anyone try to say that Einstein was considered a crackpot with his theories, let us remember that he proposed something new that the scientific community had not had time to investigate. After years of investigation, we have come to realize he was right in many things and wrong in a very few (and those things he was wrong on were usually due to oversimplification of the issue).
Evolution is not some new theory, although based on the training the colleges of education give, it may very well be.
And if you think that evolution entails cats giving births to dogs, you are either dishonest or need your head examined.
Friday, January 14, 2011
9-Year Old VISA Violators
Because we have already solved our southern border problem, we now are able to focus on those kids whose grandparents are taking them to DisneyWorld. I mean, isn't it obvious that this kid from England is trying to sneak his way into the US (even though he didn't know it). Probably trying to establish himself as an anchor baby to bring the rest of his family over.
I have a few questions. Why was the 9-year old's VISA denied, but the grandparents were not? How old do you have to be to even have "strong ties outside the United States"? Is the bond between parents and children not considered strong enough? Does EuroDisney suck that bad?
This is where the Disney company should step in and show the world how generous they are. All expenses paid to EuroDisney, 5 star hotel, breakfast with Buzz Lightyear, the works.
I have a few questions. Why was the 9-year old's VISA denied, but the grandparents were not? How old do you have to be to even have "strong ties outside the United States"? Is the bond between parents and children not considered strong enough? Does EuroDisney suck that bad?
This is where the Disney company should step in and show the world how generous they are. All expenses paid to EuroDisney, 5 star hotel, breakfast with Buzz Lightyear, the works.
Government Run Amok, Again
As many of you my know, I am not a proponent of government. I believe they have a few things (relatively few) that they should do, and should keep away from doing anything else. Besides that, as they grow in size (and in organization grows in size) the application of common sense decreases exponentially.
For instance, Houston doesn't want people to feed the homeless. This couple was not asking for a government handout and then embezzling the money, they were doing it out of their own compassion and the donations of those they contacted. Apparently food regulators demand that they get a permit and have the food prepared in a certified kitchen. The money quote:
The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care."
If you read that correctly, the government officials are saying that "its OK if the homeless starve, as long as they don't get a foodborne illness from someone's home kitchen." When faced with the choice of no food vs. food that has a low likelihood of having a foodborne illness, which would you choose?
While the regulators may defend that the regulations keep the public safe by ensuring that restaurants have appropriate cleanliness standards, I say BS. It is the customers that ensure that the restaurants have cleanliness standards (the regulators aren't at the restaurants every day or even every week). If a customer sees a roach crawling around on the floor, he is going to leave and probably tell all of his friends about it who then will not go to the restaurant. Hence, business is lost and unless the restaurant turns itself around, there will be no more restaurant. So it is in the restaurants best interest to maintain those high standards even without the regulators. The free market is a rapid and harsh punisher (of course the rewards are beyond compare).
It is a fact that home kitchens are several times less sanitary than restaurants. That being said, you don't see a neighbor dieing everyday from food poisoning. It is also a fact that garbage cans and dumpsters are several times less sanitary than the home kitchen, and usually not a good place to be scrounging food. But that is the option that Houston has provided for its homeless. (So I think that Houston - as in the government - should provide meals and shelter for the homeless? NO WAY. But stay out of the way of those people who do want to.
For instance, Houston doesn't want people to feed the homeless. This couple was not asking for a government handout and then embezzling the money, they were doing it out of their own compassion and the donations of those they contacted. Apparently food regulators demand that they get a permit and have the food prepared in a certified kitchen. The money quote:
The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care."
If you read that correctly, the government officials are saying that "its OK if the homeless starve, as long as they don't get a foodborne illness from someone's home kitchen." When faced with the choice of no food vs. food that has a low likelihood of having a foodborne illness, which would you choose?
While the regulators may defend that the regulations keep the public safe by ensuring that restaurants have appropriate cleanliness standards, I say BS. It is the customers that ensure that the restaurants have cleanliness standards (the regulators aren't at the restaurants every day or even every week). If a customer sees a roach crawling around on the floor, he is going to leave and probably tell all of his friends about it who then will not go to the restaurant. Hence, business is lost and unless the restaurant turns itself around, there will be no more restaurant. So it is in the restaurants best interest to maintain those high standards even without the regulators. The free market is a rapid and harsh punisher (of course the rewards are beyond compare).
