This is a reaction to the reactions I've witnessed today on facebook and other social media outlets. You know the, the Martin Luther King quotes about fighting darkness with darkness, or why are people celebrating a murder or killing of another human etc, etc.
There's a lot of stuff that is either depressing or negative about America right now. A lot of things to be pessimistic about: we've got out of control debt, a polarized political environment fueled by extreme opinions and damn near class warfare, a few expensive and confusing wars on our hands, a recession, pending inflation, the list goes on and on. Maybe it's a little twisted, but I think its ok to feel good about the US finally getting OBL. It's something we can unite around. However, creepy and twisted you might think that is, I'm ok with it.
Symbolically, it says don't screw with us. That's how this whole mess started anyway. One of the main reason OBL was able to rally support was because of the perceived weakness of the US in Somalia. There have been failed terrorists attacks, but never justice. There hasn't been any justice regarding the banking fiasco, I'm still waiting for that. This is one thing we can all look at and say, we got it done. Maybe it took 10 years and cost a bazillion dollars, but hey... (damn it, I think you debbie downers already go to me)
Now I don't know if this will change anything, maybe it won't, but I'm not going to feel bad about it. It's a testament to the elite forces, and a new way of doing business, that doesn't involved nation building or costly invasions. It's about getting a job done, closure, and feeling united. Those are things I can get behind.
For you conspiracy theorists out there who think OBL was already dead, or is being kept alive, or whatever. I'm ignoring you, so you don't mess with my feel good moment. I'm pretty happy with the thought that we got him, and how we did it. Didn't ask for permission from Pakistan, didn't go through some lengthy and annoying trial, just quick and dirty. I like believing that. So I choose to believe it for now.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
The rich don't have enough money to fix the deficit problem
I just did a little math to illustrate this point. If you look at the top 1% earners in the US. They make on average $1,117,000. Now the population of the US is 311,191,103. I figure maybe only half of those people work, that is probably a super aggressive assumption, in reality its probably much lower. But for the sake of this argument, lets assume (311,191,103/2) * .01 * 1,117,000. This number is $1,738,002,310,255. This is the total income per year by the top 1% earners in the US. Right now they pay a 38% tax rate. If you charged them 100% rate, (cause screw them, those greedy bastards!) the government could take in $1,738,002,310,255 which is $1,077,561,430,000 more revenue.
In 2010 the budget deficit is estimated to be 1.29 trillion. So there is still a 212 billion dollar problem here.
Not even getting into any of the moral issues about how taxing someone 100% is wrong (obviously that revenue would dry up pretty fast as people leave the country), or anything emotional about how the rich should pay more. You can see that the numbers don't add up, and what we have here is fundamentally a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Now we can get into all sorts of debates about where we should cut spending as I'm sure we will be in the next few months. But can we all just agree that its a spending problem, the facts are pretty obvious.
Interesting read on how California got into trouble by relying on taxing the rich too much,
The Price of Taxing the Rich . In a nutshell they are not a consistent revenue stream, especially during recessions.
In 2010 the budget deficit is estimated to be 1.29 trillion. So there is still a 212 billion dollar problem here.
Not even getting into any of the moral issues about how taxing someone 100% is wrong (obviously that revenue would dry up pretty fast as people leave the country), or anything emotional about how the rich should pay more. You can see that the numbers don't add up, and what we have here is fundamentally a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Now we can get into all sorts of debates about where we should cut spending as I'm sure we will be in the next few months. But can we all just agree that its a spending problem, the facts are pretty obvious.
Interesting read on how California got into trouble by relying on taxing the rich too much,
The Price of Taxing the Rich . In a nutshell they are not a consistent revenue stream, especially during recessions.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
It's not about the money
I'm so sick of people blaming America's education performance on lack of money. That is such a bunch of crap. Sure America might not score well worldwide in all sorts of metrics. But it has nothing to do with money. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the only two countries that spend more per student that the United States are Switzerland and Austria. We spend more per student than: Norway, Denmark,France,Italy,Germany,Japan,Australia, and Sweden. Go look at the test scores in those countries, might make you think a little. Read more here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
Another fun exercise is looking at how much states spend per student and average SAT scores. For example, New York ranks 49th in average SAT score of 996.00 while spending $13,703.00/studnet, and New Jersey 50th (1005) while spenging $14,117.00. Utah is number one with an average score of 1114 while spending only $5,216. Check it out yourself here: http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/spent-student-and-sat-scores. It's almost a negative corelation.
So stop complaining about education cuts, we spend too much money on education already. Maybe some cuts will actually force people to address the real problems.
