Thoughts and observations

"Bipartisan Express"

2010-10-30T16:09:00.005-06:00

Over the past week or so, there have been advertisements on the radio for the Democratic Candidate for the Govornor/Lt. Governor for Utah. The gimmik they are using is quite clever, even though I oppose the candidate (Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon).
This is obviously a take of of the "Tea Party Express", and I believe it should resonate with some of the voters. Unfortunately for Mayor Corroon, he is trailing by more than 30%.
I do enjoy, however, the basic idea of the commercial. It is positive and uplifting and a welcome change from some of his previous commercials.

A year? Wow.

2010-10-30T16:09:00.002-06:00

Let's try this again. 1 post a day - I can do this.

I almost quit on Saturday

2009-09-22T16:37:00.002-06:00

I have been running for various positions in the county and state Republican parties (Davis county, Utah) over the past several years.
Precinct chair (numerous times), precinct vice chair, county delegate (4x), state delegate(4x), county vice chair (2x), county chair, state chair, state central committee (3x), state executive committee, state Constitutional and Bylaws committee, legislative vice chair, and senate vice chair.
To say that I have performed poorly would be an understatement. So far, I have won Precinct Chair a couple of times, won precinct vice chair the one time I lost precinct chair, won state central committee only when a previouis member became state vice chair and I was next in line, won re-election to state central committee, and lost everything else. And lost badly.
This last saturday, for C&B committee, I garnered 11 votes during the first round of balloting (6 of the 7 slots were filled), and 3 votes on the secon round. When I only got 3 votes, I desided to drop out of the race.

I was then seriously considering quitting. I have been learning about the issues, people, and processes of our political system. I have been carefully identifying problems that I can solve, and proposed numerous solutions - all of which have passed. So, why couldn't I get elected to a higher position? What was I doing wrong?

People that I talked to liked my ideas, generally. Even people who disagreed with me liked me, since we could discuss the issue and where and hy we disagreed. So, why couldn't I get elected to a higher position? What was I doing wrong?

So, I went down a checklist of possibilities. There was only one remaining issue: religion. I am not a member of the local predominant church. I can't/won't joind a church just for political asperations - that would be very wrong. So, if this was the case, what chance do I have?

So, I was seriously considering quitting.

But, right at the right moment, someone spoke to me. I won't tell his name, but I will say he is of considerable importance in the party, and I value his opinions and work very highly. (I may post his name if he ever gives me permission, though).

So, what did he say? "Tom, I was one of the three final votes for you. I think you have great ideas and have been doing excellent work." (note: paraphrasing).

Just some simple words. It made my entire year.

Look out world - you ain't seen nothing yet!

My speech to the Utah State Republican Central Committee

2009-09-22T16:35:00.002-06:00

This is what I was supposed to say for my speech for the Constitution and Bylaws Committee.

Robert Heinlein once wrote, “Never appeal to a man’s higher nature, he may not have one.”
I can’t convince you that I have a higher nature. I will tell you that I do have enlightened self interest.
Any system that can give me an unfair advantage can also give someone else an unfair advantage over me. I want to help build a system where people and ideas can compete honestly and fairly.
Along with our Republican ideals, this system will result in the greatest ideas and the finest people that will preserve and improve our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness!
My name is Tom Clay, and I want your vote.

I am tired, but I have an idea.

2009-09-13T13:14:00.005-06:00

I read a lot of news online. I read a lot of blogs online (thought: where else can I read them?)

I also read the comments.

I shouldn't.

Most of the comments are nothing but name calling. And inane name calling. I've heard better name calling from 4th graders.

And I just called the name-callers a name. Actually, no. I called the name callers name calling a name.

Note: I can easily understand the previous lines. Being a software developer, I am fully knowledgeable of recursive structures and words having multiple meanings. Anyway, it made sense to me at the time. When I reread it in a few months, I will probably say to myself, "Huh?"

Most of the comments sections on news sites and on blogs allow people to "vote" on a comment. They also allow you to "hide" comments that are too negative. What if someone had some computer software that could look at a commend and objectively rank it according to name calling? I could then hide all of those "comments" and then read the 5% that have something interesting to say (even if I disagree with it).

More research will be done.

EDITED: corrected spelling.

EDITED: A good example: http://www.breitbart.tv/go-home-dc-crowd-drowns-out-cnn-reporter-during-live-report/ - As Captain Hook would say, "Bad form, gentlemen, bad form."
We don't have to be disagreeable.

Tea Party March on Washington

2009-09-13T12:45:00.004-06:00

ABC news says it was "60 to 70 thousand" (their source is the Washington DC Fire Department). http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters-march-washington/story?id=8557120

CBS news says it was "tens of thousands" according to their item from the Associated Press http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/12/politics/main5305732.shtml?tag=stack

NBC news has an item from the Associated Press http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32811199/ns/politics-more_politics/

Now, here is a street (traffic?) camera view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPud1TeubM&feature=player_embedded

Parks and Recreation put the estimate at 1.2 million. DC police at 1.5 million.

You decide.

