tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34172456705576158592024-03-13T00:41:06.963-04:00Thoughts from The Corner OfficeOccasional thoughts, sermons, parables, and rants from a Constitutional Republican who is sick of Progressivism in America.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-28009826235609761752023-08-29T18:21:00.000-04:002023-08-29T18:21:01.034-04:00Was Wide-Screen Just a Fad?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/galaxy-fold-5-flat-cnnu.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill/f_webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/galaxy-fold-5-flat-cnnu.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill/f_webp" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/galaxy-fold-5-flat-cnnu.jpg" target="_blank">Samsung Galaxy Z Fold5 at CNN</a> </p><p style="text-align: left;">Why does it seem like wide-screen video has become passé? The latest and greatest Samsung phone, when fully opened, is <i>square</i>!</p><p style="text-align: left;">After I started watching some old TV shows on my phone, and my wife and I were seriously considering going to streaming apps only for the first time, I started noticing something. At first, it was only the STARZ channels, but now it seems to have spread to HBO/max and Showtime. They'll show a movie in wide-screen format, but it will be letterboxed with black bars at top and bottom within a 4:3 picture—which is then surrounded by black bars on the left and right on my wide-screen TV!</p><p style="text-align: left;">Now, when I start the cable company's app on my Apple TV device, and tune it to the same channel, the same movie takes up the full width of my TV screen. It isn't contained in a 4:3 picture.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Maybe the networks are trying to get people to drop their cable providers and use their streaming apps only? That's the only explanation I can think of that makes sense. If it isn't that, then the cable company is just doing something stupid—oh, wait, that kind of makes sense, too.</p><p style="text-align: left;">By the way, as for those old TV shows like Columbo and Babylon 5, at first I thought it was kind of quaint the way they only took up the middle 1/3 or so of my phone screen. Now, I've gotten used to it and don't really think about it, except when I think that a wide-screen TV picture will take up the full width of my phone, too, but not my TV.</p><p style="text-align: left;">As for the folding phone, I guess being able to fold a screen like that is novel, and that may attract some, but I have never liked the idea of a phone that opens, even when flip-phones were all the rage back in the '90s. More moving parts means more things that can break, and I'm already a klutz.</p>ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-70108000338530681962023-06-08T13:02:00.002-04:002023-06-08T13:02:56.865-04:00Where do you do your best thinking?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSEKuNxzfSm0xwOk6Y78Kfr8w8FBiJEJB0L1th_dHiOh2BCUZ_VoHIHj8zPezRzblU19ARyi0ysNM9_WlYePf7t5H5xYGbUfsKksD4rzNKXrXOAryJUpLXfQz8hMDqwKC_P4Ej6mPrd4VYTBSO2j28Otl_Ctv4_aYbnAV1h5yC1IEtrYca9gIo11kM/s1920/Green%20Figures.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1578" data-original-width="1920" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSEKuNxzfSm0xwOk6Y78Kfr8w8FBiJEJB0L1th_dHiOh2BCUZ_VoHIHj8zPezRzblU19ARyi0ysNM9_WlYePf7t5H5xYGbUfsKksD4rzNKXrXOAryJUpLXfQz8hMDqwKC_P4Ej6mPrd4VYTBSO2j28Otl_Ctv4_aYbnAV1h5yC1IEtrYca9gIo11kM/s320/Green%20Figures.jpeg" width="320" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Because I can't stand to use the Twitter app on my iDevice, I haven't had any place to post the random thoughts and observations that occur to me from time to time. So, after a 7-year hiatus, I've returned to this space.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Today's random thought is: feces. When I was in my twenties, a study was released whose conclusion was that one's stool should float in the toilet. The reasoning was that people should eat lots of fiber, and the more fiber present in feces, the more buoyant it is.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Some years (decades) later, a study was released whose conclusion was that one's stool should sink in the toilet. According to it, high fat content also makes feces float, and it could be caused by any number of unhealthy conditions.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What would they say if one's bowel movement half sinks, and half floats?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">On a related topic, at one time I had this blog set up to flush its content onto Twitter. I don't know if that still works, but if you leave a comment please include your Twitter handle, if it isn't evident from your reader ID, and let me know you saw it post there. Thanks!</span></div><p></p>ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-64021015647117746592016-05-03T17:55:00.000-04:002016-05-03T18:05:24.105-04:00Basic Income: Not All It's Cracked Up to Be<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PeCYPYRLmyk/Vykd3OgO0VI/AAAAAAAADYY/_tqV5IQxKhw1lsnIrZ1F4fqloLPUqqQaACLcB/s1600/CO%2BPeak%2BPolitics%2Bmoney%2Btree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PeCYPYRLmyk/Vykd3OgO0VI/AAAAAAAADYY/_tqV5IQxKhw1lsnIrZ1F4fqloLPUqqQaACLcB/s320/CO%2BPeak%2BPolitics%2Bmoney%2Btree.jpg" width="297" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image obtained from Colorado Peak Politics</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
After I had published <a href="http://thoughtsfromthecorneroffice.blogspot.com/2016/04/universal-basic-income.html" target="_blank">my previous post</a> reacting to an article at FiveThirtyEight extolling some benefits of a Universal Basic Income, Michelle Ray (the same <a href="https://twitter.com/GaltsGirl" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">GaltsGirl</a>) tweeted a link to an article at <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-02/a-basic-income-should-be-the-next-big-thing" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Bloomberg View</a>, by <a href="https://twitter.com/paulaEdwyer" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Paula Dwyer</a>. Interestingly, the tweet for the article shows as something like “Basic Income <b>might</b> be the next big thing”, but the article is actually titled “A Basic Income <b>Should</b> Be the Next Big Thing” (emphasis mine in both cases). But I digress.<br />
<br />
Dwyer begins with a short description of the idea of UBI, then talks about trials and studies around the world. She links to an article from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/26/dutch-city-utrecht-basic-income-uk-greens" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Boxing Day</a>, 2015, in the English publication <i>The Guardian</i>, that talks about a pilot program in The Netherlands. That program is limited to 20 municipalities, and will include <u>only</u> “small groups of benefit claimants”, to be qualified by their current income. It is <b>not</b> universal, and the amount is only around $950/month. It is apparently intended to be a supplement to whatever odd jobs they can get, rather than the envisioned substitute for a meaningless job while the citizen pursues education, training, or practice to follow a higher calling.<br />
