Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 1a

Below are questions Glenn Beck asked on his TV show. I am going to attempt to answer them.

• Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America? No, not really. I myself would not have created these socialistic programs in the first place. They should be made optional. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. It depends on the elderly dying off and the young making a lot of money. The gov't should encourage people to save their money for when they need it in their old age by cutting taxes and making a non-taxable "old age" savings account like IRAs.

• We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red-ink? We shouldn't. Congress should live within a budget like all families do or should. You don't spend money you don't have. Congress is like a compulsive gambler. If you give the gambler more money to get out of his debt the more money he will gamble away. His debt increases. Unless he recognizes he has a problem, he will continue his gambling ways. That's Congress. The American public does not help either by enabling Congress. Both Congress and the public has got to have discipline. Congress has got to stop waste full spending and the public has got to stop signaling to Congress it does not need anymore wasteful pgms. Or any program at all until America is in the black.

• The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy? It doesn't. You just get more ACORN employees that's all. All ACORN is is a political community agitator organizer for the Left. You can make an educated guess why they got the money.

• If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later? Because they were in such a hurry to write it and to pass it they did not have time to read and comprehend it. Now they decided to read it.

• Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work? I have no idea, but what he did smacks of socialism. Obama has taken that idea to another level. The free market is not perfect because people are not perfect. But neither is gov't or the for that matter the justice system because they are composed of people. So how does one imperfect system make another perfect? It can't.

• Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them? Either they don't want to be bothered with reading them or they put total trust in the person creating the bill. Or both. Neither excuse works.

• Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them? Because the congress is arrogant and full of themselves.

• Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either? Could be both. But I think to save the earth more. On the cars.gov FAQ it states you have to buy a fuel efficient vehicle to decrease CO2 emissions and to reduce oil dependence. If the program was to save the economy it didn't work because more people bought foreign cars more than domestic. I don't believe it saved the earth either.

• How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president? I don't know. The White House won't even answer.

Making Congressional Bills Less Complex

The health care bill coming out of the House it way too long. Over a 1000 pages? Are you kidding me? This are my ideas how to make them shorter.

First, if the bill is over five pages the lawmakers that sponsor it has to write the bill by hand in either pencil or pen. Heck, use a crayola I don't care. But they have to write it by hand using in their own hand. I don't want no ghostwriters writing it. Or no staff writing it. If Congressman X sponsors a bill then I want to see that Congressman's handwriting. No one else. Only one person should write the bill. If more than one person sponsors a bill then the sponsors have to get together to decide who's going to write the bill. If writer doesn't want to use cursive then he can print it. It doesn't matter to me. The founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution by hand using a freakin' quill dipped in ink! (Yea, I know they had no choice. They didn't have typewriters or a computer.)

Second, once the bill is written it has to be examined by a independent team or panel of handwriting experts. If the panel determines that the any of the rules in the first part are violated then the bill invalid. Otherwise the read next paragraph.

Third, after the bill is validated by the handwriting panel then all the sponsors' peers has to read it in its entirely. Not only do they have to read it but sign a letter saying they have read and understood the bill. And then give a summary of the bill in their words. What I mean by peers is if you are a representative for example then your fellow representatives have to read the bill.

Or the sponsors do a walk through of the bill. Explaining line by line what the bill does to all of his peers. Then the sponsors peers can ask questions of the bill if they want. Both the walk though and attendance of the walk through is mandatory. When I went to college me and my fellow computer scientists had to give walk throughs of their computer programs. If it is good enough for programmers it is good enough for Congress.

What's the point of my idea? To slow down the process of making huge complex laws. If you have to write the bill by hand then your hand will get tired if it is too long. If you have your peers read it you better not make it too long or they'll will get ticked off at you. Or if you choose the walk through option you're voice will go out if the bill is too long.

Will Congress ever do this? Probably not. But I can dream. Keep in mind Congress not only makes laws for you but for themselves too. So, they are not going to make it rough on themselves.

Am I being mean? Maybe. But what is worse is to have a complex bill that is vague and no-one understands that is forced upon the constituents.

One final thought. If cars were built like bills are made no-one would ever buy a car. The complexest programs ever made are computer operating systems. And even they don't work all the time. But at least they are tested and updated. Can you say that about bills passed in Congress?

