Liberals, Modern Liberals and Socialism.

The main stream American liberal movement seems to be firmly tied to socialism, at least that's what we hear from anti-liberal pundits. The positions espoused by liberals seems to be socialist - greater control/regulation by the government in all things whether it's business or social issues.

So, what is socialism?

According to Dictionary.com:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Other sources:

In Marxist theory a stage of historical development transitional between capitalism and communism. Romania claimed to have attained socialism by 1965.

A social system which favors collective ownership of the means of economic production and distribution.

An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion."

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of land, capital, industry, etc. by the community as a whole. In Marxist theory it represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism.

I think at it's core, socialism is about centralized control, not only of economic issues, but others as well.

Well, given the preceeding, it seems pretty clear that modern liberals are for socialism. They indeed use the government, via control of legislatures and the courts, to regulate pretty much everything - business, social issues, medical care. I'd certainly like to hear of an issue where this isn't true - where the liberals didn't use the government to control an issue that affects us all.

All that being said, convservatives are hardly pure as the driven snow. Conservatives are typically not in power in the major states, so for much of the population, their effect isn't noticed. Recently, the Republican Party is in control of the federal government, and all of a sudden, broadening of federal control is part of the Republican agenda. In the past, their agenda was to hold the federal government in check while expanding the power of the states. Of course, in the past, the Democrats controlled the federal government, and the Republicans only had any real clout in the states.

It's sad how things reverse. Once the Republ0icans get booted out of the federal government, positions will change again - Reps for limiting fed power in favor of state power, Dems broadening fed power.

Anywho. I digress.

I'm under the impression that American liberals weren't always about advancing government control.

Here are some definitions I found for liberalism. Wow. I never looked into that! Very interesting.

Two definitions that really struck me:

A political philosophy of limited government and protection of individual rights and freedoms.

A school of economics that relies primarily on a free market with the minimum of barriers to the flow of private trade and capital.

WOW WOW WOW. Given that, I'm a Liberal. Huh...imagine that.

Most definitions for Conservative have to do with opposing change, so it's not like Liberalism and Conservativism are diametrically opposed, at least not defnitionally.

You know, the modern American liberal movement isn't Liberal.

Under Liberalism, individual rights are upheld, as opposed to government sponsored entitlements. But...I guess that really hinges upon what is a right.

It's hard to find the definition of a "right" in terms of "the right" to liberty..."the right" to free speech, or the like.

Dictionary.com has lots of definitions for "right" but you have to scroll down a ways to ffind their main entry:

something to which one has a just claim: asa power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty> rights —Declaration of Independence —see also NATURAL RIGHT :a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law one's rights

Based upon this, I would contend that a right is a power an individual posses, to which the only duty held by the rest of society to that indivdual relative to that right is non-interference. Society does not have a duty to effectuate the right of the individual...it only has a duty to stay out of the individual's way.

I have the right to freedom of speech, but I can't demand that I be provided with a forum. I have a right to bear arms, but I can't demand that I be provided with a rifle. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I can't demand that I be given that which would make me happy or make my life better.

This is where the modern liberal movement has gone astray. To them, a right is an entitlement. Not only do you have the right to do this or that, but it's up to Society (more correctly, the State) to be sure you have that right fulfilled.

An individual has a right to be free from discrimination, a good thing. Modern liberals, however, don't stop there. They want anyone whom they perceive as a discriminated class to not only be free from discrimination (as is their right), but the government should step in and give those classes an advantage (an entitlement) not enjoyed by perceived non-discriminated classes. This, I would contend, is socialism.

[Author's aside: I think modern liberals engage in this sort of behavior because of their morality, which is firmly rooted in social relativism, but that's a discussion for another day. This moral code is shared by modern conservatives as well. Neither is right, as they veer away from the individual and focus upon the collective...which is probably easier for the State to handle...bake the morality of social relativism into the populace and get them away from that pesky individualism, which causes people to think.]

Being for individual rights is a great cause...I'm all for that myself. Require a level playing field. However, once the field is level, how an individual does in the game is entirely up to them and their abilities. Getting the government to give an entitlement now gives an advantage that un-levels the playing field.

Modern liberals use the government to effectuate advantages for those they see as discriminated classes, socializing their morals and centralizing moral enforcement in the government. I'm of the opinion that traditional liberals cringe at such things, as the advantage provided is inherently discriminatory - it's only gained at the expnse of others.

I'm working

I'm trying to get another article out, but work is crazy!

Some Thoughts On What Americans Have Given Up.

In my previous post I did a bunch of research regarding the founding of the US, founding principles and the like. I visited the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I came to the relization that we've given up so much in the name of what...security? Equality? Ignorance? I think the last is the most true, especially when I see how much power the people have given to the Federal Govermnent, and to the government (state or federal) in general.

This will probably be the subject of a future posting.

The US Was Not Founded Upon Christian Principles

A debate rages today about the prominence of religious symbolism in our public places. More accurately, the prominence of Christian religious symbolism (physical, such as the display of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, and non-physical, such as "One nation, under God" in the Pledge).

The Christians cry out "this country was founded on Christian principles and values, and so Christianity is part of our cultrual heritage." This is their argument that Christian religious symbols should remain in our public forums.

As an aside, many times the term "Judeo-Christian Principles" and values are cited. However, Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions, with only the Old Testament in common (and the New Testament arguably overturns some teachings of the Old Testament). Here's an interesting compare and contrast between Judaism and Chirstianity.

[Author's Note: I will be using Christianity as an example, as it is the most promininent one. I'm unaware of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion's symbolism being removed from public forums, or the arguments those religions use for keeping the symbols in place. Also, the argument about the US being founded on Christian principles and values is what I am discussing. Personally, it doesn't bother me if religious symbols are there or not...what bothers me are ludicrous arguments raised by Christians for keeping their symbols in public.

Ludicrous = raising an argument that requires one to be a Christian to accept, and expecting non-Christians to accept.]

I tried to find something defining what a Christian Principle is. By my thinking, a Christian Principle upon which Christians can make their argument that the US was founded upon Christian Principles must be a purely Christian Prinicple. The Principle cannot be shared by other religions or groups. If it is, then is more of a Common Principle and not a Christian Principle.

Here are some of my attempts. A nice exercise and I learned a lot:

I did a Google search on Christian Principles and Christian Values without much luck at arriving at a list. I only found descriptions of Christianity.

I Googled definition "Christian Values" and again descriptions of Christianity.

OK...back to basics:

From Dictionary.com:

Value:
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).

Principle:

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2. 1. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
   2. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.

The Ten Commandments (an interesting discussion is here):

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

"Thou shalt not kill."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

"Thou shalt not steal."

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Not much help in pointing out Chistian Principles.

In the Old Testament we find:

Fair and timely paychecks from an employer to his or her workers (Leviticus 19:13)

Enforcement of standard weights and measures (Leviticus 19:35)

Welcoming immigrants (Leviticus 19:33-34, Exodus 23:19)

Laws that apply equally to rich and poor (Leviticus 19:15)

Protecting the environment, even during war (Deuteronomy 20:19)

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (Leviticus 19:14)

Laws against age discrimination. (Leviticus 19:32)

Pursuing justice for others, no matter how strongly public opinion is on the other side (Exodus 23:2)

(I found these here)

But, as you can see, many American Christians are against a number of these principles, and being from the Torah, these principles are typically identified with Jewish Principles. Some of these are not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, but are common to many religions.