EDITED: Added Parks and Recreation and DC Police numbers

Norman Borlaug has died

2009-09-13T12:34:00.002-06:00

Um, who?
Apparently, he is (or was) an agricultural scientist that, according to some people, has saved over 250,000,000 people. That's a quarter of a billion! Others put the numbers at a billion!

So, I did a little research. He was the founder of the Green Revolution. Uh oh! Red (or green) flag! Another one of those eco-freaks, right?

Well, no. He vigorously applied the scientific method to the agricultural production of food. His techniques and research increased crop yields by 200% to 300%. And what's best, he didn't do it by fording anyone to do anything: he made convincing arguments about how farmers get compensated for their crops and he developed pest and disease resistant strains of food!

So, the "Green" part of his Green Revolution wasn't a political agenda (mainly), but it was a scientific application of stuff that worked.

It wasn't just agricultural science, either.:

He insisted that governments pay poor farmers world prices for their grain. At the time, many developing nations--eager to supply cheap food to their urban citizens, who might otherwise rebel--required their farmers to sell into a government concession that paid them less than half of the world market price for their agricultural products. The result, predictably, was hoarding and underproduction. Using his hard-won prestige as a kind of platform, Mr. Borlaug persuaded the governments of Pakistan and India to drop such self-defeating policies.

That's a Green Revolution that I can get behind.

President Obama will chair the United Nations Security Council for September, 2009

2009-09-11T06:34:00.003-06:00

For September, 2009, the United States of America will chair the United Nations Security Council. As I understand it, the position rotates through the 15 members of the security council every month. My initial thoughts are that a one month rotation sounds goofy, but considering the strange world of international politics, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head.
I did some research and I also discovered that the United States has a person that was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to be the Ambassador to the United Nations. In fact, our ambassador, Susan Rice, was confirmed unanimously! Since I know next to nothing about what makes a qualified ambassador, I will take the confirmation by the Senate to mean that she is extremely qualified for the position.

So, why is President Obama doing her job?

Doesn't he have other things to do?

Governor Mark Sanford - Step Down Please

2009-06-25T10:12:00.002-06:00

On a moral issue, what he did was bad enough. He cheated on his wife. But, morality issues are debatable. What is moral for one person may not be moral for another. It is subjective.
There are many objective reasons for his resignation.

He broke an oath. He swore "to forsake all others" when he got married. If he breaks his marriage vows, what other oaths will he break?
He misappropriated state funds. He used his state provided vehicle to drive to his "liaison" with his mistress (or at least to the airport). If he did it this once, he probably did it before (people rarely get caught the first time they do something wrong).
He put valuable state resources at considerable risk. He is the head of the state of South Carolina. As such, he is a very important resource. By travelling to another country, unescorted by any security, he put himself, and the state of South Carolina, at grave risk. As a private citizen, I could do what he did and only be at risk to the wrath of my wife. But elected officials are not private citizens!
Dereliction of duty. In South Carolina, during an emergency, all power resides in the executive. If there had been an emergency, the state would not legally have been able to do anything. He told no one where he was, and he was out of communication. If the airplane had crashed or if he had been killed in Argentina it would have taken perhaps weeks for the state to replace him.

So please, Governor Sanford, step down. Although you have made some very wise decisions, the recent adventure you went on shows that you are unfit to govern.

And if you don't, I urge the South Carolina legislature to work towards an impeachment.

Obamacare

2009-06-21T15:34:00.005-06:00

Ok, according to recent estimates, the cost of President Obama's health care plan over a 10 year period will be over $1 trillion over a 10 year period. That seems like a LOT of money. If fact, it IS a lot of money - even by the standards Washington, D.C.

There are also estimates that it will only cover 10 million people.

So, I did some thinking.

Let's make some ridiculous assumptions.

1) Every person of this 10 million people is in a 4 person family, giving us a total of 2.5 million families.
2) Overall, the families have average medical needs.

Now, according the National Coalition on Health Care, http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml the average cost of health insurance for a 4 person family is $12,700 per year.

Now, some math:
Number of families: 2.5 million
Average cost of insurance: $12,700
====================================
Total annual cost: $31.75 billion
====================================
Total 10 year cost: $317.5 billion

So, my question:
Why not save a bunch of money and just buy private insurance for them?

(edited a couple of times to to correct spelling mistakes and other typos - my keyboard can't spell)

Sutherland institute

2009-06-09T23:24:00.000-06:00

I am dismayed at some of the comments I have heard about the Sutherland Institute and their current approach to illegal immigration.
On this one issue alone, many people have chosen to excoriate them and completely remove their support.

That is their choice.

However, my take is a bit different. I do not agree with the Sutherland Institute on illegal immigration, but there are many other political issues that I do agree with them on. Whenever they make a statement about illegal immigration, I will read it with an extremely critical eye. I might agree with the statement, but I probably won’t.
Limited government, private property, free markets, family, traditional marriage, global warming climate change – these are all issues on which they are correct.

For any group, why can’t we support them on issues where we agree with them, and oppose them where we disagree? It is difficult enough for us to find issues where we agree.
Republicans have (in recent history) been our own worst enemies. It seems to me that if we couldn’t agree 100% with a candidate, then we must oppose them. John McCain was not my first choice for the Republican candidate for President (I liked Fred Thompson). But, he would have been immeasurably better than President Obama. That is why, once Senator McCain became our candidate, I supported him.