The Four Horsemen of America's Economic Apocalipse

Below I believe are the four legislatures that can wreck America's economic future if they are passed:

1. ObamaCare. Also known as socialized medicine. It's pretty simple economics why this won't work. It hasn't worked in Canada and England and it won't work here. Canada and England even has less population than the U.S. You offer health care "free" you will get shortages. Supply and demand. If you have too much demand (people in need of medical help) and not enough supply (doctors, nurses, medical equipment) to meet the demand, you will get a shortage. America is in debt and doesn't have enough money to pay doctors decent wages and not enough money to buy state-of-the-art medical equipment. Medical equipment businesses may initially sell equipment to the gov't but as soon as they don't receive their money (like the car dealers who haven't received their money from the gov't in the cash-for-clunkers pgm which ends today) they will stop selling equipment to the gov't and make something else. Again shortages. Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the medical resources. Either the income tax or the gov't might tax ingredients it deems unhealthy like sugar, saturated fats, cholesterol, salt, etc. The powers-that-be will use America's health as an excuse to do it. This will hurt the economy even more by causing inflation.

2. The Cap-and-trade bill. Or as some call it "cap-and-tax." This is how it works according to Conservapedia:

   In a "cap and trade system," a regulating authority (the government) sells permits to companies for the right to emit pollutants. As with all costs of business, this additional cost would be passed on the consumer. A company may emit pollutants up to the permitted amount. Should a company find they routinely under-pollute, these permits may be sold back to the regulating authority or sold to other companies.

   Each source can design its own compliance strategy to meet the overall reduction requirement, including sale or purchase of allowances, installation of pollution controls, implementation of efficiency measures, among other options. Individual control requirements are not specified under a cap and trade program, but each emissions source must surrender allowances equal to its actual emissions in order to comply. Sources must also completely and accurately measure and report all emissions in a timely manner to guarantee that the overall cap is achieved. [read more]

   Italics added by me. When Spain passed this stupid legislature its electricity and energy increased by 31 percent. That will happen here. Even Obama had to admit that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." His words. Heritage.org did an analysis of the bill. Below is some of what they discovered:
   • Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38) above the baseline forecast, which already contains price increases;
   • Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;
   • A family of four can expect to pay $1,241 more for energy costs per year;
   • Including taxes, a family of four will pay $4,609 more per year;
   • Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million;
   • The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person.
   If that does not make you cringe you can read more of the article. Why do we have to have this legislature? To try to control a gas that all animals exhale out.

3. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Also called Card check. Basically this is employees voting if they want a union or not without a secret ballot. Think of it in this way: It would be like if you voted for a political candidate while the candidate looked over your shoulder. That wouldn't be right. That can lead to intimidation. Not "free choice" anymore is it? Why should unions care if you vote to join a union or not if unions are popular. It's because they are not. Union membership is dropping. In a March Rasmussen poll only nine percent of non-union workers want to join a union. According to an Heritage.org article:

   The EFCA applies only to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which does not cover government employees, agricultural workers, the self-employed, or railway or airline workers. The Act also excludes supervisors. Still, the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce. [read more]

   Even liberal George McGovern and an ex-labor union leader does not support card check. McGovern and the ex-union labor union leader are not alone in their opinions. 30% say it’s okay to form a union without a secret vote, 52% disagree according to a July Rasmussen poll.

4. Finally, Amnesty. If you just let all the illegals be legal that will cause high unemployment, and put a drag even more on the health care system (illegals are covered in the House ObamaCare bill). Not to mention it will give incentive for even more illegals to come over here. Inflation will rise because now you have to pay them minimum wage, health benefits, etc. I understand why they are coming over here. Mexico has low wages, high unemployment, and deadly drug gangs. It's like a storm that follows low pressure systems. America is the low pressure system. The Left wants amnesty because they want to increase labor membership. They really don't care about the individual lives of illegals coming over here. They just see the numbers.

So, how can the four horsemen be stopped? Vote for any politician that will reverse the four legislatures. God help this country if any of the four passes.

The Psychology of Town Hall Meetings

More actually this blog is about the reactions of people in town hall meetings to Obamacare.

There is a psychological theory for what the people in the town hall meetings (and most of America including myself) is feeling it is called Reactance Theory. When you perceive you're freedoms are threatened or lost you react--hence the name. Makes sense doesn't it?

How do you react when you're freedoms are threatened? You get angry. You get frustrated. You can even attack whatever is causing you to lose your freedoms. The more you value a particular freedom that is threatened--the more you will react. The more freedoms you lose the more you will react. This theory is describing exactly the psychological dynamics going on in town hall meetings.