It is a fact that home kitchens are several times less sanitary than restaurants. That being said, you don't see a neighbor dieing everyday from food poisoning. It is also a fact that garbage cans and dumpsters are several times less sanitary than the home kitchen, and usually not a good place to be scrounging food. But that is the option that Houston has provided for its homeless. (So I think that Houston - as in the government - should provide meals and shelter for the homeless? NO WAY. But stay out of the way of those people who do want to.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Government Logic
Looks like the government is finally going to go paperless next year. At last. Of course that doesn't bode well for the Post Office to lose another 120 million letters each year (but then again, I am not sure if the government actually had to pay for mailing those letters). In any case, there will be 120 million less expenses that the Post Office has, so maybe it is a good thing (especially if they are losing money on each letter anyway).
But of course, the policy is too good to be true. In spite of allowing direct deposit or money recharged onto a debit card, there had to be exceptions for those few who A) don't have a bank or B) don't shop at places with a debit card. The government estimates the number at 275,000. I estimate that number at 0 (counting for the fact that if you meet both A and B above, you shouldn't be in charge of your own finances).
Near the end I saw this gem:
But of course, the policy is too good to be true. In spite of allowing direct deposit or money recharged onto a debit card, there had to be exceptions for those few who A) don't have a bank or B) don't shop at places with a debit card. The government estimates the number at 275,000. I estimate that number at 0 (counting for the fact that if you meet both A and B above, you shouldn't be in charge of your own finances).
Near the end I saw this gem:
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tax Hike....Punt!
In case you haven't heard, President Obama is willing to make a deal on "tax cuts." Basically, when one looks at it, the deal is nothing more than a punt, for both Republicans and Democrats. To begin, what are some of the major economic negatives in our country right now:
1. Deficits in the trillions of dollars (few countries even have a GDP of 1 trillion, and we have a deficit of 1 trillion).
2. Unemployment of 9%+ (or 17%+ depending on which figure you want to use).
3. Anemic job growth (in spite of the stimulus spending which saved or created 3 million jobs).
4. Social Security in the red (i.e. it pays out more each year than it takes in).
So the Democrats and Republicans are worried about a tax hike, which they both contributed to 10 years ago. Funny how those things come back to bite you. And in an election year no less. At least they managed it in the mid-term election year rather than the presidential election year (then again, I'm not sure they had a choice in the matter). And after much bickering and whining we get this:
1. No increase in the base rates for two years (in other words, the vote will be to increase your taxes in two years). Why President Obama would agree to this (as opposed to a three year moratorium), I have no idea. Unless perhaps he is sick of the whole thing and wants to get back to being a Community Organizer. Two years puts the tax increase right back in an election year, except that this time, the Presidency will be up for grabs and the Senate in a big way (I think the Democrats will be defending 20+ seats in 2012, while the Republicans only have 10 seats to defend). If recent history is any judge, then having a tax fight in 2012 won't go any better than it did in 2010.
On the other hand the economy may turn around. Except that one of the reasons that the economy hasn't turned around is the uncertainty in the tax situation. What does a two year moratorium on the increase do? Not much. Businesses don't usually operate on a one or two year plan. In my current position, I have things planned out for 25 years. Hiring new employees (i.e. creating jobs) is usually a multi year commitment. You have to train them before you can begin to get your investment out of them. If they are not going to make your company more money than what you pay them (salary, benefits, and taxes), then you don't hire them. If you do, you are stupid and will be out of business soon enough.
So not only will the two year moratorium on tax increases just delay the fight until another election year, it is not going to do anything to spur job growth. But that is OK, because we have...
2. Extension of unemployment benefits by 13 months. I'm not sure of the details, but this may just be an extension on top of the 26 weeks that the States provide (at the direction of the federal government), or it may be an extension of the 99 total weeks that the States and Federal government had been providing. If it is the latter, then that means unemployment benefits are going to last for three years. If you know that you will get a check each week for three years, and you are just the slightest bit lazy, what incentive do you have to even bother being serious about looking for work during weeks 1 through 104 (i.e. first two years). As near as I can tell, this unemployment extension is not being offset by any spending cuts, so that means the deficit problem we had above is going to grow.
But Nancy Pelosi says that every $1 in unemployment returns $2 to the economy. Really? Where does that $1 come from in this case? Oh yeah, the economy. So if we get the $1 for $2, why not double the amount in each unemployment check? Oh there are diminishing returns? Why didn't you mention that. Does it work the opposite way? So if we cut unemployment in half do we get $4 returned to the economy for every $1 in unemployment? Why not do that? $4>$2. Do you mind showing me how you come up with the $2 figure anyway, and show how leaving that $1 in the economy in the first place wouldn't have created $2 or more by its own.
3. A decrease in the payroll tax of 2% for 1 year. Why just 1 year? Oh, yeah, so we don't have to have this fight in two years during an election. Also, it appears that the cut will be in place of President Obama's signature making work pay tax credit which applied to most everyone equally, whereas the payroll tax "disproportionately" helps the wealthy. From a personal standpoint, I am all in favor of this. Social Security is a scam (government run mind you, but still a scam) and I don't expect to see any of the money that has been confiscated from me for it.
