DIDN'T QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD...

     Two Sundays ago I went gambling for the first time in my life. My cousin and his wife invited me to go to Atlantic City for the day. I took the night off work leading me to tell my coworkers that my gambling goal would be to win my lost wages. The trip down was disappointing in that it's very boring. I had no idea New Jersey has so many trees. The parkway is just an unbroken line of trees on one side and another unbroken line of trees on the other. It was only shortly before our destination that it opened up into what looked like salt marshes and a bay with electricity-generating giant windmills.

LINE OF THE DAY, part XL

from Fert Bert commenting on this article from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:

"If $15 an hour is better than $5, why isn't $1500/ hour better?"

I get so tired of that MORONIC ARGUMENT!

One:

There should be no "minimum wage". There should be an "exploitation wage"...a dollar amount where you flip from employing someone to exploiting them...what that amount is up for debate..$1 is definitely exploitation...$1500 is rightwingnut propaganda.

TWO:

"The primary concern of the employer is to make enough profit to stay in business."

YES

BUT

Should they be allowed to "maximize profit" by shifting a large chunk of the true cost of labor onto the backs of taxpayers?

Should businesses be allowed to use the welfare system to supplement wages and provide benefits like healthcare AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE?

Yes, yes, I know, eliminate the welfare system...if you can't see how that would work out, then you're hopeless and please don't bother replying to my post.

Oh, and yeah, welfare system is bloated, can definitely use some trimming, but never a total elimination; again if you can't see why, then don't bother posting.

     I like the idea of changing the relatively benign term "minimum wage" into the politically charged "exploitation wage". It would certainly make talking about it more fun. I'm also aware that the actual amount of wages is not nearly as important as how much those wages can buy. $50/hr. does one no good if a 12 oz. can of corn costs $11.95.

     I also feel there is merit to introducing morality into capitalism. The amoral system used now, profits/shareholder value above all has led us to the soulless economic world about us. If humans are supposed to behave ethically and morally, why not a business concern as well?
     And if it is not the place of business to provide a living wage, then it must be that of the government via a basic income guarantee. Perhaps that's where we are headed though for the life of me, I cannot imagine how such a system would pay for itself but it would take the concept of "minimum wage" off the table seeing as how if the American government provides a basic income guarantee, than a business may pay for labor whatever it is able to command even if it were only a few cents per hour.

     A different commenter also suggested that while he supports free trade, he believes such trade should be limited to countries playing by our labor rules. For those countries that do not, their products may still be imported into the United States, but with some "friction" in the form of tariffs.
      I also agree with that. Without such, dare I say "protectionism" via tariff, in place, one creates a "race to the bottom" mentality with business because a morally sound business will always be undercut by a morally unsound business who in turn will be undercut by a morally bankrupt business.
     There's no incentive to do the right thing if doing the wrong thing is also rewarded.

LOGICAL FALLACIES...

      While I see it most whenever the latest atrocity committed in the name of Islam is committed, the fact is, it could be applied to most anything. Inevitably in any such article you'll read a variant of:

Islam is a religion of peace, therefore the perpetrators of this latest crime are not real Muslims.

     What exactly does that mean? Isn't that true of everything after a fashion? It's a statement that looks logical but I'm certain contains a fallacy though for the life of me I don't know which one (or ones). I never took a logic class. I wish I had.

     It just seems like a statement to absolve a group from any and all responsibility like what you read on practically every vitamin bottle/health food container after beneficial claims are made. There's always that asterisk: THESE STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED BY THE FDA. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE.
     It's not that the claims are necessarily bullshit, it's just that no one has bothered to subject them to rigorous scientific scrutiny but the fact remains that statement can be made in small print on the backside of the package while the beneficial claims can be made boldly, front & center.

     It's like a purity test. Only 100% counts. Anything less and they're not a real or true X. I mean, would you still consider a person a vegan if they ate meat ignorantly served to them (so as to be polite/not waste food) or if they were to accidentally eat meat or put on a borrowed pair of leather shoes because their feet were sore? I would.
     It would seem strange and petty to strip someone of their title for committing an act of politeness or accidentally transgressing, no?

     Is Islam an inherently war-like religion? I don't know and I doubt it. Most people seem content to live their lives without bothering anybody or imposing upon them.
     If I had to guess, I would say Islam is more a convenient tool for terrorism than a cause of it. I mean, the Bible is full of heinous stories that I'm guessing people would rather ignore/forget (and certainly not act upon) in order to focus on the good stuff. It strikes me as no different than those would use immigrants or those not of their race as scapegoats for current problems rather to tackle those problems in earnest. It seems easier to gather people to your will in anger, envy, and violence than it does to bring people together for a common good. Humanity doesn't seem to like the idea of a rising tide lifting all boats. We appear to remain a selfish lot who would wish only for ourselves and our loyal group to be raised thusly, leaving the rest to suffer and believe in our hearts that they are inferior and deserving of their fate.
     You have a combination of shared religious identity and the cultural memory that your religion was once very powerful and commanding. What greater way to sway a disadvantaged group to your side is there than the promise of a return to "the good old days"?

     And that, is what I think is going on.

     Though I think those who proffer such statements of So&So is not a real X because of Y are just trying to rationalize, more to themselves than to others, that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark. They don't want to accept the possibility that people could be motivated to commit to heinous acts, violent acts, terroristic acts, etc. in the name of X group.

     I don't know what I'm trying to say so I'll end it here...

ADDENDUM (03/17/2015): I have recently been informed by Alias TBA that what I am thinking of is an informal fallacy called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy which appears to be part of a larger fallacy group called the Ad Hoc Hypothesis. Good to know :-)

DON'T DATE GUYS WITHOUT PETS...

     I've been off and (mostly) on dating sites since 2011. Since it takes me a while to even get a date, I go through a lot of profiles and start picking up on their nuances. One off-hand observation I've made was that a lot of women on Plenty of Fish were dog owners and I wondered if, in contradiction to the "Crazy Cat Lady Hypothesis", dog ownership meant a woman was more likely to be single.

     Now because I'm me, I wanted some numbers to back up my claim before making a silly status update on Facebook about it. Yes, I'm that weird. I will spend hours poring over random profiles of women for the sole purpose of making sure my bad jokes have at least some semi-solid backing to them.

     What I found surprised me. But first, while I'm having trouble pinning down exact numbers, The Humane Society of the United States says that 62% of American households have at least one pet (of any kind) and the American Veterinary Medical Association states 36.5% of U.S. households have dogs and 30.4% have cats. Since that combined total is greater than 62%, I'll take it there's some overlap there.

     My idea was to go through random public profiles of women (ones you can see without signing into Plenty of Fish and OKCupid) and see whether I would reach 100 dog owners or 100 cat owners first.

     It took a while, but after going through 313 female Plenty of Fish profiles, I got the following results:

Dog owners: 100

Cat owners: 45

Owned both: 12

Owned other kinds of pets: 12

Owned no pets: 144

     So dog owners reached 100 first, but as you can see, my off-hand observation was correct: there were more dog owners represented than cat owners and by a large margin too. The results should skew around 1/3 dog, 1/3 cat, and 1/3 no pets but dogs and petless are overrepresented by a lot.
     Continuing, I did the same thing for the men. Even though I'm prohibited from owning a pet in this apartment (much to my lonely chagrin), I counted myself as a cat owner because I would surely be one. I then continued with random male profiles with the object, like with the women, of reaching 100 dog or cat owners before quitting.

