Yet Another Ruminator

So I tried to log on to www.healthcare.gov... Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:01:00 +0000

After the findings of my previous post, I did a bit of investigation.

$ dig -t a www.healthcare.gov

; <<>> DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1 <<>> -t a www.healthcare.gov
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15412
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.healthcare.gov.        IN    A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.healthcare.gov.    900    IN    CNAME    www.healthcare.gov.edgekey.net.
www.healthcare.gov.edgekey.net.    900 IN    CNAME    e7393.dscb.akamaiedge.net.
e7393.dscb.akamaiedge.net. 20    IN    A    23.8.39.205

;; Query time: 102 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
;; WHEN: Fri Oct 18 23:33:17 2013
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 132

After speaking with Akamai support, it turns out that the ban list I'm hitting is controlled by their customers. After some delving back into the past, I think what happened is that when I tried to run a TOR exit node about a year ago, my static IP was flagged for posting some spam comments to a blog, and maybe some other things.

I'm afraid I scared the first level support woman I spoke with. I'm pretty sure she was trained to deal with questions like "How do I create a username?" or "What's a deductible?" When I came at her with, "I'm trying to log in from a static IP and it looks like I'm on some sort of banned list. Can you do anything to let me in?" she sounded like a deer in the headlights.

At any rate, I still wonder what the IRS will say when I show them these screenshots. I can give them Wireshark traces too.

So I tried to log on to www.healthcare.gov...

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 03:37:00 +0000

Well, I'm not sure what my work situation will be come January, so I decided I better check out the healthcare insurance exchange to see what I can look forward to in terms of payments.

So I type www.healthcare.gov in the address bar and hit enter...

Well, that can't be good. Reload.

Different browser?

Apparently not.

So that's my Obamacare story. What should I tell the IRS when they try to collect any penalty?

Some technical details in the next post.

Game change... Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 04:02:00 +0000

I don't get it. HBO theoretically maximizes its revenues when they make themselves palatable to the maximum number of households. Of course this interplays with value and price, but why, oh why would they want to alienate a great swath of the American people who identify themselves as conservative? Looking at the reviews and other articles about "Game Change," taking out a merciless hit on someone almost 46% of the country voted for seems like Nielsen suicide! HBO doesn't have advertisers, but I think it will be interesting to see their subscription numbers over the course of this year.

An open letter to Senator Claire McCaskill

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:54:00 +0000

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I want to thank you for your vote to defend women's health and against the so-called “religious freedom” that the Catholics are talking about. Making sure that the population of the United States can be placated with all the recreational sex they need is definitely more important than the ancient “consciences” of the leaders of a religion that professes to represent 23.9% of the population of the country (Note 1). It is imperative that women be able to quash the next generation of themselves. In China, for instance, where sex-selective abortion is available, there are 1.18 boys born for every female.

Your vote is also an excellent way to make sure that the Catholics damn themselves no matter what course of action they take. You see, if they comply with the new regulations, then they are committing mortal sin by monetarily subsidizing another mortal sin (non-procreative sex). They can try escaping the regulation by ceasing to provide health insurance for the employees of their parachurch organizations, but by doing that, they don't do something they see as good that is within their power. According to their scriptures, in James 4:17, “So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.” The same passage condemns them if they close down their hospitals or other charitable organizations, for if they cease to serve the poor (St. Luke's Health System in Kansas City dedicates almost $90 million to charitable actions yearly), they are no longer acceptable to their God. You've outsmarted them—they will be condemned to the fires of Hell if they do any of these, and if they just don't provide coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, then the large fines they'll pay will fill the nation's coffers, a definite win for the government!

I also want to commend you on your 100% rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America (Note 2). Along with Emanuel Cleaver, my Representative, you give your unwavering support to organizations like Planned Parenthood (Note 3). Their founder, Margaret Sanger, had a vision where the world would be full of the best and brightest, without the baggage and deadweight of such people as African Americans and “morons.” Let me remind you of some of her great wisdom:

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

And also:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all. (Note 4)

Again, thank you for continuing her proud legacy of negative eugenics. Minorities are outlandishly over-represented in the number of abortions they procure. Black women in 2010 accounted for 12.2% of the female population (Note 5), but obtained 36.4% of abortions in the US in 2006 (Note 6).