References
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051700035.html
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section4/indicator38.asp
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
Another fun exercise is looking at how much states spend per student and average SAT scores. For example, New York ranks 49th in average SAT score of 996.00 while spending $13,703.00/studnet, and New Jersey 50th (1005) while spenging $14,117.00. Utah is number one with an average score of 1114 while spending only $5,216. Check it out yourself here: http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/spent-student-and-sat-scores. It's almost a negative corelation.
So stop complaining about education cuts, we spend too much money on education already. Maybe some cuts will actually force people to address the real problems.
References
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051700035.html
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section4/indicator38.asp
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
Monday, February 14, 2011
Live and let live
Ok, this has come up a few times in the past week for me. You can exhibit tolerance while still professing to your own opinions. For some reason in this culture people seem to think tolerance means not speaking your own mind, but I completely disagree with that. You can be permissive and objective about another person beliefs without having to completely bite your tongue, and pretend you agree with them. Tolerance is not the same thing as being supportive or enabling. I think sometimes people get those confused.
Tolerance means I believe want I want, and I'm free to talk about it, and likewise. If you believe in bearded sandal wearing ghosts, and sometimes eat their flesh and drink their blood, hey that's your thing. But I'm not really talking about religion here. In reality, the intolerant people are the people who profess a religion of tolerance. You know who I'm talking about. Let me take you back..
In the winter of 1992, somewhere in western Massachusetts, I was attending a Phish concert. Don't laugh, Phish was cool back then. Anyway, a bunch of my friends and I decided to start something of a mosh pit in an isolated part of the audience, or maybe it was right up front, can't remember. On occasion, our isolated mosh pit had a tendency to knock into a hippie dancer, or musical audit trail junkie (those guys writing down the set list). I remember one particular fellow of the latter persuasion, who responded in a near violent and aggressive way over being slightly touched by our activities. He sorta went from passive non verbal documenting drone, into crazed Charlie Manson type hippie. It was a very profound moment for me, because I kept thinking aren't these hippie's supposed to be about tolerance. But really, it was a new set of rules. A new culture with a whole new prescription for what and wasn't appropriate. Albeit very different from the main culture, in a way, not so different.
It was at that moment, I stopped judging people by their hair, or clothes, or musical tastes, or whatever. Tolerance is not about me subscribing to your thing, nor is it about you subscribing to mine. Look we are always going to bump into each other a little. When we co-exist the mosh pit might extend itself out a little too far. It happens. In one regard its a chance to go, hey the mosh pit thing looks kinda fun let me try it. Or maybe I tried it, ended up breaking my wrist last time, don't think it was so much fun. Or maybe, don't want to try it, seems too dangerous too me, but I respect the physical bonding aspect of it.
Now I never expected this poor guy that got bumped to participate in the mosh pit, or even be happy that we bumped into him. But it was pretty harmless, and we apologized right away. I was more expecting him to be like, no problem, dude, can you just do it over there a little. Or maybe if he had asked why we were doing that, I would have told him well, its a chance to grope chicks and have them squeeze your junk, and that would have completely changed his perspective on the whole thing.
For me, those little bumps are opportunity for learning.
For others, they want to bump you and expect you to just take it.
For example, sometimes people advertise their beliefs on social media and expect everyone to agree with them, and then get all salty if you don't. When I post something political on facebook, I fully expect to have to defend my point of view, but no one ever contradicts me, its not worth the trouble, they know what a hot head I am. For others who might post an occasional political diatribe, they never expect my discourse when I comment, and seem to get quite irritated and insulting about it. The real irony is when they go on about how they believe in tolerance. Because typically right away they made assumptions about my ideas, what I know, and don't know, and how I arrived at my conclusions. That doesn't sound like tolerance to me.
Rant complete nothing else to say.
Tolerance means I believe want I want, and I'm free to talk about it, and likewise. If you believe in bearded sandal wearing ghosts, and sometimes eat their flesh and drink their blood, hey that's your thing. But I'm not really talking about religion here. In reality, the intolerant people are the people who profess a religion of tolerance. You know who I'm talking about. Let me take you back..
In the winter of 1992, somewhere in western Massachusetts, I was attending a Phish concert. Don't laugh, Phish was cool back then. Anyway, a bunch of my friends and I decided to start something of a mosh pit in an isolated part of the audience, or maybe it was right up front, can't remember. On occasion, our isolated mosh pit had a tendency to knock into a hippie dancer, or musical audit trail junkie (those guys writing down the set list). I remember one particular fellow of the latter persuasion, who responded in a near violent and aggressive way over being slightly touched by our activities. He sorta went from passive non verbal documenting drone, into crazed Charlie Manson type hippie. It was a very profound moment for me, because I kept thinking aren't these hippie's supposed to be about tolerance. But really, it was a new set of rules. A new culture with a whole new prescription for what and wasn't appropriate. Albeit very different from the main culture, in a way, not so different.