     However, I had to quit because petless men ridiculously outnumbered the pet owners. I quit searching after I hit 200 petless men. Of the 283 male profiles viewed, these were my results:

Dog owners: 47

Cat owners: 21

Owned both: 5

Owned other kinds of pets: 10

Owned no pets: 200

     So, despite the huge overrepresentation of petless men, dog owners still outnumbered cat owners by over 2 to 1.

     I then moved on to OKCupid to see what would come up. For both sexes, I reached the quit point of 200 petless. OKCupid users appear to be less likely overall to have pets. OKCupid also has an option for liking or disliking animals. For the sake of this experiment, I considered the liking/disliking of animals to be the same as having no pets. Personally I like dogs, but I really would never consider owning one (even though miniature dachshunds are freaking adorable...and cat-sized). No, the user had to actually HAVE a dog/cat for it to count.

     For women, I went through a total of 295 profiles and got the following results:

Dog owners: 59

Cat owners: 29

Owned both: 7

Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 200

    Again, besides the huge petless contingent, dogs ownership outnumbered cat ownership by just over 2 to 1.
    For men, I went though a total of 252 profiles and got these results:

Dog owners: 25

Cat owners: 19

Owned both: 4

Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 204

     Only on OKCupid did male pet ownership appear to correlate with national statistics though I wonder if it would've continued the patterns already shown had I pressed on to reach 100 dog or cat owners. I just was not interested in spending that many hours to get to that number.

My hasty conclusions?

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXIV

(from cspackler from this article)

"From Conservatives, all we hear is the constant bitching and crying about how all lazy people want is welfare and to loaf about like lumps of crap on the teat of society. These are people that are working full time and still getting the shaft. When we argue that people should have the dignity of a living wage to encourage more work- we get a resounding no. And why? Because it potentially compromises the profits of the largest corporation in the history of the world.

I have news for you Righties. There are a lot of Americans who are utterly incapable of delivering value in a knowledge based economy, and the number is increasing. This was cool when we had factories, but sadly, even the factories we still have need fewer, more computer literate workers.  So it seems to me that you have two choices: get comfortable with sharing a bit more of the wealth in the form of higher wages, or look forward to seeing them with burning torches at a gated community near you.

And finally, let me demystify this for everyone who believes in the myth of the infallible, omniscient CEO: there isn't anyone alive in business who is worth 500 or 1000X an average worker. No one."

     I tend to agree with this sentiment. I'm also one of those people who gets pissed off when some asinine commenter mentions things like "those jobs are ENTRY LEVEL: they're not meant to support families" or "if you don't like your job/pay, get a different one" or "start your own business" or my favorite of all, "go to college and get an education so you can land a better job".

     Each one of those is stupid and simplistic in its own way. Are there jobs out there which are entry level? Yes. Should they pay less than jobs which require a skill base? Also yes. However there are a couple of things wrong, or at least questions I have, with that sentiment.
     Are there enough living wage jobs out there for everyone who wants one? If the answer is no, as I've ventured before, then it is arguable that the minimum wage must rise. It is also arguable that those jobs which do require a skill base are also not paying enough for the investment of time and money put into them. Perhaps your wages ought to be going up as well. Something tells me everyone working for a large company could get a decent raise if CEO compensation packages were limited to 25-40 times what the lowest paid worker (hired or contracted) for the company gets paid.
     The other thing is, and this may sound harsh, but I simply don't believe that it is possible, no matter how lofty our goals, to educate everyone to the levels necessary to participate in today's economy. Some people just don't have the intellect necessary to take on such difficult learning. Any Bell Curve will see to that. What of those people? Are they not deserving of dignity? And what of those people performing vital services that don't necessarily require a top-notch education like garbage haulers or bus/subway/taxi drivers or other low-level but obviously vital, services? I'm sure you would not want to live in a world where you were responsible for hauling your own trash to the dump or walking around a large city or cleaning your own sewage pipes. Yes, it's arguable that "anybody could do those jobs" but just because that is so, does that mean they are automatically undeserving of a living wage given the scale of the service provided?
     Also, what of those people who perform tasks that are also necessary but seem to add little or no value to the economy like people who work in animal shelters or for sanctuaries? What of librarians, philosophers, and researchers? Those latter jobs require a ton of skill, but offer few good-paying positions and the former jobs require passion, compassion, and dedication yet apparently ensuring the livelihoods of our abandoned furry and feathered friends and providing safety and comfort for abuse victims is not high on the pay priority scale.
     Replacing the low-education jobs with machinery isn't a smart idea either...at least not in a country with a rising population. Those people need work...they need money...and odds are they are not smart enough to compete in a knowledge-based internet level economy. And since we're not the kind of society which would kill such people for their unproductiveness or lack of utility, they have to be housed, clothed, fed, and provided with a measure of dignity. Something you're not going to get by paying poverty wages.
     To put it simply, if you don't like the idea of an entry-level worker making a better wage, then you're not being paid enough too. Don't attack down.

     I've also always hated the fallacious argument of leaving your job for another if you don't like it. This couples with the going back to school argument because while perfectly simple on paper, both arguments fail to take into account that these things cost money. And then there's logistics.
     I'd love to leave my job for something where I feel like a person and not a number on a budgetary spreadsheet, but where would I go that would pay me as much or more than what I'm making now and accessible from my home without a car? I'm trapped. My job pays too much to just up and go, but too little to really live off of (as evidenced by me not owning a car). I'm sure there are many people like me. Plus jobs, even in the best of times, are not abundant or at least readily available. And forget about quitting on principle. Unless you have a ton of cash you're sitting on, that's not even an option. Believe me, I'd love to have fuck-you money in the bank, but I don't...so I have to suck it up and take the hits to my dignity, to my pride, and to my sense of self-worth practically daily.
      Going back to school is just as stupid an argument because that costs a shit-ton of money...even with loans. And odds are you will not be able to go to school full time to get a degree in four years. No, you'll be working too, trying to stay afloat while studying complex and difficult subjects...and that's if you don't have children. If you have a spouse, you might stand a chance if s/he's supportive of the idea and willing to carry you during that time. But still, there's no guarantee that your degree will get you a job that not only pays better, but enough to also pay off your loans while living your life. Otherwise, you may have been better off where you had been. It's simply not an option without a society willing to pay for such an education socially.
      The value of an education is at an all-time low I would say. In days of yore, your father could have taught you ironworking and you would have that skill for life. And you could take that skill and teach it to your son and pass along the family business just as your grandfather had taught your father. A skilled, once learned, was worth a lifetime of labor and then some.
      How many jobs can you say that about nowadays? A lifetime career traditionally spanned forty years (I guess 25-65). Think about what goes on today. Imagine you were 65 right now. That means, you would have embarked on your career in 1973. That means you would've been formally educated in the 1960s. Life's changed a lot since then. If you were picking up where a retiree was leaving off in 1973, he would have begun his career in the 1930s. The world changed a lot in those forty years too, but not so much that a (wo)man couldn't have relied on their education to last them throughout most, if not all, of their career.
      How long does an education last now? I figure at an ideal minimum, it should last for at least as many years as it would take to pay off the student loans...or at the very minimum, an education should be worth at least as many years on the market as it took to earn it (in other words, if it takes four years to get a degree, the education received should last at least four years before needing to re-up on it). Does that even come close to how long an education lasts these days? How quickly does skill obsolescence take hold forcing workers to increase their knowledge and skills these days? It sounds all so very stressful and while I'm sure there are numbers among us who can handle (and even welcome) that kind of stress, I feel most people would burn out.