People are reacting to losing their choice of doctor, medicine, etc. If you don't like your doctor you can choose another in a free market system. If a medicine isn't working or you don't like the side effects you can choose another medicine. Under socialized health care the gov't makes those choices for you. You may get another doctor or may not. Same with the medicine. You may not get a second, third, etc. opinion. So, because of not having those choices, naturally according to the theory they are confronting Congressmen. What does Congress and the Left do? Say the town hall gatherers are being misinformed without giving any details of the plan themselves. These Congressmen and Obama say trust us, we won't do you no wrong. Here's a message to Congress and Obama: Do not treat the American people like children! We are adults and treat us as such. We are more informed than you would like to believe.

Not only can a single person threaten your freedom or take it away like a kidnapper but so can a gov't--even worse so because you can attack a kidnapper. How do you respond to a gov't once an oppressive law is made? America's founding fathers knew this well. That's why America has the Bill of Rights--too keep the gov't from oppressing its people. Like a wise man once said when a gov't fears its people you have freedom. When people fear their gov't you have oppression.

Also, keep in mind that health care is one of the basic needs of a person. You never want to restrict the basic needs (food, water, shelter) of a person or else they will react. Having a person wait in line for a drivers license is one thing. Having them wait while they are in pain or needing a life-saving operation is a totally different thing. Don't mess with basic needs.

Missile Defense Budget Could Open Vulnerabilities, Report Warns

From NTI.org (Aug. 13, 2009):

The Obama administration's proposal to emphasize battlefield missile defenses over systems for intercepting strategic ballistic missiles would save the nation money while potentially making it more vulnerable to future attack, says a report published yesterday by a Washington-based defense think tank (see GSN, June 2). [read more]

What Obama administration doing makes sense from their world view. Obama (and most libs) think that if America disarms so will the rest of the world. Well, maybe and maybe not. Every country has its own agenda. It's possible that that friendly countries may disarm. I'm not worried about friendly countries though. I am more worried about the dangerous countries like Iran and N. Korea. They will do whatever is in their best interest. And that doesn't include America.

Obama thinks that America is source of the world's problems (he keeps apologizing for America) and our enemies will happily disarm if we be nice and disarm. It doesn't work that way. A bad man with a knife approaching you will still cut you if you put down your weapon. Having wrong perceptions during a crisis can decrease your chance of survival. Thinking you caused the bad man being bad is not only stupid but can get you killed. Even if you made him mad at you--the criminal still has free will. He can choose not to harm you.

Just like the potential victim in the above scenario putting down his weapon won't make him safe, cutting military defenses in a dangerous world does not and will not make a country safer. But it can make a country less safe.

Obama's Email Controversy

Is it possible that Obama is collecting the emails for a mailing list? I mean people have received unsolicited emails from his advisor David Axelrod. When asked about this his press secretary could not answer the question whether or not the Obama administration was sending out those emails. The answer is either is yes, no, or I don't know but let me look into the matter. But Robert Gibbs (I am sorry this guy is a bonehead--he is the worst press secretary I've seen) acted like a pinhead. This suggests three possible scenarios: 1) The Obama gang is keeping Gibbs in the dark, 2) Gibbs knows but is protecting Obama's behind, or 3) Gibbs did not understand the question. You choose which three. I seriously doubt Gibbs did not understand the question.

I remember reading in a computer magazine article (I'm sorry I forgot the name of the magazine) the author claimed Obama was a spammer. This might be true. I remember a caller on the Rush Limbaugh said he went to a gov't website to get help with his mortgage. Later on he got phone calls from almost every mortgage lawyer in the country. And now I read that the White House is using chain emails to counter the "lies" about Obamacare. Keep in mind Obama and his crew are not adverse to using computer technology. Obama uses a Blackberry to communicate.

If the White House does not care about people's names and emails then why do you have to forward the email to the White House? Couldn't you just say my friend/brother/sister says this about Obamacare without naming names? What he could have done to get people's take on Obamacare is to use a contact form like the general "contact us" form on the White House.gov site. I noticed on that form your name and email is required. But a form could be made that did not include either one. That would make snitches people less nervous about giving Obama info about his health care system. Keep in mind according to law the White House has to save any correspondences it has with anyone as a matter of public record.

Programming a Teleportation Device

In the movie "The Fly" the main character (played by Jeff Goldblum) built a matter transportation ie teleportation device. The device he hoped would teleport a person from booth A to booth B or vise versa. It works perfectly for animals so he uses himself as a guinea pig. He enters booth A and turns the device on. Unbeknown to the main character a fly flies into booth A at the same time. The computer that runs the teleporter gets confused because there is only supposed to be one animal at a time in a booth. So, it combines the DNA of the main character with that of the fly. And then the scientist is teleported by the computer. Slowly the main character turns into a fly. Hence the name of the movie. A pretty disgusting ending in my opinion.