So, are there any Christian Principles or Christian Values that are unique to Christianity?

Striving for liberty and freedom are not Christian Principles because they are not exclusive to Christianity. If you claim that simply because Christians strive for liberty and freedom, those are Christian Principles, then I can state these are Atheist Principles as well. However, neither group can exclusively claim these as Principles.

Striving for a democracy is not a Christian principles, as this predated Christianity.

From what I've seen so far, Christian Principles are as follows: Faith in Jesus; Jesus is the Son of God, and the only way to engender God's grace is through faith in Jesus. This is exclusively Christian.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts on Christian Principles. Feel free to comment to this, or send me an email.

As to the founding principles of the US, I think the Declaration of Independence sums it up quite nicely.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Text of Declaration of Independence.

The rights that need to be secured, depend upon a government deriving their powers from the consent of the goverened. The rights themselves

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

depend upon men establishing a proper government. Thus, the underlying principle (see above "A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior") is not the unalienable rights but the attainment of those rights, namely, the establishment of a democracy.

Yes...the Declaration and other early documents recite a God, Creator, but simply because the Founders were Christian does not be default make the US founded upon Christian Principles, or require belief in a Creator.

The unalienable rights must be secured by men by throwing off the yoke of tyranny and establishing a government that rules by consent of the goverened. This is not a Christian Principle, but a Principle of those desiring to live a life of freedome and liberty.

The Bible does not require one, or even espouse, freedom and liberty. Quite the contrary. The New Testament in Romans requires obedience to whatever government is in power, because it was put there by God. The Bible, especially the New Testament, requires submission to whatever the difficulty is, and does not espouse fighting the powers that be.

Motorized Wheelchairs - No, You Don't Own The Road

Disclaimer: No, not all people in mobile wheelchairs will fall into what I discuss below. Probably only the bottom 10% or fewer.

I spent the last week in Disneyworld in Orlando, visiting a number of their theme parks. After being hit from behind by 5 differen people in motorized wheelchairs, and another member of my family being hit 7 times, I feel compelled to complain.

During that time I had to push a stroller, so I'm not totally unaware that others are unaware of the needs of someone dealing with extra equipment. I was cut off many times by seemingly oblivious people, and wasn't happy about it. I also wasn't happy that I didn't get the right of way many times, but with a stroller I'm the one with the extra needs, so I need to be more accomodating to those around me so I can get what I need.

Quite a few motorized wheelchair ("MW") drivers I encountered were upset at the crowds, and understandably so. That's hardly an excuse to have little to no consideration for those around you. They seem to expect that others accomodate them and part like the Red Sea when the MW driver decides to trundle through a particular area. Should they need to slow down and manuver, the complaints and grumbling begin.

Get over it. Yes, it would be nice if the public was aware of those with needs of MW bound people. It would be great if they could move out of the way to let the MW have an easier time getting through. People in MW's have a difficult time as is, as they typically are suffering from some sort of disability.

However, for the public to accomodate them is a decision of the public. Rights of way should be graciously accepted when offered, and when not offered, the MW needs to act like everyone else. Wait their turn. Eventually the line will thin out, an opening in crowd will presen itself, or whatever.

Running into people and bitching a blue streak will not endear others to be accomodating, and it's the job of the person needing addional accomodation to be more patient.

Disneyworld's Magic Kingdom is an Optimized Disneyland

We just got back from our vacation in Orlando. Like many, we did the Disneyworld thing, visiting various Disney theme parks for 3 days. Our fourth day was spent at Gatorland. No...we didn't stay at the Disneyworld resort, but I'm told they do a very good job at keeping guests happy.

If you've been to Disneyland in Southern California, you can almost skip the Magic Kingdom in Disneyworld ("MK"). If you've never been to the Magic Kingdom park, I guess it's worth going at least once for the experience. However, what impressed me the most about MK is their ability to handle crowds.

When we first got to MK, it was wall to wall people...the kind of crowd where if you saw that at Disneyland, you'd just want to turn around and leave, even having spent $200+ on tickets.

MK really learned some lessons from Disneyland! The rides are higher capacity, so the lines move faster - they can handle more riders at a time. Even more impressive is how they managed to shorten the big attraction rides.

Pirates of the Carribean ("POTC") at Disneyland is a long ride, a nice break from all the walking around. The same ride at MK is less than half the length and is over before you know it. One small drop, pass in front of the pirate ship attacking the fortress, a few of the more well known scenes from POTC Disneyland and "PLEASE EXIT TO YOUR LEFT AND ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR DAY AT THE GREATEST CELEBRATION ON EARTH." Huh? What happened?

Haunted Mansion is shorter as well, at least in my opinion. Most of the other rides were probably the same length, but their higher rider capacity enabled us to get through more rides than we normally could at Disneyland with a similar crowd.

Vacation For Me!

I'll be out on vacation for much of next week, so no entries to my blog for a while.

For interesting reading see:

http://www.numbersusa.com/
http://www.capmag.com/
http://www.sun.com/
http://www.intuit.com/

Special Rule 40: Los Angeles Illegal Immigration Sanctuary Law

25 year ago, LA passed Special Rule 40, a sanctuary law to prevent city police from asking a person if they are a citizen of the US. Basically, this protects illegal immigrants from having to reveal they're here illegally.

There are a couple of things wrong with this law.

1) Federal law trumps state law. Since when does a city have the power to simply ignore federal law? This is similar to when the mayor of San Francisco said it was OK for gays to get married, in contraditiction to California state law. The Mayor's actions were found to be illegal. (Gay rights activists are currently working to strike the California law). An additional example would be California's medical marijuana law, which is contrary to federal drug laws.

The upholding of this law by the LA city council appears to be illegal as well. If it is not illegal, then I would propose LA pass a Special Rule so that its citizens don't pay federal income tax.

2) Special Rule 40 is likely un-Constitutional, as the Constitution expressly gives the US Congress the power to control immigration. Congress, as codified in US law, has declared that illegal immigration is, dare I say it...ILLEGAL. Because it is illegal, it is a crime to engage in illegal immigration.

LA Police, like all police in the US, have a duty to uphold state, as well as federal law. Special rule 40 interferes with the US Congress' control over immigration by requiring that LA police officers do not determine if someone has committed a crime, namely, they're not allowed to ask if a person is here legally.


I undertook a search for LA's Special Rule 40, doing a Google search. Apparently, LA is doing everything it can to keep Special Rule 40 out of the spotlight. Google came up with three, yes three, hits. One of those hits relates to something going on in Kentucky.

AltaVista comes up with five hits. Incredible.

Why isn't the ACLU all over this? By condoning illegal immigration, LA is costing California billions. The estimated cost of providing services to illegals is a staggering $10 Billion dollars per year to the state. I hear this, and then hear about another elementary school closing in my area due to lack of money. $10 Billion dollars to pay for services to illegals. Per Year.