      As for starting your own business, the numbers bear this one out. Unless it's all sole proprietorships, we can't all be business owners. Some people lead, others follow. I suspect in any given group there are more followers than leaders. It's a great sentiment to try to make it on one's own but you still need investment capital which the poorer among us certainly don't have and you'll also need a marketable idea and an education in business and accounting (which brings us back to the prior example).

      Just pay people better. It's also a numbers game. Ultimately businesses have to sell shit and they can't sell shit if the people on the bottom have no money to spend because it's all going into housing, food, and transportation. The few people on top, the One Percenters as they've been called lately, can't buy it all and charity from the ultra-wealthy is ultimately insufficient. Until the wealth up top is spread to the lower classes, dreamers can't dream. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with good ideas worth trying out but they'll never get the chance because they're too busy trying to survive, unable to save a few bucks to get ahead or take risks with.

      I can't think anymore so I'm done...

BANKING REGULATIONS, SHMANKING REGULATIONS...

     Just another of my many dumb ideas. Economic bubbles like the housing bubble which burst in 2006 and the derivatives bubble which burst in 2008 can cause massive amounts of damage to an economy and affect many millions of people greatly. At the center of these storms are banking institutions lending out money, making what amounts to financial bets, and insuring those bets against losses. It turns out this is a ridiculously multi-trillion dollar industry in a world there is only about three trillion dollars in existence. It's kind of interesting when you think about it...it also sounds fraudulent and that's probably because it is at some level.

      One thing I've learned over the years is that banks are not required to fully back their loans. In fact any given bank is only required to have a 4% cash reserve which means that if you've deposited $20,000 in the bank, they are only required to keep $800 of that onhand and the bank will make loans with the rest. (oh wow, it's actually worse than that)

       That might sound all well and good but here's where it gets crazier. Thanks to something called Fractional Reserve Lending (which is totally legal by the way), it turns out the bank can lend out far more than the $19,200 it has available to loan. It's kind of scary. The example in the link shows how a $100 deposit can legally turn into over $350 in loans for the bank and legally exist as over $450 in deposits when only $100 ever existed. This is a source of inflation by the way. I personally don't think for a moment big ticket items like cars, houses, and education would cost what they do if they weren't propped up by these kinds of lending schemes.

       Now, despite the massive recession following the Lehman Bros. collapse in September 2008 - I think it's called the Great Recession now - banks are rather insistent that they are not in need of additional oversight in their lending practices. Personally I think that's bullshit to the highest level yet they're clearly getting away with it so don't expect much folks. But I did have this one idea and believe it or not it comes from a Warner Bros. cartoon.

       I remember when a bank robber would rob a bank in certain cartoons, they'd pass by the front entrance where the bank proudly boasted its total assets. The criminal would then erase everything but the cents and run off. Well...what if banks had to do a version of that?

      What I'm thinking is this. A bank has so much cash - physical actual cash - on hand. It also has various obligations on hand such as depositors' accounts, certificates of deposit, mortgages, other types of loans, etc. Larger institutions might have various CDOs and other derivatives on their balance sheets as well.
       Now, I'm one of those people who believes that it was overlending by the banks which led to this problem. I see it like a hot potato or a pyramid scheme. When things are going well, no one notices but eventually it has to end because otherwise the value of an asset or commodity would become infinite. Take houses for example. At the start of the bubble, people sold their homes for a tidy profit and those homes in turn could be sold again for an even higher price. I saw homes in my area go from about $250,000 to over $500,000 over the span of five years or so. The mentality becomes that of "Houses can only go up, Up, UP!!!" and they do...for a while. Eventually, however, some schmuck is left holding the bag when he can no longer sell his home for a higher price. He's forced to take a loss. Now the word gets out that if you're patient you can get a better deal. Now home prices start to sink leaving more people holding the bag because now their homes are worth less than what they paid for them.
       On top of all this mess, as home values were increasing (on paper, mind you), banks were all too happy to have owners tap into this "equity" and loan the homeowners money off the fictitious increasing value of their property. And why not? The home's value is rising so fast, the loan will pay for itself. I'll remind you here that people are stupid and easily swept up in such fads.

      Anyways, the point I wanted to make was, how about a trade? No new banking regulations (hell, we can even undo some other regulations too to sweeten the pot) in exchange for a number. A number which must be posted on the bank's entrance, on every bank statement, front and center on its webpage, etc. That number would be just how much your account would be worth if the bank had to pay out all its obligations at once with the actual cash it has on hand. Realizable assets like loans and mortgages don't count. It's simply CASH ON HAND ÷ OBLIGATIONS. This figure could be expressed as a percentage. In other words, for every dollar I have on deposit, the bank in the event of failure can guarantee me x.xx% on the dollar of my deposit. Bank statements would express the actual guaranteed amount.

       Now imagine you received your bank statement and saw the guaranteed amount of your $20,000 deposit listed as $800. That might give you pause. But it's worse than that. The derivatives market is estimated at over $600 trillion, and the real estate market is estimated at $34½ trillion, the stock market capitalization is estimated at $15.35 trillion, among other things I'm sure. Think about that. About $650 trillion dollars being traded around compared to about $3 trillion in cash.
       Viewed totally, that means there's only about ½¢ for every dollar in obligations so if the entire system (somehow) collapsed, you (on a system-wide basis) would only receive less than $100 for your $20,000 deposit. The reason I say less is because not all of that $3 trillion dollars is in banks. If I remember correctly, 2/3s of it is held abroad too so you're talking less than $33 of your $20,000 could be guaranteed.

       If a bank had to admit that to you; that it could guarantee so little of your deposit...would you feel safe putting your money in such a bank? Yes, a lot of unwarranted assumptions are being made here. Obviously FDIC guarantees are not being considered but I wouldn't anyway. The banks abuse the FDIC notion now. They figure since your deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 by the federal government, they see no reason to be careful with your money because fuck it, it's guaranteed. You won't lose so why should they give a shit about what happens to it? Banks lend money in your checking accounts too. Checking accounts are supposed to be demand accounts and thus fully on deposit at the bank but they sweep the money up when the bank is closed and lend it for short periods during the overnight without your permission nor do they share the profits with you.

      But anyways, long-winded entry aside. That's what I want. A single number. A number that shows just how much my deposit is actually guaranteed for. Banks would have much greater incentive to be careful and considerate with other people's money if people saw at a glance how reckless the bank is behaving. People would seek the highest guaranteed number.

      How to properly enforce it would be another question.

STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING AN ASSHOLE...ENDED UP CONTEMPLATIVE

     I've got myself reading comments on a post related to autism. I tell you, if you've ever needed help understanding what denial is and/or looked like, read a forum for parents of children with autism.