Don’t like the position of the Sutherland Institute on illegal immigration? Fine – I don’t like it much, either. I will not completely condemn them, though, since I agree with them (to some degree) on so many other issues.

Sotomayor fractures ankle at New York airport

2009-06-08T12:25:00.002-06:00

My opinion on SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: Based on what I've read (a lot) and what I understand about judges (not so much), I do not ~~think~~ believe that she would be a good addition to the supreme court. In fact, I believe she would be very detrimental. (I struck out "think" because I don't know or understand enough to have anything but a rudimentary opinion).

All that said, I do not consider her to be an "enemy." I have nothing but the best wishes for her health.

We have a president elect

2008-11-05T01:13:00.003-07:00

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama.

I sincerely hope that he turns out to be the best president the United States has ever seen.

I don't expect it to happen, though.

I will support him on issues where we agree, and oppose him where we disagree. Since I am just a minor political malcontent from Utah, that end up to be very little support or opposition that I can give.

Obama is...

2008-08-03T19:57:00.002-06:00

Obama is, according to his own speech, black!!!!
So what?
I have no doubt that there are people out there that will hold that against him. In fact, last night I was at a friends house where a "friend of a friend" declared that a mixed color couple is "disgusting!" I asked him why - he had no answer.
Fortunately, I don't think he actually votes.
I believe I am speaking for the vast (90%+) majority of Americans when I say, with regards to race, "I don't care."
I don't care that Barack Obama is black (and white, and Arab). I don't care that Nancy Pelosi is white. I don't care that Jesse Jackson is black. I don't care that Al Frankin is white. I don't care that Al Sharpton is black.
You get the picture.
What I do care about is ideas, ideology, proposals, and actions. And when I look at the ideas of these people, I cringe. When I look at their ideologies, I wince. When I look at their proposals, I worry.
And when I look at their actions, I get confused. They say one thing - how people should behave, how people should act, how people should live, and yet they don't even try to live according to the rules they want the rest of us to live under.
I'm not talking about the "hypocrisy" of a chain smoker (or any other type of drug addict) who tells others not to smoke or do drugs. Those people are speaking from experience, saying, "look what it did to me!"
No - the hypocrisy of the "leaders" on the left (and, unfortunately, some on the right), seems to be saying that there are several sets of rules: one for the unwashed masses, and others for the "privileged few" at the top.
Race? Who cares. Religion? Ditto.
I do not judge them by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

And I find it wanting.

Why Term Limits are a Bad Idea

2008-05-04T00:48:00.003-06:00

At least on a local and state level. I don't know if my argument works on a national level.
Term Limits is an attempt to get rid of what many people call "professional politicians" or "political careerism". In reality, as long as people believe that someone is doing a good job, they typically don't care how long that person is in office.
I am of the opinion that it isn't the political careers that people are opposed to, but the undue influence that special interest groups have on career politicians. And, of course, a "special interest" group is one that you don't agree with. Few people consider the Boy Scouts of America a special interest group, but even they have their own lobbyists.
So, how do we get rid of the special interest groups? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Kill all the lobbyists!"
But, that probably won't work. There are few times that an extreme reaction would ever work, and I can't think of any situations where they would.
So, what to do?
100% disclosure.
(Note: this is not my original idea, but I have added stuff to it. I originally heard it from my Congressman, Rob Bishop)
Remove campaign limits. Allow any citizen of the United States to give any amount of money to whomever they want. Just require ANY donation to be published online, in an easily searchable format, within 72 hours. Any corrections must be made within 7 days. No more of this quarterly filing BS. We have the technology, and it is actually pretty easy to use. In fact, I'll even write it! (another note: I am a software developer, and a good one at that)

"But that means people will be donating millions to a campaign!!!"

So? It gets done now. Soft money. Donating to a candidate directly, the county party, the state party, political action committees, special interest groups, 527 groups, "get out the vote", and more. It adds up. The only thing is, it's extremely difficult to determine who is funding whom.

Bill Gates has a lot of money. Billions. So does Warren Buffet. Soros. And many, many others. You like them? Dislike them? Fine. Either way, it would be easy to see who gave what money to whom. Don't like the fact that the NRA gave money to a candidate? Don't vote for them. Don't like the NEA? Find out who got their money, and vote against them.

Many years ago in a computer magazine, Penn Jillette had a column. A particular column that I remember (actually, the only one I remember - it's been 25 years) dealt with censorship. To paraphrase, "The best way to deal with words that you don't like isn't with censorship, it is with MORE WORDS!!!!"

More rules will not make politicians and their campaigns more honest. They will simply hire more consultants to figure out ways of hiding and moving money. We don't need more rules - we need more exposure.

And if it is one thing less than honorable politicians hate, is exposing themselves.

Demogogery - I'm going to fight

2007-09-29T23:34:00.000-06:00

I am sick and tired of reading phrases like "Republicans always..." or "Democrats always..."

Demogogery is killing our country.

There is nothing wrong in supporting your preferred political party, or standing by and supporting members of it, but we go too far.