<br />
Dwyer then explains that some see UBI as a way to reduce poverty and inequality. But how can that be? If every citizen gets the same amount from the government, but is still free to have any other career and make any amount of money they can on their own, the same inequality of income will exist. And poverty? It will just be “defined upward”—the poverty level income will go from $12,000 to $25,000 to $40,000 and beyond. People receiving the UBI and nothing else will still be considered poor, and people who find a lucrative market for their skills and work hard to sell themselves will still be considered rich, and people who raise an outcry against this inequality will continue to cry out.<br />
<br />
Dwyer also mentions the “about $1 trillion” of current US welfare spending, and admits to the approximate $3 trillion price tag I came up with (even with a US citizen population of only 322 million, rather than the 350 million I presumed). She then attempts to reduce the expense by eliminating segments of the population: Social Security recipients, households earning more than $100,000 annually, children. Now I agree with this last, because a “citizen” must be an adult who is capable of fulfilling the obligations of citizenship in order to partake in its pertinent rights and benefits. But when you start excluding other groups, even high earners, not only is it not <i>universal</i>, it is not <i><b>equal</b></i>. It is no longer something that every citizen can enjoy, but once again simply a wealth-transfer program. (Not that it ever was not intended to be.)<br />
<br />
Dwyer does write about how a UBI program could be designed to eliminate the multiple, overlapping assistance programs at the federal and state levels, and acknowledges that some totalitarian collectivists—whom she calls “liberals”—object to it because of this. She says they “worry” that the bureaucrats currently administering all those programs could lose their jobs. I say, oh, but then they would be receiving the UBI, and maybe they could get better private sector jobs, or even become artists, writers, and the like! (But they would no longer be dues-paying public-sector union members, and the size of the bureaucracy, and some administrators’ domains, would shrink. I suspect those are bigger worries for some.)<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Dwyer expresses hope that perhaps this isn’t so fantastic, this approach she calls “Social-Security-for-all”. Well, all but those evil rich folks.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-55702151830241359402016-04-28T19:30:00.000-04:002016-06-07T14:34:27.239-04:00Universal Basic Income<h2 style="text-align: left;">
A Utopian Success Story*</h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5ckWzbMZue0/VyJQ-V4HNGI/AAAAAAAADYI/u7zDO0pCzdkEG3XDDURgKysldhYy2d1fACLcB/s1600/Dollar%2Bquestion.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5ckWzbMZue0/VyJQ-V4HNGI/AAAAAAAADYI/u7zDO0pCzdkEG3XDDURgKysldhYy2d1fACLcB/s320/Dollar%2Bquestion.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
On or around the 24th of April, 2016, a rather long piece about <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Universal Basic Income</a> (UBI) was posted at FiveThirtyEight (Where <b>did</b> they come up with that name, anyway? And why don’t the articles bear a posted-on date?) by <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewFlowers" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Andrew Flowers</a>. I have just a few comments about it.<br />
<br />
One of the big questions throughout the article is, just how much is required to make up a “basic income”? Flowers cites a proposal in Switzerland to pay each citizen a suggested 2,500 Swiss Francs per month, which he explains is about $1,700 “after adjusting for the cost of living.” In real dollars as of this writing, it’s around $2,586, but that doesn’t really matter.<br />
<br />
Flowers states that the United States government spends nearly $1 trillion dollars annually on public assistance programs, both direct assistance at the federal level and transfers to state programs. At the bottom, this total is explained and clarified to be a little under $900 billion a year.<br />
<br />
So, taking the author’s figure of around $1,700/month, that amounts to about $20,000/year. Multiply that by 350 million citizens<sup>†</sup>, and the total is $7 TRILLION. EACH YEAR.<br />
<br />
Later in the article, Flowers states that advocates of UBI often propose a starting figure based on the current per capita welfare expense of the nation (or state/province, or city) in question. For the United States, that’s around $700/month. Doing the same math as above, that adds up to nearly $3 trillion. Still a bit higher than current spending.<br />
<br />
And this figure is “just a floor.” Some advocates are proposing the UBI be as high as 60% of median income, which was $28,889 per capita in 2014, the latest year for which data are available. That gives us a potential UBI of $17,333/year, or $1,444/month. Obviously from the $700/month figure, the total will be somewhere around $6 trillion per year.<br />
<br />
Basic income, indeed. Flowers states that a “huge increase” in revenues to the federal bureaucratic behemoth—oh, wait, that’s supposed to be significantly reduced by the elimination of myriad welfare programs—to the federal government. This naturally implies a “big hike in tax rates” for the admitted redistribution. What are you thinking, Mr. Flowers? Something on the order of 100% of all income over $30,000? Even that would run in the red. Maybe just 100% of everything?<br />
<br />
Just a few more minor points—things that made me scratch my virtual head:<br />
<ul>
<li>As arguments in favor of UBI, Flowers says that a similar plan was outlined by Thomas Paine, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated something like it to combat poverty. But this does not say that Paine actually advocated this plan, only that he outlined it. And it is implied that Dr. King’s plan was not universal, but targeted at the poor.</li>
<li>To investigate effects of a government-supplied UBI, a study is being organized in the United States—by a private organization. Nothing wrong with that, of course. If only the private organization could garner the funding to actually implement UBI nationwide.</li>
<li>A government study was done in a few United States cities, looking at whether receiving a basic income affected people’s work habits. In that study, primary earners reduced their work by “no more than 5 to 7 percent.” Does this mean “no more than 7%”? Or does this mean the data were not clear enough to get an accurate measure?</li>
<li>A Canadian study that Flowers calls the “closest research” to a true UBI involved only “eligible families”; i.e., the UBI was means-tested. In one municipality that was a “saturation site”, only 30% of all the families qualified to receive it. Other sites had lower participation rates. I would say this isn't nearly close enough to universal.</li>
<li>Flowers starts one paragraph by stating, “A basic income could be any amount….” Really? It could be $1/year? I don’t think so. That statement is meaningless.</li>