One of the stated purposes of the ACLU is "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." Keep in mind that this only applies to groups and causes they agree with. Fighting illegal immigration, in spite ofthe fact that illegal immigration is contrary to the Constitution, and is destroying California, Arizona, and many other states, causing massive budget shortfalls, school closures, massive increase in gangs, drugs, slum conditions, which all affect citizens, the ACLU does nothing. In fact, they do just the opposite. They actually advocate for illegal immigrants. At least they're free to the illegals, but they're costing California $10 Billion per year. $10 BILLION.

What could California do with an addiitonal $10 Billion per year? Probably get out of its budgetary woes. But who wants that. The liberals love blaming the Governor, and the budget shortfall, a creation of Gray Davis and California's liberal legislature, on Arnold Schwarzenegger(SP?).

Will anything be done to stop Special Rule 40? Probably not. It was mentioned on Bill O'Reilley last night, with some moron defending it under the premise that if Special Rule 40 were removed, immigrant communities would no longer cooperate with police. BULLSHIT. Legal immigrants are even more sick of illegals than those who were born here. I bet legal immigrants would be thrilled to have an easy way to get rid of illegals, gangs of illegals, and all the problems illegals bring, their heavy use of social services, and their $10 BILLION dollar yearly price tag.

$10 Billion dollars per year. $10 Billion.

Who are the Rich?

I guess it's settled. The IRS is changing its auditing policies away from the "kinder, gentler IRS" of the recent past and is stepping up audits on the rich, the self employed, and those who have their taxed prepared by unscrupulous tax prep services.

The Rich, as defined by the IRS are those that make over $100,000 per year. So, in the Bay Area, that pretty much means everyone. In many of the suburban communities on the Penninsula and in the Southbay, the average household income is $210,000, with both parents working.

I'm curious as to how incomes here got so high. Because of the critical mass of big money high tech companies vying for talent? Could it be that merchants know there are big money tech companies with money to burn, so they simply raised the cost of everything, knowning the companies would pay higher salaries? Probably some sort of combination between these, and many other factors.

The "Rich" Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes

It's incredible that taxes continue to be raised on those already paying the lions share of taxes. Those that pay no tax, or relatively little tax, enjoy the lions share of the benefits, but are the most vocal about the "haves" paying more taxes.

The top 5% of income earners pays over 50% of individual income tax, and earns 30% of all income, the top 1% pays 33% of all income taxes, and the top 50% pays nearly all income taxes, according to the Treasury Department. In spite of what liberals say, after Bush's tax reform the income tax burden continues to be pushed upwards, with those on the low end of the income scale paying even less than they did before the tax cuts.

So, who are the rich? And why doesn't society think the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Here's some IRS data, so you tell me. My guess is that who is "Rich" is a subjective determination. For many, they think "If you make more than me, you're rich". I think that iff you have enough money so that your passive income supports a lifestyle of your choosing, you're rich. For the many, they think "If you're rich you should pay more taxes". For me, if you're rich, I want to learn what you did.

IMHO, this is a reflection of society imposed morality, social subjectivism. You should be willing to sacrafice for the greater good, and to do otherwise is immoral. The "Rich" obviously have to spend more for there to be an actual sacrafice, so we feel justified in making them pay more taxes. It doesn't matter if they worked for their money (which most did) vs inheriting it...they should be joyful in giving it to society, for the common good. If this isn't socialism/communism, I don't know what is.

I think everyone should pay the same tax rate. It shouldn't be based upon how much you make, because then you're essentially placing a tax on success. The Russians now have something of a flat tax system. You pay 17% of all income, no deductions, credits, no loopholes, etc., if you make over a certain income, I think it's the equivalent of $20,000 US/year.

Tax prep is easy. Write in your amount of income. Multiply by 0.17. Send it in. No CPA, no tax prep, takes little time, and the economy can shrug off the load of the tax prep industry (if you've seen my earlier posts you'll laugh at this point), which is 10's of billions of dollars per year.

Bill Clinton Even If You Hate Him, You Gotta Respect Him

Clinton should be despised for his deception. However, I respect the hell out of him for his ability to get people to believe and like him. Throughout the 90's I was continually dumbfounded that on one day he could say something, and on the next day say/do something exactly the opposite, and no matter what, most people loved him. Nothing short of amazing...he was the ultimate politician.

Before you launch into a flame or rant, I'm not defending any politician or political party. This article happens to be on my views on Clinton.

A few weeks ago I heard Bill C's indignant tirade about how he never once lied to the American peoplee. Liberals applauded him, many stating that it was about time he put his foot down and told the truth without being afraid or ashamed.

Did he really tell no lies?

Only a few come to mind. For me, the one that stands out the most was his promise to bring home the troops from the Balkans before Christmas of 1996, an election year promise. After the winner was declared, Clinton ordered troops to stay there indefinitely. They're still there today.

A few others:

July 1991: Question: "Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?" Answer: "I've never broken any drug law." - Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B

Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.

Then he said:

March 29th, 1992: "I've never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two..."

Later, in that same interview, "No one has ever asked me that question point-blank."

- The New York Times, March 30th, 1992, p.A15.

---

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."

---

On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"

"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)

---

President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: "M economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years." Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton's budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton's budget document, "A Vision of Change for America."-Feb. 1993.

---

The Wall Street Journal Opinion-Editorial Page 2/21/95

NUMBERS GAME

It's the season to cut government, or at least to claim to, so we perked up when we heard President Clinton declare in his State of the Union address that he had cut (quote) more than 100,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy in the last two years alone (unquote).

As they say in detective work, interesting - if true. So we decided to pull out the new federal budget to check. What we discovered is that Mr. Clinton isn't lying, but he isn't telling the whole truth either. His speeches need an asterisk.

From 1993 to Fiscal Year 1996, the Clinton Administration will in fact have cut the federal government by 157,000 full-time positions. But there's a catch: 131,000 of those positions are civilian Defense jobs. Those cuts reflect the inevitable post-cold War decline in military spending, not some brave retrenchment in the overall size of government.

There's another catch: Of the 26,000 positions to be cut from the non-Defense side of Leviathan, 9,500 come from the Resolution Trust Corp. and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Those two banking agencies grew like Topsy to manage the savings and loan debacle, but are now cutting back as the bailout ends. The RTC is even supposed to go out of business this year. The bottom line is that over the course of the Clinton presidency, the non-Defense, non-S&L part of the government will cut a measly 16,500 full-time positions out of some 1.2 million. In essence the domestic government is conducting business as usual.

Mr. Clinton also says he's making the federal establishment (quote) the smallest it has been since John Kennedy was President (unquote). But again, excluding Defense, total executive branch employment will be 1,181,000 in 1996. Back in 1963, when JFK was President, total non-Defense employment was a mere 861,000. Maybe that should be the 1996 goal for Republican budget- cutters; they could say they got the idea from the President.

Are you referring to the guy who absolutely, positively guaranteed that if he was elected governor of Arkansas in 1990 he would serve 4 years? The one who said that a 4% income tax rate on the wealthiest 2% of the population would raise 165 billion dollars, reduce the deficit, and allow a middle class tax cut? The one who claimed that the republicans had killed the Lani Guinier nomination? The one who claimed that he had decided to make himself available to the draft after 4 acquaintances were killed in Viet Nam (rather than after his birthday had been drawn #311 in the draft lottery)? The one who claimed that "affirmative action "benefits white men?