Representative Jackson, from Louisiana, caught with $90,000 wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer. He was removed from various committee positions in congress. My question - why is he even IN congress? I know, innocent until proven guilty, but members of congress are supposed to know better.

Senator Craig, from Idaho. Ok, he's a creep, and possibly a closet homosexual, and it was a "sting" operation, etc, etc. But, he is a Senator!!!!! His actions AFTER his arrest, and how he handled it were juvinile. I would expect such behavior from a 19 year old who didn't have a clue about the legal system, but a senator??

And to all of you who "stand by" your man - stop it already. Hold them to higher standards than "normal" society. Actually, if we held our government "leaders" to the same standards that we have for other people in our neighborhoods, I doubt many would ever be re-elected.

Laugh out lout.

2007-05-28T12:59:00.000-06:00

http://moralauthority.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/the-first-time-in-history-that/

Talked my client out of hiring me

2007-05-25T11:29:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I finished a contract job. I spent a total of 11.5 hours working for them. The contracting agency gets a bit over half, but for a short job, that's fine.

I had the opportunity to have the contract extended - perhaps as long as a month, maybe even more. But, they asked for my "expert" opinion, and I told them: you can't do what you want to do the way you want to do it. Basically, because of some tools that they must use, they would have to take their current system (technology which I am very familiar with) and replace it with a new one based on another technology, which I am only slightly familiar with. I told them that although I could help with the new system, their money was better spent on other consultants who knew more.

That's the way it should work, isn't it?

Too many soldiers dying in Iraq = racism?

2007-05-25T11:21:00.000-06:00

I had a thought a while ago. There are a number of people that want the United States to pull out of Iraq because, "X amount of soldiers have died! That's too many!"
Now, as far as I understand it, most "experts" in the Middle East believe that Iraq will implode into a horrendous civil war if the U.S. pulls out. More people would die than if we stayed. The detractors have responded, "but they aren't American soldiers!"
Aren't they implying that thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are "worth" less than a few thousand American troops? That is something that can be inferred easily enough.

I'm not going to call any of those people racists. I seriously doubt that they ever thought of things this way. They are just people that think that a war is the worst possible thing imaginable, and it must be avoided at all costs.

Another dry spell

2007-04-21T16:45:00.000-06:00

I've got to stop not doing this.

That's a difficult sentence to parse :)

So many things going on. Murderous rampages, news "alerts" every 15 minutes with discussions including "experts" on murderous rampagers, junk science, junk sociology, witch hunts with federal appointees, senate leaders surrendering our "war" on terror, convictions of high powered white collar criminals, and more.

I can remember back in the "good ol' days" whan I was a child. We didn't worry about those things, but then again, children never do :) Our parents only had to worry about inflation, junk science, junk sociology, Vietnam vets going on murderous rampages, big businesses being broken apart because of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, and more.

More of the same.

New year, new....

2007-02-01T22:49:00.000-07:00

Well, it's not new.

I can't believe the rhetoric that is in politics today. Not just the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party, the press, foreign governments, etc.

For example, there are a number of Senators from both parties that, just a few months ago, said that we need more troops in Iraq. Ok, the President wants to send more troops. Now these Senators are against it!

So, what has changed in these few months?

I am of the following opinions based on the following facts:

Fact: The President is increasing the number of troops. If I recall correctly, it is an increase of 21,500
Fact: Senators who were for a troop increase are now against it.
Opinion: The Senators of the Democratic Party who switched have done so because:
3a) the election is now over
3b) they have a very slim majority in the Senate
3c) the Democratic Party seems to be the "anti-war" party (with some exceptions, as with any generalization).
Opinion: The Senators of the Republican Party who switched have done so because:
4a) the election is now over
4b) the Democratic Party has a very slim majority in the Senate
4c) they are distancing themselves from the President because of popularity polls, which show support for the President and the war in Iraq to be in the basement.

Rhetoric. All rhetoric.

And trying to look good on TV, of course.

Gerald Ford (1913-2006)

2006-12-28T15:49:00.000-07:00

God speed, Mr. President, and God bless.

Freedoms

2006-12-20T21:07:00.000-07:00

We have, in the American Constitution, various guaranteed freedoms. Two of which are freedom of speech and freedom of association. At least that's how the Supreme Court has decided.

Of course, in the real world, we have people like this: Congressman (R) Virgil Goode.

There are a lot of people clamoring for apologies or his dismissal. As far as I understand, he hasn't broken any laws, so calls for his dismissal are inappropriate. As far as wanting an apology, why? Will an apology make his beliefs change?

As far as I'm concerned, if you want change, elect someone else in 2 years.

Until then, he is free to say almost anything (there are SOME limits) and associate with anyone (again - some limits) that he wishes.

Even if what he says is idiotic and the people he hangs out with are near sighted, bigoted, micro-cephalic neanderthals who have just recently discovered apposable thumbs, and then promptly stuck these new thumbs where the sun don't shine.

Responsibility

2006-12-06T23:12:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Terry Pratchett's new Discworld book, Wintersmith. Ok, I started at dinner, but I tend to read quickly. After finishing, I had a thought, then expanded:

You choose.
Either by action or inaction,
with thought, forethought, or instinct.
Or without.
It might not even be entirely your fault.
But, you are responsible.

I like this one.