In conclusion, this letter has been a satire. I intend to remind you, Senator, of your vote against the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states that Congress shall not “prohibit the free exercise [of religion].” By refusing the conscience exemption to the regulations recently issued by Secretary Sebelius, you are overturning more than two centuries of our nation's tradition of toleration of religious minorities, only asking that they perform their rituals in a safe and sanitary manner. Protections from government encroachment must not be breached. I am disappointed in your vote, Senator, and desire to hear your explanation of why you wish to force your fellow citizens to violate their religion's laws and their own consciences by buying items they view as abhorrent.

Your constituent,

Roger Cook

Notes:

Student Loans and a Possible Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:12:00 +0000

Like many stores, we broke it, so now we own it. As a nation, we need to figure out something to do with student loans. Most of their characteristics are a result of federal law. I want to explore some changes to it and think about where those changes might take us. There's something about a debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy that strikes me as fundamentally unjust.

So what are the characteristics of student loans now that make them different from credit cards, car loans, or mortgages?

They don't have any collateral (like credit cards, but unlike car loans or mortgages)
The federal government guarantees most, if not all, of them to the banks that made them.
They cannot be discharged by a foreclosure, repossession, or even a bankruptcy.

Since they don't have collateral, there's nothing to seize upon default. But since they're guaranteed, there's not an incentive to check the risk of the loan. As the joke says, "The science major asks, 'Why does it work?' The engineering major says, 'How does it work?' The business major says, 'How do I make money from it working?' The liberal arts major says, 'Would you like fries with that?'" Different degrees result in different prospects for their holders, and so would carry different levels of risk for banks to make those loans.

1. Eliminate the guarantee from the federal government.

If the guarantee was eliminated, the bank would have an incentive to actually analyze the possibility of repayment based on the course of study and progress through it. For instance, a bank might be willing to fully subsidize a bachelor's degree in engineering from MIT, but pay for only a small part for a degree in women's studies from Radcliffe, based on future earning potential of those students. Of course, if the bank is taking risks on these students, these loans might be subject to some qualifications like sending transcripts to the bank, and have future loans conditional on keeping up your GPA and making good progress on your degree. This would also make the banks take part of the risk that, upon default, they don't get any money. It's my understanding that the federal (or state) government repays the bank so they know there's no risk, and your loans are now owed to the government.

2. Make them dischargeable, but painfully so.

It is most definitely unjust to hold a debt for life over someone's head, especially when the entity owed is a bank or a government. In the Mosaic Law, debts were released every fifty years. Make the student loans dischargeable, but instead of being able to do it in one bankruptcy and you're done in seven years, make it take three bankruptcies so that the effects will be felt for over two decades. This gives the student some skin in the game, but makes escape possible.

If these two changes were made, both banks and students would have incentives to take loans only when necessary, and only when the risk to reward ratio is positive. I'm sure other programs could be developed, like allowing co-op programs at various corporations to pay for education, similar to how ROTC scholarships or Service Academy appointments obligate their recipients to several years of service. What would some of the effects be if these changes were adopted?

Hopefully, it would get rid of some of the factors that created the higher education bubble. If banks faced the default risk on their own, there wouldn't be nearly as much money pouring into college campuses as there is now. If you read Instapundit on this subject, you'll be swayed by the evidence he shows that there are more dollars than sense going into higher education right now, just like the housing market a few short years ago.

There would be fewer college students overall. If loans won't cover their course of study, then many people would not choose to go to school and enter the work force full time at a younger age. There would be a chance for them in skilled trades or other careers.

Many jobs that currently "require" a BA or better would look at the supply of available candidates and drop that requirement. Apprenticeship-type training may make a return in several industries. Instead of learning how to be a bookkeeper by studying accounting in college, someone would start as an assistant bookkeeper and learn the business from the inside. Too often, a degree is used as a proxy for measuring whether a person can hold their life together enough to achieve a long-term goal. This might bring more risk in hiring someone new, but the ability to not have our government swamped by these loans would more than make up for it in my opinion.