The main character may have been a brilliant inventor but he was a dumb programmer. If you are going to build a device that teleports you from point A to point B or from point B to point A you have to have some safeguards. If a telepod as it is called in the movie have two or more objects in it don't teleport and let the teleportee know there is something else in the telepod with him or her. Or even better yet have the computer teleport just the person and ignore the other object or person. If that object is another person that person has to wait his turn.

Another issue is if both telepods are occupied at the same time. This is not covered in the movie by the way. The computer does not do any teleportation. It has to wait for the receiving telepod to be empty. It could even tell one of the teleporterees to leave his or her pod. For instance it could tell whoever entered the pod last, to leave because the other person has the "right of way." If both teleportees entered the pods at the same time (which would be really rare because the computer could be programmed to measure the time to the nearest millisecond) then it could randomly choose a person to teleport. There could be a signal light in the pods to indicate what state it is. If a green light is on then you can teleport to the other pod. If a red light is on then someone else in the other pod and is about to be or is teleporting to that pod. If no light is on then the teleporter is not working.

It could be possible to have telepods in a network where you could teleport to any pod in the world. You just enter the position of the receiving pod.

I know the teleporter was just a plot gimmick. After all the movie was called "The Fly" not the "The Teleporter." I just thought the concept was interesting.

They could remake the movie call it "The Gnat" or "The Flea" or even "The Ladybug." Although the having the main character turn into a ladybug would not have been so gross. How about the "The Cockroach?". That would be disgusting too.

Assertive Training for Conservatives

Below is from Daniel G. Amen's book Magnificent Mind at Any Age (2008). The tips weren't exactly for conservatives but for anyone trying to be assertive in their life. I copied these tips for conservatives because it's the Left that tends to be angry all the time and demeaning. Although since the Left argues from an emotional point of view some of these tips may not work.

1. Do not give in to the anger of others just because it makes you uncomfortable.
2. Do not allow the opinion of others to control how you feel. Your opinion, within reason, needs to be the one that counts for you. Work on knowing what you think and believe.
3. Say what you mean and stick up for what you believe is right.
4. Maintain self-control. Being angry, mean, or aggressive is not being assertive.
5. Be kind, if possible. But above all be firm in your stance.

Obama is Watching You

The title of this blog sounds ominous doesn't it? Then again... On the White House.gov blog there is this message:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Mr. President since you did not apparently read your own bill how would you know what is fishy or not? I have looked at the bill. It is long and full legalese. I almost went brain dead. Two, who are these people spreading "rumors" about the bill you are talking about? Could they possibly be the same people polled who don't like ObamaCare? According to Rassmussen Reports 53% now oppose congressional health care reform. Then these same people show up to town hall meetings and ask honest questions and get ridiculed and dehumanized by you and people in Congress. Saying they are faking anger and being told to show up by the RNC. The powers that be should have more respect for people they are supposed to represent. They are not royalty--even though that how they think of themselves.

I just wonder what Obama is going to do about with that list of dissenters. Possibly a hit list? Who knows. Redstate.com comments that what Obama is doing, asking people to snitch, could be against the law. You know possibly an infringment against free speech. Maybe instead of flag@whitehouse.gov it should be bigbrother@whitehouse.gov. Just a suggestion.

In other related news, on the Cars.gov website was this message:

“This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government.

“Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Emphasis added by me. Isn't that nice. Actually, a Constitutional watchdog brought this to the attention to that rascal Glenn Beck (Glenn you got to stop exposing what the gov't is doing. They don't like that!) He mentioned it on his TV and radio show then the message was changed by the White House to be less unnerving. The question is even though the message is less frightening is the gov't still going to do what the message said?

Let's just do this. Replace the stars on Old Glory with a hammer and sickle or if you wish Obama's logo. Rename the United States of America, United Socialist States of America. Put in Government or Obama We Trust on all paper currency. That should do it.

While we're at it let's annex Mexico to save the illegals from coming over to America since we are going include them in ObamaCare anyway. After all we are just one big continent right?