IM with my friend Mark

2006-12-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

Argh! Too long again!

I've just completed an IM session with a friend from high school. He's in the military in another country (not Iraq or Afghanistan) and has some interesting things to say about Iraq.

First, I want to say I am proud to see how he turned out, and honored to have him as a friend. He's gone through Airborne training and been in the special forces.

He is not thrilled with President Bush and his Iraq policy. However, he said, "Be we [the Army] are soldiers, and we will do what we are ordered to."

But, he went on to say that they are not fighting a standing army. His implication, and I stated it for him, was that they were fighting in Iraq as if they were up against a normal standing army.

"It is a police action. Use the FBI or the CIA."

We are going to be in Iraq for 30 years. That's how long it will take to re-educate the people. Then, we can sit back and watch them "conquer" the reqion with ideas and economics. It worked in Japan.

We need to stop using our troops as police officers. They do not have the training, equipment, or temperment. Our troops are trained to find the enemy and kill them.

Let them do what they are trained for. Let the CIA, FBI, special forces, etc., do all of the intelligence work they are capable of doing.

I think we should stay in Iraq and make good on our promises. I just don't like the way we are doing it.

So, who decides?

2006-11-23T23:39:00.000-07:00

I just caught a short glimps of a re-run of "Designing Women." In it, a news stand just up the street started selling pornographic materials. They had a large poster of a woman in leather and chains as an advertisement. The leader of "Designing Women" took offense and ran over it with her car. Once the newstand owner realized this, he asked, "Who made you the decider of what is inappropriate?" (or something like that).
I though of a response: "The same power that made you the decider of what is appropriate."
So, if someone decides that it is appropriate to display something in my face, such as burning the flag, pornography, or something else that I do not wish to have forced on me, shouldn't I be able to respond to that force? Also, with force?

Just a thought.

Too long - too much stuff

2006-11-10T22:53:00.000-07:00

I really should be posting at least twice a week. I'll do that, starting now.
The BIG news - Britney is divorcing Kevin!!!!

Oh what a wonderful world, if that were only so.

The scariest thing on my mind: Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Fortunately, even though they have a (bare) majority in the Senate, the Democrats need a few more votes to REALLY get anything done there. The Republicans had legislation held back because the Democrats didn't like it, now they can (hopefully) prevent too much damage from being done.

So, looking at the election results, I can make the following claims:
1) Most people see no REAL difference between the parties
2) Most of the differences are on topics that few people care about
3) People are disappointed

Mainly, it's the third item, combined with the first. When the Republicans took "control" of the Congress, people expected changes to be made. They weren't. Republicans had 12 years, and no real changes were made. Like most people, I want to know, "Why?" Here are some excuses:
1) The Democrats threatened to filibuster
2) We didn't have enough votes for a super majority
3) We were all watching the results of the Britney Spears / Keven Federline stuff.

Ok, so I made that last one up.
So what if they threatened to filibuster? Let them. Oh - wait. You all go home at 5pm and continue in the morning. But, why couldn't they extend the session? Let it continue (i.e. don't close) until the Senators of the Democratic Party that were "toeing the party line" got fed up and allowed a vote? I know that Congress is the most prestigious debating society in the world, but when I took a debate (and I admit that it was "only" a high school class), putting my hands over my ears and loudly proclaiming, "I can't hear you! Na Na Na!" wasn't among the approved debating methods.
Change is coming. Finally. The Republican leadership finally pulled their collective heads out of... the sand.

I hope.

Prosecute criminals, FIGHT a war!

2006-09-10T22:23:00.000-06:00

This is what I've been talking about!!!!

"Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," [Senator] Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."

We are fighting a war. We need to KILL the enemy, not arrest them.

Omnibus bills are BAD

2006-09-06T21:05:00.000-06:00

Bad as in not good, irresponsible, bloated, over written, under powered. And sometimes bad as in evil.

Our legislators like to present these bills as complete solutions to the entire problem. It doesn't work that way.

Our problems have been getting worse and worse as time goes on. They usually don't require national legislative input until a lot of other things have been tried. Omnibus bills attempt to destroy a mountain with a really big cannon.

What we need instead is to do one of two things: rewrite the entire system, or pass a bunch of little bills that make some adjustments.

Let's take Social Security as an example. Two of the ideas that I like are simple tweaks to the system.

Allow people to not receive checks if they don't need them. I'm fairly sure that Warren Buffet doesn't need his Social Security checks. By allowing the richest people to opt out of receiving checks, that frees up a little bit.

Raise the maximum amount. Right now, you only pay Social Security taxes on the first $94,200 (link) - why is that? Why not raise it to $250,000?

These two items might only save 1% each. But, they are small, simple to execute, and easy to debate and pass in Congress.

We get these 2 items, and add another 8 items, then we just increased the social security system by 10%.

Here's another one: Every 3 months, raise the retirement age by 1 month. Do this until the retirement age is 2 years below the average lifespan in this country. It would take time, and people would get their benefits later, but people ar living longer and they are working longer. I've noticed that many elderly (like my parents) want to keep working.

Are these three ideas complete solutions? Of course not. They are tweaks to the system, and they are small and easily digested by people. Lots of changes in a short amount of time scare people and businesses.