Are you referring to that Clinton?

No, he said that the new gasoline tax (4 cent per gallon) would go to a deficit reduction trust fund. No such fund has been established to date... it is going to the general fund to fund their increased social programs... check it out... call the government accounting office and ask... they are stealing your money...

And I give you my word to do it without the blame game of the last twelve years of Reagan and Bush.

Good, OOPS, that lasted almost a whole day!

---

The NY Times reported that people earning under $100,000 paid an additional $3 billion in '94.

But wait, Clinton and the media claimed that only the top 2% were going to pay more taxes. Was that another lie from the Clinton administration?

---

According to liberal Democrats, anyone who makes a dollar more than you is the "rich". On the issue of "taxes on the rich", consider the following:

Most of the "rich" are smart business men & women... they own and run their own businesses. In addition, Clinton passed a 1% increase in corporate income taxes...

If you owned your own business, or if you were the CFO of a corporation, and your cost of doing business went up, what would you do ? You'd pass this cost on...

Should they feel the heat, so to speak, they pass the new costs on to the principle consumers of the goods and services they offer...The middle-class and poor....So who really is paying Clinton's new taxes ?

As the saying goes. "When the "rich" get a sniffle, the middle-class catches pneumonia."

The real problem with this attack on the rich is the underlying assumption that this is a static class of people. Not so.

A great many people start off "poor" and as they move up in the business world become successful and eventually become what the Democrats would currently characterize as "rich." Indeed most of the wealth in this country is in the hands of senior citizens. Many of these people at one time had no money at all.

So, the attack on the rich is not an attack on some evil group. Its mostly an attack on people who after much sacrifice and hard work have finally reached their peak earning years and are trying to enjoy and pass on the fruits of their labor.

---

There were many other Clinton proposals that didn't fly (thank you) which would have further parted people from their capital....Here's a couple of winners he proposed in 1992....

Imputed rent...You would pay tax on "rent" that you would have collected FROM YOURSELF...Tax real, only...NO RENTAL INCOME !!!!!

Lower the inheritance threshold...From about $650,000 to around $200,000. What has been an exclusive tax of the rich, Clinton wanted to give as a gift to the middle-class...

---

Newsweek reports that Clinton and the Democrats will no longer pursue the rich vs. middle class America class warfare strategy. They realize that it won't help them politically and, according to Newsweek, "President Clinton...doesn't really believe in it."

Newsweek noted that they are abandoning it, so apparently, they do not agree, nor do their sources. Clinton has been bashing the rich since his campaign, claiming disingenuously that they are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, i.e. falsely implying that they are paying less than they did in '80. Hillary went after the "greedy" pharmaceutical companies, after selling their stock short. They have made many self-serving moralistic statements about the "greed" of the '80's. Clinton and the Democrats condemn Republican. tax cut plans because they claim it will "help the rich."

If this is not class warfare, what is?

Clinton has pursued this strategy for about 3 years, and now he claims he **doesn't really believe in it?** Hey, I'll buy that!

Newsweek reported it as "news." How strangely non-judgmental that they would not question the sincerity of Clinton's claim when his actions speak otherwise.

Clinton's economic policies ???

1) A massive tax increase

2) "Hope" that interest rates would remain low

3) A few R & D credits for Al Gore's pet high tech industries

Was there anything else ?

In reference to the Social Security trust fund --

"But its important that we not panic; there is no immediate danger to retirement. Our accumulated surpluses would be sufficient to pay the liabilities to 2029 at current payroll tax rates."

From an interview; published in the May '95 issue of Money magazine.

Hasn't anyone told him that the Social Security trust fund has no money -- Congress borrowed it all and left IOUs with no plans yet on how to redeem those IOU's?

Given that Clinton seems so concerned about the hateful rhetoric in: politics these days, I wonder if he intends to limits such violent: statements as "taking food from the mouths of children", "war on the poor", "throwing the elderly out on the streets", and "contract _on_ America, Evil, Extreme, Mean Spirited and on and on and on.

We've given more power to states and localities and to private citizens. Our proposals would further accelerate those trends. Bill Clinton, White House press conference, 3/3/95

Fact: Clinton lobbied to defeat the Balance Budget Amendment in the Senate, so states and localities are prevented from getting the chance to even debate the amendment. His Administration opposes giving block grants to the states. He is opposing all Block Grants as well.

We support adding 100,000 new police officers. Bill Clinton, same news conference.

Fact: There are no "100,000 police officers". Never has been, never will be. Even liberal columnist DeWayne Wickam concluded in USA Today: "Many of the 100,00 cops promised in the crime bill will never materialize". On the day AFTER Clinton signed the bill into law, The New York Times reported that "some law enforcement analyst said the Administration has in effect misled local officials by vastly overstating the number of police officers who can be hired under the program".

It's called lying where I come from, how about where you came from?

---

Everyone knows that I have tougher ethic rules than any other President. Bill Clinton, news conference 3/3/95 defending the ethical standards of his administration.

Fact: In addition to his own Whitewater troubles and many high-level resignations, several members of his cabinet are currently facing probes in their conduct, including four "Special Prosecutors..

The budget which came from the President said,, I've given up; that as long I am President of the United States there will never be a balanced budget. That is an astonishing statement. Paul Tsongas, at a Capitol Hill press conference, 2/7/95.

Clinton said, "Who do these people think they are?" referring to people who stockpile guns, "No other government in the world would allow their citizens to do that."

---

How about this!

Sara Brady was quoted in several papers and magazines at an Hand Gun Incorporated rally a couple of weeks before the Senate vote saying..." Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie.

"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -- Sarah Brady (President of Handgun Control, Inc. and wife of James Brady, whom the Brady Bill was named for and was recently "honored" by Clinton)

Democratic Rep. David Obey said "I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the president's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks."

---

Foreign Policy?

Well, let's see, start with Somalia. It's not the first, but its one of the best known. In the winter of 1992 George Bush ordered US troops to guard food shipments in and around the ports. The deployment ended in March, a resounding success. A couple of months later Clinton got suckered into sending the Marines back in as 'nation builders'. In the course of which he deliberately violated Executive Orders of the Presidency not to engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders; you DO remember the AC130 gunships firing wildly into civilian occupied apartment buildings, in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and his followers, don't you? I didn't think so. Long term memory is not a strong suite of the Clintonestae.

Want a small disaster? At the opening of the Holocaust Memorial, 1993. A luncheon was served afterwards for the distinguished Jewish guests and foreign dignitaries. The main entree' was Honey baked Ham.

