How To Nationalize Health Care - And Like It.

This is a revisit in detail of my previous post 10 "Simple" Steps to Health Care Reform. In that post, a commentary on a Huffington Post article about various means of fixing Health Care, I pointed out the only thing that will actually reduce health care costs:

Remove the profit motive.

In businesses, which virtually everything in health care is, the motive is to make a profit. I have no problem with this, provided it's done responsibly. But when it comes to human lives, the profit motive is diametrically opposed to the preservation of life. This motive influences everything from research and development to the rendering of services. In the end, medically-related industries financially thrive at the expense of patients who die due to a lack of affordable health care.

Now, this must be stressed: AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE. That doesn't mean it's free. That doesn't mean the government pays for everything. Patients will pay for their health care, but at a greatly reduced rate. How reduced? That depends on the ways and means of implementation of this idea of mine.

First of all, the object is to nationalize health care in such a way that the government BUYS OUT all health care and health care related industries. This includes health insurance, health product and equipment manufacturers, drug manufacturers - everything health care related. The whole ball of wax. If you leave ONE of these industries free to make an uncontrolled profit, you don't get the same bang for the buck.

How is this done? First of all, establish a constitutional amendment that states health care is a basic human right. This then allows the rest to follow.

Next, provide financial incentives for education for health-care-related fields. If there's a shortage, give discounts to students looking to enter the field where that shortage exists.

Step three is to legislate caps on profits and total pay. Fix profits at no more than 5% + Inflation and be certain that all costs - including expansions, next year's research, etc. - are included in the operating budgets. Fix pay based on the equivalent civil service pay scales used in government hospitals. Have critical fields (Such as General Practitioners and nurses) paid better than normal to attract more people to that field. Lower the pay for those in glutted fields.

Step Four: Tort reform. Cap putative damages at a reasonable level and provide free care for life. No gigantic pay-outs. This eliminates the need for private sector workers to charge outrageous fees (according to them, to off-set malpractice insurance).

There will be loopholes. There will be those who try to avoid the restrictions. This is human nature and expected. Which leads to the next step: Buy-outs.

Start by closing trading on all public health care-related companies. Freeze stocks at their current levels. Next, use government funds to buy them out one at a time, then nationalize it. Investors lose nothing (assuming they bought when the price was low) and can then reinvest in other industries. Either way, they get SOMETHING back on their investment.

Retain the employees and properties, and put them to work producing their products to be sold at cost plus 10%. Yes, the Government will earn a 10% profit on what they buy - which will be used to help offset the cost of buying the stocks and nationalizing it in the first place. Granted, it's not fast, but this is a long-term solution. Once the cost of the investment to nationalize that business has been recovered, the 10% extra is dropped from the prices and all things from that company from that point on are sold at cost. This also provides incentive for people to shop around a bit and if the other businesses are smart, they'll cut their prices by 5% to undercut the government prices. Eventually, though, the government will be cheaper. In the case of the 5% profit for privatized companies, they can use it for pay bonuses above and beyond current salaries, to provide incentive. It's not a lot, but it's something.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Everyone keeps their current job (unless they don't like the pay, then they quit of their own accord) and the process continues under new management whose motive isn't profit, but providing affordable health care. With everything being charged at cost plus 10% (at most), huge payouts for damages aren't being laid on insurers and with wages capped, health care becomes a hell of a lot more affordable. Insurers can insure to pay reasonable costs instead of inflated ones. People can shop for insurance companies and save a little more from those that don't try to get a profit but are satisfied with their income and expense balances.

Economists may blanch at the thought of nationalization of such a large sector of the American economy, but here's the low-down in the whys.

First of all, we have no cures. Except for Smallpox, we are still plagued by every other thing that has plagued mankind from day one. Why no cures? It's not that they don't exist. It's that they're not PROFITABLE.

If you get Cancer, you get treatments. The Cancer may go into remission, since you were only treated, but you will live in fear for the rest of your life that it may come back. Then you get more treatments. Treatments are repeated, expensive and not always effective. But they are also immensely profitable for the drug manufacturers.

What if it was a cure? A cure can be even more expensive, but there's no chance of it coming back, no chance of repetition of that income, and making it cost as much as all of the repeated treatments is beyond the means of most everyone - insurers included. Cures are financial dead ends, a potentially large investment for a potentially very small profit.

For-profit insurance companies are, by far, the greatest threat to human life that has ever been visited upon a suffering humanity. With a profit motive, they're literally saying we want to get your money and we don't want to pay out anything. This leads to all sorts of abuses from "pre-existing conditions" to denial of payment after the fact. ANYTHING they can do to keep people from receiving claims, they do. And when they can't do that, they raise their rates based on their own standards. When people can't afford their health care, they often die or go bankrupt.

Even hospitals, doctors and the like all scrimp or over-do, costing billions in over-charges and missed diagnoses.

It all comes down to money. If the actual costs of doing business is all that is being paid for, with shortfalls being covered by the Government, we could use Medicaid and Medicare income to run health care for everyone in a semi-nationalized, but government cost-controlled manner. This would mean more people could afford to pay for their insurance, everyone can get insurred and the government uses existing funds to cover those who can't afford insurance instead of paying exorbitant amounts to line the pockets of companies and corporations.

In the end, the Government runs most health care in industries they paid for and repaid to the American people. Private companies have their costs controlled regarding profit and wages. Investment is curtailed in Health Care (unless the government wants to issue bonds to help raise take-over revenue, which wouldn't be a bad idea) and profit is no longer a factor in the US, but enough financial incentives exist to keep the field manned and staffed.

Granted, this idea needs to be tweaked for practical implementation, but this provides the framework upon which true health care reform can be built.

Safety Last

There is a trend lately - whether in the world or in the U.S. or both - to demand that the government make us "safe".

"There ought to be a law!" is the battle cry of the folks who seem intent on swaddling the public in legal and regulatory cotton so that nothing harms them. Now, I'm not talking about product safety wherein blatant negligence results in injury or death. We need to have products, food and drugs that contain what the label says without necessarily killing or hurting anyone in the normal use/consumption of said product. There's nothing wrong with insisting on an acceptable level of product safety. But what is acceptable?

This is where the line between reason and insane becomes blurred. To some, acceptable risk is bungee jumping with moth-eaten elastic. To others, they have to weigh the risks between holding one's breath and breathing. But this is on an individual level. People deciding for themselves what their acceptable levels of risk is. This is all well and good. People shoud decide for themselves how much risk they want in their lives. If it kills them (hopefully, BEFORE they procreate), their bad risk assessment abilities aren't passed on to the next generation, or they serve as a good example of how not to do things for the more risk assessment aware. If it stops people from doing anything productive at all, then they do nothing to endanger anyone else and life goes on without them (because eventually, there's too much risk involved in procreation, they stop procreating and die out).

It's a win-win for Darwin and the Human Race.

But somewhere between the two extremes, we have the government. Swaying between aggressive self preservation and avoiding preservation at all costs, what we end up with is a mash-up of utter indifference and over-zealous protectiveness in the form of laws, regulations, procedures and rules that are glaring in their extremes.

When it comes to business, we have regulations that often are at odds with what is in the best interests of the people - regulations and rules that hold the environment and the health of people in what is arguably utter contempt. On the other end, we have laws and regulations that invade the individual person's dignity and person for the sake of "safety".

It is to the latter that that this posting is addressed. There are a myriad of examples of government-mandated safety regulations. From the seat belt to clean water standards, these regulations help keep us safe in a very real manner. They prevent frequent injury, illness and/or death. But some safety regulations go a bit overboard. These are the kind of things you find at public events: Security screenings for hidden weapons or explosives.

Now, I'm not opposed to these, in general. After all, SOMEONE has to get money for all that high-tech security screening gear people are inventing. But when these screenings are both invasive and utterly ineffective, the overboard-ness of the things becomes glaringly apparent. Take, for example, the TSA's latest brain fart: Virtual strip searches and/or public sexual groping.

For people who are unfortunate enough to be forced to endure the "ham in the can" experience of modern aviation, the indignity of air travel today begins at the security gate. There, they will find a vast assortment of advisory notices telling passengers what they can't bring with them. This list includes the usual things like weapons, pocket knives and other things that have obvious weapons potential. It also includes things like nail clippers (Apparently, the victims of the deadly nail clipper attack dies laughing that some schmuck tried to hijack a plane with them) but, curiously, fails to include pens and pencils as well as car and house keys - all of which are taught in most personal self defense classes to be used as weapons.