These solutions would help a little, and every little bit counts.

I gots a question!

2006-08-31T11:55:00.000-06:00

For Secretary Rumsfeld:

Why are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan acting as police officers?

The main job of the U.S. Military is to look imposing so they don't have to be used. When they are used, their job is to kill people and break things.

So, why are our soldiers acting as police officers and trying to arrest insurgents and terrorists? Shouldn't they be shooting the bastards first?

I know that there is intelligence to be gathered, but the type of "human" debris that go up against our soldiers don't have that information. The intelligence agencies and the Special Forces do a lot of undercover work - they can get the information we need.

But the general troops? Making them into cops just gets them killed.

It was just a toothache!

2006-08-13T22:00:00.000-06:00

A few days after my last post, I developed a toothache in a tooth that I had a root canal done two years ago.

Then it got worse. The toothache was an infection.

I had the tooth pulled on the 25th of July.

Then it got worse. The toothache infection became systemic.

On the 29th, I went into the emergency room at 11pm.

After transferring hospitals on the 30th, I had surgery. I woke up with a breathing tube stuck up my nose and lots of tubes running into my veins delivering such things as morphine for the pain and antibiotics.

The sad part is that morphone doesn't seem to work on me. Fortunately for me, there are other pain killers, and they work fine. Lortab doesn't work either, but Percocet does.

Anyway, I got out of the hospital on the 3rd. Since I have no insurance, I have no idea how I am going to pay for everything.

The good news is that except for some ugly scars on the bottom of my chin, I'm going to be fine.

Expectations of Elected Officials

2006-07-17T00:55:00.000-06:00

Haven't posted in a while. I wanted to post at least 3 times per week. Hmm...

On an email list I read, there was a post about Senator Hatch (Utah) taking donations from companies that sell alcohol, tobacco, and do gambling. The poster was saying that Senator Hatch, being LDS, shouldn't take donations from such groups, since the use of their products and services are prohibited by his religion.

That leads me to this posts topic:

When someone is elected, what can / should be expected based on various group membership? (Political party, religious affiliation, etc.)

Political party should, in my opinion, be the biggest contributor to expected behavior / votes. I expect most people to agree with me there.

But the next one, Religious affiliation, is a biggie. Tobacco and alcohol consumption are legal in Utah (with restrictions). Gambling isn't (Utah is one of two states that doesn't even have a lottery). I can see complaints about an elected official receiving money from organizations that sell products or provide services that are illegal in the area that they represent. So, I would expect some sort of chastisement for any elected official in Utah for receiving money from companies that do gambling. Now, if it were an organization that were trying to get legislation passed to allow a lottery, that would be different.

But what about alcohol and tobacco? Senator Hatch, and all other elected officials for that matter, took an oath to represent the people of Utah. Not all people in Utah are LDS. Even if it were, we are a Representative Democracy, not any sort of Theocracy (although there is some argument about us being an Oligarchy, but that is another post). The oath was to follow the law. Since tobacco and alcohol are legal in Utah, there should be no problem with him accepting the money.

But, I would expect that an upstanding member of the LDS Church to do what he could to follow the tenets of his church. Accepting the money from organizations that promote things that are proscribed by his church looks wrong to me. It seems that he is breaking some sort of oath or promise or something. I don't want any elected official to propose legislation that promotes the tenets of their religion just to further their religion, but I wouldn't expect them to be some sort of booster for organizations that go against their religion. This is what it looks like Senator Hatch is doing.

It comes down to this (paraphrased from a plaque in my In-Laws house): If you believe what you believe, why do you do what you do?

So, is there anything legally wrong with Senator Hatch accepting the money? No. But, because of his religious beliefs, I would expect him to reject the donation.

It's not enough to want to replace him as a Senator, but, along with other issues I have with him...

Calling to be saved

2006-07-01T19:05:00.000-06:00

An old joke:

An old and pious woman is on her rooftop during a flood, waiting to be rescued. First, an old man in a canoe comes by and offers to help. She says, "No thank you. God will save me."
Later, a boat comes by and offers help. She says, "No thank you. God will save me."
Later still, a helicopter flies over and offers help. She says, "No thank you. God will save me."
Unfortunately, she dies shortly after that.
At the Pearly Gates she confronts St. Peter. "Why didn't God save me?" she asks.
"Well, according to my records, we sent a canoe, a boat and a helicopter."

People have called out to be saved for a long time. From oppression. From sickness. From Evil. From hunger. From many things that they perceive as wrongs.

Perhaps God has answered. Not in physically relieving suffering, though, but in letting us know how to be saved. Through the teachings of His Prophets and philosophers.

A quick search of my memory and the internet gives me a list: Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tse, Zoroaster, and Mahaveera. They, and many others, have promoted ideas and ways for salvation, and there may be more than one, since we have so many to choose from.

I believe that God has already answered our prayers for salvation. We just need to heed the teachings and warnings.

Of course, living according to any of these teachings is difficult. No one said that salvation would be easy, and I expect that it is a difficult task.

But then again, aren't all worthwhile goals supposed to be difficult? We just need to work hard, move forward, and prove that we are willing to sacrifice for a greater goal.