From an economic issue (particularly in regards to the problems listed above) I am torn. More money in the hands of consumers (all consumers, even the really rich ones) is a good thing. And Social Security is the largest tax payment that most Americans pay (particularly when you consider the "matching contribution" from your employer). On the other hand, Social Security proponents have prided the fact that up until last year, Social Security was a self sustaining program, it covered all of its expenses each year (and lent the excess to the goverment to spend at their leisure). Now we are going to take away 1/6 of the Social Security taxes (approximately $100 billion) in a year when Social Security is already in the red. That is going to decrease the solvency of the "trust fund" further, and add to the deficit. And since it is only for 1 year, it won't help create any jobs. (On the other hand, I may be able to convince my wife that I can use that extra $2000 in 2011 to go towards purchasing a Barrett .50 BMG or we could just put in a new shower in the bathroom. Tough choice!).
And then there is some other froo froo stuff. The funniest thing of all, if this passes. It will be in a House, Senate, and Presidency that is all controlled by the Democratic party. Since it has no provisions that will create jobs (it encourages stagnation), cut the deficit (actually it will increase the deficit), or shore up Social Security (it does the opposite) and it puts these same issues off to be fought over again in 2012, barring any major change in the world (which always seems to happen anyway), the Democrats will have voted on their own demise from the Senate and probably the presidency and solidify the gains that the Republicans made in 2010 in the House (although redistricting will accomplish most of that anyway).
Never let a crisis go to waste. But if your going to, make sure you waste it in spectacularly stupid ways.
BTW, I have no love lost on the Republicans punt of this issue. They have no power other than the filibuster, yet are still getting basically what they want.
1. Deficits in the trillions of dollars (few countries even have a GDP of 1 trillion, and we have a deficit of 1 trillion).
2. Unemployment of 9%+ (or 17%+ depending on which figure you want to use).
3. Anemic job growth (in spite of the stimulus spending which saved or created 3 million jobs).
4. Social Security in the red (i.e. it pays out more each year than it takes in).
So the Democrats and Republicans are worried about a tax hike, which they both contributed to 10 years ago. Funny how those things come back to bite you. And in an election year no less. At least they managed it in the mid-term election year rather than the presidential election year (then again, I'm not sure they had a choice in the matter). And after much bickering and whining we get this:
1. No increase in the base rates for two years (in other words, the vote will be to increase your taxes in two years). Why President Obama would agree to this (as opposed to a three year moratorium), I have no idea. Unless perhaps he is sick of the whole thing and wants to get back to being a Community Organizer. Two years puts the tax increase right back in an election year, except that this time, the Presidency will be up for grabs and the Senate in a big way (I think the Democrats will be defending 20+ seats in 2012, while the Republicans only have 10 seats to defend). If recent history is any judge, then having a tax fight in 2012 won't go any better than it did in 2010.
On the other hand the economy may turn around. Except that one of the reasons that the economy hasn't turned around is the uncertainty in the tax situation. What does a two year moratorium on the increase do? Not much. Businesses don't usually operate on a one or two year plan. In my current position, I have things planned out for 25 years. Hiring new employees (i.e. creating jobs) is usually a multi year commitment. You have to train them before you can begin to get your investment out of them. If they are not going to make your company more money than what you pay them (salary, benefits, and taxes), then you don't hire them. If you do, you are stupid and will be out of business soon enough.
So not only will the two year moratorium on tax increases just delay the fight until another election year, it is not going to do anything to spur job growth. But that is OK, because we have...
2. Extension of unemployment benefits by 13 months. I'm not sure of the details, but this may just be an extension on top of the 26 weeks that the States provide (at the direction of the federal government), or it may be an extension of the 99 total weeks that the States and Federal government had been providing. If it is the latter, then that means unemployment benefits are going to last for three years. If you know that you will get a check each week for three years, and you are just the slightest bit lazy, what incentive do you have to even bother being serious about looking for work during weeks 1 through 104 (i.e. first two years). As near as I can tell, this unemployment extension is not being offset by any spending cuts, so that means the deficit problem we had above is going to grow.
But Nancy Pelosi says that every $1 in unemployment returns $2 to the economy. Really? Where does that $1 come from in this case? Oh yeah, the economy. So if we get the $1 for $2, why not double the amount in each unemployment check? Oh there are diminishing returns? Why didn't you mention that. Does it work the opposite way? So if we cut unemployment in half do we get $4 returned to the economy for every $1 in unemployment? Why not do that? $4>$2. Do you mind showing me how you come up with the $2 figure anyway, and show how leaving that $1 in the economy in the first place wouldn't have created $2 or more by its own.