<li>The Swiss advocate, a gent named Daniel Straub, said, “The market economy is great, but…” and to me, the rest of that sentence may as well be, “it requires hard work to do well, and I’m lazy.”</li>
</ul>
The basic idea of a career hasn’t changed. The proponents of UBI at the beginning of the article ask, what do you really want to do, or what do you love to do? A career means someone somewhere is willing to pay you to do that. It’s up to you to find them. The internet should make that easier than ever before. Straub says he remembers his great-grandfather working ten hours a day, six days a week. (When I was a small lad, my grandfather was already in a nursing home. His family’s generations must have been awfully close together. But I digress.) I say, if he was doing what he loved to do, was it really a chore? Maybe he would rather have spent his time doing what he was doing than sitting down at the pub drinking beer with the old men.<br />
<br />
Many thanks to <a href="https://twitter.com/GaltsGirl" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michelle Ray</a>—Twitter’s (and Google +’s) <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/118407841431001042282" target="_blank">+Galts Girl</a>—for sharing the link to this article. As Michelle tweeted, it’s long, but you should read all of it. Also, be sure to check out the Czar of Muscovy’s <a href="http://www.gormogons.com/index.php/2016/04/ubi-pluit-effluit/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">thoughts on UBI</a> over at the Gormogons blog. (As of this writing, permalinks are not working; it was posted on 06 April 2016 if you need to scroll back to find it.)<br />
<br />
†It is true, there aren't 350 million <b>adult</b> citizens in the U.S. Still, even the lowest total here would be more than the current expenditures, even if we only used 175 million, or half.<br />
<br />
*Remember that “Utopia” is derived from the Greek for “no place”.<br />
<br />
UPDATE as of 2016/06/06, reports are that Swiss citizens have rejected the UBI proposal by a margin of nearly 4 to 1. And yet, when I searched Twitter for <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/06/swiss-reject-universal-basic-income-in-public-referendum/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an article about that referendum</a>, nearly all the tweets were of the nature, “Well, we lost one battle, but we must keep trying!” I must repeat an observation my DW has made several times: people will put untold effort into avoiding work.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-81584352765656494152016-03-22T19:10:00.000-04:002016-03-22T19:13:30.874-04:00Things I’d Like to See a New Chief Executive Do<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xBXN6zf7XM0/VvHOiBt7p0I/AAAAAAAADUA/33659rMP3789jq0f6sRXkQ9LvBHaAkqDg/s1600/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xBXN6zf7XM0/VvHOiBt7p0I/AAAAAAAADUA/33659rMP3789jq0f6sRXkQ9LvBHaAkqDg/s320/Seal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In February of 2016, I posted the following tweet:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Eliminate:<br />
HHS<br />
HUD<br />
Ed<br />
Energy<br />
Transpo<br />
Labor<br />
Commerce<br />
Ag<br />
Interior</div>
— ScottO30 (@gscottoliver) <a href="https://twitter.com/gscottoliver/status/700193972401012736">February 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Since these are all departments of the Executive Branch, it seems to me a Chief Executive could eliminate them whenever he or she wished to do so. To create a new department, as George W. Bush did in 2002, the President must go to Congress to get money appropriated for it. But to terminate one? It would simply mean that any unused budget it had would remain unspent, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?<br />
<br />
In reverse order of their creation, I believe we should eliminate the following U. S. government cabinet departments:<br />
<ul>
<li>Education</li>
<li>Energy</li>
<li>Transportation</li>
<li>Housing and Urban Development</li>
<li>Health and Human Services</li>
<li>Labor</li>
<li>Commerce</li>
<li>Agriculture</li>
<li>Interior</li>
</ul>
Any legitimate Federal functions can be moved to an appropriate Department that is left: State, Treasury, Defense, or Justice.<br />
<br />
I would leave the Veterans Administration separate from Defense, as the latter’s responsibility is active defense of the nation, while the former is charged with taking care of the people who have served the nation in that capacity.<br />
<br />
I would even suggest that the Department of Homeland Security is redundant, and its important functions should be moved to Defense or to Justice, as appropriate.<br />
<br />
Finally, the White House lists the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the United Nations Mission as separate entities. I submit that neither of the first two have any place at a Federal level. If the Federal government didn’t confiscate resources at such a high rate, States and Localities would have plenty to deal with any violations of their citizens’ right to life. And in my opinion, the United Nations does more harm than good, and the U. S. should withdraw from it (and maybe raise its rent).ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-71299979089331782712014-12-24T21:44:00.003-05:002014-12-24T21:44:40.193-05:00Merry Christmas to All<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://hope4thecity.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/star-of-bethlehem.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://hope4thecity.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/star-of-bethlehem.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
May the blessings of the season be yours in all your days.</div>
ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-21408554217712776252014-08-28T00:34:00.000-04:002014-08-28T00:34:22.597-04:00I Made a Decision about Worship Today<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Be prepared: this post may tend to ramble more than usual.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="http://www.bluegrassironmen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Holy-Bible.jpg" /></div>
Since I was born (probably) until I moved away from home at age almost 25, I attended a Church of the Nazarene congregation with my mother. My father rarely went, usually only on Easter and maybe at the end of Vacation Bible School. But that isn’t what my decision is about.<br />
<br />
The Church of the Nazarene is a small denomination, and from what I understand it is in the Wesleyan tradition, descended from the Methodists, although I really don’t know what Methodists are all about. I have attended a few Southern Baptist services, and they were very similar to the Nazarene services of my youth.<br />
<br />
However, from the 5th grade (age 10) on, I attended a private school associated with the Church of Christ. This group has as its core teaching that the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, reveals all we need to know and should pay attention to regarding Christianity, including the pattern of worship services and church organization. In fact, anything that is not mentioned as being part of Christian worship in the New Testament is not done in any congregation of the Church of Christ. All this I learned while attending school and the daily chapel services.<br />