     Right away you're assaulted with corruptions of the English language: "My son is not autistic, he HAS autism..." said one mother who clearly doesn't understand that many nouns have adjectival forms and that the -ic suffix does in fact mean "having, showing, or affected by" among its several related definitions.
      Another mother put it this way, "I think a better way to say this is that you have autism. If you say you are autistic that means thats is [sic] all you are" - I find posts like this somewhat ironic as it seems parents with autistic kids make sure you know this fact, even if you didn't ask. It's like the old joke about "How can you tell if someone is a vegetarian? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And God forbid you're not 100% completely on their side of thinking. Oh, the hell that will rain down upon you. They're perfect little angels who, unlike typical children, need excessively costly care and limitless attention from one-on-one aides devoted to their "special needs", another term that bugs the shit out of me for being too vague and ultimately dishonest. These parents go way the fuck out of their way to delude themselves into thinking these kids can be just like typical kids; that all we need to do is understand they're just different. Different being a hell of a loaded word. Yes, autistics come with a range of misbehaviors. My Best Friend worked with them so I've got the stories ranging from ones who are otherwise alright except in certain circumstances - meaning they're fairly trainable - to ones which are so lost that they can't even speak at eight years old, still wear diapers, and have no clue whatsoever just how strong they are.

      As far as I can tell, there's no cure for autism and the cure, if one can be found, will likely be like those for cancer, a range of remedies. Or no cure will be found because a prenatal test will finally be developed to detect the gene or genes responsible for autism and their prevalence in the population, like that of Down Syndrome, will drop precipitously. I'm suspecting the latter will be what ultimately happens.
      More denial here: "I also agree with others who've pointed out that this is not an autistic child, but a child with autism. This is an important distinction in advocacy efforts to educate the public and educators that our children are not broken, not defective and not defined by their diagnosis." --- If they are not broken, defective, or otherwise defined by their diagnosis, then why all the advocacy? I feel like they want it both ways. They're not defective, but they need special-this and special-that. They're not defined by their diagnosis until the school refuses to treat them any different than a typical student in which case these children have special needs which must be addressed by the school system. Huh? That's like saying a blind person isn't defined by their diagnosis. Yeah, they pretty much are and compared to sighted people, their eyes/optic nerves are quite defective indeed, even broken. Yet analogizing this woman's sentences, she would likely claim that a person who's blind is no different from you and me but he needs special books printed in braille and seeing-eye dogs when out in public, but no different. Nope, not at all.

      They of course despise the adjective normal and will be quick to scold you for using the term because they feel this stigmatizes their autistic children as abnormal. They'll use the word "typical" or "regular" (and yes, the words will often appear enclosed within begrudging quotation marks) instead for describing children exhibiting expected behaviors not that I understand how the logical following that your autistic child is "atypical" or "irregular" is any less stigmatizing but whatever. "Some children's needs can't be met in a 'typical' classroom. That is why we have special education classes and teachers."

      Another common thread I take from these discussions are that these kids with autism are "not my (the parents') problem: they're your problem and you have to pay for it!" I find frequent appeals to government laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and threats to sue in open court. Never mind that I have no idea where this money is supposed to come should the parents win their cases no matter how meritorious the filing.
      I also see many references to all children having a right to an education. Again, it's not my problem, it's yours. Yes, but what rarely goes addressed is what to do if they are uneducatable? One commenter wrote the following:

What's the answer? I love how people bitch about education, but there are no solutions offered. Serious questions: 1) Is it fair to put special needs kids in a school with other kids? 2) Is it right for a teacher to spend 90% of their time on 10% of the kids? 3) Would there be objection to segmenting schools to where kids were sent to teachers who are equipped to teach different levels of learning? 4) Autism comes in many forms. If a child is non-verbal, yet superior at electronic learning, and another autistic child lashes out (Aspergers), would you put them in the same class due to Autism?

He followed up in response to another commenter who said that we (teachers) have to try to reach them all...

I agree that you try to reach them all, but at what point do you realize you can't? Being a little selfish here, but why should my child be told to read the book while you spend your time with the children who need the special attention? If it truly is an equal education, why is it that kids who take time from the rest of the class consistently [are] not removed and better place in classes with teachers who are better equipped to teach special needs children? If it is the social aspect that we are trying to give these kids, isn't that what recess, lunch, electives are for?

     He was treated well though such comments can often lead to flame wars.

      I know there are no simple solutions to this problem that's not a problem until you decide it's not a problem because then it most assuredly is. Personally, I'm an advocate for euthanasia for anyone who cannot be made to independently and lawfully participate in society. It seems the only humane thing to do. Yeah, I know it's not their fault they turned out this way. I also really don't believe George wanted to kill Lenny. From a resources point of view, it seems so entirely wasteful. All this investment with zero potential for positive overall returns. For every successfully trained autistic who makes the covers of magazines and gets interviewed on television for the public to praise, how many spend their lives in institutions in abysmal conditions just because we can't bring ourselves to give them an injection of euthasol (assuming it works the same on humans)? What is the success rate of education and training of individuals with autism? Does it even approach that of high school graduation rates or are they marvels of wasteful inefficiency? What is the cost/benefit analysis? I know from a parental point of view, their child is of course perfectly precious but what do the numbers say? I suppose for my own curiosity's sake, what is the cost/benefit analysis of the average human? I might be unpleasantly surprised to know the results.

      I hate these entries because they never go anywhere...

THESE DARK THOUGHTS I HAVE...

TRIGGER WARNING:

Below the cut I will be asking rhetorical questions and writing conceptually about the nature sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. The descriptions themselves will not be graphic in nature but I thought I should include this warning as a courtesy.

ROBIN HOOD WOULD APPROVE

Wealth Inequality in America"
     Now I don't know what the best solution to this problem is but it seems clear that even the best-designed progressive taxation system would do little to fix this enormous disparity. If you haven't watched that infuriating video, this is a screen cap showing wealth distribution presented in the forms of what people think would be ideal wealth distribution; what people think the wealth distribution is; and what it actually is in the United States of America.

Pictured: how little you actually matter

     It's a shocking bar graph to say the least. How frightening is it that the Top 1% in reality have more wealth than the idealized Top 20%? or that the Top 20% have almost twice as much wealth as people even thought they had? How sad to realize that the lower 40% barely show up on the top graph at all? Odds are that's where you lie.

     Now remember, this is wealth quintiles, not income. This is a measure of ownership or how much of a slice of the American pie you have. As a result, you can actually be considerably more wealthy than your income indicates, even if much of that wealth is fairly non-liquid like a house or car. Your wealth can even be negative if you owe more than you have in assets (like when you first buy a home, the bank is the primary owner...you just have a slice - or when you first get out of college, you'll have a ton of student loan debt crippling your net worth) Income quintiles can be found here as well as other data. I'll quickly list the quintiles by income so you can see where you fit:

• First Quintile (0-20%): $0 - $18,500
• Second Quintile (20-40%): $18,501 - $34,738
• Third Quintile (40-60%): $34,739 - $55,330
• Fourth Quintile (60-80%): $55,331 - $88,029
• Fifth Quintile (80-100%): $88,030 and up

    Anyways, I'm having trouble locating a simple chart that shows wealth distribution by quintile (or any percentage). If this tool found on this page is worth its salt, then the thresholds of wealth for the individual quintiles are as follows (and remember, you can have a negative net worth):

• Bottom 20% : $6 or less
• Second Quintile : $6 - $22,500
• Third Quintile: $22,500 - $119,000
• Fourth Quintile: $119,000 - $390,000
• 80-99%: $390,000- $1,460,000
• Top 1%: $1,460,000 or higher

    I find data like this interesting because while I am in the Second Quintile for income, I am in the Fourth Quintile for net worth mostly due to my lack of debt. It also wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the poor in this country are actually in the Second Quintile for wealth and that most of the bottom 20% are actually freshly educated but saddled with student loan debt or are recent purchasers of homes. It's also weird to think that if you are debt-free and have $20 in your pocket, you're worth more than 20.8% of all American households.