Bosnia. Bosnia is always good for a laugh. On the campaign trail, Candidate Clinton said that he was qualified as Commander In Chief of the Arkansas National Guard to make military decisions. As an example, he bragged that if he were elected, he would bomb the Serbs. In May of 1993, he sent Warren Christopher to convince the Europeans to allow him to do just that. Christopher went with the 'strongest message possible' to urge England, France, and Germany that he was fully committed to this course. Even as the Secretary of State was waiting to meet with them in Geneva, Your Great White Hope appeared on the tube and said that 'bombing the Serbs probably wouldn't be necessary'. Warren Christopher is not noted for emotional displays: Some have suggested that he has had the centers in his brain responsible for emotion surgically removed. After Christopher heard what Fearless Leader did, he ALMOST cracked a frown. The Europeans went ballistic. This year Clinton pushed the bombing schtick again to make himself look tougher than the average weenie and we all know what happened: The Serbs have basically gone on to conquer Bosnia. In that sad country you now have Serbian held territory and UN funded and run Serbian concentration camps disguised as 'safe havens'. The only reason these haven't been overrun is the Serbs haven't got the vaguest idea what to do with the refugees huddled in them.

"OH!" you shriek hysterically, "PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE HAD FAILURES, TOO! IT'S NOT FAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIRRRRR THAT BILL

CLINTON IS BEING JUDGED SO HARSHLY!!!!" Previous administrations had more successes than failures. George Bush built an international coalition to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War - even got the Arabs to talk to the Israelis afterwards. Ronald Reagan stopped the advance of Marxism in this hemisphere and cracked the will of the Soviets hard-liners to continue the Cold War. Carter, whatever else he may have failed at, can always look back at the Camp David Accords. Ford wasn't President long enough to do more than handle domestic problems, but Nixon reopened the dialogue with China. And so on back through American history. Yes, they had failures, but never were so many failures in so short a time the result of INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENCE by an Administration.

Dan Rather responding to congratulations to him and Connie Chung during and interview shortly after they teamed up together, "If we could be one-hundredth as gret as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House," the supposedly objective newsman said, "we'd take it right now and walk away winners."

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"

- President Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

---

Vice President Al Gore's interview on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," Sunday, August 25, 1996

Vice President Al Gore made a number of assertions during this interview which we feel require additional clarification.

Medicare

"Beyond that, the Republican Party, specifically Speaker Gingrich, said that he wanted to make changes that would cause Medicare to wither on the vine." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96

Wrong! Al Gore quoted Speaker Gingrich out of context. What the Speaker actually said was:

"Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltzin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart. We don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe its going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it -- voluntarily." --Speaker Newt Gingrich, remarks to Blue Cross/Blue Shield conference, 10/24/95

In their 1992 campaign, Clinton and Gore endorsed scrapping the Health Care Financing Administration:

"We will scrap the Health Care Financing Administration and replace it with a health standards board -- made up of consumers, providers, business, labor and government -- that will establish annual health budget targets and outline a core benefits package." --Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First, 1992

---

100,000 Cops

"The president has formed an alliance with the law enforcement officers around this country and experts in fighting crime, passed legislation, over the opposition of Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, that is now putting 100,000 extra community police officers on the streets." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96

Wrong again!

"What I am advised is that there are 17,000 officers that can be identified as being on the streets." --Attorney General Janet Reno, media availability, 5/16/96

Worse, not all of these cops are fighting crime:

"At least $7.2 million in COPS grants has been used to hire 86 officers for state parks, marinas and other areas seemingly far removed from violent crime." --Investor's Business Daily, 7/16/96

Reducing government

"We have downsized the federal government during the last four years by 250,000 people." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96

What Gore didn't say was that Clinton accomplished this by gutting Defense:

"President Clinton's plan three years ago to 'reinvent' government and cut the federal work force by nearly 252,000 jobs never mentioned that the military would absorb 75 percent of the cuts." --The Washington Times, 8/23/96

---

The national debt

"The debt, which was just ballooning out of control under the previous two administrations, has now been cut by 60 percent." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96

Wrong! According to statistics released in February, 1996 by Clinton's own Office of Management and Budget, the gross federal debt for fiscal year 1992 was $4.002 trillion. By fiscal year 1995 it had "ballooned" to $4.921 trillion -- an increase of 23 percent.

The Value Of Men In Society?

OK...although I feel passionate about this, it will be relatively short.

I'm expressing a macro view here. On an individual level, individual men are valued by those around them. However, at a macro level, men and their accomplishments are downplayed and discounted. They're continually shown to be the ones who are expendable, to be ridiculed, typically in favor of women.

This isn't an anti-woman piece, and I'm hardly an anti-woman guy. I'm simply pointing out the bad effects upon men. Women are typically put on a pedestal and given deference to in most situations. Nothing wrong with that. I think men deserve equal treatment.

It's hard to figure out where to start, as there are so many examples of how the worth of men is taught/shown to us.

How about TV and radio commercials? When was the last time you heard or saw a commercial featuring a man, and possibly a woman, where the man wasn't made to look like a fool? Get hurt and the injury seen as humorous? Be portrayed as a bad guy?

Better yet, have you ever seen a woman be made the fool, get injured in a way to make us laugh, or be seen as a bad person? No...we'd be mortified by such a portrayal, and run the advertiser out of business as being sexist.

What is the "successful" man as portrayed by our culture? He's either a sports star, physical prowess raising him to hero status, a killer, or ultra rich. It's no wonder young men seek to be 1) a super athlete 2) a bad ass thug, embracing gang culture or 3) a combination of 1 or 2 to try to become ultra rich. 99.9% of males will never reach any these to the point they become prominent for their achievement. But, we expect this of our young men.

We don't expect these things of our young women. Young women are encouraged to do what they want...to follow their heart. To encourage them otherwise would be seen as sexist, forcing them into a disempowered role that was not of their choosing.

We require young men to be ready to sacrafice themselves for the greater good all the time, be it military service, service to family, service to community, service to women (when a woman is threatened, who steps forward and who steps back...who is expected to do what?), service to . Why is expecting this of men normal, but expecting this of women sexist?

When you start looking for instances where the sexes are treated differently, you start noticing a lot. Be careful...once you start seeing it, there's no going back.

Men's Health Clearly Lags Women's Health; Let's Continue To Not Give A Good God Damn

www.cdc.gov

Women's health topics:
http://www.cdc.gov/doc.do/id/0900f3ec802271b0

Men's health topics:
http://www.cdc.gov/doc.do/id/0900f3ec80227131

Look at heart disease; point out CDC front page; point out larger number of women's health topics;

So, in my post yesterday I talked about men's health being a second class citizen, based upon the treatment it receives in society. Today I want to show the actual disparity between men's and women's health, in terms of actual health.

So...what are the leading causes of death for men in the US. As reported by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services in Nov. of 2003:

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Accidents
5. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
6. Diabetes
7. Influenza and pneumonia
8. Suicide
9. Kidney disease
10. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis

A pretty typical list...many of these haven't changed in years.

Does men's health lag women's health? If it doesn't, then studies should show that men don't need any more, or less, attention than women.

For reference, here is the CDC page for men's health issues. Here is the page for women's health issues. You'll note some differences, other than gender based health issues...namely, the disparity in sheer number of issues. We've already established the lack of concern for men's health in the last post, so this is no surprise.