Some majors would shrink, others would grow. If the average starting salary for someone with a BS in engineering was $50,000 and the average starting salary for someone with a BA in English was $28,000, banks would be more comfortable making loans available to engineering students, because they would be more likely to get a better return on their investment. This would probably raise the ratio of STEM graduates overall. Of course, if a teaching certificate is added to that BA, the state or school district might promise to make part of the payment themselves, reducing the student's obligation. Using programs like that should keep a large enough supply of teachers coming up through the schools.

University town economies would probably shrink, as fewer students would result in fewer needs for the campuses, lower populations, and a general decrease in economic activity. This would be like many of the disruptions that came before, when great numbers shifted from farm to factory or factory to service.

If all goes as hoped, family formation could start sooner because there would no longer be such an overhanging debt on so many people who currently need to "punch their ticket" to get into adulthood.

I see some downsides to this in specific cases, but most of the results are, I think, positive. What do you think would happen? What measures would you suggest to get out of the higher education bubble?

How it all got started

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:11:00 +0000

In the beginning, the Engineer created the computer. And the Engineer said, "Let there be bits." And there were bits. And the Engineer separated the bits into ones and zeros. The ones He called TRUE, and the zeros FALSE. And there was Boolean Logic, the first language.

The Engineer said, "Let the bits be gathered into groups, of four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, and more." The groups of four He called nibbles; of eight, bytes; and the larger ones, words. And there was representation of arbitrary numbers, the second language.

And the Engineer said, "Let the arbitrary numbers represent instructions for the computer." The move, poke, add, and so forth came into being. And there was machine language, the third language.

And the Engineer said, "Let there be mnemonics for the machine language instructions," and there were. The humans no longer had to memorize tables of arbitrary numbers in order to guide the computer. The Engineer saw this and said, "It is good." And there was Assembly, the fourth language.

And the Engineer said, "Let there be constructs to make programming faster, so that instead of eight lines of Assembly Language to store a value, the humans may only write one line." And there were high level languages, the fifth.

And the Engineer created the command line, so that the human race could interact with the computer to accomplish all manner of tasks. He saw His creation, and lo, it was very good. And there was the command line, the sixth language.

There was no seventh language, for the Engineer had exhausted His supply of caffeine, and He rested.

And the Engineer said to the humans, "Enjoy the command line and all the computer helps you accomplish. But do not partake of the Graphical User Interface, for in the day that you do, you shall surely convince the lusers that they are as capable of using the computer as you are.

Now the Programmer was the craftiest of the creatures, and he showed the clueful users a painting program where they could seemingly draw on the screen. The humans partook of this evil, and built it with Windows and mice and kludgey programming. And they saw the Blue Screen of Death, and were sore afraid.

The Engineer came to see the humans, and saw the Blue Screen. And He said, "What have you done?" The humans promptly blamed the Programmer.

The Engineer said to the humans, "Since you made a graphical interface after I told you not to, cursed are you to help all the people you know with the most trivial of computer problems. You shall call it GUI, with reason, for you shall always be stuck."

To the Programmer He said, "Cursed are you to forever remain a social outcast, forever desiring friends in the cool kids crowd, but you shall always be teased. Even as adults, you shall labor in soul-crushing cubicles, cut off from the popular. In your nerdiness, you shall suffer all the days of your life."

Epilogue:

It's been downhill ever since.

Battle of the Furnace

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:46:00 +0000

It was a tough scrabble. It came down to the two star players, steel wool versus soot.

I had to pull the flame sensor out of our furnace and give it a good cleaning. And I was successful!

Five years

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:02:00 +0000

Five years ago...

America was still reeling from 9/11.

We hadn't invaded Iraq.

Nobody had heard of Barack Obama.

And I had my last moments as a single man.

Five years later, I love her more than I did then. Both of us have grown up in ways I couldn't even imagine then. The road has been rough, but road trips are always more fun when you're on them with a friend.

So honey, here's to five years together so far, and a hope for many more.

On the Incarnation

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:26:00 +0000

This time of year, all Christians celebrate the Incarnation, or enfleshment, of Jesus the Christ. While my thoughts are amateur, one must start somewhere.

The Incarnation is an incredible miracle. One Who is infinite wrapped Himself in finitude, in a body that exists in three dimensions and had boundaries. The Omnipresent One was in a single location. The fullness of Deity Who spoke and worlds leapt into existence at His command could talk with people who didn't want to listen!