One wonders what the hell they're thinking there.

Another thing they are told is the amount of liquids they are allowed to bring on the plane in a carry-on. The maximum, I believe, is 3 ounces per item. This is because it is believed that this amount is insufficient to mix with anything else to create a bomb. This belief is, of course, an utter fallacy, but if the TSA doesn't come up with something new to irritate air travelers every year, people might think they're not doing their jobs.

Once at the actual security station, the by now impatient at the two hour long wait passengers are required to surrender their footwear right off the bat. Most people will then be sent through a metal detector, have their carry-ons x-rayed and, dignity pretty much shot, will move into the canning - or rather boarding - process.

The removal of shoes is because one person, one time, attempted but failed, to ignite a small amount of explosives in his shoe. Whoever decided that three ounces was an insufficient amount of liquid to ignite and do any damage should have checked the shoes of this guy since he carried around three ounces of explosives in each one, but, hey, I'm just a blogger who can read. It would appear that the TSA is contradicting itself, either that or they only really object to people blowing up planes with shoe-bombs but not with OTHER cleverly concealed 3 ounce plastic explosives.

The wonders of modern security never ceases to amaze me.

But despite these, thus far utterly useless, endeavors, we have the most brain-dead, bone-headed, nightmare of security procedures: The Scan and Grope.

This entails a randomly selected victim being singled out of the line to undergo "enhanced security screening" procedures. The poor schmuck is forced to stand in a booth, arms over their head as if in surrender while being irradiated in such a way that the return signal displays what is essentially their naked body to someone in another room. Never mind that radiation exposure and damage is cumulative over a lifetime. Never mind that some people have religious nudity taboos. Never mind that not one of these people - not one - has ever concealed anything of consequence.

Never mind that this device will not show anything concealed inside the human body where considerably more than three ounces of explosives (along with the necessary equipment to set it off) can be concealed. The long and short of it is that this personal-privacy-intrusive scan can not detect what it is designed to detect even if that something is NOT inside someone.

But the ultimate indignity is what happens if you refuse the scan: You are sexually molested.

That's right. In public, in front of several hundred silently consenting witnesses, a stranger grabs you by your private parts, checking for hidden explosives.

Please note, all of this is because one person - once - tried, but failed, to set off a bomb concealed in his underwear.

The horror stories of abuses and indignities - from the cancer survivor who was forced, in public, to show the agent her breast prosthesis to the ostomy patient whose urostomy bag was ripped off in the course of the search and was subsequently forced to sit on an airplane in his own urine - are legion. It is patently obvious that this latest assault on our privacy is neither popular or warranted. The truly sad part is that the underwear bomber would most likely have passed both visual and manual inspection.

Now, I do happen to know a little bit about the constitutionality of security at airports and to what standard it is applied. It is required that the security not be overly intrusive (without probable cause, that is) and that it be effective. This is based on past decisions handed down by the Supreme Court over the years to various things the TSA has implemented. X-rayed luggage, metal detectors and even removed footwear are fine, it seems. They, at least, have some reasonable chance of detecting what they are designed to detect and so, even if it's undignified, that part's constitutional.

Unfortunately, the enhanced security screening procedures - both the scanner and the groping - are acknowledged by security specialists around the world to be ineffective at detecting an "underwear bomb". That is precisely what they are SUPPOSED to detect. Of course, the TSA vehemently denies this, but can you really trust an agency that can get its porn for free through a high-tech peep-show of hundreds of people a day to have the best interests of the flying public at heart?

In all seriousness, the new security screening procedures are so unconstitutional as to be a government sanctioned sexual assault every time someone is groped or scanned. The litmus test for the constitutionality of these enhanced screenings came back blatantly against it, but the TSA soldiers on, groping and sexually violating passenger after passenger at dozens of major airports around the country on nearly a minute to minute basis.

This is how the government has opted to keep us SAFE? By utilizing procedures and technology that don't work?

It would seem so.

I know I've said that people are stupid. I stand by that. Point in evidence: A general lack of rioting in the streets (or at least at airports) over these new procedures. They are an affront to the personal dignity and privacy of the average American air traveler, but aside from several vocal people, the vast majority of them just take it in stride, never realizing the magnitude of liberty and freedom - not to mention privacy - they, with their silent consent, have lost.

And so, in the interests of safety, the people of the U.S. continue to be violated in their person and privacy in a process that guarantees nothing but embarrassment, thus proving Franklin's adage, that those who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and lose both.

Politics IS Religion

Let's face it, Politics in the U.S. is no longer about the secular world. It's all about religion.

Recall, now, that I define a religion as a set of dogmatic behaviors. Defining Politics as religion may be stretching this definition a bit, but if you consider the fact you can describe the behaviors of a conservative as well as a liberal within a fairly narrow boundary for each, and that each side is moving to push their people to abide within those boundaries, and that the boundaries are becoming even more restrictive, politics become less about government and the running thereof and more about religion.

There is definitely a belief system involved here. It's already been pretty conclusively proven that neither extreme of the political spectrum (conservative and liberal) has ANY answers. They've moved out of range of actually solving any problems with the party planks they've acquired over the last couple of decades. When people believe in things that can't really happen, you start moving into the realm of religion as well. Though beliefs don't qualify something as a religion in my book (Behaviors do, remember), they definitely have the same area code. And when those beliefs move into the impossible (or extremely improbable), then we're looking at shared zip codes.

Another reason why politics is a religion is because of the reason the effort is put into it. And the reason is secular power. Though one could argue that there is no religious basis for politics, that it's all about social issues and the way governments run, let's look at it from the flip side. Organized religions are all about secular power. They brow-beat their followers with dogmatic platforms demanding compliance to a certain behavioral code. Belief is only a by-product and, in the end, isn't really necessary. Provided the followers go through the motions and say the right things, they "believe" in the eyes of others, whether they actually do or not. Further, while religions have long since insinuated themselves into social issues, more and more lately they've inserted themselves into how governments run as well. The language of government is fraught with religious symbolism and ideology.

All of this describes a political rally, although I'm inclined to say that at a political rally, the followers are far more likely to believe in their nonsense than someone in a church.

And what that nonsense has the same impact: That is to say regardless of who's in power, nothing really changes. The progressives try to move forward while the conservatives try to move backward. There may be some movement at times while one or the other is in "power", but the fact remains that as much as the progressives move forward while in power, the conservatives move backward. Like a religion, it doesn't matter what you believe politically because the end result is always the same - nothing changes, no one new is converted, no one who believes stops believing.

Finally, and most telling of them all, is the fact that politics includes violence against others to force them to "behave" the same way as those inflicting the violence. Religion is fraught with examples of coerced conversions. Politics is fraught with the same thing.

Pundits exhort their rabid fans in vague terms (which in reality can only be interpreted one way) to go out and save the country from the bad guys (who are invariable the politically polar opposite of them). The violent imagery involved in these exhortations is subtle, but apparent to those who have a discerning eye or are too simple-minded to understand that the images aren't meant to be taken literally. While cause and effect isn't always linear, the fact remains that political rhetoric, passing off politics as a religion that is to be followed with no questions and no resistance and to call those who don't the enemy who should be "targeted", is widespread and that people have died who were targeted because of their differing political ideology.

This puts politics down there with religion. The only difference I can see is that unlike religion, with politics, the people vote for who their gods will be.

Media Mischief Un-Managed

In case no one's noticed, this blog isn't "monetized". I don't make a thing from it. I'm not blogging here to make money. (Edit added 9/26/2011: Okay, I added AdSense as of today. I don't endorse, sponsor or promote any ads here. Do with them (or not) as you will. The point is, I'm not "bought" by anyone. But I made my Significant Other happy by at least trying to make my time and efforts here pay something - even if I make nothing. As I said, I'm not blogging here to make money. If I do, it's a happy by-product and nothing more.)

(Edited added 02/24/2012: Okay, I have moved the blog to my new persona, and no longer have AdSense, as that requires me to use my real name, so I am no longer monetized on this blog.  Funny how that works, huh?  At least I'm back to staying true to the message, without any financial compensation for it (sigh). )

What I have here is an editorial blog. It's designed to convince, sway, influence and inform - probably in that order. I have my ups and downs and make no apologies for them (unless, of course, I apologize). I update things as situations evolve and become clearer (at least to me), but I make no bones about why I do this. There is no deliberate deception. I have no hidden agendas.