3. A decrease in the payroll tax of 2% for 1 year. Why just 1 year? Oh, yeah, so we don't have to have this fight in two years during an election. Also, it appears that the cut will be in place of President Obama's signature making work pay tax credit which applied to most everyone equally, whereas the payroll tax "disproportionately" helps the wealthy. From a personal standpoint, I am all in favor of this. Social Security is a scam (government run mind you, but still a scam) and I don't expect to see any of the money that has been confiscated from me for it.
From an economic issue (particularly in regards to the problems listed above) I am torn. More money in the hands of consumers (all consumers, even the really rich ones) is a good thing. And Social Security is the largest tax payment that most Americans pay (particularly when you consider the "matching contribution" from your employer). On the other hand, Social Security proponents have prided the fact that up until last year, Social Security was a self sustaining program, it covered all of its expenses each year (and lent the excess to the goverment to spend at their leisure). Now we are going to take away 1/6 of the Social Security taxes (approximately $100 billion) in a year when Social Security is already in the red. That is going to decrease the solvency of the "trust fund" further, and add to the deficit. And since it is only for 1 year, it won't help create any jobs. (On the other hand, I may be able to convince my wife that I can use that extra $2000 in 2011 to go towards purchasing a Barrett .50 BMG or we could just put in a new shower in the bathroom. Tough choice!).
And then there is some other froo froo stuff. The funniest thing of all, if this passes. It will be in a House, Senate, and Presidency that is all controlled by the Democratic party. Since it has no provisions that will create jobs (it encourages stagnation), cut the deficit (actually it will increase the deficit), or shore up Social Security (it does the opposite) and it puts these same issues off to be fought over again in 2012, barring any major change in the world (which always seems to happen anyway), the Democrats will have voted on their own demise from the Senate and probably the presidency and solidify the gains that the Republicans made in 2010 in the House (although redistricting will accomplish most of that anyway).
Never let a crisis go to waste. But if your going to, make sure you waste it in spectacularly stupid ways.
BTW, I have no love lost on the Republicans punt of this issue. They have no power other than the filibuster, yet are still getting basically what they want.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Social Media Actually Affects People's Lives
So someone saw that people were constantly glued to facebook or twitter and they needed an experiment to see that they were "addicted"? I could have told you that for a lot less money and pain on the part of the participants. Why anyone would surmise that an activity you spend hours on each day does not affect you is a mystery to me.
Facebook, yes, I have an account. I check it about once a week. I block all Mafia Wars, Farmville, Turdville, and any other stupid game or poll on it. If I am going to waste my time for hours with computer games it will be Halo or Civilization.
Twitter. Never even gone to the homepage. From what I surmise it is facebook for your smartphone. Since I don't have a smartphone, I have no need for twitter. I have never texted either.
Facebook, yes, I have an account. I check it about once a week. I block all Mafia Wars, Farmville, Turdville, and any other stupid game or poll on it. If I am going to waste my time for hours with computer games it will be Halo or Civilization.
Twitter. Never even gone to the homepage. From what I surmise it is facebook for your smartphone. Since I don't have a smartphone, I have no need for twitter. I have never texted either.
Friday, December 3, 2010
How to Get Rich Quick!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/07/stimulus-checks-sent-dead/
So, all you have to do is register a bunch of dead/nonexistent people for Social Security (which has never happened before) and the money starts rolling in? And their excuse is that their deaths weren't reported to the Social Security Administration? Except for the 17,000 where it was the fault of the Social Security Administration for not properly processing the payments in the first place.
I have a more brilliant idea. Why not we just not have Social Security in the first place, then we won't have the screw-ups of sending payments to dead people? (Isn't it amazing how many of our government's problems/inefficiencies/waste/screw-ups are a direct result of the policies/regulations/laws of the same government).
But then all of the old people will starve to death?
Oh, yeah, just like they were starving to death for the first 160 years of our country before Social Security.
So, all you have to do is register a bunch of dead/nonexistent people for Social Security (which has never happened before) and the money starts rolling in? And their excuse is that their deaths weren't reported to the Social Security Administration? Except for the 17,000 where it was the fault of the Social Security Administration for not properly processing the payments in the first place.
I have a more brilliant idea. Why not we just not have Social Security in the first place, then we won't have the screw-ups of sending payments to dead people? (Isn't it amazing how many of our government's problems/inefficiencies/waste/screw-ups are a direct result of the policies/regulations/laws of the same government).
Oh, yeah, just like they were starving to death for the first 160 years of our country before Social Security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)