<br />
While doing a crossword puzzle today at lunchtime, I came across a clue regarding a person associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, the Mormons). I looked it up on Wikipedia (because it really is pretty good at lists of things), and that led me to reading about an offshoot of the LDS–apparently a single congregation in Hannibal, MO–that calls itself the Church of Christ. That led me to look at the disambiguation page for “Church of Christ”, and to read a bit about the one I was familiar with.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I apologize for all the parentheticals in the following paragraph. I did warn you.</span> <br />
<br />
I learned that this group had its origin in the so-called “Restoration Movement” in 19th century America. I already knew that it had previously split into the Church of Christ I knew–which does not allow anything in a service that is not mentioned in the New Testament, including musical instruments–and the Christian Church (whose congregations may sometimes be called Independent Christian Churches)–which takes the position that any worship practice not specifically forbidden in the New Testament should not be forbidden in congregations. Therefore, musical instruments are allowed, but someone who shares the core beliefs of the Christian Church (and the Church of Christ, theologically speaking) could start a new congregation that did not use musical instruments, or that offered a choice between full-strength and watered-down wine, because it was the custom in the 1st century to mix water and wine for a meal.<br />
<br />
All this led me to consider my own beliefs, including my political philosophy. I tend to be rather libertarian politically, and believe that if one’s actions do not harm other people, the government has no business punishing those actions. Of course, harm is not restricted to the physical or the immediate, but that is a different discussion and I need to give it more thought.<br />
<br />
Similarly, I believe what the Church of Christ members taught me, that as Christians we are free to do anything, but we are required to do what is motivated out of love for others, to help bring them to, or strengthen them in, Christ. Therefore, thanks to my Church of Christ education, I have decided that when I start attending church regularly again, I shall attend a Christian Church congregation. <br />
<br />
I welcome your thoughtful comments and discussion.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-77490714240300288722014-07-03T23:00:00.000-04:002014-07-03T23:00:00.719-04:00Happy Independence Day Part II<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BWfyDPmyh5c/UdWgmFQWlCI/AAAAAAAABq4/X6GqB-5MWO8/s1600/Fireworks+column.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BWfyDPmyh5c/UdWgmFQWlCI/AAAAAAAABq4/X6GqB-5MWO8/s1600/Fireworks+column.jpg" height="276" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's wishing everyone celebrating a happy and safe American Independence Day.<br />
<br />
In addition, I have learned–or rather, been reminded–that 2014 is the bicentennial of the poem “Defence of Fort McHenry” by Francis Scott Key, which we know better as the lyrics of our national anthem, <i>The Star-Spangled Banner</i>.<br />
<br />
So while you’re out watching the rockets’ red glare, and perhaps raising a glass to Anacreon in Heaven, give ol’ Frank a toast, too.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4145/5105787163_b368929018_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4145/5105787163_b368929018_z.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-41675409165282853042014-06-18T23:19:00.000-04:002014-06-18T23:20:12.289-04:00World Cup: It’s Gonna Gitcha!<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.frenchfriends.info/files/funny_soccer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.frenchfriends.info/files/funny_soccer.jpg" height="320" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">World Cup Fever–Catch It!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
World Cup Fever has gripped Teh Twitterz, and it’s an epidemic. While some are delirious with excitement over the countries they love, hate, or love to hate, others are suffering the malaise of being bombarded with information they just couldn’t care less about. Even more than usual.<br />
<br />
And while some client applications give users the ability to “mute” or filter out tweets containing certain hashtags, there are almost as many hashtags for the tournament as there are fans. Not only that, but many times people get so excited, they forget to use any tags at all! In short, if one wanted to bury his head in the sand (yes, I still use the ancient convention of male pronouns for unknown-sex individuals) and not see any tweets related to the FIFA World Cup, he would need to avoid Twitter entirely until it’s over.<br />
<br />
The disdain some have for the game has led to some amusing tweets, though. For instance:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Today in the world's most popular sport, Iran and Nigeria played to a 0-0 tie. People ACTUALLY take off work for this snooze fest of a game.<br />
— Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanJoseph78/statuses/478648971062427648">June 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Or this:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
This —> <a href="https://twitter.com/irishspy">@irishspy</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/wayward_okie">@wayward_okie</a> It would be much more exciting if random balls contained plastic explosives.<br />
— ●|||||||● SUSAN (@wayward_okie) <a href="https://twitter.com/wayward_okie/statuses/479347863881666560">June 18, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Your humble blogger is content to watch the happenings of the tournament via Twitter, and listen to the guys a couple cubes over as they talk about their streams and why one is nearly a full minute behind the other. What’s up with that, <a href="https://twitter.com/espn" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ESPN</a>?<br />
<br />
Go Team USA! (I guess. <i>sigh</i>)ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-26397983835579469572014-05-29T21:45:00.000-04:002014-05-29T21:45:00.169-04:00Answering Some QuestionsYesterday the decidedly interesting <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfMondo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@ProfMondo</a> had a blog post about <a href="http://profmondo.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/as-they-say-in-hollywood/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">being nominated</a> for a Liebster Award, whose awarder apparently has a thing for the number eleven. Part of the nomination process is to answer a set of 11 questions, and then pose a different set of 11 questions. I liked Prof. M’s questions enough that I thought I’d take a crack at answering them. Here we go:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">1. If you could give a really painful (but not permanent — we’re not awful people) charley horse to anyone in the world without fear of retribution, who would it be?</span></i><br />
Valerie Jarrett, mostly because even most of the people I follow on Twitter have stopped talking about her.