Believe it or not, this makes what I say far more reliable than what passes for news these days from the major media outlets in the United States. Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, the AP, INS, and most of the other news organizations have two handicaps I don't have:

1. They have to cater to a consuming public
2. They have to sell advertising to make money.

Now, this wouldn't seem to be much of a handicap on the surface of it. After all, all businesses need and want to make money. This is well and good. However the business we're talking about here is the NEWS, and that's where the whole "businesses making money" part goes badly wrong. In the pursuit of staying in business, the news is no longer the news. It becomes entertainment.

Again, news can be presented in an entertaining fashion, but it's not what's happening. The news is secondary to the entertainment. It's a by-product. I've seem headlines and news teasers that were the equivalent of saying, "Deadly plague sweeping the planet!!!!", but the story is about the latest round of flu shots being available and lasts less time than the teasers took to air. The news is no longer a place to go to get the facts of the day. It's a place to go to become flooded with sensationalistic hype, leaving you as terrified, sweaty and exhausted as you'd be if you were fleeing a pack of rabid weasels.

But even if you overlooked the sensationalism, we get to the fact that the news isn't just news. It's a perspective. In the pursuit of sensationalism, the news becomes (intentionally and unintentionally) increasingly biased. I wrote a post about this back in 2008. It was how biased blogs were being passed off as "news". The problem, as I expected, got worse. Now it seems that news and bias go hand in hand. News was less important than getting the point across as to how one should feel about that news. What's worse, there is a general blindness on the part of the public and the media to accept that their US news sources are ALL blatantly biased these days.

Fox News is so right-wing, viewers having the stomach to watch it should be rewarded with free memberships to the KKK, NRA and RNC. MSNBC is so left-wing, it should require its viewers to be card carrying members of PETA, Greenpeace and Earth First!. The rest (From the Drudge Report on the right to the San Francisco Chronicle on the left) are so biased that news takes a back seat to trying to convince people that they must believe a certain way about what the stories cover. And this all ties in to sensationalism and the need to make money on the part of these news organizations. Sensationalism sells. Playing it up, slanting it this way or that, making even the mundane sound earth-shaking (or at least implying it's earth-shaking) is what the news is all about these days.

The problem is now endemic in the US and I don't see that it's going to get any better. No news organization that I've found in the US is unbiased. This wouldn't be much of a problem if people didn't stick to one news organization from which they get their information. But they do. And often times, these news organizations try to play on the fears people have that their news might be biased. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" bullshit is a great example. I could say the sun is simply a very large heat lamp plugged into a socket in Soho. But just saying it doesn't make it true. Fox News is as blatantly rightist as MSNBC is blatantly leftist. Only MSNBC admits its bias from time to time.

The only way to deal with the flood of opinionated stories is to hear a lot of them, find what facts are involved and glean the truth of the matter from the sensationalism. It's more work, of course, and I'm sure, given the inherent stupidity of mankind, most people won't do it. But most people are sheep. They want the sensationalism. It's entertaining to them. They can then feel justified in their ignorance of reality because their biased news organization has told them the things they want to hear because it fits their belief system.

This isn't news. It's religion.

Whatever ethical motives our once-great news organizations had in the past to present the who, what, when, where, how and (maybe) why has gone the way of the wind-up watch and Walter Cronkite. We no longer have serious men (and women) giving us the news in a straight-forward manner. We are being "entertained", suckered in by sensationalism, and fed a diet of bias that has helped polarize the country. This is all done to ensure a constant stream of news consumers who will see the advertising and buy the advertiser's products so the advertisers continue to sponsor the Evening Bias Hour.

The fact is, no US news organization has a lock on the news as fact. They will dress it up until even the victims of the event couldn't recognize it and present it, freshly spun in the direction the organization's bias leans. So if you want the REAL news, read between the lines. Ignore the adjectives. Focus on the facts. Better yet, read the news from overseas - especially from countries which are unfriendly toward the US. You already know the news is biased, and can find the facts a bit easier to decipher with that presumption. Above all, DO NOT USE JUST ONE SOURCE FOR YOUR NEWS and ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND whatever you do read, view and/or hear IS BIASED.

If you're ever interested in finding out the real truth out there, this is what you have to do these days. Otherwise, please unplug your mind completely because whatever reality you will be living in will be controlled by the news organization you choose to believe.

Why Planks Don't Build Bridges

It dawned on me, not too long ago, that the whole problem with politics today is "position". Party platforms. Planks of policy. Agendas of the asses (Not a typo.).

Let's face it, politicians get elected because people want to know where they stand on the "issues". The problem here is that taking a stand on the issue isn't going to solve it. Politics isn't about politicians fulfilling campaign promises. It's about getting elected. Politicians, as individuals, usually have almost no power at all. It's only through cooperation, deal-making and other such things that anything actually gets accomplished at all. Campaign promises to "fix this" or "undo that" or "oppose this" or "stop that" are all BS. No one person can promise that. No political party can promise anything. They can't deliver on their agendas without cooperation or a dictatorship. Given the polarized political landscape today, where cooperation is viewed as being weak and betraying the 'values' of the member's political party, the only way to deliver a campaign promise is the dictator route.

Planks may be great for bullet points to inflame the passions of the masses, but in practical terms, planks accomplish nothing but putting up roadblocks to getting anything done. They delineate the limits of compromise toward the other side - which is to say none. They're not even viable starting points. Platforms are merely ideas, tokens of position on a political map that is as malleable as clay to those who unfold it. If it will get those who unfold it into power, they'll put that token anywhere. They mean NOTHING to these people other than as a means to an end - which is to get into and stay in power. That much is pretty obvious.

No matter the platform point, the policy position or the agenda, the one question that none of these things can answer is, "How?" How are you going to get that done? Ram-rod it down people's throats so your side "wins"? Force your agenda on an unwilling half of the country? 'Spin' it so it sounds like a deal it isn't? (We call that lying where I come from) Frankly, I'd rather avoid dictatorships again. So assuming the two parties will continue to remain opposed to one another's platform points, and no compromise will ever be forthcoming (which is NOT as unreasonable an assumption as you might think), and dictatorships won't be tolerated by the masses, what's the only way to get things done?

First of all, we need another major political party. One in the center, for whom agendas and planks and such mean nothing. These people will be elected simply because they won't paint over themselves with whatever convenient political color is out there to get elected. Their one political campaign promise is to get the job done. What does getting the job done mean?

Basically by applying the bullshit meter to things.

If the bullshit meter points too far to the left or the right, it goes BZZZZZZZ! and the business is sent back to be fixed. It's pretty easy to spot bullshit in politics. They're called party platforms.

Moderation means doing things so that no one is happy. By no one, I mean the left and the right. If a compromise is worked out which leaves both sides yelping with equal volume, you probably have a good compromise. You know the platform points. you know where both sides stand - the core 'values' of each party. But the reality - the solution to dealing with these issues and their plank positions - is somewhere in the middle. It always has been. And that's where our American Moderate Party works: in the middle, hashing out the solutions so that both sides scream with the same pitch.

Let's face it, extremism doesn't provide lasting solutions. It never has. We can't build a bridge with planks that can't meet in the middle. We have to have enough overlap in our political positions to encompass all but the more extreme views. We have to find solutions that stand a chance at lasting longer than the next national election when the political pendulum swings the other way. And that won't happen - ever - with the political climate we've had in Washington DC the last two decades.

EVERYONE is fed up with congress (by everyone, I mean enough people to ratify amendments and over-turn vetoes, AKA a super-majority). But we still play into that "if you're not with us you're a traitor and against us" attitude the Antichrist (Karl Rove) brought to us during the Bush years.

We have to get over that. The best way is by organizing the silent middle into a new political party. One whose purpose is to finish building bridges, not with the thin planks of extremism and fragile ropes of expedience, but with the steel and concrete of the kind of practical cooperation that is at the heart and spirit of a UNITED States of America. We need enduring solutions, not political party plank patches. We need the American Moderate Party. It's too late for this election, but in two years...?

I think we can do it.

Putting Your Money Where Your Values Are

This is a simple solution, so in contrast to my usual posts, this one will be much shorter.