    Okay, the point of this stupid meandering entry was what to do about this horrific wealth inequality. Progressive taxation helps with some of it but as the charts have shown, it is now so out of whack that even if the ultra-wealthy were levied 99% taxation levels on their income, they'd still make money and wealth faster than the bottom 80%.

     I'm thinking the only way to deal with this problem is a wealth tax. I believe France already does this but not necessarily for the purpose for which I would support it. Wealth redistribution seems necessary and it doesn't have to reflect the ideal. Even as the narrator in the video agrees that the way we THINK wealth is distributed in this country is still pretty fair. So what if a wealth tax existed in order to bring the distribution of wealth in line with that of what those surveyed thought it was? The money raised would not go to fund government operations, it instead would be redistributed slowly over decades like the Earned Income Tax Credit until the distribution mostly matches that middle bar graph. Then the wealth tax would fade away as it would no longer be necessary but able to be resurrected should wealth inequality stray too much again.

     I hear the cries of socialism and blah blah blah. I don't care and also, I don't want pure socialism because that would be stupid. I want fairness of opportunity. If you squander that opportunity then fuck you. You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!

    I look at the current situation and see one of no hope for those at the bottom. Class mobility was a feature of this country. It has practically disappeared. If wealth distribution were more equitable, there would be greater class fluidity. If America is truly about letting the best idea win, then people's fortunes should rise and fall with those ideas. Instead we have a system set up to protect those who are already wealthy. Wealth should not be a birthright but that's exactly what it has become in the United States. We have now what amounts to the aristocracy of yore and a plutocracy in practice. If you weren't born into wealth, you're practically guaranteed never to achieve it. Once poor, always poor. Take a look at any chart to show the growth in both income and wealth inequality.
     Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was quoted as saying recently that had the minimum wage kept up with the productivity of the American worker, minimum wage would be $22 per hour. It's $7.15 now. Chew on that as you try and stretch ever further those few dollars you do make just to get by and every year you fall a little further behind because inflation goes up faster than does your wages.
     The massive wealth inequality represents more a theft from the American people than it does the destiny of capitalism. I don't like the idea of a wealth tax, but I'm not sure what else would work. I'll stick with that one for now though I have heard of an idea to tax ownership rather than income. It's not like there aren't other ideas out there...

THE DEVIL'S NOT IN THE DETAILS...

     Sometimes I think what led me on the path to atheism (a term I strongly dislike but I'll use for now because I seriously can't be bothered) is the idea that God is all powerful, all knowing, ever present, and infallible.

     First of all, I'm going to admit that I have not read the Bible cover to cover so I truly do not know if God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and infallibility is ever stated in the Bible itself or if that idea came later. Heck, the First Commandment suggests that God is not the only god out there, just that He must be worshiped above all others. Like, you can have gods AFTER Me, just not before Me. ;-) Moving along...

     I got involved in a discussion about free will and unfortunately had this thought too late for it to be of any use then, but if God knows everything that ever was, is, and will be...where does human free will come in? How is it possible for me to make a choice? If God is all-knowing, then my free will is an illusion because in order for me to truly have a choice, God would necessarily have to NOT know something...but since He knows everything, he can't not know what my choice will be before I've made it. It would suggest that whether or not I am going to Heaven or Hell was determined long before I was born and that it doesn't matter what I do because I never had any choice in it at all. How depressing... Would it also apply to God as well? Does God know everything He will ever do and done before He does it? Does God lack free will as well? Putting omniscience into the story of Adam and Eve and the apple also makes God look less than benevolent when he punishes Adam and Eve for doing what He already knew they were going to do.

     Then I thought about miracles, or rather, the idea of Divine Intervention. I wondered, if God is infallible, how could there ever be a bona fide miracle in this world? If God were to intervene at any point, it would suggest that He was wrong about something but if God cannot be wrong, where do miracles fit in? Again, you cannot claim that He needed to intervene to save a life or whatever because that would imply he didn't know it was going to happen because why else intervene except because something unexpected had happened?

     But then I thought, what if such declarations were the mistake made by overzealous preachers in the past? Sure, it is hardly an enviable position to suggest that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and infallible but it would certainly explain what goes on in the world better and it would allow for free will too.
     If God is not any of those things, then the reason bad things happen to good people (and vice-versa) is because God is not able to prevent all injustice and rather than that being a path to despair, it would be instead a reminder of the necessity that we do good and resist evil because God cannot do it all for us.
     Other worlds are not mentioned in the Bible but a quick look at any astronomical text will show an unfathomably large universe which must be teeming with planets bearing sapient beings. If you take the grand miracles of God in the Old Testament as evidence of a visiting rather than nanny-like deity, it would explain why He doesn't seem to be around all too often. You could even take the story of Christ as a parting gift of sorts before leaving to instruct beings on another world. God basically telling humanity that he has to go now but will return should evil ever once again take hold of the world. But in the meantime, take these lessons and heed them because it is your (humanity's) responsibility to be stewards of this world; to be just and kind to others; and to be diligent in resisting evil; etc.

     I don't know (obviously). I'm tired too...

SENATOR SHUFFLE

     A letter to the editor in a recent issue of the New York Times wondered aloud about adding to our number of Congressmen in the House, raising the number from the current 435 to an unwieldly 3,100 in an effort to bring down the number of people each Congressman represents from the current approximation of 1 for about every 708,000 people (though that number varies by state as each state is guaranteed one Congressman regardless of population) to 1 for every 100,000 which the writer felt better approximated what the Constitution had originally set out (1 for every 30,000 - which, if used today, would result in the United States having 10,267 members in the House of Representatives while still only having 100 Senators).

     Now while I can accept the idea of increasing the total number of Congressmen somewhat. Maybe 650 - get it? Cuz that's 13 times the total number of states? And there were thirteen states when the Constitution was ratified? Moving along...

      I am actually more interested in the Senators. Each state gets two regardless of population but their districts are apportioned by population (within their respective states) like the House of Representatives. But why not apportion them differently?

     The recent debate over gun ownership rights and regulations thereof sparked by the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre brought about two major mindsets of those in this country. No, not liberal and conservative, but rather that of rural and urban. In a survey showing gun ownership throughout the country, the suburbs fell almost precisely in the middle of the two regions. However, for the purposes of what I'm about to suggest, I will be lumping the suburbs in with the rural.

     When looking at the debate surrounding this issue, one finds that it is the rural regions which are very pro-gun and the urban regions which are very anti-gun. It suggests to me that the two regions have very different priorities and not that one particular priority or the other is necessarily wrong. Just that, perhaps these perspectives, one that of rural and the other of urban ought to be what is represented by our Senators, rather than some gross approximation of half the state's population.
     Sure, more people live in the cities than in the suburbs and small towns but the apportionment of the House is already determined solely by a state's population so why not apportion the Senate on the basis of mentality, specifically the rural/urban divide?

     It would seem a sensible idea to me.