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">2. DC or Marvel?</span></i><br />
Whoever has The Flash. He was my favorite growing up, because his speed gave him the ability to do a lot of different things.
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">3. Who would you cast to play the lead in a biopic of you? (You are not eligible.)</span></i><br />
Edward Norton
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">4. Preferred pizza crust — Thin? Pan? Whole wheat? Other?</span></i><br />
Whole wheat, not too thick, and twisted on the edge, served with honey.
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">5. Is there a song that makes you hit the channel change/shuffle button as soon as it starts? What is it?</span></i><br />
Several, actually. "Imagine", for one, and that Jet song that starts with a throat-clearing.
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">6. What’s your favorite “guilty pleasure” movie?</span></i><br />
<i>The American President</i>. “Oh, Sydney…nice shoes.” [Sydney grins and presses tongue between teeth.]<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">7. Bluegrass or World Music?</span></i><br />
Bluegrass. I mean, who wouldn’t choose “Dooley, slippin’ up the holler/Dooley, tryin’ to make a dollar/Dooley, gimme a swaller an I’ll pay ya back some day” over “Is this love? Is this love?”?<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">8. What’s the most unusual thing in your fridge?</span></i><br />
An array of cooking wines that were used once or twice, because now when we cook with wine we use real wine. <br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">9. What have I got in my pocket? (Hey, it worked for Bilbo.)</span></i><br />
217 photos, 52 books, 114 contacts, and 3,300 songs. Ain’t technology great?<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">10. What topic is most likely to make you start talking as your friends say, “Now you’ve done it.”?</span></i><br />
Now, skiing, since I started learning last Thanksgiving. It’s a lot more fun than I ever thought it’d be! <br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">11. What question were you hoping I’d ask you, but I didn’t? (Feel free to answer that one as well, by the way.)</span></i><br />
“How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?” Enough to build a bonfire hot enough to burn all the open questions.<br />
<br />
Thank you, Prof. M! That was fun. Mostly.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-15275135851954545692013-12-31T17:00:00.001-05:002013-12-31T17:00:29.927-05:00Obligatory Year-End PostGoodbye 2013! Good riddance!<div><br></div><div>Not quite fair. I got all new equipment and started to learn to ski. My Dear Wife got a new instrument and started to learn to play–and is doing quite well after only one lesson! We became much closer friends with someone we'd had a passing acquaintance with, and that has had multiple benefits. </div><div><br></div><div>But on the whole, I won't be upset to see 2013 go the way of 1941 or 1978. </div><div><br></div><div>Here's to a happy and profitable 2014! May Harry Reid retire while Gov. Sandoval is still in office; may the IRS blow its enforcement of the PPACA by focusing on people who actually make money; and may the GOP not shoot itself in the foot with Senate candidates.</div><div><br></div><div>Happy New Year, y'all.</div>ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-15132887025969009892013-12-17T23:21:00.000-05:002013-12-17T23:21:07.472-05:00“You may need to talk with your doctor about your prescriptions.”<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-acxmKVFQXFQ/UrEiX0DwJJI/AAAAAAAACCs/6acJVB8myhI/s1600/prescription.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-acxmKVFQXFQ/UrEiX0DwJJI/AAAAAAAACCs/6acJVB8myhI/s320/prescription.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I recently received a letter from my prescription drug insurance administrator with that sentence in bold above the body. The letter explains that as of <b>01/01/2014</b>, the plan’s coverage of this particular (name-brand) medication will change. The administrator and doctor together must review the prescription to ensure it falls within the plan’s rules.<br />
<br />
There is nothing in the letter specifically mentioning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), although one sentence does mention information that is “FDA-approved”. The FDA is, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Food_and_Drug_Administration" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">according to Wikipedia</a>, part of Secretary Sebelius’s DHHS. Nevertheless, the effective date of the new policy is, I am certain, no coincidence.<br />
<br />
Fortunately for me–and I <i>am</i> a fortunate person–this medication was for a specific short-term purpose, and I am no longer using it. I empathize with those who may not be so lucky.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-9753291851788158242013-10-30T20:18:00.000-04:002013-10-30T22:14:24.377-04:00Use the Power of Language, Part III<div align="center">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MzwUIBC8CyE/UnG8uLhJocI/AAAAAAAACAQ/Aohvzdrv8t8/s1600/Rhino-sized+Squirrel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MzwUIBC8CyE/UnG8uLhJocI/AAAAAAAACAQ/Aohvzdrv8t8/s1600/Rhino-sized+Squirrel.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Well, Rhino-sized, anyway.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Apparently on Tuesday, the Senate Democrats decided to take the “SQUIRREL” of the poorly- or non-functioning HealthCare.gov site and inflate it to elephant proportions, to distract us from the story of millions of individual medical insurance policyholders having their policies cancelled because they do not meet the requirements of “Obamacare”, and this phenomenon being known to the Obama administration as early as 2010. This led to a whole bunch of tweets (<a href="https://twitter.com/gscottoliver" target="_blank">on Twitter</a>) that continually irritated me, because opponents of this law were using language promoted by proponents of it, rather than words that accurately describe what we’re talking about.<br />
<br />
I sent out a few tweets about it, and I’ve decided to repeat and expand on those here.<br />
<ol>
<li>The law that has been dubbed “Obamacare” is not the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA). It is the “<i>Patient Protection</i> and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA). Please don’t forget both empty promises when writing or tweeting about it.</li>
<li>What the law requires individuals to buy is not a “health plan”. It is a medical insurance policy.<br />A health plan is a course of action intended to promote and maintain the health of an individual, created by that individual usually in cooperation with physicians and other advisors.<br />A medical insurance policy is a contract wherein the buyer pays a premium in consideration of the risk that the insured will incur expenses due to certain treatments, which the insurance company will bear at least most of the cost of.<br />The health coverage required by the PPACA is not so much a medical insurance policy as a pre-payment contract for scheduled services. Actually, many employer-sponsored “health insurance plans” are also that–especially the HMO type.</li>