Is it that much of a logical leap from the Incarnation (which all Christians acknowledge) to the Real Presence at the Eucharist? The God who clothed Himself with flesh, making it holy, is surely capable of clothing Himself with bread and wine, making them holy, isn't He?

Fred Thompson Peels the Gloves Off

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:06:00 +0000

Fred Thompson's campaign is starting to throw some punches.

Individual and Community, Redux

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:44:00 +0000

Could it be that a good community provides good feedback to the individuals that make it up, and that the individuals, working harder at their community because of their individual development, make a virtuous cycle in a healthy, well-functioning community?

From the Noise to the Quiet

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:10:00 +0000

My church is having a fall gathering of adult classes. I attended "Come to the Quiet" tonight. We had a worship service in the style of the Taizé community in France.

The worship was very contemplative. The songs were repeated many times, almost mantra-like. While my understanding of mantras tells me that the goal is to empty the mind so as to become nothing and reach the void (which is antithetical to Christianity), this use is for a different goal: Not to reach the void, but to silence ourselves so that God may speak.

Experiencing that worship for the first time, I wasn't sure what to think of it. The usual worship at our church is not noisy in the sense of cacophony. It is orderly, but it is full of sound and music. It is rare when more than 30 seconds of silence happen, and in that case, the song leader starts a familiar song. In our world, we have music, news, and conversations available at the push of a button, and with shortwave radio, it can be anywhere in the world. The silence of the Taizé worship was unnerving. I am not accustomed to the quietness and the stillness. Noises from the electrical hum of the lights and voices from the classes next to us were almost unwelcome. They remind us of the passage of time while we try to be in the presence of One who is timeless.

The songs were a different experience too. Most of them were set in a minor key, which, raised in the traditions of Western music, evokes a different set of emotions than songs set in a major key. They were far, far away from our usual triumphant songs, but they are not defeatist either. They humbly ask God to come and listen to us. They don't demand, they ask. They also ask us to wait for God and to be here, in the present, for each other.

It was a remarkably different experience for me. It was difficult to keep the silence. I have not developed that discipline. I constantly seek something to read, something to think about, and something to listen to. What are your experiences and advice for slowing down and listening to God?

Boom!

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0000

So I'm sitting at work and hear this loud thumping and banging.

Turns out my building is getting a window-washing today. That's a relief.

Individual and Community

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:23:00 +0000

Lately (within the last two years), I've heard a new buzzword coming out of preachers' mouths:

Community.

Growing up in a church of Christ, it's not a word that was heard very often. The emphasis was on the individual, by far. There were token mentions of Hebrews 10:25 of course, but it was mostly to make sure that the individual was following what God said in His word.

Today, "community" is mentioned so often it is inescapable, as though once we establish it, it will fix what ails us and be all we ever need. Is it the same as what was previously called "fellowship" when I was growing up? It doesn't seem to be. When people speak of "community," there seems to be a heavily mystical attitude towards it. "Fellowship" was simply time together, not necessarily doing "church things" like corporate worship. Is it a matter of the new word replacing the old word so as not to be loaded with the usual definition, to try and get us to think about how we as a congregation relate to each other and redo it? Is it the influence of the 1970s in education (when social studies replaced the discrete subjects of history, geography, economics, etc.) flowering as those who are in charge of congregations' teaching come to influence in the church?

Please don't get me wrong--community (what is held in common) is essential and included in Christianity. We're going to spend eternity with these people, so what's wrong in getting started off on the right foot now? Accountability to each other, through usual friendships and other relationships with each other, strengthens the bonds that we have. My main question is why didn't we hear about community in previous years?

New Feed!

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:13:00 +0000

OK, so I know that not too many people read here, but anyway.

I use Google Reader to look over my news sources, blogs of friends, and so forth. One of their features is that I can share different posts on different blogs or newspaper pages. And now, you, yes, YOU can subscribe to them and see what I find to be interesting! Check out the new chicklet on the left to see what I'm fascinated by.

God bless!