On to some specific topics:

Heart Disease:

From the CDC study on Men's mortality rates due to heart disease, Section 4: (I chose sec. 4 because it's a national view of mortality rates)

Overall, men aged 35 years and older in the United States experienced a heart disease death rate of 675 per 100,000 population during 1991–1995. Overall, men aged 35 years and older in the United States experienced a heart disease death rate of 675 per 100,000 population during 1991–1995. However, there was considerable variation in the magnitude of heart disease death rates among the 3,103 counties for which data were available. Rates for counties ranged from 377 to 1,102 deaths per 100,000, and the heart disease death rate at the midpoint of the top quintile (938 per 100,000) was nearly twice as high as the midpoint of the lowest quintile (490 per 100,000).

There's also a nifty chart showing the distribution.

So...depending upon where a man lives, the stats show a low of 377 to a high of 938 per 100,000 aged 35 and over dying of heart disease.

Here's the CDC study for Women's mortality rates due to heart disease, Section 4:

Overall, women aged 35 years and older in the United States experienced a heart disease death rate of 401 per 100,000 population during 1991–1995. However, there was considerable variation in the magnitude of heart disease death rates among the 3,103 counties for which data were available. Rates for counties ranged from 212 to 670 per 100,000, and the heart disease death rate at the midpoint of the top quintile (560 per 100,000) was twice as high as the midpoint of the lowest quintile (275 per 100,000).

So...depending upon where a woman lives, the stats show a low of 212 to a high of 560 per 100,000 aged 35 and over dying of heart disease.

As you can see, the disparity is clear, by almost 2 to 1 on the high end! Yet less attention is given to men's health issues.

Cancer:

I'm having somewhat of a difficult time finding stats for this.

Regarding skin cancer, from the CDC article "Preventing Skin Cancer":

According to the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry of the National Cancer Institute, during 1995--1999, average annual age-adjusted incidence rates for melanoma per 100,000 population were 23.5 for men and 15.7 for women for non-Hispanic whites; 3.8 for men and 3.7 for women for Hispanics; 1.8 for men and 1.3 for women for Asians; 1.5 for men and 0.9 for American Indian/Alaska Natives; and 1.2 for men and 0.9 for women for non-Hispanic blacks (4).

Regarding lung cancer:

From 1999 Incidence and Mortality Data :

Looking at the "By Sex and Site" data:

The crude (as opposed to adusted for a factor such as age) incidence of lung cancer in 2001 among men is 490.7/100K, among women is 482.0/100K. Pretty close. Had I wanted to spin more I would have used the age adjusted stats: 544.8/100K for men, 404.9/100K for women.

The mortality rate (again, crude): 204.9/100K for men, 183.6 for women. Age adjusted: 243.5/100K for men, 164.1/100K for women.

The age adjusted stats certainly are more compelling...I wonder how they're arrived at.

Colorectal cancer:

I couldn't find raw data, but did find this slide. Men clearly have higher rates (incidence and mortality) of this cancer as well. Like other cancers, most cases come from non-genetic related ( sources.

From the National Cancer Institute I found a site that covers a huge 25 year study, covering cancer incidence, prevalence, mortality, by gender, age, etc. etc. Very interesting!

If you take a look at the various stats, you'll find that men have a marked higher chance of getting and dying from cancer than women. There's too much for me to go over here, and such an effort is outside of scope.

I couldn't find specific stats for other diseases...so I'll jump right to suicide. Here is an older study, but based upon stats I've recently seen, male suicide being double that of females is nothing new.

I'm running out of steam here. So, what's the bottom line:

The health of men and women is an important issue. However, men's health is clearly second in line to women's health, and little is being done to change that. Men are not valued in society nearly as much as women are, and IMHO, this is the underlying factor...which will be the topic of at least one upcoming post.

Men's Health Is A Second Class Citizen.

Let me start this off with this: I'm all for health care, and people getting good healthcare. What I'm not for is one gender being raised above another. I'm happy that women get the healthcare attention they enjoy. What's upsetting is that men don't enjoy a corresponding level of healthcare attention.

I started to write this one based on the existence of a federal Women's Cancer Act (passed in 1998), which requires insurance carriers to cover certain expenses related to breast cancer. These mandatory coverages include:

• reconstruction of the breast on which the mastectomy has been performed;

• surgery and reconstruction of the other breast to produce a symmetrical appearance; and

• prostheses and physical complications associated with all stages of mastectomy, including lymphedemas, in a manner determined in consultation between the attending physician and the patient.

My complaint was that there is no corresponding Men's Cancer Act.

However, in my research I came to find out that men's health in general takes second chair to women's health. This strikes me as interesting in light of women living longer than men, women having healthier lives than men, more men die of the top ten causes of death than women; women are told that they're valued parts of society while men are not. These three features are not new, these are modern and historical aspects that go back at least 100 years.

So...why do I think men's health is a second class citizen:

Well...of course, there is the legislative requirement that certain breast cancer treatments be covered. You'll note that the "required coverages" are primarily cosmetic - reconstruction and prosthesis...Congress was worried about how a woman looks.

I bet the femnists cheered when they heard of the passage of this bill, while conveniently ignoring their rant that women are treated as objects to look at. Whatever.

Congress passed a Breast Cancer Awareness stamp (BCAS). The BCAS was used, and is still used, to raise funds for breast cancer awareness (it raises $7-10M per year). A corresponding bill for a Prostate Cancer Awareness Stamp (PCAS) was shot down, the sponsors of the bill being required to take their case to be part of a legion of causes that wanted to have semi-postal stamps, and fight it out.

A semi-postal PCAS was finally approved, but it was not a fund raising stamp, simply an awareness raising stamp. Interestingly, the American Cancer Society refused to endorse the PCAS, because it contained text telling men get regular checkups and tests. Imagine the media if some group even suggested that women shouldn't get regular checkups and tests for breast or cervical cancer. Whatever.

Surely gender bias doesn't exist in the Federal Government...the ACLU would be up in arms.

The Office Of Women's Health raises awareness about women's health issues. This office has six bureau's scattered around the country. There is no Office Of Men's Health, and insufficient support in Congress to propose such an office.

I could go on and on...I'm cutting this off here as my research is taking me in other realted areas. I'm now more interested in showing that men's health is clearly lacking, which will hopefully be my next topic.

Self Deprecating Males

I've had about enough of these guys. Men who introduce their wives/girlfriends as their "Better Half." Guys who castigate me for not answering my cell phone when my wife calls, in spite of the fact that I'm in the middle of something. Guys who agree that men are always wrong. Men who let their wives/girlfriends "win" every argument, because it would be wrong to do otherwise. Guys who otherwise insinuate that women are superior to men.

I could dig up countless additional examples.

That rant being said, I'm of the firm belief that the genders should be treated equally, by each other and themselves. My contention this morning isn't with women by any means, only with the men who consider themselves inferior to them. Which seems to be most of them.

For some guys, they do the self deprecation dance as a weird way of showing that they appreciate the women in their lives. But come on. All the time? When you repeat something long enough, you tend to believe it. I haven't met a guy yet who does this sort of behavior, and doesn't believe that he's inferior to his wife. How can I tell? If I somehow question if they mean what they say, I universally get something along the lines of "Yes, I mean it, and if you don't believe the same way, you're an abusive man," or something along those lines.

These days, I don't even bother talking to these knuckleheads about their self deprecating activities. I just keep a mental note that they consider themselves inferior.