<li>The arrangement where all medical services are provided by the State is not “single payer”. It is an “everybody pays” arrangement. Except, of course, for those who do not pay in to the system. People who receive benefits paid for only by other people are called “<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Free_rider_problem.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Free Riders</a>”.<br />
(In my tweet, I mistakenly attributed my awareness of this term to The Czar of Muscovy, of <a href="http://www.gormogons.com/" target="_blank">the Antient and Noble Order of the Gormogons</a>. It was actually <a href="http://www.gormogons.com/2013/10/why-obamacare-will-fail-exhibit-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this entertaining and informative post</a> by GhettoPuter. I apologize to ’Puter–and as appropriate, to the Czar–for this error.)<br />
Considering what employer-sponsored group health plans have become, each one is a sort of micro-everybody-pays system. Not so bad, as long as they are voluntary. But what if participation were mandatory, and everyone were forced to pay for everyone else’s pre-existing conditions and routine personal maintenance, like contraception? Welcome to the PPACA.</li>
</ol>
Addendum: I also saw some video and quotes from Barack Obama being shared where he said that nothing in this law will force people out of their current policies, with the claim that he was lying. Technically, though, it appears that his claims may be true; it was the rules and regulations written by the Department of Health and Human Services that forced insurers to cancel those policies, rather than having them grandfathered in as acceptable. However, this is just another case of lawyer-ese, saying something that is technically true, while knowing the end result will be different.<br />
<ol>
</ol>
ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-9701440543381040562013-07-04T12:26:00.004-04:002013-07-04T12:26:51.392-04:00Happy Independence Day, America!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JtGG4PB0Il8/UdWgRwSJIJI/AAAAAAAABqw/ZziqU7BnKZY/s575/US+Flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="336" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JtGG4PB0Il8/UdWgRwSJIJI/AAAAAAAABqw/ZziqU7BnKZY/s640/US+Flag.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BWfyDPmyh5c/UdWgmFQWlCI/AAAAAAAABq4/X6GqB-5MWO8/s570/Fireworks+column.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BWfyDPmyh5c/UdWgmFQWlCI/AAAAAAAABq4/X6GqB-5MWO8/s400/Fireworks+column.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-45571535474923568132013-06-17T14:10:00.001-04:002013-06-17T14:13:18.817-04:00Editors WantedAn <a href="http://www.ktvn.com/story/22611509/ind-woman-condemned-for-killing-at-15-is-freed" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">AP story</a> today contained the following sentence fragment:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ucEHG4avvCw/Ub9Q-icDNBI/AAAAAAAABnc/Hb-V8z63LzU/s640/blogger-image-693114417.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ucEHG4avvCw/Ub9Q-icDNBI/AAAAAAAABnc/Hb-V8z63LzU/s640/blogger-image-693114417.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
</div>
ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-23519175709046757702013-06-03T16:43:00.000-04:002013-06-03T16:43:17.445-04:00Yet Another Reason to Dump the IRSFrom a congratulatory email to me upon reaching an employment milestone:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">In the United States, service awards are considered tax exempt and therefore can only be used for tangible awards. They cannot be redeemed for certain gift cards or travel and tickets due to IRS restrictions.…</span></blockquote>
</span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">So if I win one of our contests, or get an award for performance, I can get a VISA® or Walmart* gift card (which is taxable), but as a reward for years of hard work, I get a golf bag†. And I don't even play golf!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Thanks, IRS!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">†<span style="font-size: x-small;">For example.</span></span></div>
ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-26575169289660415352013-05-05T23:59:00.003-04:002013-05-05T23:59:59.283-04:00Use the Power of Language, Part II<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/thebuzz/april13sports/BostonStrongRibbon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/thebuzz/april13sports/BostonStrongRibbon.jpg" width="198" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Logo from Boston.com</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Earlier today, <a href="https://twitter.com/LauraWalkerKC" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Laura Walker</a> tweeted a link to a post about forensic analysis of the bombs used at the Boston Marathon:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Excellent, detailed guide to analyzing the remnants of the IEDs used in the Boston Bombings: <a href="http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/examining-improvised-explosive-devices-how-did-boston-bombers-do-it/introduction" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/examining-improvised-explosive-devices-how-did-boston-bombers-do-it/introduction</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/spearheadbroken" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@spearheadbroken</a></blockquote>
People in the media understand how subtle connotations can be used to shape opinion. Laura's tweet hit me today as an example of just that. The phrase “Improvised Explosive Device” and its abbreviation “IED” have become so commonplace that it seems any non-military explosive is designated as such. But is it accurate?<br />
<br />
Are we using the word “improvised” to mean “home-built”? Because buying materials and learning methods to build a specific thing is <b>not</b> improvisation. In fact, the word “improvise” comes from a word that literally means “unforeseen”. Was McVeigh’s and Nichols’ truck bomb improvised? The materials they used were not designed to be an explosive, but they purchased those materials expressly to make an explosive. Hardly unforeseen. Acquiring skill and materials with intent to perform a specific action is not improvisation.<br />
<br />
To me, this means that the term “Improvised Explosive Device” was invented, or at least more broadly applied, in order to disguise the fact that terrorist groups are at work. “Oh, he’s no terrorist! He just became angry at the US and threw together a little fireworks to express himself.”<br />
<br />