I can't do NPR all the time

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:06:00 +0000

Lately, I've been trying to broaden and deepen my perspective on the world. One way I try to do this is by listening to National Public Radio. Well, I can't do this all the time. It makes me too angry. Yesterday, I heard just a bit of the Diane Rehm Show and a caller asked:

Which of the following are more closely modeling "family values?" A Senator who is apparently married and whose name is found in an escort service phone list, or a committed gay couple who have adopted children and are raising them?

The answer, of course, is "Neither." The caller was trying to set up a false dichotomy. I confess to tuning away as soon as I heard the question. I couldn't handle my anger. The caller was referring to Senator David Vitter from Louisiana. When Senator Vitter's name was released, he came forward, apologized, explained that he, God, and his family were working things out, and gave all indications that he had truly repented and was trying to get that part of his life back on track. That doesn't erase his past, but it certainly explains why the calls for Senator Vitter's resignation haven't been heard like they have been (and were answered for) Senator Craig of Idaho, who pleaded guilty, then dissembled, spun, and tried to shuck and jive his way out of an admission of guilt.

In the end, I don't like to hear sanctimony about what God has called sin, and when caught, repentance is always the best option whether you're a public official or not.

Kids These Days and their cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:46:00 +0000

Every generation has their bones to pick with the ones that come after them. We haven't completely gotten rid of our TV (though we did cut the cable and are relying on over-the-air transmissions), but we still get the occasional cartoon. My, they're different from when I was growing up.

The cartoons I remember most were Robotech and the Trans-Formers. When you watched those cartoons, there was a strain of Good vs. Evil going on, like in G. I. Joe. There was a strong sense of right and wrong, and it was shown to the viewers that they should be good.

Today's popular cartoons like Jimmy Neutron or Pokemon don't strike me as good versus evil, but smart versus stupid. Has anyone else noticed this? How does this influence our kids?

Abortion, Natural Law, and Catholic Politicians

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Mon, 14 May 2007 21:57:00 +0000

The Pope recently issued a warning to Catholic politicians that they risk excommunication and denial of the Eucharist if they use their temporal powers to legalize abortion. The pro-choice crowd has been fretting about how terrible this is, and how this is breaking down the separation of church and state.

They're wrong.

Natural law is "written in the heart" of every man according to the Apostle Paul. This is usually demonstrated as general ethics with regards to how we treat each other. Laws against murder, lying in court, theft, and elder abuse all come from the natural law that is written on our hearts. Even people who have not had the light of Christ in their lives recognize that there are rules about how we should govern ourselves and our relations with others.

Christians generally view life as beginning at and ensoulment occurring at conception. This makes the killing of an unborn child a direct equivalent to killing one that has been born. If the child is innocent of any crime (or endangering the mother, such as with an ectopic pregnancy), then killing it intentionally is murder. Murder is, of course, against the natural law, not only against Catholic and Christian doctrine.

If you were to substitute "murder" for "abortion" in the statements about politicians ("The Pope said that politicians who did not legislate against murder risk excommunication and denial of the Eucharist."), it becomes much less controversial. But that is exactly what the Pope is doing. Through their actions, politicians who endorse transgressing the natural law are excommunicating themselves from the church and inviting their bishops to deny them the Eucharist.

There should be no controversy. You cannot endorse sin out of one side of your mouth (the "public" side) and condemn it with the other (the "faithful" side). If the politicians were forcing church attendance or forcing admission of the Host after consecration as being the very body of Christ, that would be forcing church doctrine by law of the state, but saying that the politicians separate themselves from their church for allowing state law to digress from natural law is nothing wrong.

Accommodating the Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 10 May 2007 02:06:00 +0000

We are more than human. We are fallen humans. The consequences of this go throughout our bodies, our spirits, and through them, the societies that we form. No family is safe from its ravages. No clan can be protected from it. No government is immune to its effects. When there is a human around, there are problems. Only one man, the Lord Jesus Christ, was born un-fallen. Through Him, we can all be redeemed and saved, but we're not there yet.

Most theologians view our salvation in three stages:

Justification, wherein our records in Heaven are taken to be forgiven and accounted to Christ, which has been completed when you accept His sacrifice and obey Him;
Sanctification, wherein we are made to "conform to the likeness of His Son," evidenced by our (hopefully) sinning less and less as we become more and more like Jesus; and
Glorification, wherein we will be given new bodies in the Resurrection at the end of the age, full of glory given to us by God.