It's dawned on me that I have a solution to the whole Right-To-Life/Pro-Choice issue. It's simple, effective, and takes care of the entire issue without passing any bans and only one law.

Here's how it would work: You're free to "protest" against abortions in any legal way, shape or form, but by doing so, your name goes on a list. This is just a list of people who think Abortions must stop and who have taken that extra step of going out an saying so to others in a very public manner. The list is available for people to volunteer to sign up for as well. You are on the list for a month after which, you can then request to be taken off the list, provided no one has been assigned to you and you have not engaged in any protest activities for a month. The most recent protesters go to the FRONT of the list.

When you get on the list, you are entering into a binding, legal status saying that you take all responsibility for the consequences of your intervention - financial, personal, professional. Your intervention is going to stop an abortion - period. No if's, ands or buts about it.

By being on this list, however, you agree to pay for all medical bills and expenses that are due to the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum period - including psychology bills, or damages, if necessary - for the woman who wanted the abortion. You then adopt the child, or arrange for the child to be adopted. Whoever adopts them must raise them and assume all parental responsibilities. If the woman needed the abortion to live, you are liable for her death and will pay all expenses and restitution to the family. If the child dies, you pay all funeral expenses.

For women who want an abortion, they have to check the list first. If someone is on the list, they are assigned to that woman and the woman must carry the child to term under medical supervision. If there's no one on the list, they can have the abortion.

This is a self-correcting issue. When the idiots who think Abortions shouldn't be allowed and want a law banning them are forced to get personally involved in the consequences of their demands, I suspect they'll begin to understand the gravity of the situation. There may always be a list, but as time goes on, I suspect fewer and fewer people will be on it. My guess is, if this arrangement became the law of the land, there would be no names on the list within a month and only a handful every month after that.

But those who had their name on the list and was assigned would be personally responsible for stopping an abortion.

It's easy to stand out and about and say "We want this to STOP!" when you don't have a personal stake in it. The right-wing is all about personal responsibility and less government. Well, guys, here's a way to put your money where your values are. If you want to assume the financial, legal and moral responsibility of stopping abortions, all the power to you and abortions will stop - assuming there is always a name on the list. But until that day happens when you take personal responsibility for the consequences of your demands, the law of the land is choice.

A Time-Out for Time-Outs

As usual, this idea is controversial, especially if you believe in the New Age idea of molly-coddling children. If you have a mass-produced bumper sticker on the back of your car that lauds your child's completely irrelevant and minor scholastic achievements, and you read this, you will probably think I'm utterly barbaric. You're probably right, but then, that's the whole reason for this post.

Here's the reason for the post: I DO believe in child abuse.

Let me rephrase that so the politically correct types can stop hyperventilating in preparation for an apoplectic fit of yuppie rage.

I believe that the responsible application of corporal punishment on children for offenses which merit criminal punishment in adults is both a more effective and more suitable deterrent to the possibility of re-offending than the current method of punishment of using "time outs" and the restriction of other privileges.

Lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, public disturbances, talking back; all of these are offenses at some place for an adult for which a civil or criminal penalty is imposed. Most kids these days will get a "time out" for them. Most kids will then re-offend and do the same thing. If, as an adult, you're getting back-talk from a five year old, something is wrong with this picture.

Let's look at child-rearing, then and now, and explode a few myths along the way. This might help put things in proper perspective.

Back when I was growing up (a time somewhat after the last Ice Age, before the Computer Age, when Leave It To Beaver, Gilligan's Island and Star Trek - the one with William Shatner as captain of the Enterprise - weren't in reruns), kids played outside with toys that sparked imagination. The term "helicopter parenting" wouldn't appear for at least four decades and a Bush was household shrubbery. No one talked much about the latest kidnapping, rape and murder of children (though, actually, it happened more often then than now). No one had GPS and cell phones to keep track of their little darlings. School officials were allowed to beat the living crap out of you if you got out of line. (okay, okay, they could spank you - but if you saw my Assistant Principle you knew that if he were to spank you, your odds of survival were the same as those of the proverbial snowball in Hell). While some places had kids acting out, for the most part, schools were gun-free, knife-free and generally well ordered. Crime, for my generation, started a decline. The criminals were people who were either over-the-top abused or were never spanked.

Then we enter into the age of the Time Out.

Now we have children in gangs (lots more gang activity today than back then). We have a new way of teaching everyone that everyone wins in school, when in real life, practically no one wins and no one gets out alive. If someone acts out, they get a "time out" which is a period of not too unpleasant boredom to "think about what they did". What they actually think about is how not to get caught the next time. Corporal punishment was removed from schools and as a result, metal detectors and police were installed in its place. But with the plethora of entertainment devices a child has today, even if they're sent to their rooms, it's not like that's all that much of a punishment. Sitting them in a corner is no more effective than being bored on a Sunday afternoon.

You see, my generation didn't enjoy getting the crap beaten out of us (well, that's how we thought of it at least). We were thinking way too short-term. We felt the pain and thought to ourselves, "Isn't there a better, more enlightened way to direct a child's behavior than by inflicting pain?" We vowed never to beat our kids because we were beaten. But we never really thought about the consequences of our beatings on our behaviors. For the most part, we grew up to be fine examples of modern society. We may have thought of it as having done it in spite of the way punishment was meted out to us. Few ever stopped to consider the probability it was BECAUSE of the punishment meted out to us.

Yes, it was unpleasant, but it was memorable. VERY memorable. And in that is the key to punishment. Is a "time out" memorable? Let's put it this way, if you were ever standing around on a Sunday afternoon, say around three fifteen in the afternoon between games on TV and after mowing the lawn, with nothing to do, you're experiencing the exact same thing as some kid who is sitting in a time-out. I know I can think of a time or two when I was bored, but what kind of an impact does that make on my desire or willingness to break a law (or rule, transgression, etc)?

Pretty much none. It wasn't memorable. It was boring, yes, but it wasn't a trial of any kind. There was no lasting impression made from a time-out.

But a paddling?

Talk to anyone with gray hair. Almost universally, they'll remember being paddled, spanked or in some other way physically touched in order to inflict a mild to moderate amount of pain with no permanent physical harm. And if done right, it will be not only memorable, but effective as well.

This segues nicely into the fact that getting spanked has a right way and a wrong way. The wrong way is to haul off and beat the crap out of a kid the instant the transgression happens. Yes, it's viscerally satisfying on a deep, emotional level to strike at the source of one's irritation, but a civilized society usually refrains from such indulgences. The best way to beat the crap out of a kid so that it is a lesson that is memorable and effective (preferably without requiring a doctor's visit or hospitalization) as opposed to abuse is to be calm, be timely, be consistent, have rules and explain what's happening, when and why.

So, step 1. Rules.

A child can't know when they've broken rules unless they know the rules ahead of time. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse. So a wise parent will have rules and, just as importantly, punishments for breaking those rules. Make sure there's a "when in doubt" rule to cover all bases.

Now that the boundaries are laid, crossing them should always require a parental review. Was it justified? If so, the boundaries have to be moved. If not, it was a violation and punishment is required. That's the consistency part. Look over the transgression. Yes, kids will be kids. I really do get that. But kids need to learn the limits and what better way than to put an electric fence on it - make them stop, look, be very careful if they're going to cross that line and understand that if they screw up, they get zapped. Be consistent in applying the rules and don't be secretive about them.

Next, make punishment a BIG THING. A fast slap on the butt in the marketplace (aside from probably drawing the attention of Child Protection Services) isn't going to leave much of an impression on the child (no pun intended). But if you discover a transgression, treat it as if they're an adult. Depending on the severity of the transgression, place them under "arrest" with restrictions on toys, activities, privileges, etc. Sit them down in a trial. Tell them what they did wrong, why it was wrong, let them argue their case and show them the error of their ways. Then pronounce sentence. Let them think about THAT for a bit. Finally, commence with the bea..., er, spanking, in a calm, measured, dispassionate way. Do not tell them that it hurts you more than it hurts them. They won't believe you. Do not sympathize with them. The lesson won't be learned properly.

When it's over, don't hold grudges.

The point here is that if a punishment isn't memorable, what's to stop a kid from doing it again and again? If there's too much punishment, it becomes difficult for a child to know what's right and wrong. Not every transgression merits a spanking, of course. Every child is different, as well, so one must know whether physical pain, administered in a measured, controlled fashion will be the most effective deterrent to that child's case of bad behavior.