Of course, the quick acceptance of the term may have had more to do with the catchy abbreviation and disregard for the actual meaning of the words, and no sinister plotting was involved. In fact, a variation on a theme admonishes us never to ascribe to malice what may be explained by mere stupidity. Ah, well, I guess I just wanted to rant.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-66574973100334826132013-04-25T17:47:00.001-04:002013-04-25T17:47:48.831-04:00A Symptom of the ProblemThe Nevada Assembly passed Tuesday, and sent to the Senate (who sent to committee on Wednesday), <a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?ID=220" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a bill</a> requiring a “cooling-off” period between the time a State Legislator leaves office and the time said former legislator becomes a paid lobbyist.<br />
<br />
It passed the Assembly 40-1 with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/steven-brooks-nevada_n_2962319.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">1 vacant seat</a>.<br />
<br />
As I tweeted last night, I oppose this measure on principle. The chief principle being, that if our legislators had principles, lobbyists would never exist.<br />
<br />
I’ve written before (although I can’t find it now) that the way our Republic ideally should work is that each candidate should say, essentially, either “I want the Government to take care of you,” or “I want the Government to leave you alone.” Then the elected representatives would stick to that principle on all proposed laws and policies. Rather than a representative saying “you sent me here, what should I do?” they’d say “you sent me here to do this, and that is what I’ll do.” Therefore, lobbying would be ineffective.<br />
<br />
Idealism aside, I oppose the idea of a “cooling-off” period. Either the practice should be banned outright, or it should be unrestricted. It is illogical to have people wait a few months. It is even more illogical to make exceptions such as those included in Amendment No. 565 (which partially appears as Subsection 2 of Section 1 of the bill as passed by the Assembly).<br />
<br />
I was going to conclude with a comment about sending this post to my State Senator, but realized that was against my principles. HA!ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-62961048248900331182013-03-18T15:57:00.001-04:002013-03-18T15:57:36.610-04:00To Win the Heart<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM9PIuD6fX8/UUdv0r_4vII/AAAAAAAABg4/DOyPgOSVF48/s1600/angel-devil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="409" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM9PIuD6fX8/UUdv0r_4vII/AAAAAAAABg4/DOyPgOSVF48/s640/angel-devil.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">“Angel and devil” by <a href="http://s646.photobucket.com/user/Dreamambul/profile/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dreamambul</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The great Professor Mondo <a href="http://profmondo.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/politics-aint-rocket-science-or-any-other-kind/" target="_blank">today has highlighted</a> an article discussing how science is treated through moral filters on both the right and the left (perhaps among other things). The Professor’s conclusion is that in the left-right battle, each side is trying to impose its morality on the other (or on everyone).<br />
<br />
One of the quotes within the quoted article has a leftist writer advocating policy to “minimize risk”. My takeaway from the paragraph was that to leftists, it is immoral to expose individuals to the risk of the consequences of their own actions. To me, it is immoral <i>not</i> to do so.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-19815918251550328422013-01-09T19:49:00.000-05:002013-01-10T00:08:49.423-05:00Selected Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Regarding Motor Vehicles<b>NRS Chapter 483, Section 230</b><br />
Anyone who <a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-483.html#NRS483Sec230" target="_blank">operates a motor vehicle</a> <b>on streets and highways</b> in the State must be licensed as a driver.<br />
<br />
<b>NRS Chapter 483, Section 550</b><br />
Anyone convicted of being a driver of a motor vehicle <b>on a public street or highway</b> in the State <a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-483.html#NRS483Sec550" target="_blank">without a valid license</a> shall be required by the court to obtain a valid license (or show reason for disqualification).<br />
<br />
<b>NRS Chapter 483, Section 620</b><br />
<a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-483.html#NRS483Sec620" target="_blank">Violation</a> is a misdemeanor.<br />
<br />
<b>NRS Chapter 193, Section 120</b><br />
<a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-193.html#NRS193Sec120" target="_blank">A misdemeanor</a> is “punishable by a fine of not more than
$1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months”.<br />
<br />
Nothing here precludes punishment for death, injury, or damage caused by irresponsible operation of a motor vehicle. Those crimes are defined and prohibited, and punishments proscribed, elsewhere in the law. Also, I expect there are plenty of people driving around without licenses. In fact, the practice is so widespread that our housing area put up a notice that drivers of work crews in the area must have a license, or the crew would be asked to leave. As long as they are responsible and don’t cause any damage, nobody (else) bothers them.<br />
<br />
Now replace <i>motor vehicle</i> with <i>firearm</i>, and <i>driver</i> with <i>shooter</i>.<br />
<br />
This would serve to “regulate the militia” by requiring licensees to demonstrate proper knowledge and skill, and yet not infringe on any citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. One could own and carry firearms in any responsible manner, which means keeping it concealed in most situations (because open carry tends to make people nervous).<br />
<br />
Only when a person actually uses a firearm in public—where “in public” can be defined as narrowly as on a street, or as broadly as anywhere outside one’s home—would he or she be subject to having a license or committing a misdemeanor. The shooter would still be liable for any non-justifiable harm done to others or their property. (And, of course, a jury would have to decide what is justifiable.)<br />
<br />
I’d rather not spend 6 months in the county jail, but I think $1,000 is a pretty cheap price to pay for saving a life.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-63054179031536585202012-12-05T16:47:00.000-05:002012-12-05T16:47:55.277-05:00Forget the GOPNo, I don’t mean I’m ready to abandon the Republican Party in favor of the Libertarian or any other party, or none at all. I’m referring to the 2012 election post-mortems that so many pundits, political operatives, and people on Twitter (but I repeat myself) have engaged in over the last few weeks.<br />
<br />
I believe that the message of freedom and fiscal responsibility is the right message. I believe that some (all) of the messengers are imperfect, but that is not the chief reason Democrats won the lion’s share of major elections this year.<br />
<br />
I believe that the century or more of Marxist influence has born its bitter fruit. There are now simply too many people who were never taught to do what is right, or worse, were taught that what is right is evil.<br />
<br />