     Hell, and if we're gonna argue for increasing the size of the House of Representatives, why not do the same for the Senate and give three Senators to each state? That way, one can exist for each of the three mindsets of this nation: the rural, suburban, and urban.

Today is NEWSCASTERS PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES Day...

     We have taken our pound of flesh for the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. It is enough. Time to move on as a nation and get on with rebuilding all those things we have been neglecting as a result of our prolonged response to those terrorist attacks. We are well past the time to be moving money set aside for revenge and destruction and using it instead to rebuild our roads, our schools, our water pipes, our electrical grid, etc. etc. etc. etc.

     September 11th has become this national day of mourning and it offends me. Unless you personally knew someone who died that day as a result of the attacks, today is not about you. You experienced a nexus in history...congratulations...but it's not about you. Your life was not affected, so live it instead.
     But that doesn't matter because ghoulish engines have been built and continue to churn out these prepackaged 9/11-themed sorrowful human interest stories for the public to consume. The news programs play somber versions of their regular themes too, just like the Brady Bunch. And the newscasters themselves wear their sad faces when reading from the teleprompter. The girls who were hired to be big-titted, attractive stage props are made to dress like they're going to a funeral. And of course the endless jingoistic photo montages of American flags, the still-standing Twin Towers made to look majestic, sad-looking people, bald eagles, heavenly blue skies, and don't forget the firemen hoisting the flag shot and the "cross of steel" too because for some reason, miracle! Each news organization quietly competes to get the most talked about montage because why not, it's not like Nielson ratings, Cume, shares, AQH, and TSL take the day off when it's a bad-memory day for the United States. Money, money, money!
     By now, the references to the attack itself are oblique at best. Maybe one picture of the actual attacks and even then, it's a safe one before getting back to the people aspect of it, rather than the political part and the military response. They don't want to stoke any latent anger in the American public anymore and I'm fine with that overall, but not the way the newsmedia goes about it. And then of course, the next day, it's all back to normal: playful banter between hosts and wacky stories and cleavage galore from the hot weather girl...just like yesterday never happened.

PICTURED: not September 11th

$20 PAC

     You want to limit the influence of money on politics or at least make the money that goes into politics more democratic? While a lot of laws would need to be changed to even get this idea off the ground, here's what you do. It's simple, possibly elegant, and definitely stupid.

     The maximum donation a candidate/incumbent can accept from a person (or corporation...thanks Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) is twenty dollars ($20). Twenty bucks. That's it...even from himself. The person doing the donating would have to be at least of voting age (preferably registered to do so as well, but I won't advocate that just yet) because if you can't vote, you cannot participate in the system. I don't know how much of this country is over eighteen, but you have to figure at least half making a minimum possible total of about 150 million people which, multiplied by the maximum donation of $20 would be $3 billion dollars per Presidential candidate (though considerably less for each lesser one as I don't think you should be able to donate to people who are not in your district and thus cannot vote for).

     What is the point of this donation limit? For me, the idea is that even the poorest of the poor should have at least twenty dollars to spare for charitable purposes and I will consider donating money to a candidate seeking election to represent you in government as a charitable donation. Each person gets one vote and that is considered fair. No matter how wealthy or poor, you only get one. Money should really be no different. Why is it considered fair that a billionaire can tap his vast fortune to run for office, saturating the landscape with advertisements and socials, or that the well-to-do can donate vast sums of money to a candidate or party? Does that not give them undue influence? Isn't it supposed to be, "Let the best man with the best ideas win" and not "Let the most moneyed man win"? It's about ideas, not dollars...right?

     Therefore, limit the dollars to something more equitable. Candidates would need to get many donations to run a campaign or would have to actually appear at non-partisan sponsored events to debate one and other. They would need to listen to the people because they would need the money to get (re)elected. Politicians would be unable to shut them out. I admit this idea sounds terribly impractical but then I also think, "Who was the last President we've had who wasn't already wealthy?" We've had some rags to riches stories (Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind), but by the time they were in office, they had some cash to play with. Would it be so wrong to try a little something different?

     And while we're at it, eliminate the direct primary too. Let the political parties who back these candidates actually choose their candidates again. Direct primaries bring out the extremists on both ends and we end up with unelectable candidates as a result. If the direct primary is eliminated, then I will allow people to donate $20 to a political party in addition to a candidate. Maybe it can be a matching donation thing. For every candidate you give $20 to, you can also give $20 to their party assuming the candidate is represented by one.

     Deal?

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

OH G-D

     I got completely distracted from a blog entry I was reading when I came upon this sentence: "Man, in Judaism's view, was created by G-d here on earth."

      I was completely taken out of my reading. Look, I understand that it is considered a violation to use the Lord's name in vain. I really do. My question is how does using a hyphen in place of the letter O make it so that you have not used the Lord's name in vain? It's what you meant. The letter P is next to the O on the keyboard. If you saw I had typed Gpd instead of God, you would know what I had meant so again, how is blasphemy avoided through the use of a hyphen?

      Later in the blog, the writer uses "Creator". So why not always use that euphemism? A quintessential example of using the letter of the law to violate its spirit, no?
      It reminds me of the Hasidic Jews in our area. They're not supposed to do work on the Sabbath so there will be elevators on autopilot automatically stopping at every floor on the Sabbath so they don't have to push a button. Pushing the button apparently violates the Sabbath law, but benefiting from the electricity anyway apparently does not. I mean, if you set a timer before the Sabbath to turn on a light during the Sabbath, didn't you just violate the law anyway? It was certainly your intent. If you invite a non-Jew over (who's in the know by the way) just so that he can comment about how cold/hot it is in your home and ask if he can turn on the heat/air conditioner (so therefore you did not technically violate any Sabbath rules), how did you not violate the spirit of the law again? Also, if it would be sinful to do such work, how is it not sinful to get someone else to commit the sin on your behalf?

      There are more examples like this and I don't mean to harp on Judaism, it's not my intent to have had them singled out. I'm more aware of their examples than that of other cultures'. My favorite example was a Christian sect which believed that since Baptism cleansed you of your sins...started you anew if you will...that it would be in their practitioners' best interests to be Baptized near the end of life so that one may die free of sin and thus get into Heaven. I guess that means you could live however hedonistically you wished just so long as you were careful not to get killed or die before a priest could Baptize you.
       Like I said, I just don't get it. Apparently you can out-lawyer God. Who knew?

TRUST IN GOD, BUT TIE UP YOUR CAMEL...

TRIGGER WARNING:

Below the cut I will be critiquing a cartoon which contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. The descriptions themselves will not be graphic but I thought I should include this warning as a courtesy.

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XII

      Sometimes I wonder if we just have it backwards in certain aspects of our lives and I wonder if what is impeding the acceptance of outlier groups in our society is that backwardness. I think of a speech given by Daniel Webster in 1830, an excerpt here (click on the quoted text to read the full speech if you so desire):

"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

     This idea that we must first unite under a banner and then attend to freedom is an interesting one nor can I say that I disagree with it. It had me thinking about "hyphenated Americans" - y'know, sub-groups of this country variously identifying themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Asian-Americans and so forth. Usually it's an ethnic or racial identifier but occasionally examples of religion or other minority-type groups will appear. There's nothing preventing the idea of Gay-Americans (or Lesbian-Americans), Disabled-Americans, etc. from existing. Is part of the problem with acceptance one of language?