And if you don't have the kind of time to do this, you should give your kids up for adoption. They need parents, not playmates.

Now, as much as I believe in child abuse for kids, I believe even stronger that such punishments should extend to adults. Only with adults instead of safely tucking it away behind prison walls where only whispered stories of various levels of truth leak out from time to time in specials designed to show how awful it is in them, we need to be public, open and visually brutal.

Adults aren't children. They generally don't live to please an authority figure. They have a greater ability to rationalize away criminal behaviors. Adults are capable of a level of brutality far exceeding that of children. Meeting this brutality with a controlled brutality is the only way to mete out a punishment of sufficient intensity to be memorable in such a way that one would NOT wish to experience it again. I think public floggings for relatively minor offenses which would normally merit a jail sentence should be the norm. The number of strokes would depend on the offense. It should be administered by a machine (for the sake of consistency and safety) which is physically constrained from exceeding a safe "per-stroke" level of force. A medic should be on hand to ensure that no permanent damage is done (aside from the potential of scarring unless a scar-free way of flogging someone can be found).

Why flogging? Because it's visual, visceral and brutal. It's MEMORABLE, both for those who undergo it and those who witness it. And it's not an experience one would wish to repeat.

While we're on the subject, I'm NOT an advocate of the Death Penalty. Yes, it gets rid of unwanted vermin, but sometimes they throw out the baby with the trash - innocent people HAVE been executed in the US. That's very bad juju. Instead, I advocate a "Prison TV" channel for people who would otherwise have been executed. Every prison should have their own station, which the viewer can access and control, to watch what happens to a lifer in a prison. No privacy. No escape. Public humiliation. It's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. But maybe something like this will satisfy society's desire for vengeance.

One thing for sure: It's memorable.

The fact is, the criminals of today's society need a good spanking. If it's memorable enough, painful enough and embarrassing enough, it may have more of an impact than the way we punish criminals today.

Okay, the yuppie, new-age, easily bruised sensibilities people can now go and have some white Zin and tofu cakes and get on with your lives. Keep repeating to yourselves, "It's only a blog... It's only a blog... It's only a blog..."

Forgiveness - It's Why We Fight

It struck me recently (yes, it hurt) that humans don't forgive and that lack of forgiveness drives our societies, religions and politics.

Our histories are rife with acts of revenge, blood feuds and grudges held against a people, families or tribes that can last centuries. In some cultures, such demands of vengeance are considered honorable and good. People don't avoid it, they embrace it. We as a people seek revenge instead of justice, demanding not just that biblical limit of only an eye for an eye and only a tooth for a tooth (yes, folks, it's a call for restitution, not bloody retribution - Exodus 21:22-25. And Matthew 5:38-48 says to turn the other cheek anyhow.), but to take the whole body (and then some) for incidents that aren't even criminal in some cases.

Remember the Alamo! Remember Pearl Harbor! Remember the Maine! Remember 9/11!

All of these have been used as rallying cries to inflict harm and damage on people who had nothing to do with the atrocities mentioned. It wasn't uncommon for prisoners to be shot, so the Alamo had no survivors. Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake in many ways, but would it have made any difference if the Japanese had managed to declare war before the attack? Germany didn't attack us and look what happened there. Millions of Japanese civilians who had nothing to do with the war died. Investigations have since determined that the Maine probably blew up due to a coal dust explosion, but a lot of Spaniards who had nothing to do with it died because of our seeking revenge for it. And 9/11... It was used as a political excuse to go to war with a country we didn't have to fight, resulting in well over a million casualties and countless more people seeking vengeance.

Our tendency to fight first, understand later is what makes humans so dangerous. We kill in haste, repent at leisure, but the problem is that those we kill are often not responsible for what happened to us. And they knew people who hold grudges over friends being killed for something that friend didn't necessarily do. If we throw in the tendency to rationalize our violence (like convince ourselves that because the people who flew planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon were Middle Eastern Muslims that all Middle Eastern Muslims are dangerous and should be exterminated before they do the same to us again), we end up going far and away beyond the eye for an eye concept. When the fact that those being killed have the same reaction to being killed as we do (because to them, they're perfectly justified in killing us) the violence never ends.

Look at the Palestine/Israel conflict. The damned thing's been going on for 62 years. The conflict has raised the stakes so that now, even if the Palestinians got a "home" and all demands on both sides were met, the violence would not end because both sides carry grudges.

This is the essential nature of mankind: Vengeance, revenge, retribution. Making someone hurt and pay for what they did to you. There is no INHERENT goodness in man. There is only the caveman hunched by a fire with a sharpened stick waiting for the tribe from which he stole one of their women to come after him and wipe out his tribe because of it - then kill the woman he stole because she was no longer "pure".

Sound familiar?

Here's the funny thing: We LOVE this stuff. We can't get enough of it. How many movies, books, stories and such are based on the simple concept of over-kill in retaliation for a wrong? We sacrifice horny teens by the gory score at summer blockbusters just to build up the concept that an entity (or person) is bad and deserves to die. While this would be fine in the normal scope of things, the simple fact is humans DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP. In real life, if that entity or person was slaughtered in an imaginative and sufficiently gory way, attention would then turn on their friends, associates, family members, religion and/or workplace. How many times has it happened that innocents suffer for what someone they know did?

Way more times than is comfortable to think about.

Let's face it, mankind doesn't WANT to forgive transgressions against it. No one ever believes themselves to be in the wrong. Even if they know they are, they deny it. So they fight, and maim and kill all in the name of righteous retribution for a transgression against them - be it real or imagined. The ridiculous lengths to which we go over this kind of thing is beyond imagination, but sadly not beyond reality.

How many sports fans have attacked and killed other sports fans for what a member of or a whole team did? How many Muslims died in protest over the depiction of their Prophet and how many of them wanted to see the entire West die because of it? An accident in one household can lead to murder in another. There is an inherent lack of perspective when it comes to events such as this that we are not willing to embrace. We seek the "noble cause", the "righteousness of our cause" or some other high-minded rationalization to justify our basic desire to kill people over what we see as harm. Politicians and religious leaders have played on this concept for so long, it is part of our culture and mindset. It's not like we're going to be able to change that anytime soon.

Now, I'm not advocating that we all take a Christian point of view about forgiveness. After all, reality doesn't work that way in the first place and in the second, not everyone can stomach the Christian morality. Forgiveness isn't about saying, "What you did was bad but I forgive you." Real, true human forgiveness should be about saying something to the effect of, "I won't take it out on people who aren't responsible, and once you are punished for what you have done, I won't hold a grudge."

Be aware that, in the human mind, the balance of scales regarding acts demanding revenge are skewed. Therefore, it's necessary to seek a proportionate punishment for the act on the individuals actually responsible for the act. This is the root of the beginning to understand real human forgiveness. It's a forgiveness that is realistically attainable for most people which can help contain the mindless, directionless violence that often accompanies vengeful acts.

Mankind will never give up the desire to seek retribution. At least not anytime in the next few thousand years. But a "civilized" species can learn to moderate that desire for revenge by acquiring some perspective and spending a lot of time in anger management lessons.

We COULD, I suppose, get into a long, involved discussion about "justice" as an alternative to revenge, but let's face it, revenge balances the scales in the mind of the one seeking revenge. Justice is strictly something society does and really doesn't address an individual's harm. Learning "forgiveness" is the simple act of seeking a revenge that balances the scales in proportion to the act being avenged and then moving on without letting the original act consume your life or bringing others into the picture.

Forgiveness: Proportionate revenge with the perspective of an outsider.

Now let's examine the proper application of this idea, since in religions we get a lot of rules without a lot of ideas in exactly how to go about this in real life.

To begin with, let's quantify what we're talking about: Personal harm should be defined only as acts intentionally directed at you specifically intended to inflict emotional, physical or mental damage. If it isn't personal harm, let it go.

First of all, examine the act. This is the anger management part. Were you hurt? Was property damaged? Was there any lasting harm to you? If not, get over it. You only have one shot at this life. Filling it up with petty garbage from slights and insults that have done nothing to you will only screw up your life and I'm sure you have better things to do than to have your life screwed up by something which did you no personal harm.