Until these men, and argubly all men, learn and appreciate their worth, this self deprecation will continue. I for one won't be a part of it.

In closing - Guys, listen. Women deserve to be praised, of course. They bring many great qualities to the table, as do men. However, praising them at the expense of the male psyche is not the way to to about it. Shower the ladies with gifts, give them all the affection, romance, and kudos they deserve, and they deserve a lot. In the same breath don't point out that you are somehow worthless and/or inferior in some way. You're just as valuable as they are...no more, no less.

What's With Businesses Being "Required" to "Give Back"?

It's interesting that, in addition to all the benefits business give to society, they're further ordered now to "give back". Don't get me wrong - companies that do this are to be commended for sharing the wealth. I guess it's the segment of society that sees it as a business' duty to give back, is where I take issue.

What do businesses do for us? They provide jobs - pay money to workers who then turn around and purchase goods and services and pay taxes. They pay taxes. They provide goods and services. They innovate and provide a standard of living we take for granted.

They get tax breaks and perks from the government. Given what they provide, it seems like these perks are warranted. I'd be interested to discuss this with someone who disagrees to give me some perspective.

IMHO, the "requirement" to give back stems from current popular morality rooted in social subjectivism, that truth and morality are matters of social convention. The will of the majority determines what's true and what's right. Social subjectivism's basic moral tenet is: Don't place the company, the company's independent judgment, the company's values, the company's selfish concerns, above those of the society or the "common good." Rather, the company should subordinate the company's own views and interests to the beliefs, needs, and desires of the "whole"--of which the company is merely a "part." On this view, being moral consists in pursuing not the company's well-being and profitability, but the "greater" well-being and happiness of society or the collective. The company is not an end in itself, but a means to the ends of society; thus, the company should sacrafice for society's "greater good." To do otherwise--to pursue the compoany's goals in disregard of the "collective will"--is to be immoral.

So Far So Good

I'm in my second week at Intuit, and all is well. I'm starting to get some thoughts back to Sun Microsystems, and remebering why I left there.

The technology at Sun is certainly worth getting excited about. Intuit can't really match that. However, at the end of the day, working at a company that's successful and growing really makes a difference.

It still remains to be seen if technology alone will get Sun out of its slump. In the past, Sun was a "Build It And They Will Come" company. It would be nice to see them turn some of the innovation energy into marketing, otherwise they'll continue to be beaten to the punch in the realm of public opinion.

An aside - due to daylight savings, I'm no longer writing these blog entries fresh and toasty in the early morning, and it shows.

Luckily, no one reads this stuff!

PJ From Groklaw On Illegal Immigration.

Groklaw is a pretty informative website. I don't agree with everything PJ espouses, but it's very educational, and reading causes me to go out and learn more.

However, in the article Migrating from Windows to GNU/Linux etc. where a group of illegal alien children compete in and win a competition to build an underwater exploration vehicle, and then bemoaning that they can't get the scholarship because they're here illegally is ludicrous. Here's the article from Wired.

Is, as PJ puts it, this a brain drain on the US? Not hardly. This is another case of an illegal immigrant family reaping the benefits of living in the US, as a direct result of breaking the law. If anything, this is a case of trying to steal talented individuals from Mexico. Of course, no one will point that out.

There are very smart people in other countries, no doubt. Being really smart isn't a criteria for being legally admitted into the US. There are rules in place for a reason, even if the US government doesn't enforce them.

The cost of taking care of illegals is staggering...in California it costs over $10 billion. We could have educated and benefitted a lot more citizens had that money been there for the benefit of citizens, and not illegals. How many schools were closed in California alone? In the Bay Area, there were at least seven closures in the las 3-4 months. There's the real brain drain.

PJ, stick to what you're good at - covering legal issues around Free/Open Source Software. Stay out of other areas.

Men And Their Interests...Let Them Go For It.

It never ceases to amaze me how media portrayal attempts to corral men into particular roles. Continual derision, equating men to young boys when it comes to men's interests, showing men who have other interests ignore their families, etc., cause many men to ignore things they otherwise should not ignore.

Men are creatures of creativity, and their interests are wide and various. My interests include blacksmithing, cooking (breakfast foods and low temprature smoked barbeque), acquarium keeping, and martial arts. Other men like tweaking cars, gaming, and a wide variety of other activities.

The ladies in our lives, unless we're lucky (I'm a lucky one), "put up" with our interest, acting skeptical at best, acting like it's an infringement upon their time at worst. Society at large supports this view - men aren't supposed to have interests outside of the home and family, when they do, they're relegated to being treated as children.

We (society) ignores these drives in men at our peril. Men have created pretty much everyproduct and service we enjoy today, or have improved upon it if they didn't invent it (there are exceptions of course, but not many).

That's not a sexist statement, simply a statement of fact. With women becoming more involved with things, this is slowly changing, but it will be a long time before the inventions of women are at least numerically superior to those of men.

So what's my point - men have a very powerful creative urge to build, create. This urge is denied at our peril. Many men have given into what society tells them to do - set aside their interests and focus on family only. These are the majority of men who go to work, come home, eat, watch tv, go to bed, repeat. These men too have creative needs which are not being met.

When these men reach a point in their lives where they realize they haven't done anything (aka mid life crisis), they seek to do anything which even has the appearance of a sense of accomplishing anything. Buying a hot sports car, or acquiring a trophy wife are typical "accomplishments" of men in a midlife crisis.

So...what's the bottom line - if you see something you're interested (women too) look into it, do some investigation. Simply learning a little more about the interesting thing might be all it takes to show you it's not for you. If it is something you want to pursue further, let people around you know about your interest...they care about you and will be excited for and with you. Finding something constructive to be interested in is more satisfying and healthy than some short term fix, such as an affair, illegal drugs, excessive alcohol, etc.

Ladies...let your man get involved in his interests, and don't pre-judge or ridicule him, no matter what the interest...collecting comic books, inventing a perpetual motion machine, computer gaming. The point where he'll need you is if he starts shirking responsibilities...but let him have his interests otherwise. He'll be happier, and thus so will you.

I Don't Like Daylight Savings Time

At least my outlook on daylight savings time is improving...for the first time ever. I used to say "I despise Daylight Savings Time." So there. People can change.

Why don't I like it - it takes me about 5.5 months to get used to getting up an hour earlier, getting started on the day an hour earlier, etc. By the time I get used to it, we change back to Standard time, and I get used to that within a day or so.

If you've been watching the time stamps on my blog articles, you'll notice I'm an hour late. My guess is that my posting frequency will drop over the next few months.

Why the improvement in attitude - I'm kinda looking forward to being able to do my martial class, Kwan Um Do Kwang or simply Zen Sword, the martial arm of Kwan Um Zen, at a park, instead of in the studio. The studio is fairly small, so we always have to short change some of the forms. In the park we have effetively unlimited room to work on our art.

Digital Rights Management: A War That Affects Us All

Most people don't realize the titanic struggle being waged over digital rights management (DRM). Thanks to the media, to most DRM means whether or not we can download music, and how that download can be controlled.

To basics:
Digital Rights Management – The arrangements used to manage digital rights. This includes specifying, transfering and verify rights.