     The thing about identifying yourself as a hyphenated American is that you're putting your sub-identity ahead of the group identity. Just as we are more willing to aid a friend rather than a stranger, might we not be more willing to aid our countrymen over that of "just anybody"? Personally, I don't accept the appeal to humanity argument. I really don't give a fuck that you're a human being. When all our accoutrements are stripped away, we are animals in competition with one and other over limited resources...just like all other life. Appealing to humanity is idiotic at best and a huge invitation to accusations of hypocrisy at worst. There are no human rights, there are only sovereign rights. Anyone advancing the idea that there's some sort of supernational set of rights and privileges afforded us by virtue of having been born homo sapiens is at best counterproductive and more likely a fucking idiot. Are you not a man? Yes, yes you are but when you are "but a man", you are my competition; my competition for food, territory, miscellaneous resources, and mates. When you are "but a man", your analogue is that of a paramecium, a single-celled organism unto itself...for itself.

      But what if we are banded together, having formed a tribe or community? Now, we work together for food, territory, resources, and mates...sharing amongst ourselves as a kind of multicellular superorganism. Together we stand a greater chance for success than we ever did separately. And we work together as a tribe in order to benefit the tribe because we are all relying on each other for our success. But tribalism has its limits and I think we've found that limit at the national level. At best, I could see humanity allying at the continental level, but no further. The planetary scale? Never (not without an existential threat at least and even then, I'm not so sure but regardless, it would be a temporary coming-together).

      But here at our national level and in our national discourse there are many minority groups fighting for recognition and privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States of America. I have no problem with this, not in the slightest so long as their ambitions do not endanger the integrity of this nation, who are we not to grant them/enforce them? However, I think the arguments as currently presented, do not lend themselves to acceptance.

      A big, still fairly oppressed group in this country are the homosexuals and what I'm saying in this poorly constructed argument is why would, or even should, Americans care about the plight of homosexuals as a general subject? America, despite occasional boasts to the contrary, in no way, shape, or form controls the world (nor should it aspire to). There are many homosexuals beyond the borders of the United States. Why are they of our concern? They're not, nor should they be. I think that asking that they be of our concern is a problem with their cause.

     But what if the cause were limited to not to Homosexual-Americans, but to American homosexuals (or to put it another way still, Americans who are homosexual)? What if the argument were phrased Constitutionally rather than humanitarianly? It's an Us vs. Them argument and if you're phrasing your argument so as to be one of "Them", why would I be interested in what you have to say? Why would I be interested in helping a group which identifies themselves separately from the main one? Why would I be interested in helping a group presenting itself as competition? Why would I want to help a group seemingly placing its needs above that of the nation's? Why would I wish to help a group desiring its Liberty first before coming together as fellow countrymen? Do not come to me as a man but as a citizen of the United States of America. Presenting a problem as a humanitarian issue is the same as not having presented it at all. The United States looks after its citizens, not humanity as a whole. Make it out to be a citizens' issue, not a personal one.

       Convince me that I am your brother, and I shall stand beside you; convince me that you are an other, and I must stand against you.

PROPERTY TAXES SHMOPERTY TAXES

      Property taxes are a perennial favorite of newspapers to do articles about. They're always on the rise, especially at rates exceeding inflation, making homeownership ever more difficult, especially for those on fixed incomes and there's never a solution that feels workable that's proposed. Sure, there's caps on how fast they can be risen and relief in the form of rebates is sometimes done, but the crux of these articles appears to be senior citizens who are said to be priced out of their own homes of many years due to rising property taxation.

      Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume property taxation is a necessary evil. I know there's a contingent who believe it should be outlawed as they see such taxation as un-American or confiscatory but that's a whole different debate. Here I'm gonna take the "Property Taxes Are Necessary" road and offer, not so much a solution, but at least one that keeps the plight of fixed-income senior citizens in mind.

      I think the root problem of property taxes is assessment. Properties (I'm only vouching for New Jersey here) are assigned a "fair market value" by an assessor and it is that value which determines your tax which is calculated as a percentage per $1000 in value. The assessment part is actually my contention. I'm one of those people who believes an item has no value until it is sold so my proposal would be to assess property taxes based on its last known value. After all, how can you tell me my house is worth more than I paid for it if I have no intention of selling it? This way if you bought a home in the 1960s for $40,000 and are still living there, your property taxes would be calculated using that value. When the house is sold, it would be sold for whatever it would get in 2012 and the property taxes would then be calculated based on that new value. Think of it as a form of rent control that doubles as a means to reward loyalty. Since inflation is omnipresent in our lives, the longer you stay put, the less each year the burden would be on you provided you don't move.

      And yes, I would provide exceptions as well as a means for the state to challenge the value of a house. Firstly, if a house is inherited, it would only be fair to the state to have an assessor come by and determine the fair market value of the house. Its last known value is lost when its last known owner passes or transfers the deed. Secondly, if a house is sold suspiciously below market value, the state should have a right to challenge the sale. If the state wins, then an assessor comes by and determines the fair market value. If the state loses, bonus for you. Thirdly, additions to the home (but not routine maintenance) would be added to the home's value. That only seems fair and what constitutes an addition would be left to the municipalities to decide. Finally, this method I think acts as a dampener for real estate speculation. If you overpay for a house, you're gonna be paying extra in property taxes as a result giving a buyer pause when bidding up a property.

      I think this method should work since it is unusual, especially these days, for people to remain in a single home for a lifetime and even if a town becomes a whole town of never-sells, the percentage per $1000 in value can always be adjusted to compensate. That way, it puts a natural limit on how beneficial staying put can be. If too many people stick around, property taxes will start to rise but if only a few people do, you will be rewarded with lower taxes year after year as inflation raises the sale prices of the homes around you.

       I don't see why this could not be done.

YOUR AD HERE (unless you're...)

      I'm gonna start with some quotes by OpieRadio on Twitter in response to people's responses to what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke regarding recent changes in the law which now require health insurance to cover birth control with no co-pay:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE? Like it or not Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to say what he did on the radio in AMERICA!

[Re:] Rush Limbaugh - Let me dumb it down for some of you. I don't want the GOVERNMENT or ADVERTISERS to control what I listen to on the radio

A lot of you dopes are confused by 'I'm offended' AND 'I'm offended and NO ONE should be allowed to listen to him' THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE

      A common response to the first sentiment is (and I'll quote an actual comment): "Of course he has the right [to say what he did]. And thousands of people have the right to say, 'You're an ass, we won't do business with your advertisers.'" I take issue with that.

      What do advertisers have to do with a radio program, television show, magazine article, movie, etc. in terms of those shows content? Nothing...so I don't get the association. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I've never viewed any advertising for any show I've ever watched as somehow connected to the show I'm watching and/or listening to. And I resent the people who insist on making this conflation and then taking their trumped up connection to now threaten advertisers with boycotts and other forms of social shaming to further their agendas. And of course, because of these stupid-ass people, the advertisers now have to act like they are in fact part of the shows and programs upon which they advertise. They'll announce the cessation of their partnerships with bullshit lines like, "Our company no longer wishes to be associated with such&such a show" or mentioning something about their company's "image" and/or "reputation". Really? Neither assertion makes sense to me from the point of view of an advertiser. I can only see such points coming about because of stupid assholes conflating advertising with the shows they advertise on.