These undo the results of the Fall. Justification erases (virtually) our own individual records of the wrongs that we have done. Through it, the deeds that we have done were accounted to Christ Jesus, and our judicial record in Heaven is clean. Sanctification (which we do not complete until death) deletes our tendency to sin and disobey God's law. Most of us are sanctified slowly, but there are those who suddenly make a large turnaround in their lives, enabled by God. Our glorification will be part of the grand restoration of the universe at the end of the age. There, death and the grave will finally be defeated—we will no longer age, get sick, or die.

In the meantime, we are stuck with being un-sanctified and un-glorified. We still sin, we still age, and we still die. How do we deal with this? As far as not being glorified yet, the most obvious accommodation is that we have doctors and hospitals to try and heal our bodies. No one seems to have a problem with this interim solution.

But we still sin. Our greed, our lust, our anger, our gluttony, and all our other sins affect both us and the people around us. There is still something fundamentally wrong with us. Can we redirect our fallen nature to limit its consequences and even, in some cases, use it to provide incentive to do what is right and good?

In the next life, we won't need money. There won't be a curse, so there will be no more starvation, no food shortages (if we even need food), nor anything like that. In this life, however, we are greedy and want more of everything. Capitalism seems to allow the best of both worlds.

Under capitalism, human greed is redirected. No longer is the impulse to simply hoard what you've got, but to use what you've got to get even more. In the process, more wealth is created that you don't get your hands on, and this gets distributed to other people. I'm sure you're familiar with this aspect of capitalism, so I won't expound on it.

Many utopias have been written about. From Thomas More to Gene Roddenberry, with Karl Marx in between, they have all ignored some aspect of human nature. Most of them ascribe an altruism to us that we just do not have at our cores. They think that by making sure everyone is fed and clothed, nobody will want anything more.

I'm not going to go as far as Gordon Gekko and say that greed is right, because it's not. But I will say it must be accounted for.

Intellectual "Property"

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:09:00 +0000

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of intellectual property. There are certainly some problems with some aspects of IP law in the United States. After all, whenever Steamboat Willie's copyright is about to expire, it seems like Walt Disney Company petitions Congress to extend the term that copyrighted materials are protected from entering the public domain. This is keeping other works of literature, where the author has long since stopped trying to disseminate his or her work, from entering the public domain. Another problem is the patenting of existing human genes.

There are other perceived problems too. How can "stealing" information (wherein the original owner still has the information) really be theft? While you don't deprive the original owner of posession of the information, you do deprive them of the compensation that the author wishes to obtain for that information. I think a great example is brand name versus generic drugs. When a company develops a new drug, they make a sizable investment in original research to first come up with the drug, then they have to go through in vitro trials, animal trials, and finally human trials before earning FDA approval (in the US). To provide independent researchers the ability to verify their data, they must publish the formula for the drug. To keep their competition from bring the drug to market at a lower price, they file for and are issued a patent. This gives them the ability to exclusively profit from their invention. They can then manufacture the drug and recoup their original investment. When the patent expires, other companies come in. These companies do not have to do any of the original research or run any extensive trials to make this drug. They just incur the cost of manufacture. For this reason, they are able to sell at a much lower price than the brand name drug. If the formula was used and the original developer had no way to reap profits from its development, what would the incentive be to develop it in the first place? Can you imagine the CEO and the Chief Science Officer in this conversation?

CEO: Let's spend millions of dollars developing this!
CSO: Sure! But will we be able to make a profit on it?
CEO: Not at all. The formula will be public information before we can sell any.
CSO: Sounds like a great idea!

Nah. Me neither.

The patent system allows innovators to profit from their innovations. Just as when a brickmaker bakes a brick, he can sell it to a user of a brick, shouldn't the creator of an innovation be able to profit from users of his innovation? Perhaps there should be a few tweaks to it, like, perhaps, extending the patent protection of products that must be approved by the government to have the clock start running after regulatory approval rather than after patent approval.