It has taken a century because parents do love their children, and try to teach them to do right. The counter-culture of the 1960s and ’70s really exemplifies the other side, the ones who said things like “Don’t trust anybody over 30,” and “Question authority.” This kind of thing was actively promoted in the universities, and the products of those times became teachers of younger children.<br />
<br />
I have a draft post started where I put forth the idea that collectivism has its roots in self-loathing, but it seems more likely to me now that the prevalence of the attitude that society, or government, and not individuals, bear responsibility for caring for those who need it is simply the result of that idea being drilled into children’s heads for 100 years. (It took me a while to write these two final paragraphs on this post, too.)<br />
<br />
It is simply going to take time–I hope less than 100 years–to get enough people to adopt a philosophy of personal responsibility and accountability that we can begin to reverse the abrogation of these things. There are already reports of this happening in the younger generation. This is one reason the Occupy gatherings were taken over by leftist organizations, rather than being huge populist gatherings like the peace protests in the ’60s (or at least like they’ve been portrayed to us). So like the #damnhippie song says, teach your children–and grandchildren–well.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-5624782414534878312012-12-03T16:15:00.000-05:002012-12-04T14:34:51.674-05:00Call me PuristOK, here’s a random thought spurred by a tweet.<br />
<br />
First, the tweet contents. It was a joke: “Do you know the difference between a hunter and a fisherman? A hunter lies in wait. A fisherman waits and lies.”<br />
<br />
This got me thinking about something that has bugged me for a while about the modern sport of hunting: blinds and stands. (And associated with those, things like lures and decoys.)<br />
<br />
“Hunt” is an active verb. It is defined by my <u>American Heritage Dictionary</u>, as it relates to animals, as the act of pursuing, seeking out, searching for, or searching through (as in “I’ve hunted those woods many times”). It is not defined as “soaking a cloth with doe urine, fixing it to a post or a tree, and climbing the tree to sit on a seat built there and wait for a buck to come to you.”*<br />
<br />
A good hunter is not necessarily one who comes home with the biggest set of antlers. A good hunter is one who actively seeks out the area where the game lives, then pursues the game as it moves throughout that area until a clean shot can be made (and is successful).<br />
<br />
And I don’t really want to do that, which is probably why I’ve never hunted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*Now, the taking of game for food with no consideration for sport is a different matter. When one’s survival is at stake, there is nothing wrong with fishing in a barrel, so to speak. As long as the owner of the barrel is OK with it.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-92165796424363698942012-10-16T02:03:00.001-04:002012-10-17T15:30:09.865-04:00Campaigns are UselessAt least in their current form–which if we are to believe reports, goes back to ancient Greece–campaigns are useless. That is, each candidate telling the public about all the things the other candidate stands for, or wants to do, is not persuasive.<br />
<br />
You see, the reason this is useless is that all the things one side paints as the worst thing in the world that the other guy stands for, the other side actually supports. I'll use the Nevada Senatorial campaign as an example.<br />
<br />
Shelly Berkley claims that Dean Heller wants to remove federal funding from things like PBS, Medicare & Medicaid, and the mortgage modification program, and to repeal the PPACA. Well, she's probably right, and I support all those positions.<br />
<br />
Dean Heller claims that Shelly Berkley wants to take money from profitable small businesses and give it to people who bought houses they couldn't afford, people who make television shows that teach children to depend on society for their basic needs, and people who cheat and game the welfare system so they don't have to work. He's probably right (except maybe on the particulars of the last point), and the people who support Berkley are all for it.<br />
<br />
So you see, the problem is not the campaign; it's the diametrically opposed philosophies of the two major factions of society. The campaigns, and the ancillary phenomena like robo-calls, polling calls, pundits dissecting campaign commercials, and debates–and the endless ensuing discussions–are just annoyances. Huge annoyances, but merely annoyances nonetheless.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-14715096003055048392012-09-13T12:52:00.001-04:002012-09-13T12:54:04.811-04:00Blog UpdateI’m not much inspired to write these days, so I thought I’d add a blog reading list to my blog, as many of the bloggers on my list have on theirs. I’ve accepted the default arrangement of most recent post first, so the order will be updated as new posts appear.<br />
<br />
The blogs listed are most of my Google Reader subscriptions. If you like this blog, be sure to have a read of these others, as well.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3417245670557615859.post-42603308038044509612012-07-31T20:56:00.000-04:002012-08-07T09:28:36.060-04:00Shaking My Head (Part 2)<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kzbunrbc5l0/UBh9EKiURKI/AAAAAAAABTk/cOU6gEWTHDc/s1600/arra-sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="296" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kzbunrbc5l0/UBh9EKiURKI/AAAAAAAABTk/cOU6gEWTHDc/s320/arra-sign.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This was in front of the new fire station as it was being<br />
built at one corner of the road in question.</td></tr></tbody></table>Not even two weeks ago, the county road leading to our housing area was resurfaced. It took nearly a whole week, as the part of the road that was resurfaced is about 3 miles long. When it was finished, it was really nice; all the largish holes, dips, and bumps were gone.<br />
<br />
Today as I left for work, there were flagman signs, and a work crew was busily drilling a hole in the new surface. Well, one guy was busily drilling a hole; four or five others were apparently supervising and standing ready to offer first aid should anything go wrong.<br />
<br />
When I came home tonight, there was (thankfully) a sign warning drivers to the presence of “STEEL PLATES IN ROADWAY”. Sure enough, there were at least four spots in the brand new surface that had been removed and covered with metal plates, about 6'x8'.<br />
<br />
Now why would a company be paid to do a resurfacing job, then either that same company or another one be paid to tear it up?<br />
<br />
I want to scream. SMH<br />
<br />
UPDATE: After a couple of days, the steel plates were gone and the road filled in. But now nearly all my old familiar holes that I'd learned to avoid are back. Winter will only make them worse.ScottOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15862732189843248100noreply@blogger.com1