       The point of advertising is to sell your wares and advertising is more effective on platforms which speak to the most people. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I know a lot of people do...millions in fact (or not...maybe). Why would you not want to be associated with that? How is walking away from millions of potential customers a rational business decision? It's not even rational to take a boycott threat seriously. While there have been effective boycotts, they're notable for being small in number. The image and reputation arguments are also invalid. How is Honda's or Toyota's image and/or reputation served by Family Guy? How does Survivor hold up the reputation of Doritos? When you think of Desperate Housewives, does Pepsi come to mind? Who's actually making these associations between what is being advertised and the shows they're watching these ads on? And I don't want to hear absent these associations, bullshit ideas like sex toys would be advertised during children's shows because that wouldn't happen and not because of broadcasters forbidding it but because of demographics. A kid watching the Cartoon Express (I'm old) is not going to be contributing to dildo sales so sex toy vendors aren't going to be dropping their advertising dollars on such programming.

       Advertising is a necessary evil and will continue to be so for as long as corporations exist that have products to sell and services to offer. They need to remind you constantly of their existence or they will go away. There's a story I remember (but can't find proof of online...) about a soap company that was so successful that the owner deemed advertising of its product an unnecessary expense so he stopped...and business promptly plummeted. Out of sight, out of mind. His rivals did not stop advertising so they got his business (not that this does not happen). My point is that I don't want to give advertisers power over content decisions on the programs which they advertise: it's not their place. Their decision to advertise should only be based on either total readership/listenership/viewership or the demographics of that audience or both, not over what is being written/said/shown because the latter is not relevant to the former. But that's not the way it works because of the bullying tactics employed by people who don't grasp the concept of free speech.

        Simply put, if you don't like what is being said...don't listen to it. No one is forcing you to read an article/listen to a show/watch a program you don't like. As Opie correctly points out, there's a big difference between "I'm offended" and "I'm offended and no one should be allowed to listen to him". I don't abide by that kind of censorship.

        I also find such pushes hypocritical on the part of the protestors. These are often the same people who want government out of our lives or people who don't want corporations controlling us. It seems that when conservatives get offended (typically the small government type), they want the government to step in and do something about it; and when liberals get offended (typically the anti-corporate type), they want corporations to step in and do something about it (or step out and thus do something about it). But since this stupid post is about the latter, I'll conclude with this: You can't resent attempts by corporations to control our lives while simultaneously wielding them to control the media content we're exposed to.
     

IS COMPROMISE IMPOSSIBLE?

      I saw another post from a friend today about Canada having a regulation that prohibits transgendereds from boarding a plane if "the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents" and of course this has the "trans community" up in arms over discrimination and whatnot (even though there is currently no example on record of a transgendered being denied a flight under this regulation). It's not stated explicitly, but I'm guessing this would have something to do with identity theft or some other form of fraud. As a commenter pointed out, if your picture showed you as dark-skinned but you appeared white as snow to the boarding agent, they're not going to let you on board the plane. As I've mentioned before, transgenderism is where my line of acceptance is. I don't accept it as just another line in the broad spectrum of gender expression. Transgenderism sounds like a mental disease and should be treated accordingly.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I understand and grasp the concept of gender expression and how it might vary throughout the population. Looking at samples of my music tastes would surely confirm that I am not a typically gendered person with regards to stereotypes for my male sex. I know that men and women as a population range in their expression of masculinity and femininity and I'm cool with that because hey, vive la difference! Transgenderism crosses the line for me because of the reality denial. Again, he/she; boy/girl; man/woman; etc. are identifiers based on assigned sex (i.e. the sex you were born as) and not identifiers based on feelings or identity. But I'm rehashing and digressing...

       The compromise feels rather simple here and I will base it using myself as an analogue. I hate formal wear. I really do. I find it pretentious and physically uncomfortable to wear. I also find wearing suits to be uncomfortable psychologically...I don't feel like myself in them, more like a phony. Suits carry all that baggage of perceived wealth and status and the history that goes along with that perceived wealth and status. I'm a commoner...a working  man of the working class. I have no desire to appear as anything other than my station. However, when I attend a wedding or a funeral, I am expected to wear a suit and dress shoes and not the polo shirt, khakis, and sneakers I prefer. I put on the suit and dress shoes because I know the wedding or the funeral is not about me, but about the family of the deceased or the couple to be married (and even when it's my wedding, unless the bride-to-be is like me formality-wise, I will dress as formally as she expects for the occasion because a wedding, even my own, is not about me). I will put up with feeling uncomfortable in both the clothes and my skin for a day because I'm not an asshole douche who insists on making a scene for my own selfish preferences which brings me back to the transgendereds...

       If you're a transgendered person and your passport or ID has your sex listed as male, wear a fucking suit for a couple of hours and be uncomfortable for a few hours both physically and in your own skin and stop inconveniencing everyone with your selfish preferences. Consider it "gender formalwear" that you take out for "special" occasions. It's not that hard to do and it in no way compromises who you are or feel like you are and if it does, if you truly could not bear to wear stereotypically sex appropriate clothing for a few hours, tell me again how your condition is not that of a mental disorder. Stop making it all about you.

       And of course, a commenter named Jason did make just such an observation only to get the self-appointed thread minder, Christin, to chime in with this response:

That is not an option for some trans people, Jason. Look up “transsexual standards of care” and “transsexual real life test.”

Besides, being forced to “put (one’s) man pants back on for 8 hours” is an indignity… a discriminatory human rights violation.

       Really? A human rights violation? Overboard much? At least Christin says "some trans people" but that doesn't help her (his?) argument that transgenderism is simply another variant in the broad spectrum of gender expression and not an indicator of a mental disorder.

       Maybe it comes down to this: While I feel it is wrong for the majority to oppress the minority, I am not so easily persuaded that the minority owes no respect toward that majority. And if you're a minority of a minority, being mindful the majority opinion ought to be more of a priority. I look at it mathematically and to keep it sexual, homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up 3½% of the population in the United States as of April 2011 (I honestly thought it was 10-15%. I'm genuinely surprised) and transgendereds at 0.3% (or, for the sake of argument, about a tenth of the gay population). The question you have to ask yourself is when does the number grow small enough so as to become burdensome on the general population when demanding accommodation? And this can apply to any type of minority status such as religion, allergies, diet, and physical handicaps.

       Say you have a high school comprised of 1,000 students spread out over four grades (in other words, about 250 students per grade). This would mean, in this imaginary school, 962 students would be straight; 35 students would be gay/lesbian/bisexual (8 or 9 per grade); and 3 students would be transgendered (not even all grades would have one). Should those three students' demands for accommodation trump the expectations of the remaining 997 students? Would those three students be placing an undue burden on the remaining 997 in so doing? Is asking for conformity/accommodation from these three students an undue burden placed upon them by the rule-making body?

       I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does not being burdensome fall upon you and not the community at large? At what point must you do the accommodating and not the community? At what point does communal interest trump self interest? And how much self interest should be tolerated by the communal interest?

I HAVE A LINE

      I don't know what I really am politically. Am I conservative or liberal? Sites tend to peg me as centrist which would seem to fit information I've been learning about my personality type in that I prefer harmonizing with people over exerting my will. So I guess if conservative is red, and liberal, blue; that would make me purple. I would have to say I'm a bluish-purple. How blue? I don't know, but I do know when the waters get too blue, I'm out. Same for the red, though I wonder if I have a greater tolerance for the red waters than the blue.