Copyright is another matter. As I said, many works that would have ordinarily gone into the public domain just a few tens of years ago now will not because of changes in the law. It is near impossible to obtain these works for research or even curiosity. After all, they're not popular, so they aren't being currently produced. Can you go out and find a new copy of Al Bowlly's music? It's copyrighted, but not very profitable, so it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to do so and do it legally. What do you think of this solution?

When you initially get a copyright, you get it for 20 years.
At the end of 20 years, you can extend the copyright for five years for a trivial fee.
Subsequent renewals cost the same.

This should solve the problem of allowing Steamboat Willie to remain copyrighted so that Mickey Mouse doesn't pass into the public domain, but "dead" works that aren't being actively protected would pass into the public domain.

Intellectual property may not be physical or tangible, but it should still be protected. In the latest IP kerfluffle, my heavens. Patent the algorithm, not the number.

How powerful are the Libertarians?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:22:00 +0000

Some comments on Rod Dreher's blog got me thinking:

I predict that the GOP will go more libertarian, a la Giuliani, because libertarianism is a more natural fit with autonomous individualism (in fact, it's the purest expression of it), and it offers no significant opposition to corporate interests.

How powerful are the libertarians within the Republican party anyway?

Powerful enough to press for laissez faire capitalism, but not powerful enough to shut down corporate welfare.
Powerful enough to reform welfare, but not powerful enough to end it.
Powerful enough to make noise on a lot of issues, but not powerful enough to do much about them.

Many experts are predicting another shellacking for the GOP in 2008. I agree. It won't be pretty if you claim the elephant. I'm seeing the Republicans do two things wrong in their attempts to become relevant again. The first is denying the social conservatives a place to be. Like it or not, many, many people will refuse to vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion. If Rudy Giuliani is nominated, the GOP will lose a large chunk of their base to either not voting, or possibly the Constitution Party. The second error that I see the Republicans committing is what looks like a refusal to clean the house of even the most egregious offenders in the pork schemes. Would that all the Presidential candidates be like Dr. No. The combined result of these two errors is alienating the entire base, both fiscal and social conservatives. It doesn't matter how much reaching out you do, if you go so far as to lose the base, all is lost.

What can be done to fix it? I wish I knew. I do know that one thing that is needed is shoring up the base. When the President, the leader of the party, abandons a socially conservative primary challenger in favor of a seated Senator whose loyalty to the cause is dubious at best, it's not a good place for the party to be. Looking back on my experience with the grassroots, most of them (us?) have their hearts in the right place. Sometimes I wish for closed primaries. I wonder how that would affect things like this?

Update on my son

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:10:00 +0000

Thank you for your prayers, everyone.

My son is back home, and he has some anger management tools that are helping. It's looking like we will have a long road ahead of us. Please pray that he will open up and talk, and that whatever demons are tormenting him, whether they be literal demons or only figurative ones, will stop and that he will be a normal child.

Found another pet peeve

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:07:00 +0000

OK, so I found another pet peeve about songleading. When you're leading a crowd that isn't familiar with you, leading a song that you're changing the rhythm for, please, PLEASE, make the hand motions so that we can see what you're doing with the beat!

This message has been brought to you by the letters C, O, and C.

Training?

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:55:00 +0000

Much has been made of the VT shootings. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends.

One of the questions that has come up is why didn't any of the students fight back? One of the usual answers is lack of training. That's acceptable--a good first response to danger is to try to get out of it. Going into battle is not a typical reaction.

It's not just training, though. One step could be simply visualizing what you would do in a worst case scenario. Those who take the initiative and hold CHLs have probably not only trained with their weapons against paper targets, they have thought through many "what if" scenarios. It's imagining "what if" that can sometimes turn "I think I can" into "I knew I could."

Pray for us

noreply@blogger.com (Roger Cook) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:45:00 +0000

We took our younger son to a evaluation and treatment center for his bi-polar disorder. He will be there for a while. In the mean time we are going to put our world back together.

Sometimes it does make me wonder if my wife and I really are adequate parents, but then I remember that there are other situations. You wouldn't wonder if you could parent correctly when your kid comes down with appendicitis and you take him to a surgeon to get him fixed. In the same way, when it turns out your child has a recognized mental illness, you shouldn't feel guilty about taking her for professional help.

At any rate, keep my family in your prayers.