The world is a terrible place

2006-06-30T21:13:00.000-06:00

It always has been, and always will be.

Things were different when I was younger.

It always has been, and always will be.

But, I think the alternative is worse :)

The country is changing. Things are different. Some things are better, some are worse.

But, we are civilized people, in most places around the world. We want the world to be better, and in many ways, it is.

We have our ideals - these lofty goals of how things should be. And we mostly work towards these goals.

The problem is that we don't always live up to our ideal. We don't always reach these lofty goals.

Scratch that. The problem isn't that we don't succeed, the problem is that too many people decide to either quit, which is bad enough, or they decide to lower the goals, which is far worse.

The world will be a much better place if we set high and lofty goals, make real attempts to reach them, and fail than if we set low goals and succeed.

It's the Devil, I tell ya! The Devil!

2006-06-27T13:37:00.000-06:00

I guess one of the unwritten rules of running for public office is, "don't say anything that makes you sound like a nut."

But hey, were human, and we all sound like nuts eventually.

I got a chuckle when I read the story from the 3rd Congressional District about John Jacobs comment.

If I were in the 3rd district, I'd still vote for him.

There is evil and good in the world. Certainly there is a lot of grey area that is open for debate, but there are some things that are just good, and others that are just evil.

An example of good would be Mother Theresa. She showed us one of the potentials of humanity. Personally, there is no way I can reach her levels, but I can still see it as a potential goal for me.

Then there is evil. The torturing of soldiers before killing them is one example. Abusing children. Talking on cell phones during a movie.

Ok, perhaps the third one is open to some debate.

I do not know if there is a personal embodiment of evil out there. If there is, I hope the counterpart is alive and well. Recognizing that evil exists is one of the requirements of civilization. Identifying evil things and saying, "this is the line which we will not cross," is what separates us from... well, I don't know what it separates us from, but I don't want to be one of them, whatever they are.

There are people that do evil, and some of them can be rehabilitated. Others must be removed from our society. We have laws and police and ourselves as tools that can identify and deal with these people.

The really scary ones are the people who do not see that evil and good exists. Everything is dependent on a, "certain point of view." For them, by taking the correct point of view, anything - including the most vile and disgusting acts - can be justified and even accepted. These chameleons are difficult to spot because they can "justify" their actions.

They cannot be rehabilitated - at least not many can. They can only be removed from out society. The problem is, how do we find them?

Wish I had a name like that!

2006-06-24T00:02:00.000-06:00

If I lived in Weber County, I would consider voting for her just because of the cool name.

Jan Zogmaister

Charity

2006-06-22T13:29:00.000-06:00

Here in Utah there has been a mild uproar about the state legislature and how they declined funding for low income people for dentistry for a "paltry" 2 million dollars, and yet they approved a 15 million dollar parking garage.

Americans are a charitable people. Actually, I think all human kind is. In particular, Americans contributed $241 Billion in 2003. That's a lot of money.

My question is this: why is government responsible for charity? I don't have any issues with the idea of the government helping out in natural disasters, but does the government have the responsibility to help in day-to-day charities?

I wonder how much of federal and state budgets deal with charities.

And should they?

Farmers mess up illegal immigration!

2006-06-20T11:16:00.000-06:00

Well, not the farmers themselves, of course.

I had an interesting and very educational discussion with a friend this last weekend about the illegal immigration issue. He asked me a simple question, "What about the farmers?"

He wasn't talking about the low wage jobs that "no American wants." He was talking about the economics of farming.

As an independent software developer, I can raise and lower my rates whenever I want. Construction companies can do the same. In fact, most businesses can do that. The consumer market is such that some clients might go somewhere else, others (most) will pay the higher fees to stay with the company they are used to. Understandable, really.

But then, we get to the farmers. Or more generally, producers of raw materials such as mineral ore (mining), food and livestock (farming and ranching), and timber (which is more like farming every day) to just name a few.

These businesses can't set their own prices. The prices are what they are on the day they sell them. The products are sold on the commodities markets, and therin lies the problem.

Farmers can't organize to raise prices. This has been tried in Utah and Arizona (and probably other places), and the buyers simply bought from other states. Since the commodities markets are becoming more and more international, not even countries can try to set prices.

So, the farmers can only do one thing to increase profits - lower their cost of production. And to do that, there is only one option: wages.

Of course, we could subsidize the farmers, but that is the last solution I want.

Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how to fix this - yet. It seems that farmers (and other commodity producers) require exceptions that other business don't need.

Any ideas?

Sneakers!

2006-06-16T13:17:00.000-06:00

Ok, I'll admit it. I'm cheap.

I don't like to spend much money on sneakers. In fact, $29.95 is about as high as I am comfortable with.

Way back when, in the dark days of yore, when I was in college, I decided to splurge and spend about $80 on a pair of sneakers. I figured that they were "one of the best brands" and at that price, they would last a while.

At that time I was very physically fit. I worked out with weights at least 7 times a week, I took aerobics in the evening, and I was on the JV cheerleading squad, so I was pretty rough on shoes. My normal "cheap" $19.95 shoes would last me about 2 months.

The new shoes? Three months.

Since then, I've never bothered with the expensive name brands. I could buy cheap sneakers 4 or 6 times a year and still outlast 2 pairs of the expensive ones.