Always think first. Not about how many tiny bloody bits you can carve someone into, but about what happened in proportion to what you want to do. Did someone in another land do something you don't like? Did it hurt you personally? If so, how much? Is it righteous indignation you feel? Let that go. Others don't share your faith and if you don't respect their right to have a different one, you don't deserve to have your faith respected by others, either. Did they disrespect your faith? Fine, let them. If you think your faith can't handle the disrespect of others, then you need to find a stronger faith. Their disrespect for your faith doesn't hurt you or your faith. Are they killing you over your faith? Go for the ones who are doing the killing, not the ones you think have the same faith.

The point here is that what you believe is personal harm usually isn't. The other point is that you need to know who is actually responsible for inflicting that personal harm because it's usually not the ones you hurt back.

Stop and think about things, folks. That's how to implement this whole concept. Revenge is a dish best served cold and you can't do that when you're enraged. Once you cool off, you may realize that it wasn't an act deserving of any retribution at all. I don't advocate forgiveness as a free pass. Human nature demands punishment for acts that cause harm. But we do need to learn some perspective about what we think is harm and be proportionate in seeking any retribution. We don't swat flies with shovels or spank babies with axes. Why do we do that kind of thing when it comes to revenge? Perspective and proportion. Those are realistic interim behavioral goals that humans can actually achieve on our paths of spiritual exploration and evolution. Rome wasn't built in a day. Human instincts have had millions of years of evolution to get to this point and only thousands of years to get used to civilized behavior.

As for me, I think about revenge a lot, but my personal philosophy doesn't let me seek retribution without incurring grievous harm on myself. For the most part, I let the universe sort it out. It takes patience but it keeps the dry cleaning bills removing blood stains to a minimum.

The Existence, and Absence, of God

I debated writing this post for a long time. My faith (Neo-Paganism as influenced by Wicca traditions) forbids doing harm. Interfering with the spiritual paths of others is, indeed, harm. Therefore it's vital that I add this warning:

IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!

I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.

Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.

So, on to the science:

There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Back to science.

First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.

People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.

So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.

Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.

Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.

So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.

It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".

Sort of...

More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.

What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.

Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.

Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?

The answer Conservation laws.

Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.

Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".

The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.

But the ultimate question is: To what end?

Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.

Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.

All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.

There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.

It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...

These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.

Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.

But it's possible...

Beating Mind Games: Why Johnny Will Never Be A Genius

This post will probably offend a lot of people, but if you can get past the resentment (mine and yours), I think the point is both valid and one needing to be addressed.

As someone with an above average IQ (Okay, WAY above average and yes, I've been tested.), I find the fact that geniuses are universally hated and reviled, bullied and put upon to be rather depressing. Let's face it, we as a nation, revere strength and physical power over brains and mental agility. The former are muscular bad-boys with good looks who are glorified on the field of combat (well, sports fields in mock-combat) while the latter are bespectacled, acne-scarred social misfits relegated to musty, dark rooms, pouring over stacks of moldy old tomes in the search of something the stereotype will typically say is relevant only to the searcher. The former gets the girl and his face on magazines until he's too old for ESPN. The latter gets the Nobel Prize, and pretty much complete obscurity after that.

People call geniuses social misfits (at best), mock them, deride them, insult them and yet without them - that top 10% of brain-power among human kind - civilization as we know it would cease to exist. Without the thinkers, the doers could only do so much. In warfare, if you eliminate the planners, the army can't fulfill its role and is eventually defeated by the side with planners. Better planners will win over poorer planners.

In schools, mediocrity is ENCOURAGED, if not enforced, by the social structure. The person who skews the average by actually learning the material better than anyone else is vilified and outcast from the rest. Never mind that they are more likely to make more money, be more successful in life and have the last laugh at the 20 year reunion, they're hated by their peers all their lives. Given this proclivity in our social expectations and traditions, it's hardly any wonder that they tend to form intellectual clubs.

Geniuses tend to group with other geniuses because, finally, there is a new peer group that actually understands what's being said as well as one in which the peer group has a mutual understanding of the life experiences of others in that group. They don't talk football stats or which steroid is least likely to turn one's testicles into useless raisins. They talk Cobal, or Klingon, or Chemistry. Like everyone else, they have mutual interests. Unlike everyone else, those interests have little or nothing to do with physical prowess (except in sex, but that's just the human condition of wanting what you can't get).

The similarities between the two groups - the physicals and the geniuses - are numerous. It is the mentality of the two which is so vastly different. Geniuses think. Their activities involve brain-work. Physicals do. Their activities involve muscle work or relatively mindless entertainment. Because of this mentality gap, the two groups don't relate well to one another. And because of the fact there are ten physicals to every genius, general society is made up of physicals who take a dim view to thinking.

Now, least you think this is a skewed perception consider this: The person most likely to get beaten to a pulp in school is above average in IQ. The evil character is almost always portrayed as an "evil genius". Even "Brainiac" was an outcast among the super heroes. Politicians especially do NOT want an educated, smart electorate. God forbid they have one because then they'd actually have to come through with their campaign promises. People would remember them. They'd also have to stay on their best behaviors, because educated people aren't about second chances when these elected officials screwed up so badly the first time. They can't lie to them (smart people actually bother to check snarky things like facts and figures, starting with the hypothesis that most politicians are lying in the first place in some way). They can't twist the truth (for the same reason). Smart people are usually smarter than the politicians.

And so, because society, and their leaders, are generally made up of physical types whose brain-power is less than equal to those of the geniuses, they make life very hard on the geniuses. Everything reflects the bias against being smart, against being well educated, and against having a point of view that differs from what these physical types have decided is 'normal'. Mediocrity is the goal. If excellence is to be seen, it must be a physical feat because they can see it. Mental feats require people to understand what they were, why they were done and how it may effect them. That requires thinking on the part of society in general and, as we have already established, society in general isn't really cut out for that kind of thing.

"ELITIST!!!" you scream.

"Damn straight," I reply mildly.

Consider this: Most of you will never understand quantum relationships or how faster than light communication is not only possible, but is being tested now.

No amount of ditch digging, wrestle-mania, pro-sports or any other physical act is going to make this register in the minds of most people. These who can't conceive of such notions are the people who deny global warming, believe in politicians or political pundits as if those people are saying or going to do anything other than what it takes to get elected and generally go around beating up the very people who actually understand what's going on. Let's face it, most of you don't understand the technology you use every day - even the exact means necessary for you to read these words on your screen are little more than a vague notion that it's "like TV". (It isn't, by the way. It may look like a duck and quack like a duck, but it's not a duck.)

Now, it's not that you HAVE to understand these things. You don't. You're probably a doer (though one could argue that doers are out doing and thinkers are out thinking, and most people who bother to read are thinkers, which means this blog post is being read by the wrong people, but isn't it nice to have someone who understands your plight and is willing to put it out there?). Doers have to do.

Yet it's up to the thinkers to invent this technology, find those medical cures, design those buildings and cars and motorcycles and sports safety equipment. I'll bet most people could name the winner of last year's world series (or who's in the playoffs this year) than can say who discovered Penicillin which has saved more lives than will ever WATCH those games. (Just so you don't have to Google it, Alexander Flemming is credited with the discovery in 1928, and awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1945 which he shared with two others who helped him develop the antibiotic from the penicillin mold. Ian Flemming (no relation) invented James Bond. The two Flemmings are often mistaken for the same person.)

So while doers make the world go around, it's the thinkers that enable them to keep it spinning, making things faster, better, stronger for everyone. We each have our roles to play in the grand scheme of things and the thinkers recognize this. It would be nice if the doers were less inclined to beat the crap out of the thinkers, though. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's bad. We know you don't like change or new things. But we're thinkers. That's what we do. We make things better and by doing so, change the old things. You are doers. You will learn to do with the new better than you did with the old. Just take a deep breath, let it out slowly, follow the instructions (I admit we thinkers could write them so you can actually understand them better) and you'll be fine.

In the meantime, buy a thinker or two a beer. After all, it was a thinker who invented the stuff in the first place...

The Illusion of Control

People, in general, seem to cleave to the notion that there is some kind of control in the universe. Be it through a deity du jure, political leaders, heads of state, kings of industry or even one's own inflated and misplaced sense of power, the illusion that there is any actual control over one's fate is pervasive and ingrained.