Meet Obama's Czars

If you ever wondered who Al Capone's bosses Obama's czars (sounds like we are in Soviet Union doesn't it) are, well check out the list below:

1. Border Czar: Alan Bersin. As Secretary of Education and district head under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bersin took little action against the numerous illegal immigrants in schools under his supervision. Yea, Bersin sure sounds qualified like a drunk doing brain surgery.
2. Car Czar: Steven Rattner. He previously served as a reporter for the New York Times, advocating liberal approaches to economics, and is expected to continue to endorse such positions during his tenure as czar. As a czar, Rattner is not accountable to anyone except President Obama, and his responsibilities are similarly nebulous. Now, doesn't that make you feel all nice and warm.
3. Drug Czar:Gil Kerlikowske. Kerlikowske ran two small police departments in Florida, then became chief of police in Buffalo, N.Y. in 1994. He became Seattle's police chief in 2000 and brought the city's crime rate to a 40-year low, despite a resurgences in youth and gang violence. Kerlikowske has maintained a national profile, paying special attention to gun control, immigration and electronic data mining of private records.
4. Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker
5. Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner. A lobbyist hired by President Barack Hussein Obama as energy czar and was the Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton Administration. She is also the former head of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. She has years of experience with environmental issues and takes an extremist viewpoint on Global Warming.
6. Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients. A management consultant recently appointed as Chief Performance Officer, for Government Performance Czar in the Obama Administration. His role is to "promote technological innovation in government" (what's the point of that?), though his precise responsibilities are somewhat unclear. Zients was previously the Secretary of Technology in Virginia.
7. Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. Selected by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, her responsibilities will include coordinating a number of federal agencies on issues relevant to Great Lakes, including invasive species, polluted harbors, sewage overflows and degraded wildlife habitat. Ms. Davis is one of a number of environmental czars, joining Chuck Fox, charged with directing cleanup of the Chesapeake bay. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Davis served as the head of the liberal environmentalist organization Alliance for the Great Lakes.
8. Green Czar: Van Jones. Was an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.
9. Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. She has been a tireless advocate of socialized medicine for many years.
10. Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan. He served in the administration of George W. Bush, where Brennan has generally used strong means to ensure the safety of Americans, and was an architect of the interrogation techniques criticized by many liberals.
11. Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair. A retired four-star admiral. As intelligence czar, Blair has pledged to end the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (no more loud rock music) and work closely with the FBI.
12. Pay Czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is changed with setting the salaries of officials at many companies which benefitted from the Bush and Obama administration's bailouts in 2008-9.
13. Regulatory Czar: Cass R. Sunstein. Sunstein has little background in regulation, and his appointment appears to have been motivated by his ties to Obama through the University of Chicago law school.
14. Science Czar: John Holdren. Professor Holdren has advocated multinational population restrictions, including mandatory abortion in the United States. Worse yet, in a book (Ecoscience) that he wrote in 1977, he advocated subtly poisoning the water supply with "sterilants."
15. Technology Czar: Vivek Kundra. He previously worked under the administration of Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, and, like many other Obama appointees, for Obama's 2007-9 presidential campaign.
16. Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr. He previously acted as Borough president of the Bronx, where he was criticized for his actions following a large March 7, 2007 fire.
17. WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore. Samore was previously a high-profile negotiator for the Clinton administration, where his policies towards North Korea are widely accepted to have been largely unsuccessful.

Well, that's all the czars except for the Cyber Czar. Obama has not picked anyone for that yet. A lot of the czars could be combined like for instance the Great Lake Czar and Green Czar could be part of the "Environmental" Czar. Some of the "technology" czars can be combined. I believe he has more czars than any president before him. Keep in mind the czars are only accountable to Obama and no-one else.

In full disclosure I should say that the words in italics are mine and not Conservapedia.com where I got the info from. A thanks to them for that info.

Driving Distractions

What's the difference between a passenger talking to you while driving a car and talking on a cell phone? I mean both are distractions to the driver. The only difference I can think of is with a cell phone you don't have both hands on the steering wheel. If a passenger sits next to you and talks to you then you might get the urge to turn toward him to reply back. It's only natural. That's conversational etiquette--to face someone you are talking to. Then what about hands-free cell phones?

Let's face it any activity that takes away your attention away from driving can be bad. Talking to a passenger, talking on a cellphone, daydreaming, etc. all can be bad.

One other thing to think about. Even a sneeze during driving can be dangerous while driving. Your eyes close briefly. So, if you having a sneezing attack don't drive until its over or CRASH!

By the way, I am not saying any of the above should be banned. All I am saying is that just focusing on the cell phone or texting for that matter is not the issue.