It was at that moment, I stopped judging people by their hair, or clothes, or musical tastes, or whatever. Tolerance is not about me subscribing to your thing, nor is it about you subscribing to mine. Look we are always going to bump into each other a little. When we co-exist the mosh pit might extend itself out a little too far. It happens. In one regard its a chance to go, hey the mosh pit thing looks kinda fun let me try it. Or maybe I tried it, ended up breaking my wrist last time, don't think it was so much fun. Or maybe, don't want to try it, seems too dangerous too me, but I respect the physical bonding aspect of it.
Now I never expected this poor guy that got bumped to participate in the mosh pit, or even be happy that we bumped into him. But it was pretty harmless, and we apologized right away. I was more expecting him to be like, no problem, dude, can you just do it over there a little. Or maybe if he had asked why we were doing that, I would have told him well, its a chance to grope chicks and have them squeeze your junk, and that would have completely changed his perspective on the whole thing.
For me, those little bumps are opportunity for learning.
For others, they want to bump you and expect you to just take it.
For example, sometimes people advertise their beliefs on social media and expect everyone to agree with them, and then get all salty if you don't. When I post something political on facebook, I fully expect to have to defend my point of view, but no one ever contradicts me, its not worth the trouble, they know what a hot head I am. For others who might post an occasional political diatribe, they never expect my discourse when I comment, and seem to get quite irritated and insulting about it. The real irony is when they go on about how they believe in tolerance. Because typically right away they made assumptions about my ideas, what I know, and don't know, and how I arrived at my conclusions. That doesn't sound like tolerance to me.
Rant complete nothing else to say.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Buy a bulldozer
This article by Glenn Greenwald, The Tea Party and civil liberties, got me thinking. For a long time I've been a supporter of third parties in America. From the Green party to the Libertarian party, I see a place in American politics for all of them. This article brings to light one of the fundamental benefits of having more players in the political landscape. By representing ourselves in smaller groups we are actually able to get more done. With two parties everything is black and white, on or off, 1 or zero. In the words of the so profound George W. Bush, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". It's no wonder there such a polarized political climate in this country right now. But you see when we add a third dimension things get interesting. By having more concentrations of power there is more opportunity for intersection, and ultimately majority consensus. Isn't that what democracy is about in the end?
You see I believe in a limited federal government in every way. That means taxing less, spending less, but also stay out of my house, my phone, my computer, my office, my mind, and my bedroom. In also means stay out of other countries.
So with those sorts of beliefs where do I go ? Really neither party is good at spending less, but probably one is better about taxing less. Neither party has a good track record on staying out of my personal business. They want to get involved one way or another. One party might be better at staying out of the bedroom. I'm pretty sure both of them want to get inside my head and re-program it. Neither party has any kind of track record on foreign policy. It's either help this guy or hurt that guy. See I don't want to do either. Don't want war, don't want nation building, don't want humanitarian whatever. Don't want to support democracy, don't want to destroy communism. You want to do some humanitarian stuff, go for it. Lots of private organizations are awesome at it. You want to destroy communism, write a book, start a talk radio show. Don't come to my house telling me about how I can live on a planet with my family and fairies when I die, and I won't tell you I think you are brainwashed by non-Pepsi-drinking, Pepsi-owning, pyramid scheming con artists. You want to nation build, buy a god damn bulldozer. But don't tell me what to do, and don't tax my ass to do it.
But I'm thinking with a few more parties, there might be some intersection of my crazy ideas with some crazy ideas from some other people. At the end of the day we might actually agree on a few things, and get some real stuff done. That is also why I support bills that are 10 pages or less. Because I think the less words there are, the more room for agreement. But I could be wrong about this.
Anyway, its interesting to see the Tea Party having a chance to bond with the Democrats. I think there is more opportunity for this. I think there are places I could bond with the Green party on things like limiting corporate power. Corporations are not freakin people, but somehow we've established that on our law books and that is just stupid.
You see if we try to isolate our beliefs one by one, separate them from our ideology and not worry about who we are talking to, and why they believe what they believe, we might all be able to start agreeing on things. We might get to the same place taking a different road, and that is totally ok, that is what democracy is all about. Come on people, you can do it.
You see I believe in a limited federal government in every way. That means taxing less, spending less, but also stay out of my house, my phone, my computer, my office, my mind, and my bedroom. In also means stay out of other countries.
So with those sorts of beliefs where do I go ? Really neither party is good at spending less, but probably one is better about taxing less. Neither party has a good track record on staying out of my personal business. They want to get involved one way or another. One party might be better at staying out of the bedroom. I'm pretty sure both of them want to get inside my head and re-program it. Neither party has any kind of track record on foreign policy. It's either help this guy or hurt that guy. See I don't want to do either. Don't want war, don't want nation building, don't want humanitarian whatever. Don't want to support democracy, don't want to destroy communism. You want to do some humanitarian stuff, go for it. Lots of private organizations are awesome at it. You want to destroy communism, write a book, start a talk radio show. Don't come to my house telling me about how I can live on a planet with my family and fairies when I die, and I won't tell you I think you are brainwashed by non-Pepsi-drinking, Pepsi-owning, pyramid scheming con artists. You want to nation build, buy a god damn bulldozer. But don't tell me what to do, and don't tax my ass to do it.