Yes, this obviously touches music downloads. But it also touches digital access...to anything stored as data. So...you want to watch a movie on pay per view, buy something from an online store, look at a website, swipe your credit card at a restaurant, use an ATM, etc., etc., these uses all require particular rights, and the assertion of those rights, or the converse, denial of access by denying one's rights, or asserting that the user does not have rights to access.

The really sad part is that there are only a few big players in this space who stand to profit, at everyone's expense, Intertrust and Contentguard. Each of these entities are basically patent trolls - they make no product or service, their business model being the assertion of patent rights. Do a search...see who's hiding behind them. You'll be shocked.

The news these days in DRM is the MPEG LA and the OMA specification. If you use any part of the OMA spec, you need to pay royalties to MPEG LA. Here's some reading. Of course, who's behind the MPEG LA...Intertrust and Contentguard are the main players, followed up by Sony, Matsushita, and Philips. Intertrust is owned by Sony/Philips, and supposedly Microsoft has purchased an ownership interest as well. Microsoft controls Contentguard.

The OMA spec is being applied primarily to mobile devices, and was intended to be a royalty free standard. MPEG LA's license, 1% royalty for accessed content in addition fo $1/device is projected to bring in 100's of billions over the next ten yeas. Some project that the licensing revenue will exceed one trillion dollars over that time frame. You can bet that Consumers will be footing that bill.

The battle lines are drawn over the OMA spec. Moble providers are up in arms. MPEG LA sees money. Here's the latest.

The next area of interest is more entertainment related, namely, the Coral Consortium. It's members include Intertrust, Sony, and a bunch of entertainment giants. Coral was founded by the the Marlin Joint Development Association, and you'll never guess who's in Marlin: Intertrust Technologies, Matsushita Electric Industrial (Panasonic), Royal Philips Electronics, Samsung Electronics, and Sony Corporation.

This group bears keeping a close eye on. They're working on their spec, and we should hear soon what sort of tax they'll be imposing on us.

Right Or Wrong, Sometimes There's A Reason For Double Standards

A couple of weeks ago I'd overheard a family discussion at restaurant. The teenage daughter was discussing with the parents, and her teenage brother, how unfair it was that her dating activities are very restricted while her brother's were not. Interestingly, I was feeling a bit uncomfortable...but not because of the quandry she was raising, but because the 1) the father was at a loss to adequately explain what was going on and 2) because the mother was siding with the daughter.

It was the basic gender double standard discussion - why do we treat boys different from girls in the same situation.

So, let's go to basics (from Dictionary.com):
double standard
n.

A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another, especially the granting of greater sexual freedom to men than to women.

Yes...I was somewhat amazed at this definition as well, given my topic for this AM.

On it's face, this seems unfair. We treat one gender different from the other in a similar situation - sexual freedom. Yes, I started out discussing dating, but IMHO the dating concerns of parents are really driven by sex, and whether or not they're comfortable with their children being involved in sexual activities (followed closely by alcohol, drugs and misbehavior (as in going to jail misbehavior). Were sex not an issue, any sort of dating discussion would be easy.

The double standard is not simply owned and promulgated by parents...the media is a willing participant. Feminism (well, at least the more radical wing of) claims the double standard is patently unfair, that boys and girls should have the same sexual freedom; we encourage boys to "get some" at every opportunity, and there's no reason why girls shouldn't be "getting some" as well.

In the male world, at least when you're younger, and to some extent when you're older (and single), there is pressure to go have sex. If you don't, there's something wrong with you. If you're not actively pursueing sex, for the sake of engaging in the act of sex, there's something wrong with you.

The pressure comes from your peers, and this is the strongest pressure. The next big source is the media - look at what we're exposed to. Young men see shows with scantily clad women/girls who talk and act in a way that suggest they want to have sex...and they usually hold this out as some sort of carrot to garner some sort of action from the males. Music videos...please...if you've seen one, you know what I'm talking about. In that case, you have males with sex on demand...surrounded by alluring women vying for the attention of the males.

For males at least I alluded to what I consider the underlying reason for males to search out sex, when I said, "...garner some sort of action from males." For a guy to have sex is a sign of acceptance from women...an extremely powerful indicator of worth to a man...he's worth procreating with.

Sex is evolutionarily designed to promote procreation, passing on of one's genes. This is an extremely powerful, and I'd argue the most powerful, driver of behavior in human existence. To be accepted by a woman in sex is so powerful, many men will do just about anything to gain this acceptance - undertake dangerous quests, forsake existing relationships, pay money, put their lives on the line, do extremely stupid things...you name it. Even the suggestion by a female that a male could be accepted sexually by that female if he does this or that, can many times cause him to do that "this or that."

So...boys are encouraged to do "get some", as it's a sign of acceptance. Without that acceptance they're ridiculed by other males, and females. At a deeper level, rejection is a sign that the male is not worth passing on.

Women...well, I'm not a female, so this is one man's perspective only. I'm of the opinion that much of the motivations males have for having sex also apply to females as well...at one level, it's a sign of acceptance, and at a genetic level the need to pass on genetic material through procreation is extremely powerful.

I think so far, I've basically said "females and males are human...they have a very deep rooted need to procreate...no shit. When will you get to the double standard stuff?" Heh..OK...sorry about the rant...look at the time stamp on my posts.

Back to it to the girl's side of the double standard, and why it exists: When girls have sex, the natural result of the sex is pregnancy, no matter how you slice it. At conscious level, both participants want to feel good, feel intimate...feel accepted; they're not even thinking about children. At a deeper level, they want pass on their genetic material, as another accepting your "essence" is about as much acceptance as is possible for males, and I'm guessing that for females acceptance from the males comes in the form of their willingness to combine with the female genetic material. Heh..sorry for sounding so clinical on this..!!

The result, namely the child, needs to be taken care of. Moreover, especially for young women, the guy they're having sex with may not exactly be desirable (i.e. a loser). Parents typically understand both of these issues, and this is the basis for the Double Standard.

If a young woman gets pregnant, she will most likely be saddled with raising the child, unless the young man wants to be involved. In dating relationships, this is typically not the case, leaving the young woman high and dry.

She now must put her life on hold, as the needs of the child trump her needs. Moreover, she must now undertake to raise a child, which is even difficult if you have two parents to work on this! The results of single mother parenting are the subject of another article...suffice it to say that for the most part, single mothers come up short. There are cases where they do a decent job, and I know at least one single mom who is dedicated to her daughter, who's doing a terrific job of it, at no small expense to herself...but I know even she would agree that the process would be much easier with a male counterpart parent.

I don't agree with the double standard, but in a manner different from most. I disagree that boys should be encouraged to go "get some" at every opportunity, and given dating freedom to enable this. They can ruin a young woman's life and simply walk away. In the past, if a young man got a young woman pregnant, he would marry her and help raise the child. The relationship might not have been all peaches and cream, but the child received the benefit of two parents, and both parents understood and undertook their responsibility.

Today, that is not the case. Males will get females pregnant and leave without a second thought. Females, under the banner of sexual freedom, will go out and "get some" at every opportunity. If they get pregnant, they kill the child, keep it, or give it away...either way, they're affected for life.