Let's face it, that feeling of control is utterly false. It can be (and usually is) shattered by forces far beyond our control more often than not. From something as random as a car accident or as deliberate as a planned crime, the control one has over their lives is taken in the blink of an eye. In retrospect, one can look back nad believe that if they had done something differently, this never would have happened. And they can go forward secure in the knowledge that it can't happen again; which, of course, is a fallacy at best.

So what causes this illusion to begin with? I believe it's caused by the way people are generally raised. We are brought up parents or guardians (usually) who (generally) control our environments in such a way that we think they're in charge and have things under control. With comprehension of issues like controling one's fate to be beyond the understand of most children, it's unlikely that they ever thought of the issue in the first place.

As time goes in, a child grows. But the illusion of control remains - for the most part shared by a school system and the parents. The environments are controlled and regimented and the illusion that everyone is prepared for some kind of potential issue promotes the illusion that they have control. Being prepared for an emergency is not control, of course, since even the most prepared people on Earth can't anticipate every possibility they'll face. Some part of the plan will fail to some degree.

Take, for example, the ownership of a firearm in defense of the home (For my feelings about firearms, you can read my other blog here). ALL of these plans include two glaring omissions that renders such an act moot: They require you to have the gun in your hand before you need it and to be able to react appropriately and swiftly when the time comes.

As a plan, this would generally work. The trouble is that it's not a plan that can be reasonably implemented. No one walks around with a gun in their hand all day and night in the privacy of their home (and if you do, you need serious psychological help). Having the gun in the home and making all of these elaborate plans omit the fact that you will never know when you need it and when you do, you will need to react appropriately and faster than they do.

It has never happened.

The control you think you have over the safety and security of your home, in that respect, is a complete illusion. What pushes it into delusion are the firearm death statistics (who actually gets killed by home-owned guns), but that blog's been written and you can read it if you want.

The point here is that any control you believe you have in this case isn't really there. In fact, it's not there in any case. The fact you have to plan for these events and other emergencies proves the utter lack of control. The unknown always ambushes us in ways we don't plan for (not that we can't, we just don't anticipate it), but the very act of ambushing us proves we don't have any control.

What's worse is that mankind is a willing and eager partner in this lack of control we have over things. From industrial cost (and corner) cutting, we get accidents that take or change lives. Even when we think we have a ready response to the worst Mother Nature throws at us, we find out that the parts aren't there, the materials are badly made or inappropriate, the logistics haven't been worked out or a million other things man had some actual control over which weren't done that end up meaning a lot of people are going to die and even more are going to be hurt. Even a family that knows it should have a "what to do in case of fire" plan usually doesn't and members die because they don't know what to do.

So rather than live with the uncertainty of when (not if) certain doom will be visited upon us, mankind invents deities or places their trust in our leaders (political, business, military, social, etc) that they will take care of us when things go wrong or will avert the event.

Fat chance. Praytell, when has that ever actually happened?

We may derive some measure of comfort in clinging to the illusion that people know what they're doing, that they're in charge and have things under control but mostly we're a race speeding from one disaster to another, learning to cope with the aftermath while turning a blind eye to the fact that we really don't have a fucking clue and from the looks of things, aren't going to get one anytime soon. People still believe that political leaders will right wrongs, that kings of industry are looking out for the little guy, that the military will protect us from harm or that God (or whatever deity you believe in) is going to stop something bad from happening. We think they, at least, have that power.

They don't. No one does.

Shit happens - the most succinct summary of this blog I can thing of. Shit happens. We can't stop it. We really don't have any control.

Does this mean we give up and let bad things happen? Of course not. But we can do more to alleviate the situation when bad things happen, and we can be more attentive and conscientious about the consequences of putting profits before safety. We can stop being willing contributors to the problem. Don't get a gun, get a security system and wear the alarm key at home. It may not stop the event from happening, but it will certainly prevent you from accidentally shooting a loved one (or yourself) and will probably be more effective (and certainly less messy) in scaring off intruders. Do your job right. Stop looking out for number one and start looking out for everyone.

Do no harm.

It won't give us control over everything (or much of anything, either), but we can at least control that small part of our lives which allows us to cope with life when control is - once again - taken away.

The Fallacy of the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms

I believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be abolished.

Now, this post will mark me as a screaming, left-wing, tree-hugging, limp-wristed, commie liberal. (I call myself that in this case so you idiots out there who object violently because you don't understand the issue don't have to call me those names. You're going to have to be more original than usual.)

Now, as I've written on many news sites and such, always after a story of mass murder in the U.S. (I only have to wait a day or two for one to happen), I feel the Second Amendment is the reason why we have more Americans dying every month by gunshot at the hands of other Americans than have died in the Afghanistan war since the invasion after 9/11.

Just so we're on the same page, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To explore my rationale, we're first going to go on a little history lesson to show how the Second Amendment is currently obsolete.

Back in England (from where most Americans originally came) for hundreds of years until they became obsolete, every Englishman between 12 and 60 was required to practice daily with the Longbow. It was not an option. It was a law and a mandatory activity.

To us, it may seem kind of odd for a monarchy to require their citizenry to practice shooting a weapon that was considered one of the most devastating ever put on a battlefield. You'd think they would want their people unarmed and unable to revolt. The truth of the matter was rather simple: England couldn't afford a standing army. Armies are expensive and the citizens tended to revolt when taxes were raised too much to pay for them. (Look at what happened in the 1770's in the colonies when King George decided to use them as his personal piggy bank to finance his war with France). Although by the late 1700's Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy with a more refined tax structure and could afford a standing army, the tradition of the right of individual weapon ownership was long-standing and ingrained.

So British citizens were taught to keep arms in defense of the country. Back in America, this tradition was maintained. It allowed the Colonists to hunt and defend themselves against aggressors. But the latter was supposed to be done only in support of the state at the call of the state. That state at the time was England. The French and Indian war in the 1760's proved the wisdom of allowing the citizenry of the colonies to keep their own arms and have regular practice in drills with them.

So far, so good. We have a citizenry that is well armed and trained in their use that can be called up as a main force for action against enemies of the state. This was the prevailing tradition during which the Constitution was drafted.

After the Revolutionary War, the United States government was funded with excise taxes and tariffs on interstate trade. There wasn't any way to fund a standing army. Knowing this and knowing the capital expenses involved in keeping a domestic army in cat food and kitty litter, the founding fathers performed the artful dodge. They relied on states to fund and train 'militias'. Each man was supposed to provide his own firearm and drill with other men of the community in preparation of being called up should the need to defend the state or country arise. The fact that America was still a frontier and personal defense rated rather high on the need scale, not to mention hunting, and you have full justification for never taking away a man's way of shooting things. But above all, for the State, they had a way of maintaining their army without having to pay for one 24/7/365.

That's the "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the Second Amendment that most people completely forget is just as much a part of it as the rest.

But all was not well in Second Amendment-land. When the War of 1812 broke out, the lack of a standing army almost lost us a country. The Capital and White House were burned and a large amount of the country was occupied. Once the war was over, the necessity of having a standing army had been made painfully obvious and one was created. But guns were still expensive so carrying personal arms was encourage. Keep in mind that this was generally pre-industrial age. Each weapon was essentially hand-made. There was no standardization of parts, so something made for one weapon wouldn't necessarily or even usually fit another. Also, at the time, there really wasn't any alternative weapon that could be mass produced cheaper than having everyone BYOG. So the Second Amendment hung around mostly because it was still the only (affordable) game in town.

During the Civil War, personal arms were the norm, but mass production was beginning to come into its own for weapons. Standardization of parts was more and more common. If you didn't have a gun, one would be issued to you, yet most brought their own. But the situation arose more and more often that the calibers of ammo didn't match the caliber (or type) of weapon someone had brought to the fray. Logistically, having to carry ammo or parts for a large variety of arms was a nightmare. The decision after the Civil War was to issue personal arms. But keep in mind that the military was down-sizing quite a bit and it was thought they could fight their own internal conflicts without the need for gigantic standing armies.

Despite this, there came a time when it was decided that personal arms on the battlefield was a bad idea. Most personal arms were discouraged for use in battle after the Spanish-American war when it became obvious that modern warfare - with modern weapons - needed more uniformity of arms in order to be of maximum effectiveness on the battlefield. By World War I, personal arms on the battlefield were actually prohibited or required special permission and approval.

This is how it is today.