Today, I was trying to find what I call "hiking sneakers". Inexpensive, with some ankle support. 2 stores, and none of them had the right kinds in the size I wear. Who's responsible for that?

So, for my scouting trip this weekend, I'll be wearing my normal sneakers, with no ankle support.

Maybe I should find a good pair of shoes and then buy 5 or 6 sets of them and rotate them. Maybe they would last longer.

It'll definitely be cheaper.

I voted today

2006-06-14T16:52:00.000-06:00

Fairly easy. I want to follow the old Chicago Democrat mantra - Vote early, and vote often.

Actually, we have early voting set up with the new electronic voting machines.

First, I was required to supply a picture ID card. Great idea, I said. Does this mean we will require ID cards for all voters? No, just for the early voters.

Well, it's a start.

The machines were laid out in a large room where the voting judges could see everything. If I were inclined to, I would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tamper with the machines without someone noticing.

So, that went well. I cast my 3 votes (Sheriff, County Commissioner, and School Bond), and that was it.

Now, if only I could trust them to count the votes correctly.

Bitching about the MSM

2006-06-11T20:16:00.000-06:00

MSM is a secret code word that bloggers use to indicate the mainstream media. It shows that we are, "In the know".

I have heard many conservative fold complain about the mainstream media. I've done it myself. But few people are doing anything about it.

People ask, "but what can be done?"

Well, go to other sources for your news. There are hundreds, if not thousands of sites on the internet that report news from all over the political spectrum on all sorts of topics. Go to them. Read the ones you like. Personally, I'm partial to the more conservative ones.

And now, the secret:
BUY PRODUCTS that are advertised on those sites!!

The reason that Fox / CNN / ABC / CBS / NBC / PBS / whoever can give whatever slant to the news they want is because of advertisers. Advertisers pay the salaries of all of those reporters, editors, copyrighters, writers, etc, etc, etc.

The news sources that you like will become more capable if you buy products that are advertised on those sites. The sites can show that advertising there works, and can increase prices, making more profit, and reporting more news the way you want.

Simple, really.

al-Zarqawi is dead

2006-06-08T08:11:00.000-06:00

Score one for the good guys.

For those people who complain about the methods and techniques used to kill terrorists, claiming that we violate the Geneva Conventions and other treaties, I have a little news for you:

Terrorists do not qualify for treatment under the Geneva Convention!

To claim coverage, you must follow certain rules, including:

"the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war).

The terrorists are not prisoners of war, they are criminals and monsters. As such, they do not qualify for - nor deserve - the humane treatment reserved for real prisoners of war.

Net Neutrality

2006-06-06T13:49:00.000-06:00

There is some big hoopla about the concept of net neutrality.

Why?

It seems that there are sume network providers that want to create a "fast lane" for the internet. Downloads will be faster, videos can be played, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, they will charge for it.

And the problem is???

"But then the poor people won't have the high speed stuff..."

So what? The "poor" have always bought / received things that were less than "top of the line." The people who can afford it buy the best automobiles, the best houses, the best seats in an airplane. Knowing that more money can do that is a great incentive. I hope to do that myself, until then, I drive a Saturn (great cars), have a very modest house, and fly coach.

Why should the internet be different? No one is being denied access - that would be wrong, but the people with the extra cash can get faster transfers.

That's the way it is in a capitalist type society - you want more / better? Prepare to fork over more.

Ishaqi Raid Probe

2006-06-02T15:19:00.000-06:00

Ok, the troops were cleared. Great.

There are some important issues with the ALLEGATIONS of misconduct by the U.S. military pretty much anywhere in the world.

1) The accusations are taken seriously
2) The incidents are investigated
3) If the soldiers acted inappropriately, they are punished - even to the point of turning them over to civilian authorities for further punishment (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/01/japan.crime.ap/index.html).

So people like Representative Murtha (i.e. politicians) - shut up until the investigations are completed. They accusations might be true or not, the soldiers might have acted inappropriately, or not, but until the investigations are completed, give the accused the consideration of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty." After all, you demand the consideration of your own like Representative William Jefferson (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/22/210853.shtml?s=lh) - even though the FBI has video.

6th grade graduations

2006-06-02T15:01:00.000-06:00

I just got back from my sons 6th grade graduation a little while ago.

I don't remember ever having one, it's something new. It was interesting, though. The worst part was the metal folding chairs and lack of air conditioning in the auditorium.

Making money with blogs

2006-06-01T14:02:00.000-06:00

Interesting. People will buy just about anything, these days. I just signed up for the AdSense, and since I have sooooo many readers, I guess I can retire now and live off of my opinions, thoughts, and observations.

Nah!

First post

2006-06-01T13:51:00.000-06:00

Ok, my first post.

If you are reading this, you either need to get a real life, or you are WAY ahead of the curve.

Things I'll blog about:
* Technology
* Software development
* Politics
  * World
  * U.S.
  * Even Utah
* Life in general
* Just about any other thing that pops into my mind.

You are free do disagree, but any followups should be respectful and thoughtful. Otherwize, don't waste the time - mine, yours, or anyone else who happens to wander across this stuff.