But I'm thinking with a few more parties, there might be some intersection of my crazy ideas with some crazy ideas from some other people. At the end of the day we might actually agree on a few things, and get some real stuff done. That is also why I support bills that are 10 pages or less. Because I think the less words there are, the more room for agreement. But I could be wrong about this.
Anyway, its interesting to see the Tea Party having a chance to bond with the Democrats. I think there is more opportunity for this. I think there are places I could bond with the Green party on things like limiting corporate power. Corporations are not freakin people, but somehow we've established that on our law books and that is just stupid.
You see if we try to isolate our beliefs one by one, separate them from our ideology and not worry about who we are talking to, and why they believe what they believe, we might all be able to start agreeing on things. We might get to the same place taking a different road, and that is totally ok, that is what democracy is all about. Come on people, you can do it.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Solution to Energy and Immigration Problems in US
Solution: annex Mexico. Think about it for awhile. Mexico is the number two supplier of oil to the US behind Canada. Annexing Mexico would change the trade balance in a big way, and give us some 20% of our daily oil supply.
But the real benefit it when it comes to Social Security. Right now, as we all know Social Security is in trouble. The fund is being drawn down and will evaporate sometime within the next 30 years, depending on who you ask and how they do the math. Social Security is a pay as you go system. Basically, the young people pay for the old people. The only way such a system can stay solvent, aside from having a large fund that is making interest, is to insure there are more people coming into the work force then going out. The growth rate in the US and the baby boomers of the past screwed this all up. The only real way to fix Social Security other than totally restructuring it or lower benefits, is to have a giant infusion of new payers. This is where Mexico comes in. Simple isn't it.
Now there are other benefits too like instead of a huge thousand mile border to worry about, we would have a really small one with Guatamala and Belize. The cost savings to border patrol and home land security would be amazing.
I don't think it would even have to be a violent sort of thing. At the rate Mexicans are pouring into this country, I think it would be as simple as just calling them up and working out a deal. That might go something like this:
"Hello Felipe? It's Barack. I was thinking things are getting pretty tough down there, life is probably getting you down, isn't it? I've got a deal for you. How about we give you a sweet position in the administration and you let us make Mexico the 51st state?"
Felipe, "Seriously, hombre? That sounds great. Can you send a few f16's in to take out the drug cartels, first, they are driving me nuts."
Obama, "no problem, consider it done."
Felip, "Lets make it happen."
Then any illegals Mexicans living in the US, simply prove they came from Mexico and they get full citizenship. We'd make that process really easy, because we want them paying income and payroll taxes as soon as possible.
It would take a giant spin campaign to not come across as US aggression, but someone like Obama could sort that out. I'm sure that wouldn't be too complicated to pull off.
But the real benefit it when it comes to Social Security. Right now, as we all know Social Security is in trouble. The fund is being drawn down and will evaporate sometime within the next 30 years, depending on who you ask and how they do the math. Social Security is a pay as you go system. Basically, the young people pay for the old people. The only way such a system can stay solvent, aside from having a large fund that is making interest, is to insure there are more people coming into the work force then going out. The growth rate in the US and the baby boomers of the past screwed this all up. The only real way to fix Social Security other than totally restructuring it or lower benefits, is to have a giant infusion of new payers. This is where Mexico comes in. Simple isn't it.
Now there are other benefits too like instead of a huge thousand mile border to worry about, we would have a really small one with Guatamala and Belize. The cost savings to border patrol and home land security would be amazing.
I don't think it would even have to be a violent sort of thing. At the rate Mexicans are pouring into this country, I think it would be as simple as just calling them up and working out a deal. That might go something like this:
"Hello Felipe? It's Barack. I was thinking things are getting pretty tough down there, life is probably getting you down, isn't it? I've got a deal for you. How about we give you a sweet position in the administration and you let us make Mexico the 51st state?"
Felipe, "Seriously, hombre? That sounds great. Can you send a few f16's in to take out the drug cartels, first, they are driving me nuts."
Obama, "no problem, consider it done."
Felip, "Lets make it happen."
Then any illegals Mexicans living in the US, simply prove they came from Mexico and they get full citizenship. We'd make that process really easy, because we want them paying income and payroll taxes as soon as possible.
It would take a giant spin campaign to not come across as US aggression, but someone like Obama could sort that out. I'm sure that wouldn't be too complicated to pull off.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)