Today, we no longer require men of fighting age to possess, train with or bring a personal weapon in defense of the country. If they want to enlist and fight, we (We being the federal government) give them all their weapons, all their provisions and all of their training.

Therefore the first half of the second Amendment - the REASON for the Second Amendment - is utterly invalid today. A couple of hundred years worth of advancements and changes in government structure and financing, not to mention some hard-learned lessons over the years, have proven that state militias armed by citizen soldiers with their own guns is pure foolishness. States aren't raising local militias, the government does that. Reserve units may take on state and local names, but the federal government arms them, supplies them and trains them. The states have control over state militias for local emergencies, but those militias are at the ultimate beck and call of the federal government. Today, they're called the National Guard. And they are provisioned in such a way that they prove the obsolescence of the Second Amendment.

So the REASON for the second Amendment is, quite literally, history. The first part - the reason we even have it - no longer applies.

Now, let's move forward.

We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for a reason that is no longer applicable. People can go out and buy a gun - as many guns as they want - any time. And these guns aren't the Founding Father's guns. Back in the late 1700's the flintlock had a rate of fire of no greater than four rounds a minute. Plus, it wasn't terribly accurate. Today's cheapest handgun is more accurate at fifty feet than the best flintlock of the day. Today's weapons shoot easier, farther, faster and hit harder than ever before. The upshot (pun intended) of this is that killing is easier with a modern weapon than the older one. Even a revolver can be fired (with fast reloads) nearly a hundred rounds a minute.

That's a lot of firepower.

So we have more deadly weapons today than anything the founding fathers imagined.

Next let's look at the "well regulated" part. I take it to mean that the militia is well trained, well disciplined and competent to use their firearms in the heat of battle. That's what the amendment SAYS, but what do we have today? Bubba Joe and the Band out wasting tree stumps with a sub-machine gun that could have won the Battle of Lexington single-handed who have never taken any formal training in military discipline or firearms safety.

There is a vast difference between a gun that takes fifteen seconds to load, prime, cock and shoot just laying around the house and one that is already loaded, primed and can self-cock by a light pull of the trigger. In short, the modern gun is far more likely to be set off by accident than one with which the founding fathers would be familiar. This means more accidents. In a military environment, there aren't a bunch of family members around who have no training who can pick up "daddy's gun" and accidentally (or on purpose) kill someone else. Like the difference between gunpowder and Nitroglycerin, you can kick the former around and not have to worry, but if you do that to the latter, you'll end up finding out what the bullet feels like when it's shot.

The long and short of it is that these guns are deadlier, easier to misuse or abuse with far more people around them who know less about safely using them than the average gun owner did (or even had to) back in the early days of the country. They are babies playing with dynamite and it's a constitutional right.

Anyone can go out and buy one, anytime, anyplace in the U.S. no questions asked.

The results of this situation are beyond tragic.

Each year, in the U.S. 30,000 or more people die due to gunshot wound for all reasons. Of these, 30 are killed in defense of home and hearth by an armed homeowner. Another 500 or less are killed by police. Given the margins, this means a solid 1000 Americans die by gunshot from (in order) suicide, accident, crime and other reasons for every single one killed to defend the home.

And defense of the individuals home was NEVER PART OF THE CONSTITUTION!

It's a right in order for the ordinary citizen to have something to use to defend the COUNTRY. Home defense is simply a holdover from the frontier days when one needed to protect themselves from the Native Americans or (more likely) each other. The Indian Wars ended in 1887. The number of intruders deliberately and correctly shot to death each year by gun-toting home defenders is less than one in a thousand gun deaths.

Today, people have forgotten why we have a Second Amendment. It's right there in the thing, but they ignore it. What's even worse, is that they keep harping on the second half, without remembering the first half, as some strange justification to fight against the state itself. Rather than for the defense OF the STATE, people today look upon it as a sacred right to allow them to ATTACK the state, to keep the State in line or to overthrow the government.

Never mind that the government will make a total hash out of any group who tries because regardless of what kind of guns the private citizen brings to the fray, the government has bigger, better and more powerful toys and can afford the best. If it comes to a revolution, my money's on the federal government. A few doses of Firemist, a couple of hundred rounds of HE from thirty miles away or a few precision-guided smart bombs and the rebels will be wannabe pate' on toast and the rest of us can go back to paying our taxes and being law-abiding citizens. Let's face it, no government today is going to be afraid of a bunch of dingbats carrying any kind of small-arms who think they can topple that government.

The carnage continues unabated. The only reason we have so many shootings (We have a higher murder rate than any of the top 25 industrialized countries in the world) is because we have so many guns.

So let's attack the fallacies that the right-wingers and radical wannabe's use when talking about repealing the Second Amendment. They say if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

On the face of it, yes. If a formerly law-abiding citizen uses a gun in a crime, they become outlaws. But before they were outlaws, they got their gun legally. Outlaws get their guns from people who have bought them legally in the first place. Cut off the supply of guns and you cut off their availability. As more and more guns are taken out of circulation, fewer and fewer of them will be out there ready to kill someone. Our death rate by firearm is so high simply because guns are so available, so simple to use and so efficient in action. Remove their availability and the number of deaths will go down.

In short, get rid of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Abolish the Second Amendment.

Another thing these moronic nitwits tend to cite is the gun control measures in Germany and other places that went into effect before a totalitarian regime took over and started killing citizens. They say the government first took away their tight to defend themselves then enslaved them. Yes, that happened, but re-read the above paragraphs about governments taking on its citizenry and you may understand that even if the citizens could have defended themselves back then, the difference in the outcome would have only been more dead citizens. And back then, the guns citizens had and the weapons the government had were closer in firepower to one another than they are today.

Just as the second Amendment was once relevant and useful, but is not longer so, personal gun ownership today would do nothing to stop a government from taking over its citizenry.

Finally, the most fallacious argument used to keep guns in the hands of Americans is the one citing WWII and the Japanese not invading America. Gun rights proponents would have you believe that the Japanese feared to invade the United States because the citizenry was all armed.

Bullshit.

The Japanese never wanted a protracted war with the United States in the first place. They thought a hard, decisive blow at America's ability to defend herself would bring America to the negotiating table where they could coerce the US into agreeing to end embargos of oil and iron from and through Indo-China (Indonesia today). This is why Hawaii wasn't invaded or occupied. The only occupation of American territory by the Japanese in WWII was a few minor spots in the Aleutian Islands, which itself was a distraction intending to draw out the American carriers so the Japanese could attack and invade Midway. They eventually withdrew from the Aleutians without a fight.

The Japanese never feared American citizens or their guns for the same reason a government doesn't fear its citizenry today: They had bigger, better weapons to bring to the table than anything Joe Average American may have had.

Common sense isn't, and citing that kind of history isn't applicable to today where precision munitions have little chance of missing their targets.

Now, all that said, I'm not against gun ownership. I own a gun myself. I'd never use the thing against another person, of course (it's a pretty dangerous thing to do to both you and them), but I enjoy the challenge of hitting a target at long range. Of course, I use a black powder rifle (more of a challenge), but that's beside the point.

The point is, gun ownership should not be a constitutional right. Driving is almost as essential to life today as hunting was back in the day. But driving is a privilege. So should be gun ownership.

The people who want to own guns should be required to state why they want one then have an intensive background check, including a mental health examination - and do this for EVERY PURCHASE OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION. They should be required to prove competence in handling their weapon (both on and off the range). They need to be required to pass frequent surprise inspections to prove they comply with all regulations and basically train with them on a regular basis. ANYTHING less than 100% compliance means you lose the privilege for life.

After all, this is the historical basis for the private ownership of weapons: Responsible weapon ownership. Even if it's not going to be in defense of the state, it's only prudent to make sure the people who have that kind of firepower at their command are fucking responsible for it ALL OF THE TIME. The firearm today is far more deadly than it was back when the founding fathers were drafting the Constitution. It requires a much higher standard of ability, understanding and training than before.

It's time that Joe Average Citizen had his guns taken away and we start screening who should and more importantly should not have guns. But in order to do that, we need to revoke the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon and will probably happen only when people get tired of seeing 30,000+ Americans die at the hands of other Americans every year. We seem to take issue with terrorists killing one tenth that number, but we have killed more Americans in one year than the "bad guys" have killed in 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED.

You'd think we'd have a clue. If you want to find out why I think we don't, read the post before this one.